Fiji’s regulator, the Fijian Competition & Consumer Commission (FCCC), has relied on three years old, outdated consultation and submission data, to come to a decision affecting the lives of ordinary Fijians.
This decision has shaken the public’s confidence and trust in both the FCCC and the Energy Fiji Limited (EFL) including the PM Rabuka, who failed the people of Fiji by not demanding due process from this Fiji’s own institution.
A regulator cannot claim independence while bypassing the very public it is mandated to protect
The FCCC’s approval of a 24.2 to 55.5 per cent electricity tariff increase has landed like a shockwave reverberating across the entire nation.
For ordinary Fijians already struggling with rising food prices, transport costs, rent pressures, and stagnant wages, this decision feels like a blow delivered without warning.
For businesses grappling with labour shortages, higher import costs, and declining productivity, it feels like, yet another burden added to an already heavy load. But the real controversy is not the increase itself — the manner that this burden was placed on Fijians.
The FCCC has openly confirmed that it relied on consultations conducted in 2023, involving 1700 participants, which was under a completely different proposal with different assumptions and in a different economic climate.
The 2025 review and submission by the EFL is not the same proposal. In three years, a lot had changed. The economy is not the same, neither the nation. Yet the FCCC has treated the three-year-old consultations as if they were timeless and universally applicable.
This raises a fundamental question: can a regulator claim independence while bypassing the very public it is mandated to protect?
In my assessment, the answer goes to the heart of regulatory ethics, democratic accountability, and the legitimacy of Fiji’s economic governance.
When consultation becomes a formality rather than a democratic obligation, trust erodes — and that trust will not be easily repaired.
Independence is not a shield against accountability
The FCCC proudly proclaims its mission to enhance the welfare of the Fijian people by fostering a competitive, efficient, fair, and informed marketplace. These are not decorative slogans.
They are commitments that define the Commission’s duty of care. Yet its recent actions suggest a troubling disconnect between its stated values and its operational behaviour.
Independence is essential for any regulator. It protects against political interference and ensures that decisions are made on evidence, not expediency.
But independence is not immunity. It does not grant the right to bypass consultation, rely on outdated data, or treat public participation as optional. Independence must be paired with transparency and ethical responsibility.
The FCCC rejected EFL’s 2023 proposal in February 2024 because it lacked credible renewable energy commitments and failed to protect vulnerable consumers. If the proposal was inadequate then, how can the consultations conducted under that proposal be adequate now?
This contradiction undermines the Commission’s credibility and raises serious questions about its decision–making process. Independence exists to protect the public — not to exclude them.
The consultation gap: Why 2023 cannot justify 2025
The FCCC CEO has stated that the 2025 submission contains “the same numbers as in 2023 except for the capital expenditure plan”.
This is revealing and deeply problematic. Fiji’s landscape has changed dramatically, with cost-of-living crisis and poverty levels at record high.
The sugarcane farmers are suffering, and employment is almost non-existent in smaller towns around the Fiji Islands. Bus fares and taxi fares have increased, and food costs are very high indeed. Corporate tax has increased.
Labour shortages have intensified. Inflation has eroded household purchasing power. Businesses face higher compliance costs, supply chain disruptions, and shifting demand patterns.
The 2025 proposal itself is structurally different. It includes a new five–year CAPEX plan, updated operational expenditure forecasts, and a tiered commercial rate structure that imposes increases of up to 55.5 per cent on high–usage businesses.
None of this was presented in 2023 and nor the business fraternity given an opportunity to make submission on this either in 2023 or 2025.
The 1700 participants consulted in 2023 represent a tiny fraction of Fiji’s population, households, and businesses.
There is no publicly available information on sampling methodology, errors or assumptions in sampling, demographic distribution or coverage, or representation of vulnerable groups.
Without this, the 1700 sample relied on by FCCC, cannot be considered representative.
Using it to justify a decision on the eve of 2026, is methodologically unsound, ethically questionable, and procedurally unfair. It signals a regulator becoming comfortable making decisions without the people’s voice.
A country blindsided: Stakeholders speak out
The speed and secrecy surrounding this tariff decision have blindsided the nation.
