Ekurhuleni mayor temporarily suspends Thembisa electricity hike
This comes after the community protested over a R126 tariff hike.
Xhakaza says they will also communicate with NERSA and, within 14 days, present the outcome to the community.
"We do not want to carry a risk that [this decision will have in] impacting the city's financial sustainability. We want to look at what the mechanisms are available and how do we best position our people," he said.
Thembisa came to a complete shutdown on Monday morning when residents hit the streets over electricity tariff hikes.
The protest began around 5am with roads being barricaded with burning tires.
It was not long before things escalated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
High court drives ‘final nail' into Turkish Karpowership coffin
'The Karpowership deals are now absolutely dead. It will never be loaded on to your electricity bill,' says Outa's executive director, Stefanie Fick. The Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria has formally cancelled the three South African 'emergency power' contracts of the Turkish Karpowership company, nearly a year after two senior government ministers verbally signalled the end to one of South Africa's most controversial electrical power generation agreements. Following a legal settlement agreement reached between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) and the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) on 31 July, the high court has formally set aside the power generation licences granted by Nersa to the Istanbul-based floating powerships company. The agreement recognises that any further court action by Outa to review the legality of the licence awards had become 'academic' after it emerged that the minister of mineral and energy resources advised Karpowership in writing on 29 September 2024 that the multibillion-rand deal had been terminated due to Karpowership's failure to reach commercial close or to meet deadlines as a preferred bidder for the power supply contracts. In October 2024, Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and Environment Minister Dion George both indicated verbally that the deal was dead in the water — but some civil society organisations nevertheless called for iron-clad assurances that the deal was at an end. At the time, The Green Connection environmental justice group asked: 'Why, if the Karpowership deal is truly off the table, is the government still opposing The Green Connection and Outa's court cases?' The Centre for Environmental Rights law clinic in Cape Town had also called for further reassurances from the government, while Karpowership did not acknowledge or respond to requests for clarity. The plan to moor several floating, gas-powered powerships in Richards Bay, Coega and Saldanha harbours came to light nearly five years ago when Daily Maverick exposed the apparent abuse of an emergency procedure to sidestep environmental authorisation procedures during the Covid-19 crisis. A senior Council for Scientific and Industrial Research engineer later estimated that the gas-to-electricity project could cost taxpayers more than R200-billion over 20 years. This week, in the high court, the final nail appears to have been hammered into the coffin of the South African Karpowership plan following the official cancellation of the power generation licence granted by Nersa, the full terms of which were not disclosed. In a media statement on 31 July, Outa noted that it had filed legal papers in April 2022 calling on the high court to review Nersa's decisions to grant the licences. This led to a three-year fight, including a long dispute over access to documents. 'Outa believes this case contributed significantly to the collapse of the Karpowership deals, as Eskom eventually cancelled the grid access. The removal of the generation licences is the final end of this deal. Outa regards this as a significant legal victory, and a huge victory for the public. 'The Karpowership deals are now absolutely dead. It will never be loaded on to your electricity bill,' said Outa's executive director, advocate Stefanie Fick. 'This ruling is a powerful affirmation that decisions involving billions in public funds must comply with the law. We challenged this process because the public deserves transparency, proper oversight and value for money, none of which were present in this licensing saga.' Nersa and Karpowership have not responded to requests for comment on the legal ruling, but any comments will be added when received. DM
The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
How Ekurhuleni under-charged Tembisa for electricity
The council must find a solution to the tariff mess. Ekurhuleni mayor Nkosindiphile Xhakaza is expected to present a report to council on Thursday about the suspension of certain fixed charges for electricity. But the mess might be bigger than the city's communications indicate. Xhakaza recently suspended the fixed charge of R109.78 (excluding Vat) for specifically single-phase non-indigent households (A2 tariffs) following violent protest in Tembisa, where residents were furious about the charge. This was already an 54% increase compared with the previous year. The suspension was meant to: Enable comprehensive, inclusive and orderly engagement with affected communities. Ensure that legitimate concerns raised by residents were systematically and effectively addressed. Mitigate the risk of recurrence of destructive and violent events such as those experienced in Tembisa during 2022. In a press release issued on 22 July, Xhakaza explains at great length that Ekurhuleni is compelled by the energy regulator Nersa to levy fixed charges 'aimed at ensuring adequate investment in infrastructure maintenance, long-term sustainability of electricity supply and equitable distribution of operational costs across all communities.' He further