Eskom proceeds with court challenge to five trading licences
Eskom has made good on its earlier threat to challenge in court energy regulator Nersa's granting of licences for electricity trading.
It wants trading rules to be finalised first and even suggests that traders contribute to the payment of municipalities' R100 billion arrear debt for bulk purchases.
Following Nersa's publication of the reasons for its decisions, Eskom has launched an application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court to have the granting of five trading and one import/export licence reviewed and set aside.
The respondents are Nersa and the five licensees: Green Electron Market, CBI Electric Apollo, GreenCo Power Services, Discovery Green and Noa Group Trading.
This comes more than decade after the first electricity trading licence was granted to PowerX. Nersa has so far granted around ten such licences.
According to the agenda, the regulator will consider two more trading licences and two import/export licences at its 30 July meeting, as well as an application by a municipality for separate distribution and trading licences. If granted, Eskom may join the new licensees to the action.
Traders, also referred to as aggregators, are essentially middle-men between independent power producers and end-users. They enter into agreements with multiple generators and sell to multiple customers with diverse energy requirements, at a margin to compensate them for taking some of the risk.
This enables especially smaller businesses to access renewable energy despite being unable to take the full production of a specific independent power producer or enter into a 20-year off-take agreement.
ALSO READ: Electricity trading? Not so fast, says Eskom
Eskom's argument
In an affidavit in support of the application, Eskom senior manager for legal matters Mohlago Masekela says the licensing decisions 'form the beginning of a fundamental change of policy by Nersa that has not been the subject of public consultation and the implications of which appear not to have been explored by Nersa.'
According to Masekela it will 'upend the entire landscape of electricity provision in this country, without taking meaningful steps to understand the consequences before doing so.
'Under the guise of promoting competition and labouring under material misapprehensions about the law and the facts, Nersa has allowed a free-for-all in which traders are allowed to poach the best of Eskom's customers without carrying any of the redistributive obligations that the tariffs paid by those customers to Eskom enable Eskom to discharge.'
Eskom contends that its distribution licences and those of municipalities, grant them the exclusive right to distribute and trade in electricity in the licensed distribution areas. It relies on Nersa's distribution rules that prohibit two or more distributors to operate in the same area.
According to the utility, no rules have ever been made to deal with electricity trading as a separate licensed activity. Although Nersa has acknowledged the need for such rules and has embarked on a process to finalise it, it proceeded to approve trading licences in the meantime. This, Eskom states, is irrational.
Eskom submits it is not possible to lawfully issue individual trading licences on an ad hoc basis, without considering the impact on the businesses of Eskom and municipalities of traders cherry-picking its best clients and setting conditions to balance the rights of such traders with those of Eskom and the municipalities.
ALSO READ: Nersa approves cross-border electricity trading
Eskom argued that instead of promoting competition, the granting of the trading licences will lead to unfair competition, because traders will have the flexibility to offer large power users, that are consistent payers, discount tariffs, while Eskom is bound to regulated prices.
The utility states that 'simply opening up a free-for-all for traders in areas of supply previously provided by either Eskom or a municipality, has the potential of causing profound risk to the viability of the system'.
'Eskom continues to hold the various obligations arising from the obligations in its distribution licences, but can now have its most reliable and lucrative customers taken from it by traders given permission to trade in the same area of supply.'
It continues: 'Ultimately, since it is funded by both the taxpayer (in the form of government assistance given in the recent past) and the electricity consumer, it is taxpayers and smaller electricity consumers who are not attractive to traders, who will pay the price for this.'
Some of the issues Eskom believes should be addressed in the trading rules include which customers will be allowed to chose who they buy electricity from, thereby demarcating the trading market.
If customers are for example allowed to buy from a trader, but top-up continuously or on an ad hoc basis from Eskom's supply, the rules could provide for Eskom to set differentiated tariffs in such cases 'that reflect the true cost of providing these specific services.'
ALSO READ: Presidency 'very concerned' about licence for Eskom transmission unit
Eskom further suggests that the matter of the R100 billion-odd arrear municipal debt must be dealt with in the trading rules by restricting traders from operating in defaulting areas or establishing a financial clearing house that prioritises the payment of Eskom arrears before disbursing revenue to traders.
It suggests that the cross-subsidisation regime should be preserved, with traders being required to contribute to a subsidy pool or municipal support levy.
It is not yet clear whether Nersa and the five traders will oppose Eskom's application.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
6 hours ago
- The Citizen
Lekwa's electrical issues in the spotlight
Recent electricity load management efforts by Lekwa have left residents enraged over a lack of scheduling and communication. For the past several weeks, power outages have been occurring frequently across all wards. Though the situation closely resembles what residents have come to know as 'Lekwa-shedding,' the municipality insists this is not the case. DA councillor Alberto Franco explained that the municipality is no longer legally allowed to implement Lekwa-shedding. However, it is still within its rights to manage the electricity load. 'The municipality is currently implementing load-reduction due to the high electricity usage that typically comes with winter,' said Franco. The winter electricity load is high due to the use of appliances such as heaters, which puts pressure on an already strained system. Franco said the current electricity load cannot exceed 60 MVA, but for the town to function smoothly, it needs at least 80 to 100 MVA. He is not optimistic that the electricity limit will be raised any time soon, as Lekwa owes Eskom R1.9b and Eskom is already struggling to meet the town's power demand. ALSO CHECK: Recreational spaces in Standerton are falling apart 'The current SCADA system has been implemented to avoid the entire town tripping all at once. The load-reduction is meant to protect the system from overloading,' said Franco. He reiterated that the town is not experiencing Lekwa-shedding, but rather load management – a form of load-shedding used to manage the power supply more sustainably. 'During winter, the municipality will rotate all areas for load-reduction to ensure there is no prejudice,' said Franco. He added that there would be no load-reduction during summer, when the town's maximum usage does not exceed 45 MVA. Franco acknowledged the severe impact of the power issues on the local economy. 'When there is no electricity, no development can take place and the entire system stagnates,' he said. He added that electricity, waste, and water challenges all contribute to economic decline. 'It is an impediment to development,' said Franco. How electrical interruptions affect businesses Electricity interruptions are not only inconveniencing households but are also severely impacting businesses. Umnandi Catering is one of many enterprises affected by the ongoing power outages. The business provides accommodation and three meals a day to contractors and relies heavily on a stable power supply to operate effectively. According to Juan Nortjé, HR and control manager at Umnandi Catering, their electricity consumption has tripled since load management was introduced. 'Companies are penalised on peak units, causing an absurd levy when the electricity comes back on,' Nortjé explained. In an environment where several kitchen appliances need to run continuously, these supply disruptions have made daily operations increasingly difficult. When the power is restored, the business is charged higher tariffs due to peak electricity usage. Nortjé said they have approached the municipality for answers but have yet to receive a clear explanation. The business operates year-round, housing contractors and providing essential services. Frequent electricity outages have made it harder to meet clients' expectations. 'We have to start generators whenever the electricity goes off, which adds significantly to our operational costs,' he said. Businesses like Umnandi Catering, which require a constant and reliable electricity supply, are bearing the brunt of these interruptions, with rising costs placing increased strain on their sustainability. Electricity theft is a crime Another major factor contributing to Lekwa's ongoing load-reduction efforts is criminal activity—particularly bridged meters, electricity theft, and ghost vendors. 'Ghost vendors are illegal and criminal in the same way that electricity theft is,' said DA councillor Alberto Franco. He explained that ghost vendors cause significant revenue losses for the municipality, making it even harder to settle its debt with Eskom. Currently, Lekwa has around 20 000 prepaid meters installed, yet only about 8 000 households legally purchase electricity. 'More than 60% of residents are either buying from ghost vendors or have bridged meters,' said Franco. ALSO CHECK: Youth empowerment gala to tackle issues faced by Lekwa's youth To help combat this, the municipality is working on a programme to install floodlights across the town. These lights are expected to be more maintenance-friendly and will help protect infrastructure by deterring theft and vandalism. Efforts are also underway to remove illegal connections. 'They've already begun ripping out illegal connections in several areas and have started inspecting businesses for bridged meters,' said Franco. He noted that the best-paying areas in Lekwa include Wards 4, 10, 8, and parts of Ward 3. 'To weed out non-paying residents, the municipality should consider rewarding paying customers with rebates,' Franco suggested. He acknowledged that high unemployment and limited disposable income make compliance difficult, but said that a culture of payment could be encouraged by offering discounts to consistent payers. Franco urged residents to report faults, address problems as they arise, and approach the municipality to negotiate payment agreements.
Daily Maverick
15 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
Daily Maverick
15 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
