You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

How much Eskom wants to charge normal households, and those with solar

If you want access to the grid, prepare to pay fixed monthly charges …
Eskom says its Homeflex tariff will support ‘more optimal operation of the power system’. Image: Shutterstock

In January, Eskom filed a contentious tariff proposal with the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa).

Within it were a number of proposed changes that will have wide ramifications for all users of electricity, even if they are not directly supplied by Eskom.

Moneyweb Insider INSIDERGOLD

Subscribe for full access to all our share and unit trust data tools, our award-winning articles, and support quality journalism in the process.

Choose an option:

R63 per month
R630 per year SAVE R126

You will be redirected to a checkout page.
To view all features and options, click here.

A monthly subscription is charged pro rata, based on the day of purchase. This is non-refundable and includes a R5 once-off sign-up fee.
A yearly subscription is refundable within 14 days of purchase and includes a 365-day membership.

Click here for more information.
Read:

Two changes in particular will see tariff structures change across the country. First, Eskom wants to change the times of its peak and off-peak periods – an hour of peak ‘moves’ from the morning to the evening. It also wants to remove the incline block tariff (IBT) structure for residential customers it supplies directly, such as greater Sandton and Soweto.

Then, it proposes that residential customers who have their own solar or renewable installation and want to have access to the grid will be forced onto a new tariff, called ‘Homeflex’.

It says this tariff is “mandatory for all customers with grid-tied generation”, whether they are feeding back to the grid or not.

The major difference between Homeflex and the ‘standard’ Homepower tariff is that the former introduces time-of-use (TOU) tariffs that have very low off-peak tariffs and very steep peak tariffs.

The time-of-use kicker

Eskom will pay the customer the same rate for any energy sold back to the grid that the tariff charges for consumption at that point in time. For example, it will ‘pay’ the winter daytime rate if a customer is feeding back solar to the grid during daytime in winter.

For a customer with solar, this effectively means they are not able to offset the sharply higher peak tariff by feeding excess power back to the grid during the day (where there is a much lower off-peak tariff).

Effectively, those with solar systems will be feeding additional power back at 58.46c but paying R1.46 per kWh at night when they need power from the grid.

For a standard 16kVA single-phase supply (80A), the charges proposed are the following:

Homeflex charges
Summer
Peak c/kWh 145.57c
Standard c/kWh 81.85c
Off-peak c/kWh 58.46c
Winter
Peak c/kWh 350.77c
Standard c/kWh 87.69c
Off-peak c/kWh 58.46c

* Offset rates (for excess power fed back to the grid) are identical to the above.

(The utility also says the tariff “cannot be offered to customers who are on a prepaid smart meter due to current technological constraints”.)

Quite how the utility aims to implement this across the customers it supplies directly remains an unanswered question and, by definition, not part of the tariff filing.

Unbundling of charges

Eskom also proposes the unbundling of charges on both Homeflex and Homepower into two separate ones: energy charges and network charges (something done by City Power and many other metros).

Customers will therefore pay certain fixed charges regardless of their power consumption.

The utility proposes a rand-per-day “service and administration charge for each [point of delivery], which charge shall be payable every month whether any electricity is used or not, based on the applicable daily rate and the number of days in the month”.

Additionally, it proposes a network demand charge and ancillary service charge “based on the active energy measured at the point of delivery”.

The proposed additional (unbundled) charges are as follows:

Homeflex 4/Homepower 4 Charge Total for 30-day month
Network capacity charge R6.53 per day R195.90
Service and administration charge R4.77 per day R143.10
Total R339.00
Ancillary service charge (c/kWh) 0.2186c
Network demand charge (c/kWh) 15.45c

For a larger supply, the proposed additional charges are higher:

  Network capacity charge Service and administration charge Total for 30-day month
Homeflex 1/Homepower 1

Dual-phase 32kVA three-phase supplies (80A per phase)
Three-phase 25kVA three-phase supplies (40A per phase)

R13.74 per day R4.77 R555.30
Homeflex 2/Homepower 2
Dual-phase 64kVA three-phase supplies (150A per phase)
Three-phase 50kVA three-phase supplies (80A per phase)
R23.83 per day R4.77 R858.00
Homeflex 3/Homepower 3
Dual-phase 100kVA three-phase supplies (225A per phase)
Three-phase 100kVA three-phase supplies (150A per phase)
R58.81 per day R4.77 R1907.40

In its tariff filing, Eskom says “for the average-consumption customer who converts from the existing Homepower tariff to the Homeflex tariff, the impact of this tariff conversion may be positive or negative (depending on the load profile)”.