The backlash has not come from a single corner of society — it has erupted across the spectrum of stakeholders who feel they were shut out of a process that should have been transparent and inclusive.
The Consumer Council of Fiji was among the first to raise the alarm, warning that businesses would inevitably pass increased electricity costs to consumers.
When electricity becomes more expensive, every sector feels it — food, transport, accommodation, manufacturing, retail. Their concern was not only about affordability but about the lack of consultation and the absence of clear data to justify the increase.
The Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation echoed these concerns, calling for the suspension of the tariff decision and the initiation of nationwide consultations.
Their message was blunt: businesses are already struggling with rising costs, declining productivity, and labour shortages. A sudden, poorly explained tariff increase threatens investment confidence and undermines national economic targets.
When the private sector — the engine of job creation — expresses this level of alarm, any responsible regulator should pause and listen.
Political voices have also entered the debate. The Fiji Labour Party has argued that the FCCC failed to follow normal procedure, which requires publication of proposed tariff increases, public submissions, and transparent decision–making.
They insist that EFL should have been required to submit a fresh application, not a continuation of a rejected proposal. Even within government, there is visible discomfort.
The Minister for Finance has stated that fresh consultations were necessary. The Minister for Public Works has expressed dissatisfaction, noting that government was not consulted.
Yet the Prime Minister has defended the FCCC’s independence, offering comparisons to Pacific nations reliant on diesel — comparisons that ignore Fiji’s unique hydropower investments funded by taxpayers. This is no longer just a debate about electricity; it is a debate about process and respect for the public.
Who really pays? The economics behind the increase
The Prime Minister has stated that 52 per cent of households using less than 100 units will not see an increase.
But this claim, is not correct, as the increase applies to everyone irrespective of any government subsidy.
Further, his statement ignores the lived realities of Fijian families. Most low–income households use more than 100 units.
Urban families with children routinely exceed 200 to 250 units. Rural electrified households rely on electricity for cooking, refrigeration, and water pumps.
The 100–unit threshold is outdated and unrealistic and was set during the Bainimarama regime.
Commercial users face increases up to 55.5 percent. These costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers.
When businesses pay more for electricity, they raise prices to survive — meaning higher food prices, higher transport fares, higher accommodation rates, and higher manufacturing costs.
Electricity is not just another bill; it is a foundational input that shapes the cost structure of the entire economy.
EFL is a monopoly provider. The FCCC is the sole regulator. Consumers have no alternative supplier. Businesses cannot negotiate rates.
This creates a structural imbalance that places enormous responsibility on the regulator to act as the public’s only line of defence. When the regulator fails to consult or relies on outdated data, the public has no protection.
The economic burden of this decision will fall hardest on those least able to bear it — and because the decision was made without fresh consultation, the public will feel not only the financial impact but the sting of exclusion.
When regulators retreat from responsibility
This tariff decision fits into a broader pattern of regulatory avoidance and institutional hesitation. The FCCC’s reluctance to scrutinise monopolistic behaviour is not new.
For years, concerns have been raised about high chicken and pig feed costs, vertically integrated supply chains, and price coordination in the poultry, edible oil and flour industries. Yet decisive action has been lacking.
The Commission appears more comfortable regulating prices than regulating market power — a dangerous imbalance that undermines competition and harms consumers.
The bus industry provides another example. The consolidation of major bus companies in Nadi and Lautoka has led to reduced service frequency, longer waiting times, and buses diverted for school runs.
These changes have weakened competition and inconvenienced thousands of commuters. Yet the FCCC has not intervened. The pattern is clear: when faced with complex structural issues that require deep investigation and strong regulatory action, the Commission retreats into silence.
The FCCC–EFL debacle is not an isolated failure. It is part of a larger governance problem — one in which institutions tasked with protecting the public have become hesitant, reactive, and overly reliant on procedural shortcuts.
When regulators avoid scrutiny and treat consultation as optional, public trust erodes.
Public consultation is not a bureaucratic ritual; it is a democratic safeguard. The absence of fresh consultation is not a minor procedural lapse.
It is a democratic deficit. It signals a regulator that sees the public as an afterthought and a government comfortable with decisions made behind closed doors. When consultation is bypassed, legitimacy evaporates.
