The Democratic Alliance has filed documents in the Pretoria high court challenging the decision by South Africa’s National Energy Regulator (Nersa) to approve an Eskom tariff increase of 18.65% for 2023 and 12.74% for 2024.
The application of the DA is twofold. In the first part, he requests an injunction prohibiting Eskom from implementing the price increase on April 1 pending the outcome of the second, in which he asks the court to declare not only the price increase but also the state’s response. to the energy crisis, including load-dumping, as unconstitutional.
In a founding affidavit, DA leader John Steenhuisen said Nersa had abandoned its previous policy of forcing Eskom to subsidize electricity by charging below-cost rates and that the effect of a cumulative increase of more than 30% over the two years would be robbing the poorest consumers. of the right of access to the energy source.
The price hikes would apply to both mining houses and indigent households, he stressed.
“Nersa’s decision means that on April 1, 2023, people will no longer have access to electricity, when on March 31, 2023 those people had that access,” Steenhuisen said.
The prosecution said Nersa’s decision was based on the faulty logic that the increase would help Eskom regain its financial footing and provide customers with a secure power supply.
“This premise is false,” he said. “Eskom cannot be saved by a rate increase. Without significant structural reform, Eskom is a lost cause that cannot be saved or helped in any way by making electricity customers pay more.”
Approving the increase was irrational, the party said, because the regulator failed to consider its impact on vulnerable people or take steps to ensure those who depended on the subsidy could continue to have access to power.
In support of his injunction request, he argued that consumers would suffer irreparable harm if he refused, while the loss to Eskom could be remedied, if the second part of the court challenge failed, reversing the rate increase.
The court documents list the constitutional rights violated by the detachment of charges, including rights to dignity, security, freedom of trade, and access to food, education, and health care.
“Without any doubt, load disconnection undermines a substantial set of constitutional rights,” the prosecutor said, adding that courts have repeatedly recognized that limited access to electricity compromised these rights.
The documents in this regard echo a demand letter sent to the minister for public companies and Eskom’s chief executive by the Houghton-based law firm Mabuza Abogados days ago.
In this letter, seven potential litigants, including the United Democratic Movement and the Build One South Africa movement, threatened to sue on Monday unless the reduction of charges is stopped on Friday or, failing that, the government provides an explanation. full explanation of why this can’t be immediately, along with a timeline to indicate when it would stop.
In its documents, the DA argued that Nersa’s decision constituted an administrative action and, therefore, was reviewable under the Law for the Promotion of Administrative Justice. Failing that, it could be challenged under the principle of legality as an exercise of public power.
The reasons for the review were that the decision was socially regressive, that the administrative process that led to it was flawed, and that it was unreasonable because Nersa could only authorize increases to help the company recover revenue if it was financially sustainable.
Put another way, the DA said, since rate increases will not prevent Eskom’s demise and the government has no other plan to save the entity, there was no point in extracting additional revenue from consumers.
“Nersa would grant an effective license to suck customers’ money into a black hole. But this is exactly what Nersa has done in this case.”
The prosecutor cited Eskom as the second defendant, President Cyril Ramaphosa as the third, followed by various cabinet members, first among them Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan.