“Customers who respond to the TOU [time of use] signals will experience a positive impact.”

Elsewhere in the filing, it says “affluent” households on Homepower 3 have an average monthly consumption of 3 404kWh.

In its application, Eskom says the Homeflex tariff “is a dynamic tariff for the residential urban sector that supports a more optimal operation of the power system”.

The right ‘economic signals’

It adds: “Eskom identified the need for a residential time-of-use tariff to provide the right economic signals that promote economic efficiency and sustainability for Eskom and the customer long ago.”

Read: Court allows Eskom to claw back R69bn over three years

It says the proposed tariff will also help to optmise the system and “protect future revenue”.

It says “there is a need to get fair compensation for the use of the grid and to incentivise customers to stay connected to the grid” but that the “current IBT structure does not provide a TOU signal or a signal for net billing; PV [solar photovoltaic], for example, reduces sales, but not peak consumption and peak demand”.

Nersa was expected to pronounce on the tariffs earlier this month. In theory, these are to be implemented from April 1 for Eskom-direct customers and on July 1 for municipalities that bulk-buy power from the utility.

COMMENTS   76

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

You must be signed in to comment.

SIGN IN SIGN UP

Remember the days when SA had one of the cheapest electricity prices in the world? When the most commoditised of things, the electron, was not politicized?

Well, those days are gone and so too is SA as a cheap production base.

I remember, then the world forced us to give this wealthy functioning country to a band of thieves.

Slow down pwgg – I’m also sad and angry about corruption etc, but remember that non-whites lived without rights or access to education, water, etc. That had to change! Or do you disagree?

It was never your country to give away in the first place. And SA has never been wealthy country unless you ignore 90% of the population and have an unintelligent definition of “wealthy country”.

pwgg, I am not of native of origin but must confess that to my standards you are extremely racist to start off with. Secondly you forgot that when you came as a migrant on a ship from Europe, you were extremely poor and came in tethered clothes and built your fortunes on the back of the poor natives who were basically enslaved and who worked for the minorities for peanuts. You basically exploited them so that you could become wealthy. They built your lavish house, your beautiful roads, your schools and offices and you now claim that this country is gone to a band of thieves. You were the band of thieves before them.

I definitely dont condone the actions of those politicians who have looted this country but at the same time you need to correct your thinking and change the way you comment to news articles. Your thinking is too simple mindedness, naive, ingenious and unsophisticated.

We need to see the bigger picture: The government is running out of money (budget deficits similar to the 80’s and 90’s) and they are desperate. They also want to create division, conflict and racial tensions among South Africans (a popular strategy to prevent their own supporters to turn against them). Eskom’s problems fits perfectly in this strategy. The tide is turning and eventually this corrupt government will implode.

It’s actually appalling that this remark has some of the highest number of upvotes I have seen for a comment on this site.

Whatever the failings of the ANC, to describe the Apartheid system as a functioning country somehow more preferable to our current democracy is an insult to the majority of South Africans whose dignity and human rights were repeatedly violated for the benefit of a few.

After quadrupling the price of electricity, crippling the economy, this is a typical Eskom gem:

‘there is a need to get fair compensation for the use of the grid’

The mind boggles

Africa Pragmatist:

That (cheapest energy) was a fallacy based on a completely idiotic approach to pricing. They never built reserves from tariffs to fund replacement generation capacity.

Short explanation : they priced depreciation into selling prices based on historical cost instead of replacement cost. Do the math on recovering cost of a $200m plant when rand was worth two dollars (R100m capex) and then even halfway in plant life, its replacement is $250m but the rand is by 1985 worth half a dollar (R500m capex).

How do they fund the replacement unit that ends up costing probably R1000m when all they recovered from consumers is R100m? With more and more debt.

Our pricing at Eskom level is not out of kilter with what coal energy costs. Where it goes pear-shaped is after the 60% added by municipalities!

@Johan_Buys,

I am completely disagree that is was a fallacy…

The then government knew that there was a trade off between probable cost and economic growth cost, they chose economic growth cost to price the electrical tariffs.

