AfriForum temporarily blocks Nersa and Eskom settlement that would cost South Africans billions
Eskom and the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa)’s controversial settlement agreement – which would cost consumers around R54 billion over a three-year period – was today put on hold for the time being thanks to AfriForum. Due to pressure from the civil rights organisation, Eskom agreed to transfer the case from the uncontested to the contested role. The agreement was to be ratified by a court order in the Pretoria High Court today. However, this move now creates the opportunity for AfriForum and other interested parties to join the case as parties. AfriForum believes that this settlement can be considered unlawful and unreasonable due to a lack of transparency.
AfriForum wrote to Eskom in September this year requesting that this case be removed from the uncontested roll so that the organisation could join the case as a party. Eskom opposed the request, arguing that AfriForum did not have the right to intervene and that the public did not have a veto right. According to Eskom, this settlement did not require public participation.
If this settlement were to proceed, consumers would face rate increases of almost 9% per year.
Deidré Steffens, AfriForum’s advisor for Local Government Affairs at AfriForum, believes that the energy giant’s response is short-sighted as the public will be directly affected by this decision. “To say that the public, who must fund the decision, has no interest in the matter shows Eskom’s blatant arrogance and it can no longer be tolerated and blindly funded.”
Eskom and Nersa must act transparently and responsibly, especially after Nersa’s several tariff missteps and Eskom’s uncertain financial management. According to AfriForum, Nersa is undermining public trust by attempting to conclude this settlement without public participation.
“This development is a victory for transparency and consumer rights. AfriForum will ensure that the public’s voice is heard and that Nersa and Eskom are held accountable for their decisions,” concludes Steffens.