Eskom proceeds with court challenge to five trading licences
Eskom has made good on its earlier threat to challenge in court energy regulator Nersa's granting of licences for electricity trading.
It wants trading rules to be finalised first and even suggests that traders contribute to the payment of municipalities' R100 billion arrear debt for bulk purchases.
Following Nersa's publication of the reasons for its decisions, Eskom has launched an application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court to have the granting of five trading and one import/export licence reviewed and set aside.
The respondents are Nersa and the five licensees: Green Electron Market, CBI Electric Apollo, GreenCo Power Services, Discovery Green and Noa Group Trading.
This comes more than decade after the first electricity trading licence was granted to PowerX. Nersa has so far granted around ten such licences.
According to the agenda, the regulator will consider two more trading licences and two import/export licences at its 30 July meeting, as well as an application by a municipality for separate distribution and trading licences. If granted, Eskom may join the new licensees to the action.
Traders, also referred to as aggregators, are essentially middle-men between independent power producers and end-users. They enter into agreements with multiple generators and sell to multiple customers with diverse energy requirements, at a margin to compensate them for taking some of the risk.
This enables especially smaller businesses to access renewable energy despite being unable to take the full production of a specific independent power producer or enter into a 20-year off-take agreement.
ALSO READ: Electricity trading? Not so fast, says Eskom
Eskom's argument
In an affidavit in support of the application, Eskom senior manager for legal matters Mohlago Masekela says the licensing decisions 'form the beginning of a fundamental change of policy by Nersa that has not been the subject of public consultation and the implications of which appear not to have been explored by Nersa.'
According to Masekela it will 'upend the entire landscape of electricity provision in this country, without taking meaningful steps to understand the consequences before doing so.
'Under the guise of promoting competition and labouring under material misapprehensions about the law and the facts, Nersa has allowed a free-for-all in which traders are allowed to poach the best of Eskom's customers without carrying any of the redistributive obligations that the tariffs paid by those customers to Eskom enable Eskom to discharge.'
Eskom contends that its distribution licences and those of municipalities, grant them the exclusive right to distribute and trade in electricity in the licensed distribution areas. It relies on Nersa's distribution rules that prohibit two or more distributors to operate in the same area.
According to the utility, no rules have ever been made to deal with electricity trading as a separate licensed activity. Although Nersa has acknowledged the need for such rules and has embarked on a process to finalise it, it proceeded to approve trading licences in the meantime. This, Eskom states, is irrational.
Eskom submits it is not possible to lawfully issue individual trading licences on an ad hoc basis, without considering the impact on the businesses of Eskom and municipalities of traders cherry-picking its best clients and setting conditions to balance the rights of such traders with those of Eskom and the municipalities.
ALSO READ: Nersa approves cross-border electricity trading
Eskom argued that instead of promoting competition, the granting of the trading licences will lead to unfair competition, because traders will have the flexibility to offer large power users, that are consistent payers, discount tariffs, while Eskom is bound to regulated prices.
The utility states that 'simply opening up a free-for-all for traders in areas of supply previously provided by either Eskom or a municipality, has the potential of causing profound risk to the viability of the system'.
'Eskom continues to hold the various obligations arising from the obligations in its distribution licences, but can now have its most reliable and lucrative customers taken from it by traders given permission to trade in the same area of supply.'
It continues: 'Ultimately, since it is funded by both the taxpayer (in the form of government assistance given in the recent past) and the electricity consumer, it is taxpayers and smaller electricity consumers who are not attractive to traders, who will pay the price for this.'
Some of the issues Eskom believes should be addressed in the trading rules include which customers will be allowed to chose who they buy electricity from, thereby demarcating the trading market.
If customers are for example allowed to buy from a trader, but top-up continuously or on an ad hoc basis from Eskom's supply, the rules could provide for Eskom to set differentiated tariffs in such cases 'that reflect the true cost of providing these specific services.'