The transparency problem: Data, assumptions, and accountability
A tariff increase of this magnitude demands full disclosure of the underlying data. Yet the FCCC has not released the most basic information required for public scrutiny — updated household consumption profiles, EFL’s cost–of–service breakdown, projected inflation impacts, modelling for the new tariff bands, or assumptions behind commercial pass–through effects.
It charges a minimum fee which it does not disclose for everyone having no usage, or less than 20 units per month per meter connected for any type of service, which takes in many thousands of dollars for dormant or absent users.
The CEO of the EFL failed to respond to my letter requesting why this was not being transparently identified together will all other types of charges in the EFL bills. I have been a victim of this myself several times.
Without consultations, the public is being forced under duress to accept a life–changing increase in electricity costs on trust alone — and trust is already in short supply. Transparency is the foundation of regulatory credibility. When regulators withhold data or rely on outdated data or modelling, they invite suspicion and doubt.
In a modern regulatory environment, data belongs to the public, not to the regulator. The FCCC’s reluctance to publish the full technical basis for its decision raises an uncomfortable question: what assumptions are being protected from scrutiny?
The urgent steps needed to rebuild trust
The damage to public confidence is real, but it is not irreversible. Restoring trust requires immediate, concrete steps. The FCCC must publish the full technical basis for the tariff increase — not selective extracts, but the complete modelling and datasets.
The government should commission an urgent, independent review led by energy economists, consumer advocates, and regulatory experts with no ties to EFL or the FCCC.
A fresh round of public consultation must be opened, allowing households, businesses, and civil society to respond to current realities.
Parliament should consider legislative amendments requiring mandatory consultation for all major pricing decisions, with penalties for non–compliance.
And the government must acknowledge that regulatory failures have human consequences — consequences felt in the kitchens, farms, and small businesses of ordinary Fijians.
Electricity is not a luxury. It is the backbone of modern life. Decisions that shape its cost must be made with the highest standards of fairness, openness, and public accountability.
The human cost: What tariffs mean for real families
Behind every tariff decision lies a human story — one that rarely appears in regulatory filings or ministerial statements.
For many families, electricity is not a discretionary expense; it is the backbone of daily life. Refrigerators keep medicine cold. Fans cool children through humid nights. Water pumps draw drinking water.
Electric stoves replace expensive gas. When electricity becomes unaffordable, families are forced into impossible choices: skip meals, reduce study hours, ration cooling, or delay medical needs.
A tariff increase imposed without consultation, transparency, or updated data is not merely an economic decision. It reshapes the dignity and security of ordinary people. It reaches into the heart of the home and alters how families live, cope, and plan.
The human cost is not abstract; it is a daily negotiation between survival and sacrifice.
And the human cost extends beyond the household budget. When families are pushed into energy poverty, the social fabric weakens. Children study less.
Elderly parents suffer in heat. Rural communities lose the ability to refrigerate food safely. Women — who shoulder the bulk of domestic labour — bear the brunt of coping strategies that require more time, more effort, and more sacrifice.
The business ripple effect: Inflation’s next wave
Businesses will not absorb these increases quietly. Electricity is a foundational input across every sector — manufacturing, tourism, retail, agriculture, transport, and services.
When electricity costs rise, businesses adjust their pricing models to survive.
That means higher food prices, higher accommodation rates, higher transport fares, higher manufacturing costs, and higher retail margins. The inflationary ripple will be felt across the entire economy.
Small and medium enterprises — the backbone of Fiji’s employment — will be hit hardest.
Many will pass costs on to consumers; others will cut staff hours or delay expansion.
A tariff increase of this scale, introduced without updated modelling or public consultation, risks triggering a second wave of inflation at a time when families can least afford it.
When energy becomes expensive, investment slows and confidence erodes. The lack of process, procedure and transparency raises many questions and hits at the heart of the credibility of our institutions.
Tourism operators will face higher overheads that erode their margins. Manufacturers may scale back production or shift operations offshore.
Even agriculture, often overlooked in energy debates, will feel the strain as cold storage, irrigation pumps, and processing facilities become costlier to operate. In a small island economy, these pressures compound quickly.
