Eskom ... is there ANY chance? In CPT there is

General Discussions
548

Planned or not planned?
If a child knows it will still get pudding whether it tidies it’s room or not why tidy?
A dereliction of duty when the outcome is predictable and when you/family/club/gang can somehow still profit from it or whether your Commie-block cronies can profit by sweeping in to ‘save the day’ (as promised) is not far off from planning. In a child-like way. But I’ll add, re our Gov…planning is not the same as conniving.

Though I tend not to buy Shhpectre class masterminding theorems I think opportunistic orchestration and nudging should never be far from our minds. Though to prove that or believe it without proof, well, there are many things people believe without proof. Though this may offer chance for disparagement of those who do not see the world one’s way there’s more often than not a deeper need for a causal agent answered by that. I prefer casual agents, myself. Like Bondosan when he’s on the beach with that frog girl and then shoots poor Pepe in the diaphragm with a spear gun coz that’s what dirty little Pepe deserved for sneaking up on our hero whilst cannoodeling with that girl Spelunker or whatever her name was…

1 Like
549

Yeah, that’s an area where I can get lost. Generally speaking, everything we know about has a cause (either temporal, or causally). To explain the latter, if you have a bowling ball on a pillow, the dent in the pillow is caused by the bowling ball, even if both of them have been there forever (in the temporal sense). But then, since an infinite regress of causes is impossible (or at least highly unlikely), you end up with… well… something that you have to accept essentially on faith, or at least without proof.

This sort of thing is also evident in Gödel’s incompleteness proof. There are things that has to be true, even if we cannot prove them.

Also, in legal matters you sometimes hear the words “that’s circumstantial”. What many people don’t know, is that enough circumstantial evidence that all point in the same manner can put you away. It adds up… :slight_smile:

On the topic at hand, yes, it does worry me that once we finally kicked the door open for renewables (and after many many delays by Gwede), the well-connected is going to get the nod. Apparently.

550

Ditsim.

Few more loose thoughts.

Now, let’s say “they” do get the nod, it would be good cause methinks:
The ANC is going to lose majority votes soon meaning the new Gov in power could result in NERSA under “new management” hence they could be “controlled” eventually,

IF the economy does not grow, all their investments in renewables would be at risk. Hope it would be private “Patrice” investors’ money and not SA’s taxpayers.

Then I wonder, how will CoCT handle it when the “connected ones” come knocking at their door.

Interesting times.

551

mmmm … Mantashe again …

552

Just change the name, that fixes everything.

553

There’s a disconnect in ANC policy of electricity for all. (excuse the pun!)
SA is the ‘most unequal society in the world’. Indeed! We are actually a microcosm of the world all bundled into one country. SA’s Genie coefficient is the same as that for the world.
The world doesn’t get along very well with all these differences and the leaders in the rich world that are elected are those that will entrench those differences. So why should SA manage to get it right when the world shows no signs itself?

554

Because we can and we want to get it right, the right way.

1 Like
555

Two new things that they are up to.

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/452716-solar-power-users-must-pay-r938-per-month-even-if-they-dont-use-our-electricity-eskom.html

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/452894-eskom-asks-for-massive-32-66-electricity-price-hike-report.html

556

I saw that and my heart sank.

Here is the thing about MyBroadband: They tend to stretch the truth a little. Take this article from January, where they bandy about the “up to 1000%” number by comparing the rates for bulk buyers vs what residential people pay their municipalities. As if that is a good comparison.

So the moment I saw this article, I knew: They are stretching something to bank on good old South African righteous indignation.

The trouble is that before I can really have an opinion on that, I need to actually look into what is going on. And that takes time…

So for the moment, I don’t yet know if we need to panic or not. From experience, I have the feeling someone probably looked at the worst case scenario grid-connection fee, and wrote an article about it, and in all likelihood most people are already paying that fee anyway.

At least in Cape Town, when we transitioned back to a connection fee (Domestic tariff vs Home tariff), they did it in a way that left your bill almost unchanged, ie, they cut the lower-end per-unit cost so that splitting out the connection fee didn’t cause a big jump in the first year.

Edit:

Okay, I read the article. As expected, it is indeed because Eskom wants the fixed costs to be paid by a fixed charge. Which is precisely what CoCT did several years ago already.