ALSO READ: Presidency 'very concerned' about licence for Eskom transmission unit
Eskom further suggests that the matter of the R100 billion-odd arrear municipal debt must be dealt with in the trading rules by restricting traders from operating in defaulting areas or establishing a financial clearing house that prioritises the payment of Eskom arrears before disbursing revenue to traders.
It suggests that the cross-subsidisation regime should be preserved, with traders being required to contribute to a subsidy pool or municipal support levy.
It is not yet clear whether Nersa and the five traders will oppose Eskom's application.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
7 hours ago
- The Citizen
These ships have finally sailed – bye Karpowership!
South Africa is now finally free of the 20 year, R200 billion shackle in the form of the Karpowerships that would have destroyed our economy. In the dark days of load shedding when South Africans had more hours of no electricity than hours with electricity, consumers were starting to think that the Karpowerships – that would have cost the country about R200 billion over 20 years – would not be such a bad idea. Thankfully, load shedding became a thing of the past and government decided to scrap the project where it would have commissioned three Karpowerships to help the country with power and get rid of load shedding. Many South Africans and civil society organisations were not happy with the decision to supplement South Africa's electricity grid this way, and the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) asked the courts to overturn the decision. Recently, the high court did just that and issued an order declaring the Karpowership licences invalid and overturned them. Recently, the Pretoria High Court did just that. It granted outa an order ruling that the three Karpowership electricity generation licences issued are invalid and overturned them. The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) issued the licences that were a crucial step in government's plan to sign 20-year deals with the floating power stations as 'emergency' electricity. The deals were expected to have cost about R200 billion over the 20 years, an amount that would have been added to the price of electricity. ALSO READ: Karpowership project gets green light, a costly gamble? Outa's three year fight against Karpowership and Nersa in 2022 Outa filed its case on 26 April 2022 and called for the court to review Nersa's decision to grant the licences. It resulted in a three-year fight, including a long dispute over access to documents. Adv Stephanie Fick, executive director of Outa, says they believe 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 and Fick says 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 onto your electricity bill. 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.' According to the court order, the 'decision of the first respondent [Nersa] to award a generation licence to the second respondent [Karpowership]' was 'reviewed and set aside' for each of the three generation licences. The court order also confirmed a settlement agreement between Outa and Nersa. Karpowership was cited in the case and initially opposed it but withdrew a few months ago. As part of the settlement agreement, Nersa agreed to withdraw its opposition to Outa's review application and the court formally set aside the impugned licences. In addition, the court ordered Nersa to pay the costs of the application on a party-and-party scale, including fees for two counsel. Fick says this reflects the seriousness of the matter and the substantial public interest involved. ALSO READ: 'It's buried': Ramokgopa says Karpowership deal 'dead in the water' Karpowership had no environmental impact studies or agreements with Eskom The Karpowership generation licences were issued in 2021 as part of the Risk Mitigation Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme, which aimed to urgently address South Africa's electricity shortfall. Outa's review application cited multiple legal and procedural concerns, including: The absence of required environmental authorisations and port approvals; The lack of confirmed power purchase agreements with Eskom; Criminal investigations pending against the Karpowership entities; and Significant long-term financial risks to the public without adequate regulatory scrutiny. Fick says the case was delayed for nearly two years due to disputes over access to the administrative record. Outa demanded a copy of the full record of Nersa's decisions, with the full reasons for the decisions, as part of the review process. However, Nersa and Karpowership objected. After a court order compelling the production of documents in 2024, the Karpowership entities were liquidated and their attorneys withdrew from the matter in June 2025. Despite the lack of opposition, Outa pushed to ensure the matter was formally adjudicated and made part of the public record through an order of court. The full record was eventually made available, but parts are blocked from public access. 'This is not just a legal win but a win for public interest litigation. This case reinforces the principle that even when government acts urgently, the law and due process cannot be ignored,' Fick said. 'This judgment protects the public from being locked into a flawed and costly energy deal and it strengthens the principle that administrative decisions must be lawful, rational and in the public interest.'
