Here is Gauteng's load reduction schedule for this week
This week, several Eskom-serviced areas across Gauteng will be hit with yet another string of scheduled load reduction power cuts.
The utility's load reduction programme runs from Monday to Sunday.
During the scheduled outages, residents and businesses can expect power cuts lasting approximately six hours in some areas and five hours in others, with different time slots for each.
Affected areas under Eskom's load reduction schedule
According to Eskom's load reduction schedule, multiple areas throughout the province should brace for power cuts during peak periods.
Areas experiencing morning load reduction between 5am and 9am include Zuma, Mavimbela, Dube, Riverside and parts of Meadowlands.
Other affected areas include Mofolo, Jabavu, Chiawelo and various settlements across Gauteng.
Evening load reduction between 5pm and 10pm impacts regions including Protea Glen, Kagiso, Duduza and surrounding areas.
Other affected zones include Westonaria, Dobsonville, Naledi, Zola, Mabopane, and various extensions in surrounding regions.
The schedule operates on a seven-day rotation, with different areas affected on different days of the week.
This structure affords residents some predictability about when they might experience power outages.
This week, the affected areas include:
Beverly Hills
Daveyton
Cosmo City
Naledi
Breswol
Vosloorus
Cuba
Graceland
Spruit View
To see if your area is affected, click on or download the document below:
READ NEXT: Eskom burns nearly R6 billion on diesel to keep lights on during winter
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
3 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Former rugby player fined for failing to submit tax returns
The Paarl magistrate's court has fined former Springbok rugby player Schalk Burger Sr and his company Welbedacht Wines for failing to submit VAT, pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) and income tax returns. The court fined the company R6,000 on each count of failing to submit a VAT201 return for February 2023 and a monthly employer declaration return for March 2023. Burger, 69, was convicted on 14 counts, which included failure to submit a VAT201 return for February 2023, a monthly employer declaration (EMP201) return for March2023 and IT12 income tax returns for the period 2011 to 2022. He was fined R6,000 or 12 months imprisonment on each count, of which R2,000 or four months imprisonment was suspended for five years. 'This amounts to a payable fine of R56,000, or 112 months imprisonment and a further R28,000 or 56 months imprisonment suspended for five years on specific conditions,' National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson Eric Ntabazalila said. Burger successfully requested the court to grant him a deferred fine and was ordered to pay the R56,000 in instalments of R6,000 per month and a final payment of R8,000. The accused entered into a plea and sentence agreement with the state. The court confirmed the agreement and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. According to the agreement, Burger admitted that Welbedacht Wines was registered for VAT and PAYE at the Paarl office of the South African Revenue Services. Burger failed to submit the returns on behalf of the company. In addition, Burger, in his personal capacity, was registered for income tax at the Paarl Sars office . 'Following his successful registration for e-filing in 2011, he failed to submit his IT12 income tax returns for the tax years of 2011 to 2022. This was despite Sars' best efforts to encourage all taxpayers to submit their income tax returns.' It was only after the institution of a prosecution and his being summoned to appear in court that he submitted all outstanding returns relating to himself and his company, and both are currently tax compliant. 'The accused's son, Christiaan Francois Burger, was on July 21 also convicted and sentenced on 12 counts of failing to submit his IT12 personal income tax returns for the 2011 to 2022 period.' The 40-year-old was sentenced to a fine of R48,000 or 96 months imprisonment, and a further R24,000 or 48 months imprisonment, suspended for five years on conditions. The NPA said the sentence sent a strong message of deterrence. 'With the filing season for income tax currently under way, this is a clear message that failure by persons and juristic persons to file their Income Tax returns will not be tolerated. It is a serious offence that impacts negatively on the fiscus,' he said.
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Ramokgopa defends Eskom's R5 billion diesel spend to prevent load shedding
Mthobisi Nozulela | Published 7 hours ago Minister of Electricity and Energy Kgosientsho Ramokgopa has defended Eskom's heavy use of diesel this winter, saying it was necessary to avoid load shedding during peak demand. Speaking at a press briefing on Wednesday morning, Ramokgopa gave an update on the state of the electricity grid and admitted that Eskom faced significant challenges at the start of the financial year. "It's not a secret that we experienced significant challenges at the beginning of the financial year in April, and we relied more and more on diesel to be able to support us," Ramokgopa said. Ramokgopa explained that diesel use is part of Eskom's emergency response plan for periods of high risk, especially in winter. "This diesel was able to support us because it is meant to support us during those periods of difficulty. Of course, the budget for the diesel is about R12 billion or so. "We have spent about R5 billion of that, and the next question you might ask is why, at the beginning of the financial year, you have spent over 40% of your annual allocation". He further added that the increased diesel use is a strategic response to the heightened risk during winter months, when electricity demand peaks and the ageing power infrastructure is more vulnerable to breakdowns. "It's because it's during winter when the intensity of the demand reaches its peak, and then when we're likely to experience challenges if some units fail because we don't have the headroom to be able to absorb those failures of the units." "So what do we do? We then call on our ace card, which is the pickers to come and help us. Just to give you context for the period of 1 April to 31 August in 2023, just that period, we used about R14.8 billion [email protected] IOL Business Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Brian Molefe's legal troubles deepen as AIG sues for R4. 4m over defence costs
Insurance company AIG South Africa is gunning for former Eskom chief executive Brian Molefe in a multimillion-rand lawsuit. Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi / Independent Newspapers uMkhonto weSizwe Party MP and former Eskom chief executive Brian Molefe is facing more legal woes after an insurance company slapped the erstwhile Transnet boss with a R4.4 million lawsuit. AIG South Africa signed a written management liability insurance policy with Eskom in April 2017. In terms of the policy, AIG agreed to provide liability cover to the power utility's directors, officers, and employees, including those in its subsidiaries. Each insured person was insured independently and separately for their respective interests, according to the policy. Molefe, in his capacity as chief executive of Eskom, qualified as an insured person under the policy and was eligible, subject to its terms and conditions, to indemnification during his time at the state-owned entity. The policy made provision that AIG will advance cover for liability insurance, being the obligation to pay to or on behalf of an insured person any loss incurred by the insured person. In Molefe's case, AIG agreed to pay for his defence costs on condition that if it was found by a court that he had gained a profit or an advantage to which he was not legally entitled or that there was a commission of a dishonesty or deliberate fraudulent act, then he would have to repay the costs that had been disbursed or that would be disbursed to him or on his behalf. The insurance company disbursed the sum of approximately R4,398,849 (about R4.4m) for his defence costs. However, various judgments were delivered against Molefe by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and the Constitutional Court, which determined that his conduct was unlawful. The matter relates to Molefe unsuccessfully applying for leave to appeal to both the SCA and the apex court, an earlier Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, judgment finding that his reinstatement as Eskom chief executive was at variance with the principle of legality and reviewing and setting aside the board's decision to accept his early retirement proposal in November 2016. The high court also reviewed and set aside the decision by then Public Enterprises minister Lynne Brown to appoint and reinstate Molefe to the position of Eskom chief executive and declared that any payment or sum of money received by Molefe under any purported pension agreement between him and Eskom is invalid and ordered him to repay such amounts within 10 days. AIG informed Molefe of its intention to institute legal proceedings and claim the provision of his defence costs, and that he accepted the benefits conferred on him by the policy and agreed to be bound by its terms. The company told Molefe in October 2017 that it would advance defence costs to him on a without prejudice basis, and, on the basis that should it eventuate in due course that he was not entitled to an indemnity under the policy, he would refund such costs in full and on demand. Molefe maintained that he did not agree to the provisions of the policy and is not bound by it, as well as that he did not agree to repay the defence costs He also insisted that an arbitration clause in the policy compelled AIG to refer disputes on the recovery of the defence costs to arbitration and raised a special plea in the pending action by the company that its case be dismissed or stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. On August 1, Judge Allyson Crutchfield ordered that the disputes in respect of the claim instituted by AIG shall not be referred to arbitration. The judge found that Molefe's stance that he is not bound by the policy while simultaneously relying upon and claiming the enforcement of the arbitration clause in respect of AIG's claims was untenable and not sustainable in law.
