Nersa concedes failing to put electricity tariff methodology in place

The way regulator dealt with Eskom tariffs ‘not ideal’, court hears.
Image: Shutterstock

Energy regulator Nersa made some astonishing concessions on Wednesday during the court hearing of an application by Eskom to have its rejection of Eskom’s latest tariff application reviewed and set aside.

Read: Dear Nersa, see you in court – Eskom

Judge Jody Kollapen hopes to make a ruling in the matter next week. If Eskom succeeds, the court will compel Nersa to process the rejected application for tariffs for the year starting April 1, 2022 in terms of the existing multi-year tariff determination methodology (MYPDM). Nersa is expected to then immediately publish Eskom’s application for public comment.

Moneyweb has learnt that Eskom applied for a tariff increase of about 20%, which includes amounts clawed back in relations to under-recovery in previous years as well as earlier court rulings in favour of Eskom.

Read: Eskom wants 20% more next year

Advocate Patrick Ellis SC on behalf of Nersa maintained that the latest version of the MYPDM has lapsed and admitted after being questioned by Kollapen, that Nersa has left a vacuum by not approving a new methodology timeously.

He however asked the court to allow Nersa to order Eskom to submit a revised tariff application in accordance with three principles Nersa adopted this week namely:

  • Distinguishing between Eskom’s different activities: namely generation, transmission and distribution,
  • Distinguishing between the way consumers use electricity, for example for consumption during peak-time only; baseload which is consistent consumption day and night; and mid-merit consumption which is adjustable during the day.
  • Using a merit order dispatch approach (least cost first determination to set tariffs for each type of load), i.e. using the generation plant that operates at lowest cost, first.

Representing Eskom, Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC pointed out that Nersa has not yet communicated this decision to Eskom and it has no detail about how it should go about to prepare a tariff application following with these principles.

Chaskalson described the principles as “amorphous” and confirmed a proposition by Kollapen that “it can be interpreted differently by ten different licensees.”

According to Eskom it is legally obliged to give National Treasury and the local government association Salga 40 days to study its tariff application before submission to Nersa and, taking that into account, there is simply not enough time to prepare a new application and have Nersa process it before the March 15 deadline to table the tariffs in parliament.

Eskom maintains it needs at least nine months to prepare the application and Nersa needs a further six months to publish it, consult stakeholders and make a determination.

Ellis said if Eskom’s tariffs are merely increased without any structural changes, there is no need to consult with National Treasury and Salga, which prompted Kollapen to point out that the whole purpose of the new principles seems to be to induce structural change.

Kollapen asked if no structural change is envisaged, whether the existing methodology cannot be used.

Ellis said he cannot answer that question.

Kollapen asked Ellis whether the new principles, even “if Eskom got it today” will provide sufficient clarity for it to prepare an application, as opposed to the methodology that consists of 40 pages with a clear formula and detailed technical requirements.

Nersa however expects Eskom to merely “repackage” the rejected application, which it maintains does not trigger such consultation.

On behalf of Nersa, Ellis argued that the existing methodology is inappropriate, because it does not take into account the unbundling of Eskom and changes in the electricity supply industry. He said it would therefore be irrational and unlawful of Nersa to rely on that methodology to determine Eskom’s tariffs.

Following questions from Kollapen, Ellis also conceded that Nersa has failed in its obligation to put a (new) methodology in place. He said that is why Nersa has made the proposal that Eskom follows the new principles “to tide over the failure (by Nersa) to produce a new methodology.”

Kollapen pointed out that Nersa only rejected the Eskom application in September, citing the “lapsed” methodology and asked why the regulator failed to raise this point earlier. Eskom submitted the application in June and even met with Nersa about it as early as March.

Ellis conceded that “in a perfect world” that should have been the case and if Nersa firmly rejected it earlier, “we would not have had to sit around these computers today (for the virtual court hearing). The way Nersa dealt with the matter “is not ideal”, it could have rejected Eskom’s application earlier and developed a new methodology in time, but “that is crying over spilt milk” now and a new tariff determination must be made, he said.

He argued that Nersa can extend the validity of the current tariffs beyond March 31 next year and denied that it is a matter of “major catastrophe” as Chaskalson stated. According to Chaskalson Eskom would be left without any valid tariff unless the court grants its application and this would result in “catastrophic prejudice” for the whole country as Eskom would be without any revenue.