The Citizen
16 hours ago
- The Citizen
17% of SA's electricity consumed by a few giant consumers
Among them is South32, which owns the KZN Hillside aluminium smelter. It's 2025 discount could subsidise electricity costs of nearly 700 000 households. A recent investigation by Open Secrets laid bare the sweetheart deal that allows South32's Hillside aluminium smelter in KwaZulu-Natal to consume about 6% of Eskom's electricity output – while paying roughly half the normal tariff. That figure rises to nearly 9% when South32's Mozal smelter in Mozambique is added to the picture. The extent of the discount enjoyed by South32 is outlined in a negotiated pricing agreement (NPA) recently disclosed by Eskom to Open Secrets. 'The energy consumed by Hillside is equivalent to approximately six large ferrochrome smelters. The consumption is an equivalent of 1 300GWh (gigawatt hours),' according to the NPA with Eskom. A calculation by the Democratic Alliance spokesperson on electricity and energy, Kevin Mileham, shows 17.27% of Eskom's electricity is consumed through these NPAs or via international sales. 'What is shocking is that this 17.27% only generates 8.5% of Eskom's revenue from the sale of electricity,' he says. Based on this calculation, a few energy-intensive consumers are paying roughly half of what the rest of the country pays. While the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) recently approved a 24.3% tariff hike over the next three years, South32's NPA guarantees it producer price inflation (running at about 1% this year) plus 1.25%. The agreement allows Eskom to shut off its power for a maximum of two hours at a time for up to 104 hours a year. ALSO READ: 30% electricity tariff increase is a reality, says Erasa Mileham welcomes the recent announcement by electricity and Energy Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa that a review of electricity pricing policy is now a priority. One customer knocking on the door for a better electricity pricing deal is ArcelorMittal SA (Amsa), which has been vocal about the 835% increase in its electricity tariff increase over the last decade. This hike has been a major contributor to its financial woes and the R5.1 billion headline loss reported for the 2024 financial year. The government is dangling all sorts of carrots to stop its threatened shut down of its long-steel plants, and a preferential electricity tariff is one of the carrots being considered. Regulated prices charged by government-owned entities such as Eskom and Transnet are running at an average inflation rate of 9.7% – well above the rest of the economy, which is at about 4.5%. The SA Reserve Bank wants to set an inflation target of 3%, but achieving this will require getting these regulated prices under some sort of control. ALSO READ: Nersa's municipal tariff process flawed, says Sapoa Good deal or not? Responding to Moneyweb's request for comment, South32 points to Hillside's significant contribution to SA's economy in employing 2 300 people directly and a further 27 400 indirectly. 'It has played a key role in South Africa's domestic aluminium industry as a supplier to local companies that manufacture products for sale domestically and abroad. 'Hillside plays an important role in keeping the South African electricity grid stable and helps to manage load shedding through the suspension of power to potlines at critical times. Despite limited loadshedding across South Africa during the past year, suspension of power to potlines at Hillside has continued during this period in order to support Eskom in managing South Africa's electricity grid,' says a spokesperson for South32 (see the full response below*). Hillside's initial preferential tariff was linked to the London Metal Exchange price for aluminium and the US dollar-rand exchange rate, and dates back to the 1990s, when Eskom had surplus power. Then, it was only too happy to sign up a large anchor consumer capable of absorbing some of this surplus power, but – despite warnings from Eskom and others of a looming power shortage – government sat on its hands until forced to green-light the grossly over-priced and seriously delayed Medupi and Kusile power stations in the late 2000s. A new agreement was signed with South32 in 2021, the details of which remained a secret until recently. Hillside was formerly owned by BHP and acquired by South32 in 2015 as part of BHP's divestment from SA. The current Hillside contract (2021) does not contain commodity price and exchange rate sharing. ALSO READ: Grim impact of soaring electricity prices on South Africans revealed According to Open Secrets, the initial (pre-2021) agreement sparked outrage when it was made public, as it showed former owner BHP was paying only 15% the tariff charged to ordinary consumers. South32 says it is unable to verify this, as Meridian Economics ran the numbers