This is what made South Africa the most industrial country on the continent and the same model is use in various other industries and sectors throughout the rest of the world. There was an economic growth which came at the cost of break even pricing.

As an example, Britain’s Train Network does not make a profit it is merely their to reduce traffic and ensure that all the citizens of the specific ares have access to the greater economy.

Johan, if you go back to the period 1981 to 1984, you will find that the Eskom tariffs increased with 116% over that 4 years. On my queries, I was told that they did this to raise capital for new power stations. They did raise the capital and by 1990 they had a massive capital reserve. Unfortunately, the economy went the wrong way and instead of building they had to start mothballing. They then blasted the capital on electrification drives where they offered each new connection a two plate stove. To sell their surplus electricity, they created a marketing team of about 1000 people. Remember agrilec, industrelec, homelec? When the new dispensation came there was no appetite for new power stations and when they eventually started, it was to late and by the wrong people.

To the responses:

There was no possible logic that South Africa by some magic could generate and sell electricity from coal cheaper than others do. We certainly were not building plants cheaper than others : every one since the 50’s was over time over budget. We did at a stage have too many and mothballed.

Have a look at Lazard LCOE as probably the most comprehensive comparison of means of energy production.

Coal energy should be sold at around our ex-Eskom prices for Eskom to be sustainable. Council prices are the problem!

Buys, you are barking up the wrong pole. What I am referring to is Corruption, wastage, cadre deployed mismanagement, procurement irregularities, theft of electricity, non-payment of electricity, unsustainable premiums Eskom is paying for coal and new power stations due to BEE and corruption.

‘There was no possible logic that South Africa by some magic could generate and sell electricity from coal cheaper than others do.’

Johan, correct me if I’m wrong but, I was under the impression that Eskom power was cheaper than elsewhere in the world because the Nat’s decided that cheap power was more important for the country than selling electricity at a profit. Elsewhere in the world utilities are owned by private shareholders who want a healthy return on their investment which would obviously mean higher prices.

Remember the debacle in 2007 around Alcan’s proposed new greenfields aluminium smelter in PE. Cynthia Carroll, the then CEO, signed the electricity tariff agreement with the then powers that were, and the project was all set to get off the ground. Senior staff members were appointed and relocated (some from overseas), and then when it was all systems go, somebody realized that there wouldn’t be enough electricity available to run a new smelter!

Aluminium smelters were using SA’s state subsidised cheap and electricity. The real solution was to allow market forces into the electricity market and to have users pay a fair price. The smelters would probably have gone elsewhere anyway, but at least we wouldn’t have been in such dire straits.

You mean before we were run by the ANC?

Incidentally, apart from English and Afrikaans, South Africa’s national languages have no word for electron.

…. or wheel

I would like to see Andre de Ruyter sit in front of a camera, look at us all in the eye and validate this obscene proposal.
Not only is this proposal anti competitive and corrupt, it blatantly flies in the face of climate change which the rest of the world is trying to arrest by promoting renewable energy.

SA electricity is still relatively cheap when it is available…the problem is that it’s extremely unreliable.

Now for finality on their peak and off peak times.

Any money that goes to the government is called tax no matter the colour paint used on the pig.

We witness daily the miss use of tax payer funds, the abortion continue creating greater inequality. There is no incentive to increase a person’s wealth in SA, the more you productive you are the more you get hammered back down.

Now people who stay will disconnect permanently from the Grid, that seems to be the only solution. Gas Power for Heating, Generator to Heavy Consumption Items and Solar for every day.

If your off the grid system costs R200,000 and your monthly Electricity bill all in is R1,500 then you will break even after 11 years, can anyone help verify this?

I will try to assist form our experience. Firstly it is a complex equation but generally batteries payback is around 10 years based on previous ariff structures and pricing. The sme trend we found with grid tied (no battery) where payback in 2014 was 10 years and it is now 3.5 years.

The driving factors are product and Eskom tariff – one going down fast and the other going up faster.

So doing a payback one has to have a lot more info and how the electricity is consumed (time of use) and its impact on the clinet bill with modelling on increases. We wrestle a lot with these models and a conservative approach currently is around the 9 year mark.

I hope this helps the conversation.

Thank You Dorman,
If we take the break even cost 10 years then view Eskom’s current price over a 20 year period it means that we should only be paying a market price of around R1 per kw now.
Or
Another way to look at it would be that with Eskom’s current price you could pay for 2 house to have off the grid installation over a 20 year period, that would be to break even whilst having power every day.