emphasises that the charges are informed by a cost-of-supply (CoS) study. ALSO READ: Traffic delays after residents shut down Thembisa over electricity tariff hike [VIDEO] What Xhakaza failed to admit, is that the only fixed charge Ekurhuleni could lawfully have implemented is much higher, at R142.51 and that these consumers are not the only ones who are lawfully required to pay considerably more than the amount implemented. To complicate matters further, on 1 July Ekurhuleni implemented the higher tariffs Nersa approved. After a storm of protest from councillors who relied on the numbers they approved with the budget, the city 'corrected its mistake' and reverted to the lower council-approved tariffs a day later. The amounts in the budget, which are currently implemented, and those Ekurhuleni asked Nersa to approve, differ substantially regarding residential customers in terms of fixed charges as well as the unit cost. ALSO READ: Ekurhuleni mayor to suspend electricity tariff hike after protests in Thembisa Nersa approved exactly what Ekurhuleni applied for. Schedule F – approved by council A2 Residential – non-indigent Nersa approved: Source: A resident of Ekurhuleni with a single-phase connection that is on this tariff, currently pays R627 (excluding Vat) if he uses 200 kWh/m according to the council-approved tariffs, while the tariffs approved by Nersa would have resulted in a bill of R708.25 for the same amount of electricity. The difference is more than 12% for single-phase customers. Those with a three-phase connection using the same amount of electricity would see an even bigger difference of 15%. That means Ekurhuleni added a considerable mark-up to the tariffs it consulted the public on and approved in council. Whether it was a mistake or a deliberate effort to mislead council and consumers about the extent of the increase, is not clear. ALSO READ: Experts warn of unintended consequences of giving in to Thembisa demands Moneyweb tried to engage the city about the matter, but was told by a spokesperson that the electricity tariffs are expected to be discussed in council on Thursday. Following Xhakaza's statement that the tariffs are based on a CoS study, the question arises how the city then arrived at two different sets of tariffs and if the council-approved tariffs that he quoted are indeed cost-based, why it would submit higher tariffs to Nersa that would result in an over-recovery. Further, did Nersa interrogate how the city arrived at the numbers? Electricity pricing expert Deon Conradie confirms that Ekurhuleni is not permitted to implement a different charge than was approved by Nersa, unless it goes back and applies for a change in the approved rates. He is of the opinion that the council as implementor can decide not to implement the tariff charge and take the loss of income on the chin, or stop the implementation temporarily until they have received approval from Nersa to change the tariff. How big that loss will be, is not clear at this stage. In the statement announcing the suspension, the city however states that the decision was taken after 'assessment of potential risks.' Several sources told Moneyweb they are trying to engage Nersa on the matter. Moneyweb sent questions to Nersa on 8 July, but has not received a response, despite several efforts to follow up on the enquiry. Nersa for the first time this year published both the tariff applications it received from municipalities as well as the approved tariffs. Conradie advises consumers in all municipalities to check these tariffs against those approved by council to make sure there are no discrepancies. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Eskom's court challenge to electricity trading licences is a dangerous reactionary strike against reform
Eskom's court application opposing the National Energy Regulator of South Africa's decision to issue five new electricity trading licences is not only regressive – it is dangerously disingenuous. In a filing to the Gauteng Division of the High Court on 24 July 2025, Eskom alleges that the National Energy Regulator of South Africa's (Nersa) decision represents a radical and unconsulted 'new policy' threatening to 'upend the entire landscape of electricity provision' in South Africa. This accusation reeks of institutional amnesia, denialism and resistance to long-standing reform commitments that Eskom itself has acknowledged for decades. Let us be clear: the liberalisation of South Africa's electricity sector is not new. The notion of third-party electricity trading, open access to the grid and competitive supply was explicitly articulated as early as 1998 in the White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa. The emergence of electricity traders is not a deviation – it is the fulfilment of a long-standing policy commitment. Eskom knows this. That seminal document – endorsed by the government and cited countless times by Eskom itself – called for the unbundling of Eskom and the creation of a competitive electricity supply industry to improve efficiency and ensure energy security. In the white paper the government unequivocally stated: 'The electricity sector will be gradually opened to greater competition, and the current single-buyer model will be reformed.' This included plans for retail competition and multiple electricity suppliers. Fast-forward to 2019, and the Department of Public Enterprises' Roadmap for Eskom in a Reformed Electricity Supply Industry reaffirmed this vision. It clearly mapped out the unbundling of Eskom into three independent businesses – generation, transmission and distribution – and explicitly supported the facilitation of competition in generation and supply. The Eskom roadmap stated: 'To enable fair and non-discriminatory access to the grid, electricity traders will be allowed access to customers, and mechanisms will be put in place to ensure