for Open Secrets comparing the Hillside tariffs with the standard 'Megaflex' tariff [for large industry and mines]. Meridian conservatively estimated the discount for the current financial year at about R10 billion, with South32 having already benefited from about R25 billion in lower electricity prices since the deal was struck. Over the full 10-year agreement, Meridian estimates the total discount will be about 50% – around R92 billion in forgone Eskom revenue. The R10 billion discount for 2025 is sufficient to subsidise the electricity costs of nearly 700 000 households, supporting 2.5 million South Africans. South32 responds that the cost to Eskom of supplying bulk power to a single major customer like Hillside is significantly lower than the cost of supplying to thousands of smaller or individual customers. Says Open Secrets: 'It is also worth reflecting on how much this could contribute to South Africa's energy transition. South32's discount for this year – R10 billion – is nearly three times the total grant funds disbursed to the Just Energy Transition Partnership over the past three years.' ALSO READ: ArcelorMittal long steel business closing for good due to policy inaction In motivating the NPA with Hillside, Eskom argued that the Hillside smelter would not be viable under the standard Megaflex tariff. 'In the absence of this proposed NPA, the Hillside smelter would close, with resultant negative consequences. The need for an incentivised energy pricing arrangement is the reality for aluminium smelters worldwide,' stated the utility. 'Without an appropriate NPA, there would be zero electricity sales and zero revenue to Eskom from the Hillside smelter. The proposed pricing arrangement should not be viewed as a discount, as it has been structured to result in a more cost reflective tariff and ensure that all applicable costs are recovered and a positive contribution is made to fixed costs.' Eskom goes on to argue that the proposed NPA would be advantageous to both Eskom and other customers 'as it is at a higher price than the existing NPAs'. 'The loss of the Hillside smelter sales and loss of the positive contribution to fixed costs would result in a higher tariff increase requirement, as other customers would have to make up this contribution.' ALSO READ: Electricity tariffs: Ramokgopa reveals how much Eskom customers pay for usage per month The NPA was supported by the government as well as Nersa, which had to be satisfied that the NPA tariff was above Eskom's cost of supply, allowed Eskom to make a reasonable return, and was not being subsidised by other electricity customers. Mileham says an appropriate question to ask is whether the Hillside NPA – and others like it – are in the best interests of the country and all its citizens. 'I would argue that we would see faster economic growth without having these preferential tariffs, and bear in mind that Hillside's profits don't stay in SA, they end up in Australia.' *South32's full response: 'Hillside Aluminium is a significant contributor to South Africa's national economy and a major employer. It employed over 2 300 employees and contractors in FY24 and supports a further estimated 27 400 indirect employment opportunities in the economy. 'It has played a key role in South Africa's domestic aluminium industry as a supplier to local companies that manufacture products for sale domestically and abroad. 'Hillside plays an important role in keeping the South African electricity grid stable and helps to manage load shedding through the suspension of power to potlines at critical times. Despite limited load shedding across South Africa during the past year, suspension of power to potlines at Hillside has continued during this period in order to support Eskom in managing South Africa's electricity grid. 'The pricing agreement for Hillside reflects the SA government's policy to support strategic industries that create value for the nation. It was approved by Nersa, following consideration of a range of factors. It helps the smelter to remain internationally competitive so it can continue to deliver these significant benefits to South Africa. 'Eskom outlined its rationale for the pricing agreement in a publicly available submission to Nersa in February 2021. In its submission, Eskom noted Hillside's role in supporting stability of the electricity grid. It also noted that the NPA would be advantageous to both Eskom and other customers. 'When it publicly outlined its rationale for supporting the agreement, Nersa stated there was a 'net benefit to the rest of the customer base in putting this agreement in place.' This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Minister Macpherson to address media as exposé of IDT officials' bribery bid reverberates across SA
