Imported fuel is swallowing about half of Energy Fiji Limited’s income, the state-owned electricity utility told Parliament’s Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, leaving limited room to fund its shift to renewable generation. The figures emerged as EFL executives presented the company’s 2025 Annual Report, in a hearing reported by FBC News on 27 September.
Key facts
- Chief Financial Officer Seimisi Tawake said fuel costs currently account for about 52 per cent of EFL’s revenue.
- He said that share should fall to around 33 per cent by 2029, and to around 10 per cent once major hydro and the Nadarivatu enhancement are in service.
- Chief Executive Fatiaki Gibson named three hydro projects in the pipeline: Savatu, Namosi and Qaliwana.
- Two major solar projects are expected online by late 2028 or early 2029, and the transmission network must be ready to connect them.
- Tawake said EFL cannot carry a $2 billion investment programme on its own balance sheet.
- About $731 million in transmission investment has been identified in an Asian Development Bank feasibility study, he said.
- Gibson said EFL will need government tariff arrangements and guarantees to raise the money.
- Gibson said EFL is confident of reaching Fiji’s 90 per cent renewable energy target by 2035.
Two numbers, two denominators
The hearing produced two fuel percentages that look contradictory but are not, and it is worth settling them once before the rest of the story makes sense.
- 52 per cent of revenue — Tawake’s figure, measured against the money EFL takes in.
- 50 per cent of operating costs — committee member Premilla Kumar’s framing, measured against the money EFL spends running the business.
The same underlying fuel spend divided by two different bases produces two different percentages, so both statements can hold at once and neither figure disproves the other. FBC News reported both without reconciling them, and neither EFL nor the committee was reported as restating them on a single basis. The practical point survives either way, and it was Kumar’s argument to the committee: a utility spending on that scale to burn imported fuel has little left over to invest. Every reference to the fuel share below is Tawake’s revenue-based measure unless stated otherwise.
Why it matters: a capital gap the utility says it cannot carry
The headline number is the fuel bill. The number with the longer tail is the $2 billion. Tawake told the committee outright that EFL cannot fund an investment programme of that size from its own balance sheet, FBC News reported.
A large slice of that programme is not generation at all. On the figures given to Parliament, roughly $731 million of it is transmission — wires, substations and the capacity to move power from where it is made to where it is used. Transmission produces no new electricity by itself, but without it the solar projects due in late 2028 or early 2029 have nowhere to send their output.
Editor’s calculation (ours, not EFL’s)
Our arithmetic: the roughly $731 million of identified transmission investment is about 37 per cent of the $2 billion programme — more than a third of the spending EFL flagged to Parliament. EFL did not present the transmission figure as a proportion of the total; we derived it from the two reported numbers. Treat it as our analysis, not a company statement.
That is the part of an energy transition that rarely makes headlines and is hardest to finance, because transmission assets earn their return through regulated charges rather than power sales. It is also why the support Gibson asked for reaches beyond lenders.
“Tariff arrangements and guarantees” is financing language. Translated, tariffs are what customers pay and guarantees are what taxpayers stand behind. On FBC News’ account of the hearing, neither executive put a figure on the tariff path, and no modelling of the effect on household bills was reported.
The trade-off in EFL’s own numbers:
- The cost: a large, front-loaded capital bill the utility says it cannot carry alone, roughly a third of it in network assets that generate nothing on their own.
- The payoff: if the fuel share really falls from about 52 per cent of revenue to about 33 per cent by 2029 and towards 10 per cent after the hydro build, EFL’s single biggest exposure shrinks with it — the imported price of diesel and heavy fuel oil, set in currencies and markets Fiji does not control.
- The open question: whether that arrives for customers as cheaper power or merely as more predictable power. That depends on tariff decisions the hearing did not settle.
The gap is worth naming plainly. EFL has told Parliament roughly what the transition costs and who it wants to help pay for it, but not yet what it means for a monthly power bill.
What EFL told the committee
Thermal generation will not disappear, Tawake said. He described units kept in reserve — an arrangement he likened to Monosavu when it came online in 1983, with generators held “on hot standby”. That detail matters for the cost picture, because standby plant still has to be maintained, staffed and fuelled so it can run when hydro inflows or solar output fall short. A renewable-majority grid does not mean a fuel bill of zero.
Gibson said EFL was confident of reaching Fiji’s 90 per cent renewable energy target by 2035, with solar development expected to drive the transition over the next four years. The utility has previously said land access and tariff settings are holding back its solar rollout — constraints that sit outside the balance-sheet question and would not be solved by financing alone.
The hydro and solar pipeline
- Solar: two major projects expected online by late 2028 or early 2029, with the transmission network required to be ready to connect them.
- Savatu and Namosi (hydro): targeted for commissioning around 2031 to 2032, Gibson said.
- Qaliwana (hydro): expected around 2032 to 2033.
- Nadarivatu enhancement: flagged by Tawake as part of the longer-term picture for cutting the fuel bill towards about 10 per cent.
Read against the targets, the sequencing is tight. EFL’s 60 per cent renewable milestone and the projected drop to a 33 per cent fuel share both sit at 2029 — before any of the three named hydro schemes is due to generate. That leaves solar, plus the transmission to carry it, doing most of the work in the first phase, with hydro arriving in the early 2030s to cover the remaining distance to 90 per cent by 2035.
It also concentrates the risk. Slippage on either of the two solar projects, or on the network upgrades they depend on, lands directly on the 2029 numbers, with no hydro capacity scheduled to absorb the shortfall.
How EFL says it will pay
Tawake told the committee the company was seeking private capital, independent power producers — companies that build generation and sell the electricity to the grid, rather than the utility owning the plant itself — joint ventures and concessional financing, rather than funding the programme alone. Transmission infrastructure would require significant investment on top of new generation, he said.
Gibson said government support, including tariff arrangements and guarantees, would be needed to secure that financing. Both routes shift risk rather than remove it:
- Independent power producers typically require long-term contracts committing a buyer to take their output at an agreed price for years, which locks in obligations for the utility and, through tariffs, for customers.
- State guarantees are a contingent obligation on the government: no cash changes hands unless something goes wrong, at which point the taxpayer is exposed.
- Concessional financing is cheaper than commercial debt but comes from development lenders with their own conditions and timelines.
FBC News’ report does not say what contract terms, guarantee structure or tariff changes EFL has proposed, or whether the government has responded to the request.
Scrutiny from the committee
The pressure in the hearing came from committee members rather than from the utility. Semi Koroilavesau prompted the exchange on the 90 per cent target, asking EFL how it planned to get there by 2035, FBC News reported. Kumar pressed on the cost structure, arguing that fuel at around half of operating costs leaves little for investment. Both interventions came during EFL’s appearance on its 2025 Annual Report.
Follow-up needed: this is one hearing, one source
Readers should weigh the sourcing accordingly. The account available is a single news report of a single committee hearing, in which the figures, the timelines and the financing plan all come from EFL’s own executives. No costing document was published alongside the projections, and the committee’s questions are the only challenge on the record. Confirming or testing the claims requires voices that have not yet been heard:
- Fiji’s electricity price regulator — whether any tariff application or modelling has been lodged, and how the cost of a $2 billion programme would be recovered from customers.
- The ministers responsible for energy and for finance — whether the government will provide guarantees, what contingent liability that creates, and whether it has been assessed.
- The Asian Development Bank — the feasibility study behind the $731 million transmission figure is a primary document that would show what the estimate covers and what it assumes.
- Independent power producers and lenders — whether the contract terms and risk allocation on offer are bankable at the pace EFL’s 2028–29 solar timeline demands.
- Consumer and business representatives — who bears the transition cost in the interim, before the fuel share starts falling.
- Independent energy analysts — whether a 60 per cent renewable share by 2029 is achievable on solar and transmission alone.
Until those responses exist, the story remains EFL’s account of EFL’s plan, reported accurately but untested.
Background
EFL is the state-owned company that generates and distributes electricity in Fiji. Its dependence on imported fuel has been a recurring theme in public debate about energy policy, including a public row over fossil-fuel advertising at Fiji’s airports. Parliamentary committee reviews of annual reports are one of the few occasions on which the utility’s cost structure and investment plans are examined in public.
What we still don’t know
- What tariff changes EFL has asked for, and what they would mean for household and business bills.
- Whether the government has agreed to provide guarantees, and on what terms.
- How much of the $2 billion is already committed or under negotiation, and how much is still unfunded.
- Which sites the two major solar projects occupy, and whether the land access issues EFL has previously raised are resolved.
- Whether the 2029 milestones can be met by solar and transmission alone, given none of the three named hydro schemes is due before 2031.
- What the retained thermal fleet on “hot standby” will cost to keep available once renewables dominate the mix.
Source: FBC News, 27 September, reporting EFL’s appearance before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Economic Affairs on its 2025 Annual Report. All figures, timelines and quotes attributed above come from that report. Dollar figures are as reported and are understood to be Fijian dollars. The comparison between the $731 million transmission figure and the $2 billion total, set out in the labelled box above, is our own calculation from the reported numbers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do the fuel figures differ — 52 per cent or 50 per cent?
They measure the same fuel spend against two different denominators. Chief Financial Officer Seimisi Tawake put fuel at about 52 per cent of EFL’s revenue, while committee member Premilla Kumar described fuel as about 50 per cent of the utility’s operating costs, according to FBC News. Revenue and operating costs are not the same base, so the two percentages are not directly comparable and neither contradicts the other. FBC News reported both figures without reconciling them.
Will EFL still run thermal generators after the switch to renewables?
Yes. Tawake told the committee some thermal generators would remain in service, according to FBC News. He compared the arrangement to Monosavu when it came online in 1983, saying the units would sit "on hot standby". Standby plant still has to be maintained, staffed and fuelled so it can run when hydro inflows or solar output fall short.
How far could EFL’s fuel costs fall by 2035?
Tawake said fuel costs could drop to around 10 per cent once major hydro projects and the enhancement of Nadarivatu come online, FBC News reported. That is down from the roughly 52 per cent of revenue the utility reports today, and from the roughly 33 per cent he said was expected by 2029.
When does EFL need its transmission network ready for new solar?
Tawake said the transmission network must be able to connect two major solar projects expected to come online by late 2028 or early 2029, according to FBC News. The same report put the identified transmission investment at about $731 million, based on an Asian Development Bank feasibility study.
What support is EFL asking the government for?
Chief Executive Fatiaki Gibson said EFL will need government backing, including tariff arrangements and guarantees, to secure the financing its projects require, FBC News reported. He said the company was otherwise confident of meeting the renewable target. The report does not say whether the government has agreed, or on what terms.
Will household power bills go up or down because of the transition?
The reported hearing does not say. EFL asked for "tariff arrangements" as part of the support package but, on FBC News’ account, did not put a figure on what customers would pay during or after the build-out. Tawake’s projected fall in the fuel share of revenue points one way; the billions in capital EFL says it cannot carry alone point the other. Until EFL or the price regulator publishes tariff modelling, any claim about future bills is speculation.
Has anyone outside EFL assessed these figures?
Not in the reporting available. Every figure, timeline and financing assumption in the FBC News account comes from EFL’s two executives, and the only challenge on the record is questions from committee members Semi Koroilavesau and Premilla Kumar. No regulator, lender, independent power producer, consumer representative or energy analyst was quoted, and no costing document was published alongside the projections.
