Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-09-17 10:11:26 +02:00 | Vanita | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-09-17 10:09:06 +02:00 | Edwin | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | Majority of the society is unemployed so we should we pay? |
2026-09-13 12:46:46 +02:00 | Bruce | No I do not | Other | My Objection is all the 4 options x 100 but definitely NOT THE "NO CONCERN". |
2026-09-08 09:55:32 +02:00 | Ethan | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | South Africans are struggling to afford groceries and petrol and on top of this we must now pay even more for the luxury of having the lights on? This is completely unfair and will push South Africans further and further into poverty whilst politicians continue to line their pockets |
2026-09-07 08:32:19 +02:00 | Rosalynd | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-09-05 20:42:53 +02:00 | Priscilla | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-09-04 09:29:06 +02:00 | Franciscus | No I do not | Other | 1. What I am asking NERSA to do I object to any further increase in electricity charges — whether through the energy rate, the fixed charge, the Generation Capacity Charge, the Legacy Charge, or any RCA recovery. I ask the Regulator to hold charges flat in nominal terms, which is a real-terms decrease, and to pass any surplus back to consumers as an actual tariff reduction rather than a smoothed credit that disappears into the next determination. My reason is straightforward: on Eskom's own audited numbers, the utility is no longer in financial distress. It is now substantially profitable, and it became profitable by charging consumers more for less electricity. 2. Eskom's own results do not support a further increase Eskom's results for the year ended 31 March 2026 report: Profit after tax of R30.3 billion, more than double the R14 billion of the prior year — a second consecutive profitable year after eight years of losses. Profit before tax of R39.4 billion, up from R21.9 billion. EBITDA of R108.6 billion, up from R98 billion. Revenue of R354.7 billion, up 4.1%. Net debt down R45.3 billion to R313.3 billion. A regulated tariff exists to allow an efficient licensee to recover prudent costs plus a reasonable return. It does not exist to generate a doubling of net profit in a single year. When actual outcomes overshoot the regulatory assumptions this far, the correct regulatory response is to return value to consumers — not to grant a further increase on top. 3. The profit was produced by price, not by performance This is the part I ask the Regulator to weigh most carefully. Over the same year: Sales volumes fell 6.2%, from 189.7 TWh to 178 TWh. Sales to industrial customers slumped by 22.5%. Eskom sold materially less electricity and still grew revenue 4.1%. The entire revenue increase — and more — came from the 12.74% tariff increase granted for that year. Consumers did not receive more electricity, better service, or improved reliability in exchange for the higher price. They received a bill increase, and Eskom booked the difference as profit. A tariff structure that produces record profit on collapsing volumes is not evidence of a successful turnaround. It is evidence that price is being used to compensate for a shrinking customer base. 4. Higher charges are causing the demand destruction they are meant to fix The 22.5% collapse in industrial sales and the 6.2% overall volume decline are not abstractions — they are smelters curtailing, mines shutting, and customers installing solar to escape the tariff. Every one of those departures removes a contributor to Eskom's fixed cost base. The proposal to recover more of that fixed cost through fixed charges and a Generation Capacity Charge accelerates the problem rather than solving it. Fixed charges hit hardest exactly the customers who cannot leave — low-consumption households, pensioners, small businesses, and prepaid users — while the large customers whose departure created the shortfall are the ones best placed to keep leaving. This shifts an ever-larger fixed burden onto an ever-smaller captive base. That is a self-reinforcing spiral, and each increase tightens it. 5. Municipal arrears are evidence of unaffordability, not a reason to charge more Municipal debt to Eskom rose 17.9% to R111.6 billion at year-end and reached roughly R119 billion by June 2026. Eskom's own projections put it as high as R358 billion by FY2031 absent intervention. Arrears of that scale and trajectory are a demand-side affordability signal. Municipalities are not paying because their own customers cannot pay. Raising the tariff raises the amount that goes unpaid; it does not raise collections. The Regulator cannot approve increases into a market that is visibly failing to pay the current price and treat the resulting non-payment as a separate problem. 6. Consumers have already paid for the balance sheet repair Eskom's net debt fell by R45.3 billion in one year. That deleveraging was funded by tariff-paying consumers and, separately, by taxpayers through the National Treasury debt-relief arrangement. Consumers have therefore contributed twice to restoring Eskom's balance sheet. Having done so, they are entitled to see the benefit in their tariff — not to be asked for a third contribution while the utility reports its most profitable year in nearly a decade. 7. Relief sought I respectfully ask the Regulator to: Reject any further increase in fixed charges, the Generation Capacity Charge and the Legacy Charge, and hold the energy rate flat in nominal terms for the next tariff year — a real-terms decrease. Return the RCA balance determined in the consumer's favour as an immediate tariff reduction, not as a smoothed adjustment absorbed into a future increase. Introduce an explicit profit-sharing or clawback mechanism, so that where Eskom's actual returns materially exceed the return assumed in the price determination, the excess is automatically returned to consumers in the following tariff year. Require Eskom to demonstrate, before any further fixed-charge increase, why the shortfall cannot be met from the R30.3 billion in profit, the R108.6 billion in EBITDA, and from improved collection and cost efficiency. Publish an affordability and demand-elasticity assessment modelling the effect of the proposed charges on residential, small-business and industrial consumption, given the 6.2% and 22.5% volume declines already recorded. In exercising its powers under section 15 of the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006, the Regulator must balance the licensee's cost recovery against the interests of consumers and the wider economy. On this record — record profit, falling sales, industrial flight and escalating arrears — that balance requires a decrease, not an increase. |
2026-08-26 18:10:36 +02:00 | Alex | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | It is unjust to expect consumers to pay for rooftop solar after the Government/Eskom were encouraging this (and offering to pay towards cost) in the recent past to help them overcome loadshedding. |
2026-08-21 08:44:38 +02:00 | Jenni | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | Govt blunders and steals and consumers pay the price! NO MORE |
2026-08-17 08:56:00 +02:00 | Danie | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-08-14 19:34:05 +02:00 | Dieter | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-08-13 14:31:01 +02:00 | Nadia | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-08-12 17:50:05 +02:00 | Jan | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-08-12 16:42:18 +02:00 | Rudolf | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-08-04 08:46:11 +02:00 | Rosalie | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | |
2026-07-16 19:45:11 +02:00 | Monica | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | Ons kan nie vir hulle foute en gemors bly betaal nie. Dit moet stop. |
2026-06-05 12:30:30 +02:00 | jean | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | Eskom is entirely responsible for the lCk of maintenance. They must be entirely responsible for the wasted & neglected management of repairs & infrastructure. |
2026-05-22 14:05:17 +02:00 | Johan | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | Very poor management decisions. Does any one in NERSA understand or conceptualize a billion Rand? I would guess not! |
2026-05-04 07:12:09 +02:00 | Elmarie | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | Dit is onregverdig dat ons moet betaal vir ander se foute. Ek se dat die mense wat die foute gemaak het en die fondse misbruik het die gelde moet terugbetaal..dit is die middelklas mense wat dit aan hulle sak gaan voel . En wat van die mense wat minder as niks het nie. |
2026-05-04 07:12:09 +02:00 | Elmarie | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | Dit is onregverdig dat ons moet betaal vir ander se foute. Ek se dat die mense wat die foute gemaak het en die fondse misbruik het die gelde moet terugbetaal..dit is die middelklas mense wat dit aan hulle sak gaan voel . En wat van die mense wat minder as niks het nie. |
2026-04-30 17:27:53 +02:00 | Mohamed | No I do not | All of the above – we should not pay for government blunders | It’s not the civilians who’ve made a mistake, why must we pay? Do your job properly. |