By Elvis Eromosele
The proposal to make Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) mandatory for commercial vehicles in Nigeria has an appealing simplicity. Move buses and taxis away from petrol and diesel. Use the gas beneath our feet. Cut transport costs. Reduce emissions. Lower dependence on imported fuel.
It sounds sensible. But Nigeria’s energy reality is more complicated.
Ismael Ahmed, Chairman of the Presidential Initiative on Compressed Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles (PI-CNG&EV), has proposed that all commercial vehicles should eventually move away from petrol and diesel and adopt alternative fuels, particularly CNG.
The ambition is understandable. The policy, however, raises a more important question: can Nigeria afford to force a transition before the infrastructure and economics are ready?
The truth is that you cannot compel people to adopt an alternative that is neither readily available nor demonstrably cheaper.
Nigeria has enormous natural gas reserves. This fact is routinely presented as the strongest argument for CNG. But gas underground is not the same thing as gas at a filling station.
Between the gas field and a vehicle tank are processing plants, pipelines, compression facilities, storage, transportation networks, mother and daughter stations, financing and regulation. Every link has to work.
Nigeria’s history with electricity should make us cautious. The country has abundant gas, yet gas supply to power plants has frequently been unreliable. Resource abundance has never automatically translated into dependable infrastructure. The same principle applies to CNG.
A driver cannot fill his tank with reserves that exist only on paper.
Of course, the bigger question is cost. Converting a petrol or diesel vehicle to CNG is not free. Buying a new CNG bus is even more expensive. For a commercial driver already battling high vehicle costs, spare parts, insurance, maintenance and daily operating expenses, the transition could become another financial burden.
Government incentives and conversion programmes can soften the blow, but unless they are substantial, accessible and sustained, the cost will eventually find its way somewhere. Usually, that means the commuter.
If a driver spends more on conversion, financing, maintenance or travelling farther to find a CNG station, the savings from cheaper fuel can quickly disappear. The irony would be obvious: a policy introduced to reduce transport costs could end up increasing them.
The CNG debate often focuses on price per unit. But this is only half the calculation. For commercial transport, availability is economics.
A bus needs fuel where and when it operates. A driver cannot afford to spend hours searching for a functioning CNG station or waiting in a queue.
If a cheaper fuel requires an extra trip across town to access it, the operator pays through lost time, additional mileage and reduced daily earnings.
A commercial vehicle does not run on theoretical savings. It runs on reliable fuel.
The point is that Nigeria should be careful about confusing a desirable destination with a workable journey. The government can set a clear long-term target for cleaner commercial transportation without forcing millions of operators into an immediate and expensive transition.
To my mind, the process should be phased and supported. Build the infrastructure first. Secure reliable gas supply. Make conversions affordable. Provide financing that ordinary commercial operators can access. Train technicians. Ensure spare parts are available. Establish credible safety standards.
And, then above all, make CNG consistently available.
Yes, once the economics become compelling, adoption will follow.
A driver does not need to be ordered to choose a fuel that saves money, reduces maintenance costs and keeps his vehicle on the road. He needs confidence that the cheaper option will actually be available tomorrow.
Now, Lagos provides a useful laboratory. The state has already moved to restrict new diesel buses in its regulated public transport system, requiring new buses to operate on CNG or electricity.
The experience should be closely studied before a national mandate is considered.
It should provide answers to some pressing questions. How much does conversion actually cost? How long does refuelling take? How reliable is supply? What happens when a station runs out of gas? What are the maintenance costs? How much are operators saving? Most importantly, are passengers paying less?
Those are the numbers that should shape national policy.
I must confess that there is nothing wrong with Nigeria seeking to move commercial transportation towards CNG and electric vehicles. Reducing dependence on petrol and diesel, lowering transport costs and putting the country’s gas resources to productive use are worthwhile objectives.
But a good policy can produce bad outcomes when implementation ignores the realities of households and small businesses. So, the government should therefore focus less on forcing adoption and more on making CNG the obvious choice.
Build enough stations. Guarantee supply. Reduce conversion costs. Expand financing. Support operators. Protect consumers. Then let economics do some of the work.
In truth, Nigeria does not need another policy in which the government announces the destination while ordinary Nigerians finance the journey.
The objective should be simple: lower operating costs for transporters, lower fares for commuters, better use of domestic gas and a cleaner transport system.
It requires more than a mandate. It requires an ecosystem. Nigeria has the gas. The real test is whether it can build the infrastructure and market needed to deliver it affordably.
Eromosele, a corporate communications expert and sustainability advocate, writes via elviseroms@gmail.com