Following accusations by Eskom that Nersa is continuously changing its position by at first referring to a change in methodology and then apologising and “clarifying” that it is only the principles underlying the application of the methodology that will be changing and also apologising for a mistaken impression that the new principles will take effect before April 1 next year, in time for the new tariff determination, Ellis further conceded that Nersa’s pronouncements “did more to confuse the situation that to clarify it.”

COMMENTS   7

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

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

SUBSCRIBE NOW SIGN IN

The blind trying to lead the partially sighted in the dark.

When the accountability lies with the collective, as stated by the ANC manifesto, the various entities under the control of the ANC will endlessly try to seek accountability from the courts.

When normal and simple processes require accountability, the cadres try to shift the accountability onto the judge, because ANC leadership is non-existent. Luthuli House is like a negligent, immature, and drug-addicted parent. These useless ANC deployees are like spoilt little brats who run to mommy, blaming the siblings, after they themselves have emptied the cookie jar.

Luthuli House created a free-for-all, a feeding frenzy when they bastardized the law to legalize plunder with BEE schemes, cadre deployment, preferentially loaded tenders, and runaway wage increases for Cosatu members. Luthuli House enabled the state capture and corruption that is killing the economy. They use the state monopolies to extort contributions from the emaciated taxpayer.

After their criminality and negligence destroyed the source of cash flow, they are turning on each other in the courts. The binge-drinking party is over and the knife fight has started. The Luthuli House shebeen is being destroyed from the inside by brawling patrons.

Another day, another court action … it’s like a TV soap opera. Perhaps they should hire Judge Judy to speed things up.

Government needs to take out the debt service cost in Eskom to benchmark levels when NERSA does this over.. In the US, the average debt:equity ration is 15% and their interest rates are very low. We are playing silly games by trying to recover the horrendously skewed Eskom finance cost in tariffs that are then again subjected to a 65% markup in councils. About 45c/kWh is being recovered for Eskom interest. Insane.

When we address tariffs we also need to sort out :

1. That Eskom Distribution tariffs to direct customers must also comply to the council tariffs. In fact, Eskom Distribution within urban areas should be scrapped. One problem at moment is that factory A under council supply pays 60% more for electricity than factory B that is 500 meters away.

2. Standardize council tariffs including the allowed margin per class of consumer the council may earn. Although the LAW does not permit tariff discrimination other than specific regulations, I have cases where council margins on for example commercial are way lower than industrial, and within industrial the margin varies from 59% to 90%

3. While standardize, create one set of feed-in and wheeling tariffs. Every council has different schemes and Eskom Distribution yet another scheme.

I very broadly agree Johan, particularly with point 3. But Eskom debt; who is going to pick it up and at what interest rates? I disagree, Eskom must sell assets, freely and fairly, no BEE / ANC interference (Cyril’s BIL), no monopolies, to get the highest price possible and pay down the debt to manageable levels.

Ideally the bulk of the generation capacity should be sold on this basis and the new owners tender to provide power. The grid and costs should be open and transparent.

Sadly, pie in sky.

Government underwrites the debt and the debt is unreasonably high by any measure.

If government takes over most of that debt the interest cost is rightly in general debt expense. Eskom right now pays too high a rate, on too much debt, and then after this cost is built into tariffs, councils add another 65% margin.

The whole council tariff thing needs a reboot. Councils simply pass on the %increase from Eskom. By law what council recovers must be its cost plus a reasonable margin. That margin is a Rand amount to cover them subsidizing other council activities that do not earn revenue. Those other items do NOT increase by Eskom’s 20% A large chunk of council “cost” is their Distribution and this does NOT increase by Eskom’s 20% tariff increase.

But refer my other rant. The outcome is predictable when users’ energy cost approach or exceed diesel generator costs.

prices CANNOT continue as they are!

All that will happen is more users that can, will self-generate-consume, leaving a smaller pool that will have to escalate more. For one of my transfomers’ council charges work back to 379c/kWh total cost, without me counting my feedin revenue. If I take availability plus kWh used minus kWh fed to grid the bill is actually R10.15/kWh. That is double the cost of what a generator would cost.

Obviously I am going to go largely off-gid (solar plus batteries plus generator plus much smaller grid connection since I anyway have the generators for loadshedding. When I go, that is a few million in revenue that is gone for at least the next 20 years.

End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR
BTC / USD

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.
INSIDER SUBSCRIPTION APP VIDEOS RADIO / LISTEN LIVE SHOP OFFERS WEBINARS NEWSLETTERS TRENDING

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: