SALGA and business groups differing views over Nersa's electricity trading licences
Image: Supplied
A sharp divide has emerged between local government and business groups over the National Energy Regulator of South Africa's (NERSA) decision to grant electricity trading licences to private entities.
The South African Local Government Association (SALGA) said it had deep concern over NERSA issuing licences before finalising trading rules, warning that the move poses a serious threat to the financial sustainability, constitutional mandate, and operational integrity of municipal electricity distribution systems.
SALGA, which represents municipalities, said finalised rules were essential to ensure 'clear definitions of customer eligibility and trader rights; protection of redistributive and cross-subsidisation obligations embedded in municipal tariffs; [and] safeguards against predatory competition in licensed municipal areas of supply.'
Among its key concerns is the potential erosion of municipal revenue, which funds not only electricity services but roads, waste management, and water supply.
SALGA said, 'allowing traders to target only high-value, reliable customers would leave municipalities with a disproportionate share of defaulting customers.'
SALGA also warned of 'infringement of constitutional mandates' and called for Nersa to suspend the approval of further trading licences until a transparent and balanced regulatory framework is finalised and consulted upon.
However Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA) and Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) have urged Eskom to drop its legal challenges to the same licences. The organisations argue that litigation is undermining energy reform and delaying much-needed investment in new generation capacity.
'Eskom cannot be both the primary cause of our energy crisis and the gatekeeper of its solution,' said BLSA chief executive Busi Mavuso.
'South African businesses are failing, jobs are being lost, and our economy is stagnating. We need more power on the grid, now. For Eskom to spend public money on litigation designed to frustrate the very reforms government is championing and block the investment that can help secure cheaper and more secure energy is illogical and completely untenable.'
BUSA chief executive Khulekani Mathe said: 'Our goal as a nation must be a reliable and affordable supply of electricity for every South African. This requires collaboration, not litigation.'
He called for Eskom to align its actions with the President's Energy Action Plan and to support 'a vibrant and competitive market that encourages much-needed additional investment… key to longer-term energy security and making South Africa globally competitive.'
While SALGA warns of 'destabilising the sector' without firm rules, BLSA and BUSA insist that delaying private entry into the market will slow progress towards ending load-shedding and reviving the economy.
THE MERCURY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Unfazed: South Africa's stance on US visa policies impacting Zimbabwe
US President Donald Trump continues to disrupt global diplomacy after a recent visa ban imposed on Zimbabwe. Image: Picture: Evan Vucci/AP The South African government seems unaffected by the recent US visa ban imposed by the embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, despite President Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to global diplomacy through tariff increases and immigration policies. The US has suspended all routine immigrant and non-immigrant visa services to Zimbabwe due to concerns over misuse and overstays, although other visa types remain unaffected. Although South Africa was exempt from new Trump visa restrictions on SADC countries, a new policy has been implemented for Malawi and Zambia. Citizens of these nations are now required to pay a bond of $5 000 (R88 656) to $15 000 (R265 967) to travel to the US. Additionally, the citizens are required to use one of three airports—Boston's Logan International, New York's JFK International, or Dulles International near Washington D.C.—for both arrival and departure. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ When asked whether South African citizens should be worried, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) spokesperson Chrispin Phiri gave a brief response: "We do not provide commentary on other countries' visa regimes, and this is our general position, it's not specific to the US." A senior government official, however, downplayed the likelihood of South Africans being affected by the US visa restrictions. "Remember Trump is only in our case because of the International Court of Justice case against Israel and our involvement in BRICS. Nothing more and nothing less," the official said. "South Africans visiting the US are mostly professionals who either go for business or a holiday. We seldom have citizens wanting to immigrate to the should have nothing to worry about,' he said. The US embassy explained that the reasons for the restrictions was because the administration was working to prevent visa overstay and misuse as part of national security. "The Trump administration is protecting our nation and citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the embassy said. "We are always working to prevent visa overstay and misuse." In June, the US imposed travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, with seven of them located in Africa. Additionally, heightened restrictions were applied to seven other nations, three of which are African. The US has issued a demand to 36 countries, predominantly in Africa, to enhance their traveler vetting procedures. Failure to comply could result in a ban on their citizens visiting the US. International Relations analyst Rejoice Ngwenya said it was unfortunate that the US had an obsession with immigration issues. "All democratic countries must encourage international country movements. However it is incumbent upon citizens that they don't abuse regulations. But one thing to acknowledge in terms of implementation of immigration laws globally is not to interfere and dissuade inter country movements of students because knowledge sharing and education is a universal right,' Ngwenya said.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA's vital marine manufacturing industry faces existential threat from new US tariffs