What the anc is doing is the exact opposite of economic growth and downstream job creation.

Why are South African’s tolerating this nonsense?

Incidentally, in this regime, any money that goes to the government is stolen.

does not matter from what angle one is looking at the eskom circus, they even have the nerve to try and charge for something that they have not produced / generated – i think a massive court case is on its way – if one wants to look after oneself and do not want to rely on the pathetic services of eskom and other government entities, why pay a penalty for it – it simply does not make sense – their sales will be less, due to their inability by an overstaffed incompetened employee force to manage a once well run soe

The anc must be disbanded and ESKOM sold off in pieces.

Its happening… they disbanding themselves…

EWN says ACE got booted off Zoom …

Anyone on prepaid meters are not able to benefit or otherwise from the peak/off peak tariffs so how are Eskom going to charge those same customers that have solar a fixed monthly cost? Prepaid customers don’t receive a monthly bill and only purchase electricity when it’s needed. If I have solar and a prepaid meter (which I do) how does Eskom propose charging me a monthly fixed fee? It appears to me they haven’t done enough homework yet! The day they find a way to charge me a fixed fee for power I don’t use is the day I disconnect from their grid completely.

On your solar with prepaid : I presume you don’t export? I’ve heard of a nightmare where a type of prepaid meter counted kWh the same whether inbound or outbound!

True, however, it is the “technician” from the local municipality/ supplier that doesn’t know how to program the electronic meter correctly. Other than the right skin colour, competence wasn’t a requirement in the job ad.

They or your municipality charge you and recover a fixed monthly fee already. When you buy prepaid, the amount you purchase first gets allocated to the fixed charge and the balance, if any, buys you kW. If your monthly fixed charge is not covered by your ad hoc purchases of prepaid, you get disconnected.

The trend here will be look at how htis was done in other metroploes. All Solar must have a smart meter which is then fully capable of performing the function. Its is a seperate cost and has come done dramatically BUT it must be factored in.

Smart meter and Solar will be one! I hope this helps.

“The utility proposes a rand-per-day “service and administration charge for each [point of delivery], which charge shall be payable every month whether any electricity is used or not, based on the applicable daily rate and the number of days in the month”.

I think this should also then apply in reverse. I.e. for each day that one is affected by load shedding, the corresponding daily fee should be payable by Eskom.

There is not much to fault about the tariff structures.

At least Eskom pays a feed-in, unlike many municipalities.

Time of Use is the correct way to go. Peak times are when the country is running the very expensive peaking stations. I’d just say Time of Use should get implemented to ALL consumers over a certain size, not just people with solar. We need everybody to get smarter with when they use energy.

Something may have gotten lost in summarising, but I don’t follow how a network demand charge can be a “c/kWh” basis. It’d normally be a peak kVA charge?

Overall, this will drive the use of smart home system with solar and batteries rather than plain old grid-tied solar.
1. The system can use the grid in cheap times to charge batteries if needed. Eg midnight to 4 am you draw not only your few loads from grid, you also max out the battery at the cheap rate. Then during peak, you don’t draw grid, you run on battery. Then during day run solar and grid and recharge battery. Then evening expensive peak run batteries and repeat next day.
2. The system can monitor you kVA load from grid and use batteries to try and keep that below a target.

Absolutely agree especially peak shaving under point 2! Great comments!

So the person living on their own are now going to pay almost as much in fixed monthly fees as they paid for their bill for the month which means their tariff will double. It is more and more evident that those who can afford to need to get off the grid completely. Anything provided by the state or SOE ends up costing more than what you can buy in the market. Instead of increasing tariffs how about right sizing the workforce and cutting costs and that includes inflated prices paid for goods supplied to generate the electricity.

So if I don’t use electricity I still have to pay? Seems like legalized looting. And there is still going to be loadshedding, so I pay for loadshedding, the mind boggles.

The User-Pay principle has now become Non-User-Pay.
We get charged to use state resources which were funded by our own taxes, anyway.
Now they want to charge us for the use of private household resources financed by private household funds and STILL have pay taxes which are going to end up in their pockets,anyway.

Someone at Eskom idolizes Gordon Gekko when he famously said, ‘Greed is good’

Pathetic!