Eskom said its new tariffs would be designed so that, as far as possible, the average customer should pay no more or less than their current tariff structure.

Indeed, also what CoCT did.

A user that previously used 400kWh on Homepower 1 would be paying R593 per month more on the proposed new Homepower 1 tariff.

Aaah now THAT is definitely something to be unhappy about… but hang on. That’s for Homepower 1, which if you look at the tariff documentation from Eskom, is for larger users, including dual- and three-phase connections. If you have a single-phase connection, you would be on HomePower 4.

And this doesn’t even affect people who buy their electricity from another supplier (eg City Power, etc). But you can bet all those people are complaining bitterly in the comment section :slight_smile:

557

What they want and what they get are two different things.
Eventually, if you over ask, people start refusing to pay. Look what happened to eTolls.

558

I trust in De Ruyter ito where he is driving Eskom towards and what CoCT is going to do about it all.

559

I don’t think it is too much to ask for consumers to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure.

As consumers are reducing their consumption (a good thing!) and also installing solar, the sales are dropping, but the connection still costs the same. It is untenable to continue to finance infrastructure maintenance from sales.

It is also unfair to expect ONLY solar users to pay for the infrastructure, as was the case on the SSEG tariffs in Cape Town for a long time (R413 per month when it was introduced). Non-solar users should also pay for the infrastructure. In the modern environment where everybody is reducing their energy needs, everyone plays a role in making tariff changes necessary.

What suppliers MUST do, of course, is to phase this in in a manner that doesn’t cause too much of a shock. I am not convinced that the MyBB writers used a good example, simply because someone on HomePower 1 is unlikely to use only 400kWh a month, and therefore using that as an example seems disingenuous to me.

Back when this happened in Cape Town, it did affect the lower-end users more. It was calculated so that people who use 600kWh a month (pretty average) end up paying exactly the same afterwards. People who used significantly less than 600kWh found themselves paying more, but the fee was R150 at the time they introduced it, so literally most people ended up paying R50-R100 more. There was some outrage about it… of course… but it blew over quickly.

They were also careful to introduce the new tariff to higher-end users first, literally people where it already made no difference.

560

I agree with your assessment.

However, I do have one criticism of any type of fixed charge approach:
My disagreement with it is that there are fixed costs with most types of services/products to be provided to customers. However, the onus is on the provider of that service to be able to sell to their customers. It would be a little ridiculous if Pick 'n Pay charge you a monthly fixed amount, with no real option to opt out, to cover their fixed costs including distribution of food, regardless of how much you buy from them, just to have the option of having a Pick 'n Pay in your neighbourhood.

What is next? Eskom to increase the fixed charge because people are installing too many LED lights and therefore don’t use as much of their product as before? I do have a bit of a gripe with this business model, especially from a monopoly. You can’t keep on forcing your monthly income to be unchanged when consumer behaviour starts to change. That is a great way to stifle progress.

As such, I think it is a much better approach to bake fixed costs into the variable price they charge. This allows each user to make the assessment of whether they want to pay their own upfront capital expenditure to offset their variable expenses or simply live more conservatively. If that requires Eskom to push up variable charges by 30% or whatever they current proposal is, well so be it. At the end of the day it won’t change the overall monthly bill, ceteris paribus, but allows end users to manage their outgo in a more predictable manner.

1 Like
561

I can guarantee you, people will complain. As more solar is connected to the grid, that means the people who cannot afford solar ends up paying for the grid. Those with solar get to use the grid for backup, without paying for it.

The only really fair way to handle this, in my estimation, is to let each person pay for what it costs to service them. We had the same for telephone lines for ages. Cell phone contracts are essentially like that (while you are still paying off the handset). For internet, there is always the turnover of equipment, replacing routers and things. I’m not sure Pick and Pay is a good analogy here :slight_smile:

(Though of course I have seen people compare internet providers to grocery stores. The way we buy internet is like we buy milk, in liters. The supermarket buys it in liters/month, just like your ISP buys bandwidth in megabits/second, and someone has to package it up in a way that makes sense to the consumer).

562

In the past, when that Escam place was run properly and not as a vote buying employment agency or a piggy bank, it work fine and at a profit for what 72 years up to when this mess started? No way, it aint happening. Their bad management is now suddenly my problem when for 72 years prior it was not?