equitable pricing.' In other words, the emergence of electricity traders is not a deviation – it is the fulfilment of a long-standing policy commitment. Eskom knows this. And yet, in a desperate attempt to cling to its monopoly, Eskom's court papers now argue that these licences represent 'a unilateral policy shift' that 'has not been the subject of public consultation'. That claim is not only false – it is egregiously dishonest. The five trading licences that Eskom now seeks to nullify were granted by Nersa after following due process, including public participation by Eskom itself, as mandated under both the Electricity Regulation Act of 2006 and the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act that came into effect on 1 January 2025. Eskom also had the opportunity to comment on the Acts themselves during the industry consultation process and parliamentary promulgation processes, and no doubt did so. By waiting until after the licences were granted to launch a legal challenge, reeks of strategic delay and corporate obstructionism. Retail competition is not 'poaching' – it is how liberalised and competitive energy markets function. Worse still is Eskom's inflammatory language. The utility claims that traders are now allowed to 'poach the best of Eskom's customers' without bearing any of the 'redistributive responsibilities' enabled by Eskom's current tariff structures. This argument is deliberately misleading. Eskom Distribution holds two distinct licences: a distribution licence, which grants it exclusive rights over the wires business in its service areas, and a trading licence, which is non-exclusive and places Eskom in direct competition with other energy retailers. The tariffs charged for network access are regulated and paid by the customer, regardless of who supplies the electricity. In other words, Eskom continues to recover its costs for maintaining infrastructure even when it loses customers to another licensed electrical energy trader. This is a thinly veiled attempt to weaponise social justice rhetoric in defence of institutional self-interest. To conflate distribution revenues with energy trading revenues – as Eskom does – is a sleight of hand aimed at preserving an outdated monopoly. Retail competition is not 'poaching' – it is how liberalised and competitive energy markets function. Eskom is free to compete for customers based on service quality, price and energy attributes such as green credentials. If Eskom cannot compete on those terms, that is a reflection on its product offering – not on the rules of the game. Even more farcical is Eskom's suggestion that allowing competition will cause prejudice to 'users of electricity generally, the many poor people reliant on subsidisation… and to the taxpayer.' This is a thinly veiled attempt to weaponise social justice rhetoric in defence of institutional self-interest. Eskom's bloated operating model, high losses and culture of inefficiency are the primary threats to affordability – not the emergence of competitors who can deliver electricity more efficiently or more sustainably. Let us also not forget: the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act, which came into force on 1 January 2025, was the result of years of public engagement and parliamentary debate. It entrenches the legal foundation for competitive electricity markets and affirms the legal standing of electricity traders. Eskom did not oppose this Act or its predecessor. It cannot now claim surprise. Furthermore, PowerX – South Africa's first licensed trader – was granted its licence as early as 2009, 16 years before this court application. The licensing of several other traders has followed. Eskom never challenged these licences. To now cry foul – after traders have operated for more than a decade and with policy clearly evolving towards competition – is both disingenuous and opportunistic. Instead of adapting to the market evolution it helped script, Eskom is now deploying legal tactics to delay the inevitable. Eskom's challenge also betrays a deep contradiction at the heart of its rhetoric. On one hand, it laments the risk to its revenue and its ability to cross-subsidise poor households. On the other, it has consistently failed to deliver on its service obligations to those very households – many of whom face load reduction, unaffordable tariffs or outright disconnection. What Eskom fears is not harm to the poor – it is the erosion of its customer base by more agile, customer-centric alternatives. The true risk to Eskom's business model is not Nersa's licensing of traders. It is Eskom's failure to reform itself in line with the policy it helped shape. This case reveals Eskom for what it is: a state-owned behemoth engaged in regulatory brinkmanship to preserve its dominance, even as the sector moves on. Instead of adapting to the market evolution it helped script, Eskom is now deploying legal tactics to delay the inevitable: a competitive, diversified electricity supply industry where customers have choice and innovation can flourish. If the court entertains Eskom's arguments, the result will be profound uncertainty for all prospective market entrants. It will deter investment, undermine regulatory credibility and signal that vested interests can override both law and policy. But if Eskom's challenge is dismissed – as it should be – it will reinforce the integrity of South Africa's electricity reform process and signal that the country is serious about enabling a modern, competitive energy sector. In conclusion, Eskom's court challenge is not merely a legal objection – it is a full-frontal assault on reform. It misrepresents the law, distorts policy history and manipulates socioeconomic concerns to shield its own inefficiencies. The courts – and the public – must see this for what it is: a desperate attempt to turn back the clock on two decades of progress. DM
