Two reports from 2020 uncovered DEDAŞ’s neglect of electrical infrastructure in Kurdish-majority southeast Turkey, contributing to deadly wildfires and inflated costs, highlighting a potential racial bias which provides poor service for high fees.
In December 2020, a report by a parliamentary commission, the Industry and Energy Commission, highlighted DEDAŞ’s lack of investment in necessary maintenance and repairs. Former Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) MP Ali Kenanoğlu, a member of the Commission, stated that electrical losses due to poor infrastructure had been documented in a report four years earlier.
“DEDAŞ’s failure to invest in necessary maintenance and repairs is the cause of the tragic wildfires in Diyarbakır and Mardin,” Kenanoğlu said.
Kenanoğlu explained that the Chamber of Electrical Engineers and other local stakeholders were consulted during the preparation of the report. The report revealed that no maintenance had been done on energy lines, leading to significant electrical losses.
The HDP report from July 2020 echoed these findings, criticising DEDAŞ’s high electricity prices and inadequate infrastructure. Electricity bills for farmers increased by 63% between 2019 and 2020, making it difficult for them to keep up with payments. The report also highlighted the severe impact on health and safety of frequent regional outages.
Kenanoğlu concluded that DEDAŞ had prioritised profits over essential infrastructure investments, leading to devastating consequences for local communities.
The previous warnings and criticisms have gained a new urgency in the wake of the fatal wildfires in Diyarbakır (Amed) and Mardin (Mêrdîn) which ignited on 20 June and killed 15 people, a thousand livestock and destroyed thousands of hectares of agricultural land, underscoring the dire consequences of DEDAŞ’s continued negligence.
Findings in the 2020 Reports on DEDAŞ
HDP Report
1. Neglect of maintenance: DEDAŞ failed to perform necessary maintenance and repairs on electrical infrastructure, leading to significant electrical losses.
2. High electricity bills: due to the poor state of electrical lines and infrastructure, the cost of lost electricity was passed on to consumers, resulting in excessively high electricity bills.
3. Impact on agriculture: farmers faced extreme difficulty in paying for electricity, with reports indicating that the cost of electricity consumed was often higher than the income generated from their produce. For example, in Mardin, the electricity bills per acre were reported to be almost ten times higher than in other regions of Turkey.
4. Excessive fines: consumers faced exorbitant fines for alleged electricity theft, often many times their actual electricity consumption.
5. Negative impact on Health and Safety: frequent power outages affected water supply and sanitation, leading to public health risks, particularly during the pandemic. The report also mentioned that poor electrical infrastructure posed risks to human and animal safety.
6. Infrastructure deficiencies: Old and inadequate transformers and power lines increased the risk of electrical faults and outages.
7. Economic hardship: increased electricity tariffs and poor service quality placed a significant financial burden on local residents and farmers, affecting their livelihoods.
Parliamentary Commission Report
8. Lack of investment: DEDAŞ did not invest adequately in the electrical distribution infrastructure, failing to fulfil its contractual obligations for maintenance, repair, and upgrades.
9. Electrical losses: the report identified high rates of electrical loss due to poor infrastructure, which contributed significantly to high consumer bills.
10. Outdated infrastructure: transformers and power lines were old and insufficient, leading to frequent electrical outages and inefficiencies.
11. Insufficient oversight: a lack of effective oversight and regulation of DEDAŞ’s activities allowed the company to neglect its responsibilities without facing consequences.
12. Regional disparities: electrical loss rate in Diyarbakır and Mardin was found to be over 50%, compared to a national average of 11%, indicating significant regional disparities in infrastructure quality and service provision.
13. Public awareness and accountability: findings and issues were documented and shared with the public, government bodies, and relevant commissions, but no substantial improvements were observed in subsequent years.