Institutional drift: When regulators forget their mandate
The FCCC’s handling of this tariff decision reflects a deeper institutional drift. Regulators exist to protect the public interest, not to rubber–stamp proposals from monopolies.
Yet the Commission’s reluctance to scrutinise market power — whether in electricity, poultry, flour, or transport — has become a pattern. It is easier to regulate prices than to regulate behaviour. It is easier to adjust tariffs than to confront structural inefficiencies.
But silence is not neutrality. Silence is complicity. When regulators retreat from their mandate, the public pays the price. And when institutions lose their courage, the entire governance ecosystem weakens.
A regulator that avoids difficult questions becomes a regulator that cannot be trusted to defend the public interest.
The consequences of institutional drift are profound. When regulators hesitate, monopolies grow bolder. When oversight weakens, inefficiencies multiply.
When accountability fades, public confidence collapses. Fiji cannot afford institutions that operate on outdated data, bypass consultation, and treat transparency as optional.
Accountability as the foundation of trust
Trust cannot be restored through press releases or technical explanations. It must be earned through action.
Accountability requires the FCCC to open its books, publish its modelling, and invite independent scrutiny. It requires the government to acknowledge that regulatory failures have consequences.
It requires Parliament to strengthen the legal framework governing consultation and transparency. And it requires regulators to remember that their legitimacy comes not from their statutory powers, but from the confidence of the people they serve.
Rebuilding trust is not a cosmetic exercise. It is a structural necessity. Without trust, even well–intentioned policies will be met with suspicion. Without trust, institutions cannot function.
Without trust, democracy erodes. A regulator that hides its data cannot expect the public to accept its decisions.
An institution that bypasses public consultation, and treats Fijians with contempt and exclusion, cannot expect citizens to believe that it acts in their interest.
The path forward demands humility and courage — humility to admit mistakes, and courage to correct them. Fiji needs regulators who understand that transparency is not a burden but an ethical duty of care, that should always be front and centre in their service to the nation.
A call for responsible leadership
At its core, this tariff controversy is not just about electricity. It is about leadership — the kind of leadership the people of Fiji believed they were voting for in 2022.
When the coalition came to power, it did so on the promise of transparency, fairness, and a return to people–centred governance. Yet the pattern that has emerged — from the VAT increase to the FCCC’s tariff decision — tells a different story. Many citizens now feel that decisions of enormous consequence are being made without consultation, without updated data, and without respect for due process. The public is not naïve.
They understand the sequence of events. They understand the political agreements that shaped this outcome. And they understand when a government that promised openness begins to operate behind closed doors or are is disarray with the PM saying one thing and the Finance Minister the opposite.
The people of Fiji are far more sophisticated than political leaders often assume. They saw how the VAT increase was pushed through with limited explanation and how its burden fell hardest on those least able to bear it.
They saw how the present government at the height of the costs of living crisis gave itself a 130 per cent increase in pay.
They see the same pattern now in the electricity tariff increase — a decision that appears to have been shaped by political convenience rather than public interest.
This moment demands more than technical fixes. It demands a reckoning with the kind of governance Fiji needs — and the kind of leadership its people deserve.
Leadership is not measured by the ability to announce decisions; it is measured by the willingness to justify them, to consult widely, and to respect the processes that safeguard democracy.
Fiji cannot afford a government that treats public participation as optional or due process as an inconvenience. The people voted for change in 2022 because they believed in a different future — one grounded in fairness, accountability, transparency and integrity.
If those expectations are not met, the legitimacy of the government itself begins to erode. When transparency and public consultation fail, trust collapses — and ordinary Fijians bear the consequences.
The sense of exclusion and hardship created by this decision will not be easily forgotten. Its political and social ripple effects are likely to shape public sentiment well into the 2026 General Elections.
Dr Sushil K Sharma BA MA MEng (RMIT) PhD (Melbourne) is a world World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) accredited Class 1 Professional Meteorologist and former Aviation Meteorologist for the British Aerospace and the Royal Saudi Air Force. Former Associate Professor of Meteorology Fiji National University and Manager Climate, Research and Services Division Fiji Meteorological Services. The views expressed are that of the author and not necessarily shared by The Fiji Times.
