For sure! I don’t read the newspapers. I listen to the news broadcasts on the radio (quickly changing stations to get all angles since they never agree on what the news of the day is)
I really miss Michael Avery’s show (that died with Classic FM) He always had the latest info and imparted it with the necessary ‘interpretation’…
1 Like
Just when you thought you could forget about this unhappy episode:
Karpowership’s licence applications are clearly far from complete, with a number of serious and far-reaching investigations and processes still under way.
Chris Yelland is managing director of EE Business Intelligence.
On Thursday SA’s energy regulator, Nersa, will begin public hearings for generation licence applications under the emergency Risk Mitigation Independent Power Producer Procurement (RMIPPP) programme.
The RMIPPP programme comprises 11 projects totalling 1,996MW. Of this, some 1,220MW, or 60%, is made up of three floating power plants (or “powerships”) and associated floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) from the Turkish company Karpowership. The balance comprises eight projects, ranging from 75 MW to 200MW, incorporating various combinations of wind, solar photo-voltaic, battery energy storage and diesel/gas engines.
The public hearings commence amid growing opposition to the three Karpowership projects, including a substantial submission on Friday, 13 August by the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa), in terms of the regulator’s call for comment and response to the licence applications by the public and other affected stakeholders.
The public hearings come about three weeks after the IPP Office of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) extended the “non-negotiable” deadline of 31 July 2021 for financial closure of these projects stated by…
Read the full story on Daily Maverick.
André de Ruyter wants Eskom to drive green industrialisation
Eskom CEO hopes to tap into R150bn of concessional green financing from development finance institutions
Eskom CEO André de Ruyter on Tuesday sketched out a bold vision of an Eskom that could drive the green industrialisation of SA by transitioning to renewable energy and anchoring demand for the manufacturing of green goods, such as electric vehicles (EVs).
Eskom is responsible for 40% of SA’s carbon emissions and produces 85% of its electricity using coal. There have been strong arguments from policymakers, including mineral resources & energy minister Gwede Mantashe, that SA must use its coal resources and transition at its own pace…
hopefully Andre will not come up additional levies for solar users as was the case a few months back
Maybe Andre is going against Gwede Mantashe/ANC desperate gamble to get the ships in place.
I would rather bet on Andre, than “them”.
That has never been the case. The law makes provision for a one-time administration fee, and if I recall OUTA made such a ruckus about the open-ended nature of it, that it went back to the drawing board and they even pinned the amount down.
The other thing there has been a lot of, both by Eskom but also in Cape Town, is changes to tariff structures to unbundle infrastructure costs from usage costs.
Not sure what you’re referring to. There are no such levies in place.
I did not say there is a levi, six months ago Eskom came out with a plan where they wanted to charge solar users for using the grid as a backup, you can google it or look up news clips on YouTube
I think you may be referring to the tariff changes they are making, which unfortunately has the side effect that it makes solar a little less lucrative in the beginning. A lot of people were unhappy with that and blamed Eskom for making it harder to go to solar power.
I suppose there might be an element of truth to it, but I’m of the opinion that Eskom has a right to be paid for infrastructure upkeep. You should pay what it costs for that connection. While this may in the short run keep people locked into coal-power a little longer, in the long run it will only help renewable energy as the real costs of a grid connection surfaces.
I recall. But it really had nothing to do with solar users. We were affected, sure but it wasn’t a solar tax like the media tried to make it out to be. I am with @plonkster here. I too see no issue with Eskom wanted to charge to keep a grid connection to your home active. After all, they need to maintain it and it needs to work the moment you need power on a cloudy day. So they have to make sure they have capacity for your home, even if you don’t use it. Hence the connection fees and tariff changes they wanted to make.
The media just needed to sell more clicks and ran with the whole Eskom is targeting Solar users.
Unfortunately, I do believe that there will be a solar tax in the future. As the cost of home generation comes down and Eskom’s costs go up, there is no way that the gov will allow everyone to go the home generation route without passing a cost onto the consumers.
In a way, it reminds me of Telkom’s local loop unbundling scenario. Sure everyone wants the Telkom exchanges in the CBD to be opened up as it would generate competition and a fair market. But the exchanges in the small drops that made no money? Nope no one wanted part of that, and Telkom would then have to continue to foot the bill for all the unprofitable cable.
I don’t really think it would be styled as a tax. It would probably take the form of Cape Town’s existing SSEG tariff, where you’d have a connection fee that covers your additional use. The argument goes like this: That if I use that infrastructure (cabling, transformers) to transport my goods (electricity) to consumers, and get money for it, I should help pay for the upkeep of that infrastructure.
I remember a similar thing happening in Spain years ago. In the beginning they were super accommodating and even subsidised solar installations, but then they did the same thing at one point: They realised they were paying people to stop paying for the grid, and they stopped! Home owners were upset, of course, but in the end many of them installed battery systems and started using their own power instead of selling it. Some went completely off-grid.
That’s the one part the media always has a complete field day with that is utterly untrue: They are not going to tax the PV array on your farm. They may want to know about it, but that is as far as it goes (because they have this grand plan of how much renewable energy must be installed by 2030, and for some strange reason adding privately-installed PV makes sense, that is to say counting chickens hatched by other farmers, but I digress).
Edit: Just as I posted this, I remembered an old colleague I used to work with. Older gentlemen. He had this habit that whenever there was a work function at some restaurant, he would wait until everyone paid, and then he would pay only the difference, in effect stealing the tip for himself. In time we all learned not to tip… instead the department head would personally tip the waiter separately.
Now this business with the government having a plan for a certain amount of installed renewable energy, but adding the difference after counting the privately-installed capacity, well it sorta feels the same.
@plonkster , qhich SSEG tariff are you referring to, the only fee I pay is the Home Connect fee of R168 plus vat to COCT, also I don’t feed in to the grid.
Yup, you are not on the SSEG tariff. The SSEG tariff is the one where you install that expensive meter at your own cost, and then you pay a daily levy, but they pay you for electricity you feed in, and your first 600 units are slightly cheaper.
So basically they move some of the per-unit cost to a daily levy, so that people who buy very little energy (significantly less than 600kWh) continue to contribute to the upkeep of the infrastructure.
I’ve done the math on these many times in the past. If you use 600kWh, it doesn’t matter what tariff you are on. It works out more or less the same. And above 600kWh, it also costs the same for everyone (except lifeline users… they get punished real hard). The difference is below 600kWh, where some tariffs will punish you for using too little energy… or rather, they will stop rewarding you, because you are stuck with a flat connection fee (which is higher if you are on SSEG).
I don’t have an issue paying the city to keep the electrical grid connected to my property. I need that connection as a backup. I have an ESS where the excess PV goes to use later and have zero intention of feeding into the grid (CoJ is not about the life)
I don’t think there will be a solar tax just because I have some panels on the roof. As much as the media tried to spin that angle.
1 Like