Minister of Public Works Dean Macpherson is expected to respond to the details of an explosive exposé by Daily Maverick of an attempted bribery of one of its investigative journalists by the suspended Independent Development Trust CEO and her spokesperson. ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula has called for suspended Independent Development Trust (IDT) CEO Tebogo Malaka and her spokesperson Phasha Makgolane to face the law 'if they are implicated in bribery'. Meanwhile, Minister of Public Works Dean Macpherson is expected to address the media on Thursday following an explosive exposé by Daily Maverick of an attempted bribery of one of its investigative journalists by the two IDT officials. On Tuesday, Daily Maverick carried video footage and recordings of this blatant attempt to bribe its journalist, Pieter-Louis Myburgh. Suspended IDT CEO Malaka and spokesperson Makgolane attempted to pay Daily Maverick investigative journalist Pieter-Louis Myburgh R60,000 in cash over the weekend to suppress an investigation into Malaka's personal dealings and questionable IDT contracts. The IDT, a very important, if lesser known, government body, spends upwards of R4-billion each year on social infrastructure projects, such as building schools and clinics, and falls under the Ministry of Public Works. Macpherson last week released a forensic report into a R836-million oxygen tender awarded to a ghost company that was first exposed by Daily Maverick. The report recommended that Malaka be suspended. Malaka was placed on precautionary suspension on Friday. Now Macpherson's remarks at Wednesday's briefing are expected to set the tone for the government's broader response. The attempted bribe, which took place during a meeting in Stellenbosch, was captured on camera. Myburgh photographed the cash, delivered in a white Dior shopping bag, and recorded video and audio of the exchange. Makgolane also sweetened the offer with promises of R100,000 in monthly payments and influence over IDT tenders. In a statement on the briefing, his department confirmed that Macpherson would respond directly to the 'serious allegations by Daily Maverick that Malaka sought to bribe journalist Pieter-Louis Myburgh'. Posting to social platform X yesterday morning, Macpherson said he planned to consult with the IDT board later in the day. The statement also warned that the matter appeared to be part of 'what is now likely a paid-for public campaign aimed at discrediting [Macpherson's] efforts to bring stability and good governance to the entity'. It suggests deeper political and institutional tensions may be at play, especially as Macpherson has been spearheading reform efforts at the IDT. On 22 January, the EFF accused Macpherson of 'brazen and corrupt interference' in IDT affairs, citing an incident where he allegedly instructed staff to process a questionable payment to a construction company. The party claimed that Macpherson had unfairly targeted Malaka and used the PSA oxygen plant tender as a pretext for political interference. EFF secretary-general Marshall Dlamini opened a criminal case of corruption against the minister on 22 January 2025. IDT promises full response While remaining tight-lipped on the details, IDT spokesperson Lerato Modisana said the IDT acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations. The IDT board convened on Wednesday, 6 August, to 'deliberate comprehensively on these matters'. However, Modisana said the IDT was not at this stage in a position to respond to specific media enquiries. The organisation pledged to uphold 'transparency, accountability and good governance' and promised that 'a detailed response will be provided in due course, once the board has fully considered all the relevant facts and implications'. What everyone wants to know Daily Maverick's exposé has garnered significant attention from other media, including radio broadcasts. Readers applauded Myburgh's efforts, while some wondered at the sheer audacity of the brazen bribery attempt. Reader Eddie Maulson summed it up: 'One is gobsmacked at the lack of thought that went into this outrageous attempt at bribery, not to mention the effrontery that these individuals show in their lamentable assumption that they could bribe a man of PLM's integrity in such a crass manner.' A history of red flags Malaka was already under scrutiny, having been placed on precautionary suspension days before the footage emerged on 1 August 2025, following the release of a PwC forensic report into the R836-million PSA oxygen plant project. That report, spurred by Daily Maverick investigations in October 2024, recommended disciplinary action for Malaka, citing her failure to prevent or address serious violations in the project's procurement. The IDT has long struggled with governance and accountability, facing repeated criticism over failed projects and procurement lapses, eroding public confidence in the agency's leadership. DM