So the upshot is – go off grid. Independent & free of the now woeful Eskom. It (Eskom) will probably get worse so if you can buy a system to ensure you don’t need the grid.

mcomp : careful. Read your fine print in council bylaws. They normally have a clause that they can charge you a fee for being reticulated but not using them.

Better option is to drop your connection to the smallest you can (to limit the fixed fees) and then keep a small grid connection.

This in any event gives you that low cost grid supply to help with batteries. Trying to size a household with only solar and only batteries would need you to massively overinvest in both solar and batteries. For 250 days a year you will be generating FAR more than your loads and batteries can consume. For 100 days you will be roughly balanced and for 15 days you will be nervous 😉

Roughly speaking a partially off grid system that costs R100 would cost R200 to be completely off-grid.

You would need to isolate your systems behind the battery and have only the battery charger facing the grid connection else you are limited to about 4.5kW solar.

Why did households install solar ? Simple… Escom could not guarantee any performance .Power surges caused damages to appliances. Consulting companies who operate all over the world were unable to connect to the market as servers were down We could not have hot water etc etc.

As such , Ecom forced people to find alternatives. Will Escom pay for some of the installation costs ?

AGAIN Eskom ignores active response. First the step cost increase above 600kw/Hr/Month meant a medium cost solar installation to reduce usage down to this level and stay on grid for peak usage was a no-brainer. Now escalating charges for access mean the incremental cost of adding to this installation to go completely off-grid makes sense now too. Driving their customers off by nudging them (in the opposite direction of their intention) one step at a time.

All this nonsense they up to is nothing more than moves to make up for their embarrassing negligence, mismanagement, incompetence, and blatant theft that has been going on at the utility for years now, that the governing party was aware of, but remained silent and didn’t do anything about, that has resulted in the horrendous debt the utility is now struggling with and the horrendous, deteriorating, failing infrastructure the utility is experiencing, all of which they, out of desperation, trying to hopefully somehow manage with damage control, hoping to somehow reverse the utility’s deteriorating and failing financial and infrastructure situation. That’s the problem, the real cause of which the government knows and won’t directly admit because of the shame and embarrassment, but rather the government and those who were supposed to be in charge of the utility, coming up with all sorts of other futile reasons (except the real reason we all are aware of) as to why the utility is really in the mess it is in. And now the innocent users of their failing services, the public, primarily has to bear the brunt of this mess, which the public is now caught up in and suffering for through no fault of our own, we now have to increasingly subsidize, what is really tantamount to criminal activity over the years, deserving of jail time. Basically it is a continuation of the insidious, immoral transfer of what little wealth the ordinary citizen has legally acquired through conscientious hard work, to those undeserving lot who still in their deluded state of mind, somehow thinking christmas is forever, desperately hoping they can keep their free atm machine at the utility in operation, but nothing is for free, somehow the chickens always come home to roost. I suppose if things had to become so bad and people decided en masse to use maybe braaistands for cooking, to try and reduce the use of the grid, they will probably come up with some reason for a compulsory braaistand license to own one, or in addition, maybe some extra compulsory annual fee for the use of a braaistand, to continue lining their pockets – I’m being sarcastic, but one never knows considering how things have regressed thus far. You can’t make this sh*t up, really. Are we living in some alternate universe, some matrix where insanity reigns supreme, or what? Good grief.

I literally think its pointless for anyone to ever comment on $Web again. You’ve summed it up beautifully – “Basically it is a continuation of the insidious, immoral transfer of what little wealth the ordinary citizen has legally acquired ..” SA is a gangster state, we just have a rather jolly, urbane don in charge now, that’s all.

Sjoe …. remember to break up an impossibly long sentence to make your remark readable!!

A complex problem. The reality is Eskom is the ONE SOE we can’t do without. If solar installations become the norm, Eskom will collapse and that won’t help anyone. I wager that even those with comprehensive solar systems are still relying on grid power in one form or another.

The problem is why should we subsidise the wholesale theft and mismanagement of the last decade? Isn’t it bad enough that we have to deal with ten plus years of rolling blackouts with no end in sight?

The bottom line is that if everyone paid for the electricity they use, we would not be in this situation. The few are subsidising the many.

This will change very soon as I can charge batteries during Eskom time and sell the charged capacity back later and make a profit. With charging efficiencies that’s very likely to happen. In fact my grid tied system can charge one day using Eskom and sell back the next

Nope. Even if you had free solar kWh input you can never recover the battery cost over its cycle life. You also lose a quarter of your input energy putting in and taking it out.