It is called the market. Either you provide the service and get paid or not. It was their own doing that cased many to go off grid, shape up or take the highway, thank you. (This is meant for Escam, no individual, you safe Plonkster)

If they did run their business, not as a feeding scheme, non of this would happen.

Groetnis

563

It isn’t a perfect analogy, but it is also what I would consider to be a critical service to people in sub/urban areas, and do have fixed costs, like building maintenance, employees, electricity etc. However, there must be a reason a grocery chain hasn’t come out that said: Pay me a fixed money fee of Rx and then you shop at a much lower price than the other places. Probably because customers don’t want that. The only reason then that Eskom would be able to get away doing it is because they have a monopoly.

We will pay for Eskom’s bad management, one way or another, through taxes (in the form of bailouts) or increased prices. People will complain regardless. At the end of the day, a consumer needs to have as little between them and their ability to limit their monthly expenses if needed. Subscription models, which is essentially what they are proposing, is a very nice way to always be indebted to some type of company. Especially when it is for an essential service.

We are all here (well it seems like most at least) very much of the opinion that owning a car (and driving it for many years) is better than hiring-purchase it from the bank, and then just pay for interest and depreciation for 5 years after which you trade it in for a new model. For the rest of your life. The car-subscription model seems to be how they finance most vehicles in at least the UK (but probably in EU in general), where you just hire-purchase a car. Most then don’t really “own” a car. It is still fairly essential, but now that car prices increase, you can’t suddenly just wait another year or two before buying, because your agreement is running to an end and unless you don’t want another car, you will be need to renew.

A subscription model with Eskom is doubly bad, because it is both essential as well as not practical to opt-out of and choose another provider (i.e. monopoly).

564

Look at what the already failed SABC wants to do, for the very reason. The market has moved on, they do not provide what the market wants. Now SABC wants a fee no matter if you watch their content, as long as you have a device capable of watching any content, pay the fee.

SABC also now wants their competition and non related entities to collect the fees, what a farce. Today, the SABC, like e-toll have more than 80% non-compliance, and that is for a reason.

Groetnis

566

This is Costco’s membership model in the US. It is HUGELY popular. Edit: They also kick you out if you do too many returns…

What a normal business does in this case is refuse to service the customer. If you want less than 600 kWh per month, get it elsewhere, we’re a bulk supplier because of fixed costs, etc.

Whether it is run well or not (and due to whatever reasons), Eskom is a public utility and therefore must operate in a way that services everyone. Ideally without the rich subsidising the poor too much (because taxes already exist), but DEFINITELY without the poor subsiding the rich, which is where the current solar trend is heading.

So you can be mad at Eskom’s disfunction, but don’t pretend it’s “right” that you can piggy-back on the grid for literal rainy days while some literal poor sap subsidises your connection. Come on guys, we’re better than that. :cry:

1 Like
567

So here is my (less than popular) opinion on that.

A functioning democracy needs a public broadcaster. This is to the advantage of all people living in such a democracy, and therefore such a broadcaster should by funded from tax (not from TV licenses… that ship has indeed sailed).

Now of course, when I say this, people get all hot under the collar because it sounds like I am defending the disaster slowly unfolding at the SABC. Not at all. The SABC in its present state does not deserve to be funded just because. But a well-managed public broadcaster can and SHOULD be funded by the populace.

568

I am much less concerned for myself than I am for the poor. They will be hit hardest by the higher fixed cost, because they already do not use a lot of electricity. I’m 100% for what the customer understands and can control.

Why hasn’t it taken off in SA then?

Doesn’t Eskom already do this? They sell to municipalities. The municipality sells to you. They don’t even service your connection, that is for the CoCT to service. (In my instance at least)

I think it is exactly the opposite. Unfortunately we cannot trust those in power, and so I think the separation of different types of power is exceptionally important in a functioning democracy. Separate the governing party, the media and the courts etc. When you have a public broadcaster, unless constitutionally protected and voted for who runs it, it surely just degenerates to become a vessel for propaganda? And no, not propaganda as in conspiracy theories, just the normal “we make it sound better than it really is and don’t run the stories that make us look bad” type of way.

But I do agree that an educated population is critical to a democracy.