Ekurhuleni mayor suspends controversial electricity surcharge after violent Thembisa protests
Thembisa residents took to the streets to air their frustration and demonstrate their rejection of the introduction of a fixed R126 electricity surcharge, which kicked in on July 1.
Major routes in Thembisa were blockaded by protesting community members.
Xhakaza said he understood the community's frustration.
'We understand where your frustrations are coming from and we would like to thank you for keeping the protest peaceful,' he said.
He added that the tariffs had gone through the integrated development plan (IDP) process.
'These tariffs are from Eskom's pricing structure and they were approved by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa).'
Xhakaza announced that the electricity surcharge had been suspended with immediate effect while they attempt to come up with a better solution.
Police had their hands full and fired rubber bullets to disperse the angry crowd which had blockaded streets with rocks, burning tyres and broken glass.
Thembisa ward councillors hosted a community meeting on Monday at Rabasotho community centre that ended abruptly after residents demanded the presence of senior City of Ekurhuleni officials to provide answers on tariff increases implemented from July 1.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
18 hours ago
- IOL News
NCOP approves Appropriation Bill and Eskom debt relief amendment
The National Council of Provinces has taken decisive action to bolster South Africa's economic future and address Eskom's financial crisis by passing the 2025 Appropriation Bill and the Eskom Debt Relief Amendment Bill during its plenary sitting on Wednesday. These legislative measures pave the way for government funding and address the financial woes plaguing Eskom, a central player in the nation's energy landscape. The Appropriation Bill holds a critical position within the national budget framework. Under Section 27(1) of the Public Finance Management Act, the Minister of Finance is obligated to table the annual budget before the National Assembly prior to the commencement of each financial year. This year's National Budget, encompassing both the Appropriation Bill and the Eskom Debt Relief Bill, was introduced in May. It follows the recent approval of the Bill in the National Assembly last week, subsequently sending it to the Select Committee on Appropriations for further consideration before returning to the NCOP for final adoption. This crucial Bill authorises the government to utilise public funds across various departments and entities, enabling them to provide essential services and invest in infrastructure projects and social programmes such as healthcare, education, and social grants.
Daily Maverick
a day 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
The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
Identifying the bugs in SA's long-promised infrastructure boom
Some, such as regulatory reform, are easily fixed. Now comes the hard part. SA's rail network needs about R300 billion invested in trains and track infrastructure to boost freight volumes from the current 160 million tons (Mt) to 250 Mt, according to James Holley, CEO of private rail operator Traxtion. The last time state logistics operator Transnet came close to this volume was in 2018, when it shipped 226 Mt. Eskom needs about R350 billion over 10 years to expand its transmission network and transformer capacity. On the logistics front, the good news is that the needed regulatory reform is well underway, with the separation of the rail infrastructure from Transnet itself being placed under an independent manager. This will allow private operators like Traxtion to compete for business on key corridors. Any discussion of reviving the SA economy must start with electricity and logistics – two chokepoints that have robbed SA of upwards of 10% in GDP. The recovery of even part of this will make a huge difference to job creation and business investment. Holley outlines some of the difficulties facing private entrants: a train set completing eight train trips in a month instead of six means a 33% jump in revenue. 'This cannot be achieved without high-quality track, signalling, and scheduling infrastructure. The national network is in poor condition, and with the fiscal constraints the country faces, the Private Sector Participation projects are our only route to efficiency,' he says. ALSO READ: How private sector can help with SA's infrastructure Private investors in rail infrastructure will want to earn a decent return from access fees charged to train operators. If volumes are low, access fees will have to increase and rail will become unaffordable. Government lacks the budget to fix either Eskom or Transnet, so private sector funding will be key. Anyone ploughing money into rail wants policy and regulatory certainty. If not, the cost of capital goes up, hence access agreements and concession terms must be designed to reduce risk for investors and lenders. There's progress too in reforming SA's electricity market, with Eskom being split into generation, transmission and distribution entities, while the Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill is intended to establish a competitive energy market under the management of an independent system operator. The latest national budget allocated R1 trillion to infrastructure over the next three years, with more than a third of this going to transport, R132.5 billion to water and more than R50 billion each for human settlements and municipal upgrades. However, government has a storied history of promising big infrastructure spending and then failing to deliver. The National Development Plan in 2012 promised to plough 10% of GDP annually into infrastructure but actual spend was 3% to 4%. Under former President Jacob Zuma, we had the infamous delays and cost overruns at Medupi and Kusile power stations which contributed to load shedding, while enriching politically connected elites. ALSO READ: Three budgets later, infrastructure investment amount still the same New study highlights bottlenecks A new study from the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) takes a broader look at how to accelerate infrastructure development in Africa and shows that SA is not alone in its disappointing performance. The complexity of negotiating projects across borders adds costs, delays and frustration to projects. A case in point is the Grand Inga Hydropower Project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It was intended to create the world's largest hydropower scheme, by phasing up to 40 000 megawatts to feed power to Africa and potentially Europe. There's no doubt about the project's technical feasibility, but what has strangled it is 'political instability, corruption, lack of credibility and an inability to secure the massive funding,' says the PIC. As a result, key funders have withdrawn from the project. Then there's the Abidjan-Lagos Corridor, connecting five West African countries with a six-lane highway. The original start date of January 2024 was missed due to the complexity of coordinating five countries and securing the massive $15.6 billion funding required. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (Gerd) is finally operating at 95% completion, after a decade of failed negotiations with Sudan and Egypt over water flow rights on the Nile. It has been generating power since February 2022, with cheap power being sold to bitcoin miners to generate extra revenue in off-peak times. The Lobito Atlantic Railway will connect mines in Zambia and DRC to the Angolan port of Lobito. It involves the rehabilitation and expansion of an existing corridor, with a new rail spur targeted for completion in 2026. Financing negotiations took more than two years, with the DRC section adding substantially to the overall cost. There are fears of funding cuts under the new administration of US President Donald Trump, adding more uncertainty to the project. ALSO READ: Treasury confirms R27bn World Bank loan to fix infrastructure Urgent African infrastructure 'Accelerating infrastructure development in Africa is not only necessary, it is urgent,' says the PIC. 'The continent's current economic trajectory, rapid population growth, and persistent gaps in access and service quality all point to the same conclusion: without a step change in the pace and scale of infrastructure delivery, Africa risks falling further behind in its pursuit of inclusive growth and structural transformation.' According to the African Development Bank, the continent requires investment of $130 billion to $170 billion a year to bridge this infrastructure gap. Energy systems remain underpowered, transport networks fragmented, water infrastructure insufficient, and digital connectivity far from universal. 'The persistence of corruption, poor inter-agency coordination, and a lack of project-ready pipelines continues to stall delivery,' adds the PIC. There's no shortage of excellent models to benchmark against, such as the Cities Development Initiative for Asia, which assists cities in preparing infrastructure projects by making sure they are bankable and ready to fire. ALSO READ: Public-private partnership: key to infrastructure transformation Rwanda created the Rwanda Development Board by merging multiple government agencies into a single point of contact for investors. South Africa formed the National Treasury Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) Unit to provide guidance on standardising contracts, training for public officials, building expertise in financial structuring and risk allocation to ensure infrastructure projects are bankable and effectively managed. The PIC urges policymakers to streamline regulations to facilitate private investment, with clear rules for domestic institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies, a strong local currency bond market, and unambiguous legal frameworks for public-private partnerships and blended finance. Much of what it advocates is relatively inexpensive to fix. The risk of not addressing these bugs is more years of foiled infrastructure promises and continuing economic atrophy. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
