logo
30% electricity tariff increase is a reality, says Erasa

30% electricity tariff increase is a reality, says Erasa

The Citizen28-05-2025
New tariff structure threatens resellers' business model.
Resellers play an important role in the electricity value chain, especially in sectional title schemes – and households using less electricity are now being hit the hardest. Picture: Supplied
The Electricity Resellers Association of South Africa (Erasa) will this week decide on a strategy to address members' concerns about a looming 30% increase in electricity tariffs for most of the end-users they serve in Eskom distribution areas, according to chair Johan Hopley.
These are households that rent or own sectional title units and use on average 400kWh of electricity per month. They are generally already financially struggling, and such a sharp increase in electricity costs will drastically increase the risk of non-payment.
A change in Eskom's tariff structure poses a further threat to the resellers' business model as it limits their ability to recover a loss on higher winter tariffs during the summer months, says Hopley.
Electricity resellers play an important role in the electricity value chain, especially in sectional title schemes. In most cases, Eskom or the municipal distributor brings the electricity to one bulk connection point at the gate, so to speak, of the premises. The internal distribution is then done by the developer and managed in the long run with the assistance of a reseller.
The reseller buys from Eskom or the municipality at a bulk rate but is legally not allowed to sell it to end users at more than the approved retail tariffs of the local electricity distributor, be it Eskom or the municipality.
ALSO READ: Johannesburg's 2025/26 tariff increases — Here is how much more you could pay
Impact already being felt
According to Hopley, the first Eskom bills based on the new tariffs that were implemented on 1 April show an increase of 30% in buildings' bulk purchase cost.
A building in the East of Pretoria, for example, paid R357 921 (excluding Vat) to Eskom in May last year.
Based on the same number of units in May this year, the bill runs to R464 081 – a 30% increase.
Resellers must pass this on to end users who are expecting an increase of no more than the 12.74% that energy regulator Nersa approved for Eskom from 1 April.
That widely quoted number is, however, an average and does not reflect the much higher increases for those using less electricity every month.
ALSO READ: Nersa approves 12.7% electricity tariff hike for Eskom
A tenant or unit owner who used 400kWh in May last year and paid R1 177, will now have to pay R1 547 – an increase of 31%.
This may be a huge shock to smaller households that are already struggling to make ends meet, says Hopley, and may result in lower payment rates – which poses a huge risk for resellers.
If they use more electricity, the increase moderates. However, at 600kWh per month it is 28%, which is still pretty steep.
Even if they try to use less electricity, the impact will be limited due to Eskom's structural changes as the fixed monthly charges have increased from R195 to R367 per household.
The corresponding decrease in the price per kWh is small – from R2.95 to R2.45 (17%).
ALSO READ: Electricity tariffs: Ramokgopa reveals how much Eskom customers pay for usage per month
Seasonal hurdle for resellers
Hopley says the added complication is that Eskom's bulk tariffs are seasonal.
This means the reseller pays much more for electricity when winter tariffs apply – in June, July and August – than in the rest of the year.
The retail tariffs they must charge end users are however the same throughout the year.
Resellers, therefore, used to sell at a loss during the winter months but were able to make up for it during the nine summer months.
With the new tariffs, the loss in winter will be much bigger and in summer, the reseller may only break even, which is not at all sustainable.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Eskom's court challenge to electricity trading licences is a dangerous reactionary strike against reform
Eskom's court challenge to electricity trading licences is a dangerous reactionary strike against reform

Daily Maverick

time3 hours 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

Crypto Corner: Eskom could supply power to miners of another kind
Crypto Corner: Eskom could supply power to miners of another kind

Daily Maverick

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Maverick

Crypto Corner: Eskom could supply power to miners of another kind

By creating a high-demand, always-on customer base of bitcoin miners, Eskom could start monetising electricity it would otherwise waste. Eskom – yes, the power utility with R400-billion in debt that could barely keep the lights on in 2023 – is considering letting computers do what users no longer want to do: pay for its electricity. In 2024, South Africa experienced a 3% decline in electricity demand. Sounds bizarre in a country plagued by load shedding, right? But many households and businesses have been opting out of Eskom altogether and installing solar power. Enter bitcoin mining, which is basically the process of validating bitcoin transactions by solving complex cryptographic puzzles. It's ridiculously energy-hungry. The mining rigs – specialised machines using ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits) –run 24/7 and guzzle electricity like a first-time Comrades runner at a water station. This insatiable appetite for power is usually a problem. But for Eskom it could be a solution. Instead of letting unused electricity go to waste during off-peak periods, or as demand continues to decline, Eskom could divert it to bitcoin miners and get paid in the process. It's like the airline industry offering cheap last-minute seats to fill a flight – except instead of passengers, it's hash rates. And Eskom isn't pulling the idea out of the air. France is already cooking with bitcoin. French lawmakers are pushing a five-year plan to monetise excess electricity by building bitcoin mining infrastructure near nuclear and renewable power stations. By doing so, they hope to claw back up to R2.6-billion a year in lost revenue from surplus energy that would otherwise go unsold. The French also point to side benefits: improved grid stability, protection of plant infrastructure from load modulation fatigue and, interestingly, repurposing the heat produced by mining rigs for things like agriculture and heating buildings. This model has already worked in Iceland and Sweden. In these countries, bitcoin mining helps to use up excess geothermal or hydroelectric power while the waste heat warms greenhouses or nearby homes. Call it crypto climate control. Unlike France, Eskom's problem isn't too much green power. Here it's a collapse in customer demand and mounting debt. But the principle is the same. By creating a high-demand, always-on customer base (bitcoin miners), Eskom could start monetising electricity it would otherwise waste. And in a country where youth unemployment is a national crisis, imagine the economic knock-on effects of building bitcoin data centres in underused industrial zones. Old coal station towns could be reborn as crypto hubs, attracting local investment and creating jobs in electrical work, cooling tech, security, even logistics. DM

MPs' gift declarations highlight a mix of presents received in 2025
MPs' gift declarations highlight a mix of presents received in 2025

IOL News

time9 hours ago

  • IOL News

MPs' gift declarations highlight a mix of presents received in 2025

All the 400 public representatives complied with the declaration of financial interests for the first time in 2025. Image: File Cellphones, liquor, sheep, food parcels, books, tickets to watch sport and music shows as well as paid air travel and accommodation. These are some of the declarations made by MPs as contained in the Register of Members' Interests for 2025. The report was adopted and released by the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests on Friday after all 400 public representatives complied with the submission of their declarations within the stipulated deadline for the first time. 'No Member of Parliament submitted late. The committee commends this milestone,' said co-chairpersons Lusizo Makhubela and Henni Britz. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ Transport Minister Barbara Creecy and National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza are probably the envy of other MPs as they disclosed a long list of gifts during the year under review. Creecy listed, among her gifts, two King Shaka statues from Airport Company of South Africa, a book titled 'The Pig That Flew' from Evert de Ruiter, and a scarf valued at R1,200 from her French counterpart. Didiza declared an ostrich leather clutch bag and mohair blanket gifts from Agri-SA. Also pocketing along list of gifts was International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola. He received a self-painting from Ambassador Reynard Al-Akbari of the League of Arab States, a colour-changing mug and African print fabric from Mozambique High Commissioners, 15-year-old single malt whiskey, and a book titled 'Welcome to My Table' by Siba Mtongana from Assupol. DA leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen received 12 bottles of wine from Cape Point Vineyards and 12 assorted bottles of wine from Tim Hutchinson. The ostrich industry gave him an ostrich RSA flag and various ostrich plumes for display in the ministry offices in Pretoria, among others. Steenhuisen, who listed nothing under land ownership and property, disclosed a townhouse at Sea Point in Cape Town under rented property. EFF leader Julius Malema listed directorship in Mgagao Shamba farming business, as well as two sheep from BaPedi Queen, and a bottle of wine and chocolate from the Chinese embassy. He disclosed nothing under property and land ownership. Deputy President Paul Mashatile declared a portrait of himself from the National Youth Development Agency, a bottle of wine, and small grey bowl from the Japanese embassy, and a silver elephant statue display from the Indian Minister of External Affairs, among the gifts he obtained. MK Party John Hlophe made no disclosures under land and property ownership, rented property, and remuneration outside parliamentary work. While MK Party MP Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla also disclosed nothing under property and land, she stated that she rented a property in Waterfront, Cape Town. Patriotic Alliance leader Gayton McKenzie declared the de-registration of about 15 companies where he was director or in partnership. McKenzie listed owning a property in Kraaifontein in Cape Town and a R37,999 HONOR Magic V2 device from HONOR Device in China, as well as a R6,093 tea cup and saucer from the Russian Cultural Ministry. Al Jama-ah leader and Social Development Minister, Mogamad Hendricks, has shares in 12 companies with at least 15,000 shares valued at R961,342 with ABSA stockbroker. He listed directorship in seven companies, including his party. Hendricks listed four properties - a house, two plots, and an agricultural land – under property and land ownership. ACDP leader Kenneth Meshoe declared among his shares 100 Sanlam shares with a nominal value of R15,000 nominal and being preacher as remuneration outside parliamentary work. The South African Friends of Israel paid for his travel to the funeral of his daughter in Israel, and a Washington family paid for the flight and accommodation for his daughter's memorial service in the US. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana received no gifts during the year under review. Godongwana disclosed that he has three properties in the Eastern Cape and Gauteng. Police Minister Senzo Mchunu declared that he obtained a Huawei Pura 70 cellphone from the Chinese ambassador, and a goat and blanket from a community of Ulundi in KwaZulu-Natal. National Assembly House Chairperson Cedric Frolick made a declaration of 300 food parcels from the Chinese Consulate in Cape Town, five rugby tickets from SuperSport, and hospitality packages for the Durban July from Sanlam. Small Business Minister Stella Ndabeni declared that she received R85,000 tickets for the DSTV Delicious and tickets valued at R22,800 to the Chris Brown music show from MultiChoice and soccer game tickets valued at R6,600 from the Premier Soccer League.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store