summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Have your say on Eskom's application

In the Media

The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) has confirmed that it received, on August 16, Eskom’s sixth multiyear price determination (MYPD6) revenue application for the 2025/26, 2026/27 and 2027/28 financial years. In a statement the regulator said that the application would be processed in line with all required procedures, including an assessment of its regulatory compliance, after which it would be published for stakeholder comment and public consultation.

South Africa’s Electricity Minister, Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, pledges government intervention to prevent a steep 36% tariff increase by #Eskom. This move is to support economic growth and mitigate poverty. More renewable energy integration is anticipated.

South Africans, brace yourselves for yet another hefty blow from Eskom. The power utility is proposing a staggering 36% tariff hike – adding insult to injury after an 800% increase since 2007. With this, electricity may soon become a privilege that most South Africans cannot afford. Energy expert Mthunzi Luthuli joins us to examine the rationale behind these skyrocketing costs and whether such hikes are justifiable year after year. Tune in for an in-depth look at this brewing energy crisis.

Power utility Eskom has asked the National Energy Regulator of South Africa for a whopping 36 % increase in electricity tariffs for the 2025 financial year. This will be followed by 12 % for the 2026/27 financial year and an increase of 9% for 2027/2028. If approved, the price hike would allow Eskom to collect R446 Billion in revenue in 2026, R495 billion rand in 2027, and R537 billion in 2028. Nersa is calling for public comment, with the closing date for the submission of written comments at 4pm on the 1st of November. To talk more on this matter, we are joined virtually by Eskom chief financial officer Calib Cassim.

There’s growing outrage over Eskom’s proposed 36% electricity tariff hike for 2025. Many are calling for the National Energy Regulator of SA to reject the request as cash-strapped consumers battle high costs of living. Nersa’s decision is expected in December. Nersa’s acting electricity executive Welile Mkhize outlines Eskom’s cost drivers for this hike.

Engineering News editor Terence Creamer discusses power utility Eskom’s latest Multiyear Price Determination submission to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, as well as the next steps.

Consultation Paper

Download [604.55 KB]

Media Statement 

Download [181.53 KB]

MYPD6 Summary

Download [2.37 MB]

MYPD6 – Generation

Download [2.05 MB]

MYPD6 — Transmission

Download [1.41 MB]

MYPD6 – Generation

Download [2.05 MB]

MYPD6 — Distribution

Download [922.12 KB]

MYPD6 – Glossary

Download [283.25 KB]

STATEMENTS AND MEDIA RELEASES

Click on a logo to view.

Want to display your organisation’s statement? Click here. 

en English
af Afrikaansen Englishst Sesothoxh Xhosazu Zulufr Frenchpt Portuguese
Close

Freedom of Religion SA (FOR SA)

TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY FOR SA

I strongly oppose the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill [B9B – 2018], which I believe to be unconstitutional and unnecessary, for the following reasons:

  1. The Bill violates our constitutional rights as religious persons to express our religious beliefs without fear of punishment or persecution (section 15, read with section 16). Increasingly, around the world but also in South Africa, various holy scriptures (particularly on contentious issues) are regarded as “politically incorrect” or “offensive”, allegedly causing emotional and/or social harm.
  2. I specifically oppose the Bill’s:
    1. wide definition of “harm” (in Clause 1);
    2. the failure to define “hatred” (in Clause 1); and
    3. definition of, and creation of, the crime of “hate speech” (in Clause 4).
  3. The creation of the crime of “hate speech” for saying / distributing something which could possibly be construed as “harmful”, will have certain unintended consequences, namely the criminalisation of good / well-meaning people who will be prosecuted for saying what they sincerely believe (according to their holy texts) and sent to jail.
  4. There are already sufficient existing laws dealing with “hate speech”.
  5. For all of the reasons given, I ask:
    1. For the scrapping of the “hate speech” sections from the Bill altogether;
    2. Alternatively, should the “hate speech” provisions remain part of the Bill, we ask:
      1. That “harm” be defined as: “gross emotional and psychological detriment that objectively and severely undermines the human dignity of the targeted group”; and
      2. That “hatred” be defined as: “strong and deeply-felt emotions of enmity, ill-will, detestation, malevolence and vilification against members of an identifiable group, that implies that members of that group are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and subjected to ill-treatment based on their group affiliation”.
    3. That Clause 4(2)(d) (the “religious exemption clause”) be strengthened as follows to protect:
      “expression of any religious conviction, tenet, belief, teaching, doctrine or writings, by a religious organisation or an individual, in public or in private, to the extent that such expression does not actively support, instigate, exhort, or call for extreme detestation, vilification, enmity, ill-will and malevolence that constitutes incitement to cause gross emotional and psychological harm that severely undermines the dignity of the targeted group, based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation”.