Nersa’s solar power plans all too similar to Eskom’s registration gimmick – AfriForum
Eskom’s unsuccessful attempts to enforce the registration of small-scale solar installations should have served as a warning against imposing unnecessary, expensive and legally questionable requirements on solar owners. Instead, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) has now published draft rules that could enable municipalities and other electricity distributors to build comprehensive registers of small-scale solar installations. AfriForum is concerned that these registers could ultimately be used to impose new charges on households, farmers and businesses that invested in alternative energy at their own expense.
Eskom’s registration campaign
Eskom’s unsuccessful solar-registration campaign faced poor public uptake, widespread opposition and uncertainty about its legal basis. After initially imposing costly technical requirements, Eskom relaxed the process, extended its fee waiver to 30 September 2026 and reportedly confirmed that residential customers would not be fined or disconnected for failing to register. However, the uncertainty remains for farmers and businesses.
NERSA’s new registration mechanism
While Eskom appears to be retreating from certain aspects of its campaign, Nersa has published its Draft Rules for Distributors to Keep a Register of Facilities with Capacities of Less Than 100 kW.
“The draft rules would require electricity distributors, thus municipalities and private distributors, to establish registers of solar systems generating less than 100kW in their areas of supply. Customers could consequently be required to provide information and supporting documentation concerning their solar installations,” says Deidré Steffens, Adviser for Local Government Affairs at AfriForum
In practice, the rules could give municipalities a national regulatory mechanism through which they can compel solar owners to register their systems. AfriForum submitted formal comments to Nersa on 13 August 2026 about this.
“One of AfriForum’s principal objections concerns Section 2A(2)(c) of the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006, which states that the Act does not apply to generation facilities with capacities of no more than 100 kW. Nersa must therefore explain the legal basis on which it intends to prescribe registration requirements for precisely these installations,” says Steffens.
AfriForum also criticised Nersa’s public-consultation questions for focusing mainly on whether the proposed registration system is clear and practical. The questions appear to assume that registration is appropriate instead of first asking whether it is necessary, lawful, fair and proportionate.
Safety or a new source of municipal revenue?
Nersa presents the proposed registers as a measure intended to protect the safety and reliability of the electricity system. AfriForum is concerned that safety may not be the only objective behind the proposed registers.
“Municipalities have historically depended heavily on electricity sales to fund their operations and subsidise other services. Years of loadshedding, Eskom’s deterioration and steep increases in the price of electricity have forced households, farmers and businesses to invest in solar generation. As these customers purchase less electricity, municipal revenue declines,” says Morné Mostert, Manager for Local Government Affairs at AfriForum.
A comprehensive register would tell municipalities exactly which customers have solar systems, where those systems are situated and what their generating capacity is. This information could eventually be used to introduce additional fixed charges, availability fees or solar-related levies.
“There is therefore a real risk that people who spent their own money protecting themselves against Eskom’s failures will be treated as a convenient source of replacement to municipal revenue.”
Many municipalities also lack the administrative capacity to manage an additional registration or approval system properly. Such a system could result in lengthy delays, arbitrary decisions and opportunities for corruption.
“South Africans should not need permission from dysfunctional municipalities to protect themselves against an unreliable electricity supply. They should also not be punished with new charges for investing in alternative energy at their own expense,” Mostert concludes.
