Beware of the Eskom tariff roller coaster

2017 breather to be followed by severe pain?

There are strong indications that Eskom’s average electricity tariffs will increase by a mere 2.2% this year.

While this sounds good from a consumer perspective, it would leave a big hole in the utility’s pocket that might necessitate an increase of more than 20% in 2018.

Such price volatility is in direct conflict with the objective of energy regulator Nersa’s multi-year price methodology, which is aimed at providing a smooth and predictable price path that would enable Eskom clients to plan ahead for their electricity costs.

The 2.2% increase stems from a decision in February 2013 to grant Eskom an 8% tariff increase annually during the following five-year tariff period, known as MYPD3. The financial year starting on April 1 2013 and ending on March 31 2018 is the year of MYPD3.

The 8% stuck in many minds and even National Treasury in its budget circular to municipalities in December said: “In terms of the multi-year price determination (MYPD) for Eskom’s tariffs approved by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa), a tariff increase of 8% has been approved for the 2017/18 financial year.”

It has to be noted, however, that Nersa decides on revenue, not on percentage increases. For 2017/18 it allowed Eskom to charge tariffs that would generate revenue of R216 billion from its customers. That translated to an average tariff of 89.13c/kWh, which was 8% more than the average tariff of 82.53c/kWh for 2016/17.

Since then, Eskom has however submitted applications for interim increases based on the Regulating Clearing Account (RCA) methodology, which allows it to claw back prudently-incurred expenses and lower-than-anticipated revenue due to factors outside of its control.

During the current MYPD period Nersa granted Eskom two such increases, which has resulted in a higher revenue in previous years and therefore higher average tariffs. The basis upon which the percentage increase in tariffs is calculated is therefore higher. As a result, the percentage increase Eskom is entitled to this year is a mere 2.2%.

This is not enough to ensure Eskom’s sustainability, says Energy Intensive User Group (EIUG) spokesperson Shaun Nel. “At the time the EIUG in fact stated that Eskom needed an annual increase of at least 10% to ensure its sustainability,” Nel says.

Eskom is also of the opinion that it is being shortchanged and tried to address this by submitting two further RCA applications last year: the one for R19 billion and the other for R23 billion.

Nersa seems to agree that Eskom needs more that the R216 billion the MYPD decision would grant it. When it granted Eskom an additional R11.2 billion in revenue for 2016/17 in terms of the RCA, it also instructed Eskom to submit an early multi-year tariff application, since the assumptions upon which MYPD3 was based were proven to be unrealistic. This includes among other things overly-optimistic electricity sales forecasts.

Nersa later settled for the two additional RCA applications and a new RCA application by April this year.

A group of business people from the Eastern Cape however threw a spanner in the works when it successfully challenged the 2016/17 RCA increase and had it set aside in the High Court last year.

Both Eskom and Nersa are appealing the decision, which has resulted in the two outstanding RCA applications being put on ice pending the outcome of the appeal. That means that Eskom is most probably stuck with the 2.2% increase.

Asked about the dilemma, Eskom told Moneyweb it has followed the MYPD methodology and submitted an RCA application each for Year 2 and Year 3 of MYPD3, but this process “has been overtaken by a legal process”.

Eskom says Nersa is in the process of determining the tariff adjustment for 2017/18. “In terms of the ERA (Electricity Regulation Act), Eskom can only implement tariff adjustment decisions made by Nersa. Eskom currently awaits a decision from Nersa and will implement whatever decision Nersa makes.”

Nersa’s former regulator member for electricity Thembani Bukula spoke to EE Publisher’s Chris Yelland in October last year: “Bukula indicated that there were several other remedies at the disposal of the regulator, including condonement, to ensure Eskom’s continued financial sustainability. He further pointed out the significant savings Eskom was now achieving since stopping the outflow of about R1 billion a month for diesel to power its open cycle gas turbines in the Western Cape,” Yelland wrote.

Bukula has since left Nersa and it is unclear what the regulator plans to do.

The ERA also provides that Nersa should set tariffs that ensure Eskom’s sustainability.

As matters stand, Nersa seems to be prevented by the pending litigation from applying its methodology. Judge Cynthia Pretorius in her RCA judgement last year however discussed the conditions under which Nersa would be permitted to deviate from its prescribed methodology, which it would have to do in order to approve a tariff increase of more than 2.2% in April.

She said if Nersa decides to deviate, it should give notice to its customers of such deviation.

Nersa has not done that yet and time is running out. The regulator also failed to respond to Moneyweb’s enquiry about the issue.

By March 15 Eskom has to table the approved increase in Parliament for it to take effect on April 1.

In the meantime Eskom is busy preparing its tariff application for the new multi-year period starting April 1 2018.

Nel says any deviation by Nersa from prescribed methodology in an effort to assist Eskom, would most probably be challenged in court. “There is no mechanism to award anything but the 2.2% tariff increase,” he says.

“That will result in Eskom trying to play catch-up with a tariff increase of more than 20% in future years,” he says.

Oops! We could not locate your form.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


Very useful article in that we now have accurate historical figures of the various tariff increases and electricity hikes.
It’s ironic that Eskom projected higher sales than what materialised; the economy shrunk partly due to load shedding. So in a weaker economy, less power is needed.

Also, Eskom’s latest bid to get outstanding debt paid by several smaller municipalities is puzzling; what about Soweto that owes millions over the years? Or is Soweto too much of a political hot potato?

Soweto residents supposed to pay the JHB city council, so their debt is to the council. Eskom is not interested if the residents pay or not, as long as the council pays Eskom. This is same as in the case of the municipalities threatened by disconnection.

Soweto includes direct Eskom customers as well as Metro customers. As at May 2015 the direct Eskom customers owed Eskom R4 billion.

SA is so deep in the dwang electricity production is no longer the issue it is more distribution. industrial investment has come to a screaming halt – big business is going to friendlier destinations- there is huge excess of power
Eskom is pretending to be politically correct by talking about delivering power to people who generally don’t pay for it- they just steal it or simply refuse to pay for it.
I have been waiting since 2006 for electricity to do a housing development , which would give Eishkom PAYING customers , not to mention much needed rates and taxes to a bankrupt municipality
JZ 783 and his cabal are only interested in state capture – never mind the financial life blood of the country is pouring away

Eskom lost credibility. We simply can’t trust them clearly pushing insane agendas.

End of comments.



Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Moneyweb newsletters

Instrument Details  

You do not have any portfolios, please create one here.
You do not have an alert portfolio, please create one here.

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: