ELM & Eskom: ‘Do not use these banking details'
Gugulethu Kgongoane Less than a minute
ELM & Eskom: 'Do not use these banking details'
EMFULENI – Eskom and Emfuleni Local Municipality say they aware of a fraudulent letter circulating with incorrect banking details.
The letter falsely instructs customers to make electricity payments to an unauthorised account.
In a statement Eskom advises customers within the Emfuleni municipality area to use only the official Eskom-issued banking details below for electricity payments:
Bank Name: First National Bank
Account Number: 50851624426
Branch Code: 223626
Reference: Your Emfuleni Account Number
Proof of payment must be sent to:
[email protected] and [email protected]
No other banking details should be used under any circumstances.
At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
A Call for coherent, inclusive and just reform of the Draft IRP 2023
Anda Bici 14 July 2025 | 13:00 Picture: © vencavolrab78/ South Africa's energy planning must be grounded in national sovereignty, constitutional justice, and developmental realism. Yet, the Draft Integrated Resource Plan 2023 reflects none of these imperatives. At a time when the world's most powerful economies are recasting energy as an enabler of industrial advantage and national resilience, South Africa is adopting externally influenced decarbonisation targets that ignore its endowments, institutional capacity, and socioeconomic fragility. Globally, countries such as China and the United States continue to pursue energy strategies that safeguard their resource sovereignty and industrial competitiveness. China has expanded coal capacity as a means of economic insurance. The United States has ramped up LNG infrastructure and fossil approvals while framing climate commitments in flexible, nationally determined terms. Both have embedded their energy policy in sovereign development logic. By contrast, South Africa finds itself mimicking first world climate frameworks while grappling with third world energy insecurity. The country sits on vast coal reserves, faces prolonged grid instability, youth unemployment, collapsing infrastructure, and underperforming state utilities, yet continues to subordinate national development to externally defined climate metrics. These contradictions are not simply poor planning but legally unsound, constitutionally inconsistent, and socioeconomically dangerous. The Constitution affirms the right to basic services, obliges public administration to be accountable and equitable, and protects the dignity of all persons. Any energy plan that fails to provide reliability, access, and equity in the face of mass energy poverty and economic exclusion cannot be justified under a constitutional or developmental mandate. The draft IRP 2023 offers ten hypothetical scenarios but refuses to commit to a single enforceable direction. It relies on language that is conditional and technocratic, avoiding political and legal responsibility. It fails to inform binding procurement, bypasses the obligations of ministerial determinations, and weakens planning certainty. In a nation already experiencing rolling blackouts, municipal fiscal stress, and institutional erosion, such ambiguity is reckless. The draft IRP's failure to incorporate the legal enforcement of Minimum Emission Standards compounds the danger. The likely decommissioning of non-compliant coal capacity, potentially exceeding 60% of Eskom's fleet, is not modelled, not planned for, and not politically acknowledged. This omission is not merely a policy oversight but a direct threat to grid stability, water systems, industrial continuity, and constitutional service delivery obligations. To mitigate the MES compliance cliff, which was March 2025, government must immediately publish a legally binding Decommissioning and Retrofitting Roadmap, including prioritised flue gas desulphurisation retrofits at select high-yield coal stations. Plants with low emissions upgrade potential or nearing the end of life should be scheduled for phased closure, with generation capacity replaced by flexible gas generation. Eskom and National Treasury must jointly and urgently ringfence capital for MES compliance retrofits through blended climate finance and the draft IRP must transparently sequence decommissioning with guaranteed capacity replacement to avoid grid collapse. Equally concerning is the plan's assumption that Eskom's coal fleet will return to a 70% Energy Availability Factor, despite years of sub 60% performance and no credible investment or operational recovery roadmap. As of July 2025, Eskom's year-to-date EAF stands at approximately 58.2%, with recent weekly fluctuations in the 61–64% range. This remains well below the IRP's assumed 70% baseline and reflects no structural recovery. Planning based on a recovery that lacks both technical and financial foundation creates the illusion of future baseload that will never materialise. It distorts procurement signals, undermines investor confidence, and sets up policy failure by design. The plan's use of outdated cost assumptions further discredits its reliability. Since 2020, global prices for renewables and battery storage have declined substantially, making them the cheapest and most scalable generation options. The draft IRP's continued reliance on inflated nuclear and coal cost scenarios ignores global trends and distorts South Africa's least-cost trajectory. Moreover, the draft IRP grossly underestimates future demand. It fails to account for the electricity needs of green hydrogen, EVs, battery manufacturing, data centres, and SEZ-linked beneficiation. South Africa's Hydrogen Valley, Saldanha, and Coega initiatives, along with emerging digital infrastructure, will require gigawatt-scale grid access. The assumption that such developments will remain 'off-grid' contradicts technical feasibility and industrial logic. If left uncorrected, this underestimation will lead to transmission underinvestment, missed localisation opportunities, and strategic bottlenecks. The draft IRP demand forecasting model must be recalibrated to include scenario-based forecasts that account for green hydrogen, digital infrastructure, beneficiation and EV uptake. A dynamic demand model would improve procurement agility and transformation investment alignment. This is missing or severely outdated if it exists. This failure to model demand is matched by the IRP's failure to articulate the socioeconomic dividend of a credible energy transition. With an optimised IRP, South Africa could create hundreds of thousands of new energy-sector jobs, drive inclusive industrialisation, and dramatically reduce energy poverty. Yet the plan lacks any quantified employment outlook, infrastructure delivery timeline, or spatial targeting strategy. It does not link to Treasury's fiscal planning, nor to DTIC industrial incentives. Without these, it is not a development plan rather modelling exercise divorced from execution. To achieve fiscal realism and investor credibility, these interventions must be aligned with Treasury's Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and funded through a blended finance model combining sovereign guarantees, concessional climate finance, and private sector risk participation. A minimum R600 billion transmission and storage investment over 10 years must be allocated to achieve national energy security and spatial equity. South Africa possesses over 10 billion tonnes of recoverable coal reserves, among the top seven globally, yet the draft IRP fails to present a modernised coal strategy. The United States and China, despite their clean energy ambitions, are doubling down on coal as a buffer against volatility and as a base for industrial policy. China is commissioning over 300 GW of new coal generation capacity. South Africa's approach must mirror this strategic realism, using its coal endowment not as a liability, but as a sovereign asset for affordable, reliable energy and job preservation, with MES compliance and retrofitting for lower emissions. By comparison, countries such as Vietnam, Chile, Morocco, and India have demonstrated what credible planning can deliver. Vietnam installed 16 GW of solar within three years through feed-in tariffs and policy certainty. Chile attracted $20 billion in clean energy investment via auction transparency and transmission sequencing. Morocco's CSP success was delivered through coordinated PPPs and blended finance. South Africa's REIPPPP, once globally praised, now faces credibility erosion due to irregular bid windows, lack of bankable timelines, and grid uncertainty. The IRP also neglects South Africa's regional obligations. As the backbone of the Southern African Power Pool and a founding economy in the African Continental Free Trade Area, South Africa's energy reliability underpins regional industrialisation. Grid collapse and institutional inertia in Eskom directly undermine cross-border trade, SADC energy corridors, and regional growth. A national IRP that ignores this regional dimension fails in its continental responsibility. The plan remains misaligned with foundational energy legislation. It contradicts the Electricity Regulation Act by failing to guide ministerial determinations. It bypasses the National Energy Act's requirements for integration and cross-sectoral coherence. It abandons the 1998 White Paper's priorities of access, equity, and participation. And it disregards the National Development Plan's commitment to infrastructure-led industrialisation. In short, it is legally hollow, structurally fragmented, and economically incoherent. To enforce accountability and coordination, a Presidential Sub-Committee on Energy Transition must be mandated under the Presidential Coordinating Council to monitor IRP implementation quarterly. Operation Vulindlela should house a Grid Reform Task Force with legal authority to unblock project delays, standardise land approvals, and align permits across spheres of government. South Africa's energy future can still be rewired. A hybrid pathway must be adopted, combining the best elements of the draft IRP's more grounded scenarios. This must include a phased and legally sequenced MES-compliant decommissioning plan, the additional 5,000 – 8,000 MW of flexible gas generation located near ports and industrial zones, the accelerated deployment of 15,000+ MW of renewables with 6 - 8 hour storage capacity and the commissioning of 2,000 MW of Small Modular Reactors under strict regulatory and cost transparency. An Independent Energy Planning Authority must be institutionalised to professionalise modelling and forecasting, and a Grid Command Centre under Operation Vulindlela must fast-track project approvals, land access, and IPP pipelines. Transmission expansion must be embedded in the National Infrastructure Plan and aligned to SEZs, ports, and mineral corridors. Procurement timelines, localisation targets, and land permitting rules must be harmonised across departments. NERSA must fast-track generation, wheeling, and storage licences, with a single-window application process. The IPP's planning, procurement, and modelling functions must be institutionally separated to improve transparency and reduce the risk of political interference and capture. A national wheeling tariff methodology must be in standardised by NERSA to ensure predictable, fair and cost-reflective charges for private generators. This will enable embedded generation and open access wheeling to municipalities and industries, unlocking over 20 GW of latent project capacity. This is partially in place already, but inadequate. Section 34 of the Electricity Regulation Act must be harmonised with municipal procurement regulations to enable cities and metros to legally and efficiently procure their own generation. National Treasury must issue model PPP guidelines tailored to municipal IPPs to de-risk local implementation. This is fragmented and often missing. To enhance Independent Power Producer bankability, government must operationalise an Independent Transmission and System Market Operator with ringfenced revenue flows, neutral dispatch control and creditworthy off-take arrangements. This will ensure Eskom's balance sheet limitations and credit downgrades do not cascade into future II risk profiles, enabling bankable long-term contracts for generation developers. Critically, energy justice must be made central. A Township Microgrid Programme must be launched to electrify millions of low-income homes by 2030 using solar PV and battery systems, financed through public-private mechanisms and delivered via Eskom Distribution, metros, and licensed social IPPs. A fixed rental scheme, complemented by a solidarity fee for high-consumption off-grid users, can ensure equity in infrastructure access. With youth unemployment and women-headed households disproportionately affected by energy poverty, this programme must become a pillar of redistributive justice and local industrialisation. The Township Microgrid Programme would deliver clean, affordable energy to over 10 million people, primarily low-income, women-headed, and informal households, cutting paraffin dependency by over 70%, improving respiratory health, and creating over 30,000 new installation and maintenance jobs. This would significantly narrow energy inequality and support a redistributive just transition. TVET colleges must align with grid, battery, solar, gas and SMR workforce needs. A National Just Energy Skills Task Team under the DHET and DMRE must map supply–demand mismatches and align bursaries, artisan development and SETA grants to IRP delivery timelines. This is partially in place with a very slow execution. A Just Energy Transition Fund must be properly structured under Developmental Finance Institution's co-governance, with targeted concessional capital for microgrids, grid modernisation, and socially anchored IPP schemes in municipalities. This fund must explicitly support projects that combine public service delivery outcomes with private sector operational efficiency. All future procurement rounds must be pre-disclosed publicly with detailed cost assumptions, local content rules, and timeframes published online by National Treasury and the Independent Power Producer Office. This will ensure transparency, prevent state capture, and restore investor and public confidence in procurement credibility. The revised IRP must form the cornerstone of South Africa's updated Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement and should be tabled at COP30 as the country's central just transition instrument. This will align national planning with international climate obligations and unlock critical climate finance flows at a responsible pace and scale without any burden to overcommit to the international bodies on emissions reduction. The Draft IRP 2023 fails the globally accepted Energy Trilemma test, energy security, affordability, and sustainability. It privileges decarbonisation pathways while ignoring the constitutional obligation to ensure reliability and affordability. No scenario within the draft IRP addresses how to balance low-cost energy access for the poor with climate targets and grid resilience. South Africa requires a planning model that optimises all three trilemma pillars, like those used in Germany, Vietnam, and the US, not one that sacrifices energy justice for external validation. If these reforms are implemented in full, South Africa will, as it should, become one of the most bankable and investable emerging market energy jurisdictions globally. In their nature, these reforms remove regulatory ambiguity, derisk infrastructure finance, signal long-term policy stability and embed investor rights into the fabric of national planning. For private developers, development finance institutions and grid-linked manufacturers, this would not just give policy certainty, but commercial security rooted in law, execution and constitutional alignment. Section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees the right to sufficient energy services for health, dignity, and development. Section 195 requires a public administration that is accountable, equitable, and developmentally oriented. Section 152 places energy access at the centre of local government mandates. The IRP must therefore be assessed not only on technical grounds but against these foundational legal standards. The IRP must be more than a bureaucratic requirement. It must become a binding national social compact, one that is constitutionally defensible, fiscally sustainable, investor credible, and socially just. South Africa's energy future cannot be defined by Excel models, techno-speak, or political evasion. It must be defined by clarity, commitment, and courage. To ensure institutional memory and implementation continuity beyond political cycles, a permanent Energy Policy Office must be established in the Presidency under Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry to house planning, legal and monitoring experts to sustain IRP execution through successive administrators. Government and all Stakeholders must extensively work the current draft IRP and ensure that it aligns with fiscal capacity, legal mandates, industrial imperatives, and the lived needs of the energy-poor of our country more than it seeks external validation. Anda Bici is an ANC Activist
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- The Citizen
Nersa's mistakes will hit you hard
Eskom gave a presentation to Nersa, proposing the number of tariffs be reduced from 10 to three. The courts have ruled in favour of Eskom in almost all of its applications against Nersa, and the trend looks set to continue. Picture: Shutterstock Moneyweb has learnt that consumers will have to cough up at least R40 billion more for Eskom following a settlement between the utility and the energy regulator Nersa. This pertains to mistakes Nersa's made in several decisions regarding Eskom's revenue and tariffs. This amount may increase as Eskom has launched a fresh challenge to Nersa's latest decisions regarding the utility's revenue and tariffs for the current and the next two financial years. Eskom's court application is the latest in a string of challenges to Nersa decisions, almost all ruled in favour of Eskom. Moneyweb has learnt that several such applications were settled between the two parties in May. This was not widely communicated at the time. The settlement, which was made an order of the court, pertains to clawbacks spanning the financial years 2015 to 2021. ALSO READ: Ekurhuleni metro and Nersa lock horns over electricity tariff discrepancy Clawbacks The clawback mechanism is designed to retrospectively compensate either the utility or its customers for variations in the assumptions underlying the revenue determination, such as sales volumes. The compensation is done by adjusting electricity tariffs in following years. Eskom disputed the amount Nersa decided it was entitled to claw back in each year from 2015 to 2021. Following the settlement Eskom is entitled to recover in total R40 billion more from consumers for underrecovery over the period due to mistakes made by Nersa. In terms of the order, Nersa will decide on the timing of this recovery. ALSO READ: Nersa's municipal tariff process flawed, says Sapoa Nersa still making mistakes? Eskom now alleges that Nersa's latest revenue and tariff determination for the current and next two financial years is also flawed. This will be on the agenda of Nersa's electricity subcommittee during a special meeting on Wednesday (16 July). It follows an application by Eskom to the Gauteng Division of the High Court to have the decision reviewed and set aside. Nersa announced in January that it had approved revenues of R384.6 billion for Eskom for the current financial year, which translated to an average percentage increase of 12.74%. This took effect on 1 April. ALSO READ: The silent 77.5% rise of your electricity bill The allowable revenue approved for 2026/7 is R409.5 billion, which translates to an average increase of 5.36% and for 2027/8 it is R435.8 billion, which translates to an average increase of 6.19%. This is considerably lower than the amounts Eskom applied for, which would have meant increases of 36.15%, 11.81%, and 9.1% in the three consecutive years. Following Nersa's publication of the reason for its decision early last month, Eskom filed an application to have the decision reviewed and set aside specifically regarding Nersa's treatment of the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). Moneyweb has reliably learnt that Nersa has not yet indicated whether it will oppose the application. Presumably the meeting on Wednesday will make a recommendation to the electricity regulator, which will then take a final decision. The formulation of the agenda point however indicates that Nersa may have accepted Eskom's argument and is open to settling the matter. It reads: 'Correction of error on the Eskom sixth multi-year price determination decision (MYPD6) Regulatory Asset Base section and proposed settlement.' ALSO READ: Nersa approves 12.7% electricity tariff hike for Eskom Eskom's arguments In an affidavit supporting its court application, Eskom CFO Calib Cassim sets out in detail – some of it quite technical – the mistakes that Eskom contends Nersa has made. This includes attaching a zero value to several operational power stations, including Koeberg. He shows that the value attached to the RAB is key to determining the returns Eskom is entitled to – and that Nersa's downward adjustments of the RAB in each of the three years dealt with in the tariff application cost the utility about R30 billion in total. Cassim says that Nersa, in taking the decision, exceeded its powers and acted inconsistently with its own methodology and with an earlier court order dealing with the same subject. ALSO READ: 30% electricity tariff increase is a reality, says Erasa He states that Nersa's decision is irrational and unreasonable. Cassim points out that Nersa's flawed approach to the RAB only applies to the application by Eskom's generation business. Those of the National Transmission Company of South Africa, a wholly owned subsidiary dealing with transmission, and the distribution business, were dealt with correctly, in Eskom's view. In addition, there are discrepancies between some of the numbers in the press release Nersa issued in January announcing its decision and those in the document issued in June setting out the reasons for its decision. ALSO READ: Eskom proposes further tariff restructuring to ensure 'transparency and fairness' Cassim further argues that the condition Nersa set for its approval of the utility's revenue – that it submit a revaluation of its RAB, with the first clawback application following the 2025/6 financial year – is unrealistic and impossible. Such a revaluation takes at least 30 months and is an expensive exercise, according to Cassim. Any adjustments in Eskom's favour will be reflected in future increases in electricity tariffs. This comes against the backdrop of widespread concern about the affordability of electricity, with Minister of Electricity and Energy Kgosientso Ramokgopa saying that South Africans must increasingly choose between buying food and buying electricity. He said even middle-class South Africans are battling to afford electricity. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- The Citizen
Here's Eskom's load reduction schedule for Gauteng this week
Eskom's load reduction schedule indicates that several areas across Gauteng will continue to face scheduled power cuts during peak hours. Gauteng residents continue to face an uneven experience with load reduction, as Eskom-serviced areas continue to face scheduled power cuts. Eskom conducts a daily load reduction programme that runs from Monday to Sunday. Consumers can expect approximately six and five hours of outages, with different time slots for different areas. Affected areas under Eskom's load reduction schedule The current Eskom load reduction schedule shows that numerous areas across Gauteng will continue to experience scheduled power cuts during peak periods. Areas experiencing morning load reduction between 5am and 9am include Vereeniging, Beverly Hills, and Soweto. Other affected areas include Orlando East, Riverside, and various settlements across Gauteng. Evening load reduction between 5pm and 10pm impacts regions including Monise, Mokoena, Mavimbela, Protea South, Chiawelo and surrounding areas. Other affected zones include Hlongwane, Moseleke, Tshongweni, Mapanga, Nhlapo, and various extensions of Orange Farm and Soweto. The schedule operates on a seven-day rotation, with different areas affected on different days of the week, giving residents some predictability about when they might experience power outages. This week, the affected areas include: Cuba Graceland Garankuwa Vryburg Dobsonville Naledi Ivory Park Extensions Zuma Sebokeng To see if your area is affected, click on or download the document below Load reduction schedule: Monday, 14 July – Sunday, 20 July. READ NEXT: Eskom hammers another nail in load shedding coffin