Almost $10-billion worth of South African goods exported annually to the United States are now subject to a 30% 'reciprocal' tariff. This move not only threatens production and job losses in local manufacturing and agriculture, but also affects the maritime sector as the provider of transport and logistics that moves these locally produced goods and raw materials to export markets. The overall impact will reshape South Africa's maritime trade flows as the country's goods become less competitive in the US, especially compared with suppliers in countries with lower tariffs. The new tariffs mainly target manufactured goods, including vehicles and components, machinery and equipment, and leisure craft, which have higher value added, while key mining commodities are exempt — effectively derailing South Africa's export-focused industrial growth path. This extends to the marine manufacturing sector, as South Africa's boat and yacht builders that export almost a third of their production to the US — their most important market that was previously duty free under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) — are now also subject to the 30% tariff. Jobs and future investment at risk This has an immediate impact on the competitiveness of the South African marine manufacturing sector, putting jobs and future investment at risk in a growing, highly export-oriented sector that is considered one of the keys to unlocking SA's maritime economic potential. A near-collapse of South African vehicle exports to the US since the tariff hikes were first announced in April, with an 87% drop over three months, compared with Q2: 2024, is among the first signals of the impact on manufacturing production and exports. Reduced exports mean lower shipping volumes from South African ports to the US, affecting the capacity utilisation and revenues of the container and vehicle shipping lines that serve these routes. The only shipping line currently providing direct sailings from SA ports to the US east coast (Mediterranean Shipping Company, MSC) told Freight News that it would be maintaining its dedicated SA-US service of four vessels currently in weekly rotation, despite the potential impact of the tariffs on trade volumes. Logic, however, suggests that the number of vessels and/or frequency of sailings of any shipping line on a particular route are likely to be reduced if these are not sailing at capacity as the service becomes less profitable. Logistics bottlenecks and congestion at South African ports, a situation now slowly improving, have resulted in several shipping lines reducing their local ports of call in recent years, or excluding SA's ports altogether. Reduced export volumes as a result of the US tariffs may make South Africa an even less attractive destination to service, further reducing access to shipping capacity, and thus limiting the ability of SA manufacturers and other producers to secure new export business. For exporters, the challenge is not only producing the right goods at the right price, but also delivering them on time at a landed price not excessively inflated by import duties. While the impact of the US tariffs must accelerate efforts to seek new export markets, securing new business and complying with myriad associated regulations is not an overnight process; particularly in a global trading environment that now encourages isolationism and protectionism following the lead of the US. When those new markets are secured, the capacity to ship to them needs to be in place — in other words, we cannot afford to lose the confidence of the global shipping industry nor the capacity of our ports to handle cargo. Declining exports would lead to reduced throughput at South African ports and reduced capacity utilisation, which affects their global rankings and ability to attract shipping lines and generate revenue through port dues. Ports need to be busy, moving volumes at scale, which facilitates imports and competitiveness, enabling cost-effective exports and access for South African producers to global markets. Increased tariffs and trade barriers cause delays, cancellations and disruptions in maritime shipments, leading to higher insurance claims and logistical challenges for cargo insurers and shipping companies. All of these challenges in reduced volumes of trade and reduced export capacity would in turn affect employment in our ports, in the maritime logistics and transport value chain, and in the surrounding network of suppliers and service providers to the maritime sector. Marine manufacturing The SA boat-building industry, primarily focused on leisure craft, has shown impressive growth of over 20% annually in the years following Covid-19. South Africa is the world's second largest producer of catamarans, after France, with more than 90% of our leisure craft exported — and 29% of production exported to the US, which is SA's largest market valued at approximately R1.6-billion in 2024. These exports to the US were duty free under Agoa, which has now been nullified by the imposition of the 30% reciprocal tariff, placing a R3-billion industry that supports up to 10,000 jobs, under existential threat. The sector is characterised by high input and operating costs. Given that aluminium and steel are critical components and inputs in the construction of boats and superyachts, the imposition of the additional 50% tariff on these materials will further harm the sector's competitiveness in the US market. High-value exports stifled The US tariffs are reshaping South Africa's economy and maritime trade by stifling high-value exports, increasing costs for importers and redirecting cargo flows towards exempted raw materials — negating the drive for local beneficiation of raw materials to shift the proportion of exports to higher value finished goods. The US is South Africa's third-largest overall trading partner, after the European Union and China. However, the EU and the US are arguably more important markets than China, as they are destinations for diversified, high value-added manufactured goods, supporting local employment, while exports to China and other BRICS countries are largely low margin, unbeneficiated raw materials and a small basket of agricultural products. Strategies to support local manufacturing and pursue alternative markets, including boosting intra-Africa trade through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and leveraging BRICS membership to unlock higher value trade, must incorporate measures to incentivise the local processing of minerals and other resources. While the government continues negotiations with the US towards a mutually beneficial trade deal, the announcement earlier this week by the ministers of Trade, Industry and Competition, and International Relations and Cooperation, of an Economic Response Package to assist businesses affected by the tariffs is most welcome. We trust that the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition's newly formed Export Support Desk will support not only businesses in manufacturing in finding and accessing new markets, but also those in maritime transport and logistics sectors adapting to altered volumes and trade flows. Businesses seeking to enter new markets will also need support in ensuring that shipping routes and capacity are available to service new destinations, and meeting logistics and policy requirements of those new markets. DM
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Activists raise concerns as nuclear site close to Cape Town given go-ahead
South Africa is one step closer to a second nuclear power station after Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Dion George last week upheld a contested, almost decade-old environmental authorisation. South Africa's long-running bid to expand its nuclear power capacity has cleared a key and contentious hurdle. Environment Minister Dion George has upheld an environmental authorisation allowing Eskom to develop a new 4,000MW nuclear power station at Duynefontein, about 35km north of Cape Town. The decision affirms a 2017 approval that had been under appeal for years. It paves the way for Eskom to pursue a nuclear build at the roughly 265-hectare site. That, however, does not mean shovels will hit the ground any time soon. 'In the end, my decision was made in respect of the principles of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), and with full appreciation of the environmental, social and economic considerations involved,' said George. He said that the granting of an environmental authorisation 'does not exempt an applicant from complying with any other applicable legal requirements or obtaining permits from other competent authorities'. The news is one step forward after a previous step back on the contested journey towards new nuclear capacity. Daily Maverick previously reported that at the end of 2023, Minister of Energy and Electricity Kgosientsho Ramokgopa announced that all the 'suspensive conditions' to start procuring 2,500MW of new nuclear power immediately had been met. Months later, in August 2024, Ramokgopa announced that he would withdraw that gazette to procure new nuclear power capacity in response to the 'substantive' legal challenges posed by the Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg — and that is where things have stood until George's announcement last week. Government and industry proponents have hailed the move as a milestone. The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), in a statement, said it reflected confidence in nuclear technology as a contributor to the country's energy mix. Necsa CEO Loyiso Tyabashe added that 'this approval marks an important milestone for the nuclear industry and South Africa's journey towards implementing a balanced energy mix that enables socioeconomic development and is climate friendly. The minister's decision shows rigour of the process that was followed to choose an appropriate site for nuclear new build and reflects confidence in nuclear technology as a safe, clean and reliable energy solution.' While the environmental approval is a prerequisite, Eskom still faces a gauntlet of steps before any concrete is poured. These include securing licences, obtaining design and construction approvals, sourcing financing for what is likely to be a multihundred-billion-rand project, and government sign-off on procurement. This drawn-out pathway is not just procedural. South Africa's last major nuclear procurement drive under former president Jacob Zuma collapsed amid allegations of secrecy and corruption risks and procedural failures. Environmental activists, however, are not as welcoming of the news, warning that the country's financial, operational and governance challenges make a major nuclear build risky and unnecessary. The 2018 Goldman Environmental Prize winners and anti-nuclear activists, Makoma Lekalakala and Liziwe McDaid, said in a statement that 'Earthlife Africa is considering the minister's decision and our next steps. Our concerns include the length of time taken to conduct the environmental impact assessment and to make the appeal decision. 'We are also deeply concerned about the affordability of nuclear power, particularly the high upfront capital costs, the risk of construction delays, and the cost overruns that have been experienced worldwide. 'In addition, there has been no assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of a major beyond-design-basis nuclear incident, nor of the generation of long-lived high-level radioactive waste for which no final disposal solution yet exists.' Peter Becker, a former board member of the National Nuclear Regulator and anti-nuclear activist, told Daily Maverick that above and beyond these concerns, South Africa had bled the requisite nuclear industry expertise to safely operate a nuclear power station. He also questioned the logic and application of timelines as they related to environmental authorisations. 'When an Environmental Assessment (EA) is issued, it has a time limit. This one had a 10-year limit. So the idea of having a 10-year expiry date on environmental authorisation is an acknowledgement that the environment might change. 'The surrounding population might change, the needs and desirability of the projects might change, and that is particularly true when it comes to such a fast-changing environment as the electricity sector where we are seeing disruptive changes. And those disruptive changes are in terms of dramatic learning curves and dropping of prices of alternative sources of energy, such as renewables, battery storage, etc, and also vast changes in demographics. 'So there's a bit of a gap in the legal system in this country in that once an EA is issued, you can appeal it, and that suspends the EA, but when does the expiry start?' Becker explained that depending on how this was interpreted legally, it could either mean Eskom would need to begin construction at the site within less than two years, or the 10-year period started only on Friday after the minister's approval. In the time since the original approval, the underlying expert information that informed that original authorisation may have significantly changed. The July 2023 Review of Environmental Impact Report and Specialist Studies commissioned for Eskom largely confirms as much. That review concluded that the 2017 Environmental Authorisation can still stand without re-assessing impacts, even though much of the underlying data and assumptions are more than 10 years old. This is significant because the review was not a technical re-evaluation. It assumed the original data and impact findings were correct, focusing instead on whether or not they were still relevant. Moreover, the review admits that the original statement that renewables 'could not provide adequate baseload' may 'no longer be correct' due to rapid renewable energy development since the Environmental Impact Assessment was finalised. This is important because it validates a key argument used by those opposed to new nuclear capacity: that the energy context has changed and might affect the rationale for new nuclear energy. DM