The 58c they pay is not quite fair as that is the energy only fee that does not include all the other cost elements they add for transmission and distribution and subsidies.

The most cost effective solar electron is the one you consume instead of either storing it or exporting it.
The least cost effective one is the one you store and export.

This is exactly what they need though. Get us the consumer to spend massive amounts of Capex on batteries, so they don’t have to! Then in a few years when they have (hopefully) stabilized the grid supply, alter the tariff structures again to nai us some more.

The morons will never stabilise Eskom

They will never be able to sort Eskom out. The people who could do it no longer get hired and the current students all want to be instagram or youtube millionaires. None of them have the inclination or aptitude to be electricians or engineers. When doing your ROI calculations before going off-grid, try and put a number on the security of your power supply. I am off-grid not to save money on electricity but rather to have electricity at all times. Look to our norther neighbours to see were we will be in 5 years time. We will not be having two hours a day blackouts we will be having two hours a day of electricity.

The basic charge was always, and should always have been, part of electrical tariffs. Somewhere in the 1990’some wise guys at Eskom, who did not understand the basics of electricity tariff stuctures, decided to do away with it. NERSA, who never understood the basics, tried to enforce it on municipalities and some municipalities fell for it. I explained to my municipal council where I worked that it is a mistake and and we refused to do away with it. Now that Eskom and the municipalities realise their mistake, it will be very difficult to put it right.
The inclined block tariffs was a political infringement on a business principle and was one of the best reasons for higher income people with larger homes to go solar, because it penalised customers who used more of the product. In real business you will give a discount to your larger customers, not chase them away with a punitive price structure. I also refused to give in to NERSA on that one, and when I retired from my municapality three years ago, our Eskom account was fully paid every month and although it was in a very good area for solar, very few of our customers went for it, because they were not bullied into it by the municipality.
What Eskom is doing now with the basic charge and inclined block tariffs, is only trying to rectify their, and NERSA’s, blunders of the past.

Please see http://www.eia.gov.com which lists every state in the US average price for electricity. The medium price is in Rand terms R1.95 per kw which is around 25% more expensive than Eskom. Yes they also have load shedding and recently Texas had a total black out for some time! We seem to forget that democracy and full benefits have been widely accepted everywhere in the World. This means that people are not interested in roads, low power and all that they should be getting- but in fact only interested in free money! We have a good example of this recently in the US. So we really should not be complaining that badly!

But what does the average American earn compared to the average South African in dollar terms? How much private energy per household is generated? Is it taxed?

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=South+Africa&country2=United+States&city1=Johannesburg&city2=Austin%2C+TX&tracking=getDispatchComparison

Your purchase power in Austin Texas is 76.68% higher than Johannesburg, this, you are correct in saying that that R1.95 per kw is much more affordable in Texas then in Joburg. My maths might be out but a R1.95 with a 76.68% purchase power percentage means that the cost is only equal to about R0.46c.

In other words SA paying 3 times the price that the should if they lived in a first world country.

@GSFS,

Those companies are getting taken to court by consumer watchdogs, hammered the heck out of and not to worry Tesla is making plans as well.

In a free market, there are ups and downs however the response time and future actions take place at a far quick pace to meet the demands of the consumer.

I assume that you are an Eskom employee. The Democrats have tabled an increase in the minimum wage in the US to $15 per hour. In Rand terms that is a MINIMUM of R1800 per day (8 hours). So in Rand terms, a person earning the MINIMUM wage in the US who uses 5KW per days spends just over 0.5% of their income on electricity. The median household income in the US is over $80 000 per annum. In Rand terms that is R1.2 million per annum. So in Rand terms, South Africans spend 5-10 times as much of their income on electricity compared to the average US household.

What people don’t get is that energy production cost is not related to consumers’ earnings power. In a way it is like how BMW can’t sell a car here for half of the US price just because we have half the US earnings power.

You can’t compare what happened in Texas to what’s happening here. That was the result of a freak weather event — a massive ice-storm that brought temperatures below zero for many days in a row. While Texas takes the ‘free market’ syndrome to extremes and paid the price when this weather event hit, the two situations are totally different.

South Africa’s now decade-long rolling blackouts and electricity problems are the cause of years of neglect and mismanagement combined with outright criminality — pure and simple!

How wonderful it must be to be a politician in SA.

Step 1) break something and blame everything but yourself/your department/your mates.

Step2) Bemoan the state of said broken entity publicly so you seek like you care and have all the answers

Step 3) Find numerous ways to bend the user/taxpayer over and have your way with their already fragile bank accounts

Step 4) Use big words and say things like “fair compensation” so that the dumber of your constituents might just fall for your BS.

Step 5) Publicly congratulation yourself and all your mates for your superb work.

So all the retrenchment and early retirements CANNOT PREVENT THESE HUGE INCREASES TODAY AND FOREVER??????????????????????????

You are paying for a cleaner to get R10,000 monthly pay cheque with guaranteed bonus and BEE Coal.

When they said savings program, they did not mean that they will reduce their expenses, they meant that they will be re-allocating them.

Looks like Eskom is providing customers with a reason to expand their solar setups or just go off grid completely.

SO Eskom wants to penalise the system that helps them reducing load shedding? Why not join SABC and charge us per fart.

Sad to see so many commentators allowing their justifiable anger at ESKOM to distract them from a challenge facing power utilities all over the world. Most ‘own generators’ want to have grid access as a fallback but resent paying for it.

Many of us would like to have ‘own generation’ through solar. But we want to stay connected to have power at night. So someone has to have a power station ready but only used occasionally for those peaks.

Who should pay for that expensive, occasional peaking power? And who pays to install and maintain the transmission lines and metering systems to make that occasional use possible? Surely, the occasional users.

The alternative is to store your daytime solar for nighttime use – batteries and hot water are a few options. But check out the costs. It will almost certainly be cheaper to stay with ESKOM (for now) and you will have to pay for it.

Some questions:

1) Can an SOE in South Africa be run profitable?
2) Can South Africa be run profitable?
3) Can our unemployment figure drop?
4) Can we become an investment destination of choice?
5) Can a capitalist political party obtain the majority of seats in Parliament?

The answers to questions 1-4 (and the answer to hundreds of similar questions) is the same as the answer to question five

Our problem as consumers lies at the distribution level. Councils have come to rely on the profit from electricity sales to fund their other gaps.

What deserves an investigation is how councils keep on increasing electricity with the Eskom increase. Eskom up 15%, our tariffs to council go up 15% They should be charging the increased Eskom cost plus enough to cover the other loss-making stuff. Explanation:

Council in 2010 spent R100 on Eskom, added R50 which was spent on loss-making other services. 50% is at the low end of NERSA guidance by the way!!

By 2020 they are spending R300 with Eskom.

They are then charging consumers R450 and making R150.

How did the loss-making services they cover from electricity profits, which activities have NOTHING to do with Eskom or electricity, grow from R50 to R150?????

If you play this forward another decade, our municipalities will be spending R900 on Eskom and what : by then the loss-making services are R450????

“there is a need to get fair compensation for the use of the grid and to incentivise customers to stay connected to the grid” – Nothing incentivizing over here, screw a solar/green installation I’m calling my “electrician” from Soweto to install the “fair” tariff arrangement he has with the rest of the community.

Eskom go get your money from Brian and his mates, I ain’t giving you nothing.

So Eskom want to charge what the Sun provides for FREE?!

What makes Eskom to think it owns the Sun?

At this rate, we are just a few years from paying a breathing tariff

@ Cynical Optimist,
I suggest you read a little bit up on your history.

@ Anonymous,
Are you not too quick to pull the race card?

If this article was published one day later, it would’ve been an April Fools joke…

Are they also going to charge the people who have illegal electricuty connections?

anyone – companies, mines,individuals – should be allowed to generate up to 50mw per project without registering with Nersa. If this were to happen, then those karpowerships wouldn’t be needed, along with their massive Dollar cost.And Eskom would need fewer power cuts due to demand being radically less.How difficult is this for govt to figure out?

Instead of paying R225 billion for Karpowerships just give R225 000 to 1 million households for off-grid PV system. Problem solved and the money stays in RSA.

End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

INSIDER SUBSCRIPTIONS APP VIDEOS RADIO / LISTEN LIVE SHOP OFFERS WEBINARS NEWSLETTERS TRENDING PORTFOLIO TOOL CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles: Advanced Search
Click a Company: