Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-10-15 23:51:59 +02:00 | E | No I do not | All of the above | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes | Special lower pricing for pensioners,ow income and households where nobody can find work. |
2026-10-15 23:44:36 +02:00 | Liam | Not fully | Other | I support unbundled billing transparency, banning hidden municipal surpluses, capping prepaid vendor fees, and excluding power theft from allowed utility revenue, but demand statutory caps on fixed capacity fees, the removal of DUoS charges on solar exports, full bill offsetting for prosumers, and strict ring-fencing of industrial concessions from consumer tariffs. | |
2026-10-15 23:39:19 +02:00 | Brett | No I do not | All of the above | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes | |
2026-10-15 21:30:41 +02:00 | Wayne | Not fully | All of the above | Passing Theft, Non-Technical Losses & Bad Debts onto Paying Consumers | |
2026-10-15 21:09:36 +02:00 | Marli | No I do not | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes | ||
2026-10-15 20:52:36 +02:00 | Leigh | No I do not | All of the above | Municipal Hidden Surcharges & Diverted Electricity Revenues | |
2026-10-15 20:34:04 +02:00 | Elizabeth | No I do not | All of the above | Passing Theft, Non-Technical Losses & Bad Debts onto Paying Consumers | |
2026-10-15 19:27:32 +02:00 | Tshepo | No I do not | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes | Demand that NERSA impose a strict statutory cap on fixed network and capacity charges, ensuring fixed availability fees cannot exceed 15% to 20% of an average domestic electricity bill. Insist that low-usage and energy-conserving households be protected from fixed capacity charges that disproportionately penalise lower-middle-income families. Require utilities to absorb fixed infrastructure costs through internal operational efficiencies rather than shifting revenue risk entirely onto captive consumers. | |
2026-10-15 18:11:26 +02:00 | Christopher | No I do not | All of the above | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes | |
2026-10-15 17:42:53 +02:00 | Pragalathan | No I do not | Passing Theft, Non-Technical Losses & Bad Debts onto Paying Consumers | ||
2026-10-15 15:47:22 +02:00 | Sandra | No I do not | All of the above | Passing Theft, Non-Technical Losses & Bad Debts onto Paying Consumers | I do believe that there are employed citizens in gauteng that don’t pay their huge municipal bills and ate allowed to choose to pay over 6 months. Our electricity are switched off on Friday afternoons and only switched on after paying the WHOLE amount. Therefore it is unacceptable that some citizens have to pay higher municipal bills whilst many get away without paying. |
2026-10-15 15:45:52 +02:00 | Melissa | No I do not | All of the above | Municipal Hidden Surcharges & Diverted Electricity Revenues | |
2026-10-15 15:18:54 +02:00 | Marietjie | No I do not | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes | To date electricity fees have been extremely high, so how can fees and charges be increased even more? Can Eskom and the government please wake up and realise that the public cannot afford it any longer. It is true that we make use of the grid, but all these added costs are unaffordable. Please reconsider! | |
2026-10-15 14:39:37 +02:00 | Juan | No I do not | All of the above | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes | I support the objectives of greater transparency, cost-reflective pricing, improved accountability for municipal electricity revenues, limits on excessive losses and bad debt, and clearer separation of energy, network and service charges. However, I do not support the Revised Electricity Pricing Policy in its current form. My main concern is that the proposed structure may place an unfair and disproportionate burden on ordinary residential consumers, particularly low-usage households and households that have invested their own money in rooftop solar, battery storage and energy efficiency. I accept that maintaining the electricity grid has fixed costs and that customers who remain connected should contribute fairly toward those costs. However, fixed capacity and standby charges must be reasonable, transparent, independently justified and subject to clear limits. They should not become a mechanism for recovering lost electricity sales from customers who have reduced their dependence on the grid. I am particularly concerned about the treatment of rooftop solar customers. Charging network-related fees on exported electricity while also limiting the extent to which export credits can offset a customer’s total bill risks creating a punitive system for prosumers. Distributed generation provides value to the electricity system by reducing demand, improving resilience and contributing additional generation capacity. The tariff framework should recognise that value rather than discourage further private investment. Solar customers should receive fair compensation for electricity exported to the grid, and export credits should be allowed to offset a reasonable portion of the overall electricity bill. Any network charges applied to exports should be supported by a transparent cost-of-supply methodology demonstrating that those charges reflect genuine additional network costs. The policy must also protect low-income and low-consumption households from excessive fixed charges. A tariff system that significantly increases unavoidable monthly costs can undermine affordability even where households use very little electricity. I also strongly support strict ring-fencing of negotiated industrial electricity concessions. Residential and small-business consumers should not be required to subsidise discounted electricity supplied to large industrial users. Any negotiated pricing agreement should be transparent, independently regulated and structured so that any resulting revenue shortfall is not transferred to ordinary consumers. I therefore support the positive transparency and accountability reforms contained in the EPP, but request substantial amendments before implementation. These should include clear limits and regulatory safeguards for fixed charges, fair treatment of rooftop solar exports, meaningful bill offsetting for prosumers, affordability protections for low-usage households, and strict protection of residential consumers from the costs of industrial pricing concessions. The electricity pricing framework should ensure that consumers pay fairly for the services they use while also encouraging energy efficiency, private generation and investment in South Africa’s future electricity supply. |
2026-10-15 11:40:28 +02:00 | Sandra | No I do not | Mandatory Fixed Grid & Standby Charges on Solar and Low-Usage Homes |
-
- A Punitive “Sun Tax” on Private Capital and Self-Reliance:
When recurring load shedding crippled businesses and households, citizens invested tens of billions of Rands in private savings to install rooftop solar, inverters, and battery banks. Shifting electricity billing away from consumption (c/kWh) toward mandatory fixed monthly network and standby capacity charges (R/kVA, R/kW, or R/Amp/month) under Policy Positions 11(b), 15, 27, and 30 acts as an availability penalty. It erodes household investment returns, penalises energy conservation, extends solar payback periods by years, and locks low-volume consumers into high monthly billing floors regardless of how little electricity they consume. - Punitive Double-Charging and Restrictions on Solar Prosumers (Policy Position 33):
The draft policy penalises grid-tied embedded generators who inject clean power into the network. Prosumers are forced onto mandatory Time-of-Use tariffs and made to pay standard Distribution Use of System (DUoS) and Transmission (TUoS) charges on both the electricity they import and the electricity they export. Furthermore, prohibiting solar owners from using clean export credits to offset fixed monthly network and retail service charges destroys the financial viability of feeding power back into the grid, actively incentivising frustrated solar owners to defect entirely. - Scrapping Stepped Block Tariffs (IBRs) Hits Middle-Class Families (Policy Position 38):
Eliminating Inclining Block Rate (IBR) tariffs for standard domestic customers removes the traditional “pay-less-if-you-conserve” framework. Replacing stepped usage tiers with unbundled capacity fees, monthly service charges, and flat energy rates will trigger immediate bill shocks for low-to-middle-income ratepayers, pensioners on fixed incomes, and large multi-family households sharing a single meter who actively manage their consumption. - The Threat of Consumers Funding Industrial Smelter Discounts and Expanded Free Power:
Expanding concessional Negotiated Pricing Agreements (NPAs)—granting heavy industrial smelters discounted electricity (historically around 62 c/kWh)—under Policy Position 54 creates a massive revenue gap. At the same time, proposals to expand Free Basic Electricity (FBE) from 50 kWh up to 200–300 kWh per month without an expanded National Treasury grant risk multi-billion-rand deficits. Opponents and energy analysts warn that if these industrial and social shortfalls are not strictly ring-fenced and funded via the national fiscus, the deficit will be loaded onto standard consumer tariffs. - Municipal Fiscal Shocks and Retaliatory Rates Hikes (Policy Position 47):
Local councils rely on commercial electricity markups (often 15% to 35% above bulk Eskom tariffs) to cross-subsidise indigent households, sanitation, and municipal salaries. Eliminating non-transparent municipal surpluses without an alternative municipal funding model threatens local government solvency. This could prompt municipalities to counter revenue losses by introducing aggressive double-digit hikes on property rates, refuse, and water tariffs. - The “Cost-Reflective” Affordability Trap:
Historically, the regulatory push toward “cost-reflective tariffs” in South Africa has been administrative shorthand for compounding above-inflation tariff hikes. Imposing rigid mathematical cost-of-supply formulas during a prolonged cost-of-living crisis risks accelerating grid defection among high-paying consumers, shrinking the customer base, and deepening energy poverty across South Africa.
- A Punitive “Sun Tax” on Private Capital and Self-Reliance:
-
- Halting the “Utility Death Spiral” and Ending System Free-Riding:
Physical electricity grids carry substantial fixed capital, maintenance, and operational costs that exist regardless of how many kilowatt-hours are sold. When affluent consumers install rooftop solar and reduce volumetric consumption (c/kWh), the fixed costs of maintaining poles, wires, substations, and spinning generation reserves are pushed onto poorer, grid-reliant households. Mandatory fixed capacity charges (R/kVA, R/kW, or R/Amp/month) under Policy Positions 15, 27, and 30 ensure that every grid-connected property fairly covers the network infrastructure and standby backup capacity they rely on. - Transparent, Unbundled Billing Empowers the Consumer:
Replacing opaque, single-rate blended tariffs with unbundled line items (Policy Positions 2, 3, and 27) provides complete visibility over electricity costs. Invoices will explicitly detail wholesale energy generation, transmission usage (TUoS), distribution maintenance (DUoS), customer service fees, and municipal surcharges. This enables consumers to see the true cost drivers of their power supply and prevents distributors from concealing administrative bloat behind arbitrary per-unit markups. - Eliminating Hidden Municipal Surpluses and Slush Funds (Policy Position 47):
For decades, municipalities have used non-transparent electricity markups as an unregulated funding pool to plug operational deficits and pay unrelated administrative costs. Policy Position 47 explicitly outlaws un-ring-fenced, non-transparent electricity surpluses. Municipal base tariffs must strictly reflect NERSA-approved Costs of Supply (CoS), and any municipal surcharge (MSOE) must be transparently itemised and regulated under National Treasury’s Municipal Fiscal Powers and Functions Act. - Shielding Compliant Ratepayers from Theft, Losses, and Bad Debts (Policy Positions 42 & 43):
Policy Positions 42 and 43 introduce an essential ratepayer protection by requiring NERSA to set data-based benchmarks for non-technical losses (electricity theft/meter tampering) and municipal bad debt. Any power theft, uncollected debt, or distribution losses exceeding these approved regulatory standards must be removed from the licensee’s allowable revenue base. Utilities and dysfunctional municipalities can no longer force paying, law-abiding consumers to finance stolen power and uncollected municipal debt. - Equitable 50/50 Transmission Cost Allocation (Policy Position 19):
Under Policy Position 19, transmission network costs will be split 50/50 between generators and consumers, ending the historical regime where end-consumers carried 100% of the transmission cost burden. This creates locational pricing signals that encourage power plants to build closer to demand centres and ensures South African households do not subsidise transmission infrastructure used for cross-border power exports through the Southern African Power Pool (SAPP). - Capping Exploitative Prepaid Vending Fees (Policy Position 45):
Policy Position 45 addresses a significant consumer protection vulnerability by mandating NERSA to implement a standardized pricing framework within 12 months. Setting allowable service fees and commission caps on third-party vending platforms will eliminate predatory markups and ensure equitable, transparent token purchases for millions of prepaid electricity users.
- Halting the “Utility Death Spiral” and Ending System Free-Riding: