Where is the $1.2billion paid by the Japanese power consortium that now owns 44 per cent of Energy Fiji Ltd (EFL)?
This was one of the questions raised in the 21-page submission by the Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) to the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC) this week as it called for the setting aside of FCCC’s December 19, 2025 EFL tariff increase determination and the restarting of the assessment process to take into consideration “fatal deficiencies” that were not addressed by FCCC before it gave the nod last month.
In “fatal deficiency” number two, an inquiry is made of what had become of the $1.2billion forked out by the Japanese consortium as EFL could have used those proceeds to fund its capital works instead of milking its customers for capex through a tariff hike.
“The FJD1.2 billion reportedly received from partial privatisation in 2018 has not been reconciled against claimed capital needs,” FCEF stated.
“The current Minister for Finance has publicly stated that the transaction ‘did not embed sufficient future safeguards’ for Fiji’s strategic electricity utility.
“Where these proceeds were allocated and why they do not materially reduce tariff-funded capital requirements, remains unexplained.
“Stakeholders have a right to know if these proceeds were reinvested into infrastructure or diverted to the government’s consolidated fund.”
FCEF also questioned why shareholder financing obligations were not tested, highlighting the 2023 case where EFL paid its shareholders $40.7million in dividend despite recording an after-tax loss of $24.8million.
Further to that, how EFL’s low gearing ratio of between eight to 26per cent against an industry norm of 60 to 100 per cent would have provided it with “approximately $257.1 million in untapped banking headroom.”
FECF also questioned why EFL’s claims of a nine per cent demand growth in 2024 and five per cent annual growth that required generation capacity to nearly double within four to eight years were not verified by FCCC.
“These projections have not been independently verified against Fiji’s demographic and economic realities, including population stagnation and commercial sector uncertainty,” it stated.
“As a corporatised private company operating a regulated monopoly, EFL must be held to corporate financing standards: borrowing capacity, shareholder equity contributions, and retained earnings should be exhausted before extracting capital from consumers who have no alternative supplier.
“The determination inverts this principle by treating consumer tariffs as first resort rather than last resort financing.
“The regulatory framework exists precisely because monopoly utilities can exploit captive customers.
“A determination that does not rigorously test whether the monopoly has exhausted alternatives before consumer extraction fails the fundamental purpose of utility regulation.”
