The AKSA Energy power plant operated at just 16% of its contracted capacity during its first five years in Ghana, according to Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP) Executive Director Benjamin Boakye, raising concerns about the value the country received from the agreement.
Speaking on TV3’s The Key Points on Saturday, August 15, 2026, Boakye said the low utilisation meant Ghana was paying for power capacity that was largely not being used.
“For the first five years, almost six years that the plant existed in Ghana, it was utilised 16% of the contracted capacity,” he said.
Under the take-or-pay arrangement, he explained, Ghana was still required to pay the full capacity charge regardless of how much electricity the plant actually generated.
“So, in most cases, we just paid and you never used the plant,” Boakye stated.
He said figures from the Energy Commission showed that the plant generated electricity for only 16% of the time it was expected to operate, while the country continued paying 100% of the capacity charge.
Boakye also questioned the plant’s position within Ghana’s power generation system, arguing that AKSA was among the less efficient plants in the country and was therefore lower on the merit-order dispatch system.
He explained that the merit order gives priority to plants that can generate electricity more efficiently from available fuel, meaning less efficient facilities may be dispatched less frequently.
“When we did the math, it was not right,” he said, adding that ACEP had concerns about both the cost of procuring the plant and its operational efficiency.
According to Boakye, the contracted tariff, including capacity and variable charges, was about 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. He said this could leave Ghana paying approximately $720 million over five years for the 370-megawatt facility.
Beyond the financial terms, Boakye questioned whether the technical assessment carried out before the agreement was signed had properly established the plant’s condition, age and value.
He argued that the technical committee’s assessment should have played a central role in determining whether the deal represented value for money before the government committed to the agreement.
His comments have renewed questions about the financial implications of Ghana’s power purchase agreements and the extent to which contracted generation capacity is actually utilised.
