Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill B20B-2006: Department briefing
NCOP Economic and Business Development
23 January 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
23 January 2007
ELECTRICITY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL B20B-2006: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING
Chairperson: Ms N Ntwanambi (ANC, WC)
Documents handed out:
Electricity
Regulation Amendment Bill [B20B-2006]
Briefing on Electricity
Regulation Amendment Bill and response to stakeholder concerns
Draft Committee
Programme
SUMMARY
The Department of Minerals and Energy briefed the Committee on the Electricity
Regulation Amendment Bill, B20B-2006, which had been passed by the Portfolio
Committee and was now being introduced into the National Council of Provinces.
It summarised the underlying structure, the electricity value processes, and
the reasons why reticulation needed to be regulated. The history of the Bill
was explained. The views of shareholders, in many cases quite divergent, were
given and it was explained how the Department had attempted to meet their
concerns. All stakeholders were agreed that there needed to be regulation.
The Bill presented now facilitated the
economic regulation of the whole electricity value chain, clarified that
reticulation and distribution meant the same, recognised the role of the
municipalities, provided for regulation of service providers and strengthened
the role of the Energy Regulator. Questions by members addressed the links
between this legislation and the proposed Regional Electricity Distributors.
Clarity was given on the views of other Departments and the stakeholders. Other
issues related to uniform tariffs and their impact upon municipalities,
maintenance and upgrading by municipalities, monitoring of service delivery,
capacity of licence holders and the future role of Eskom. The Bill would be
scheduled for debate in the House at the end of March.
The Committee considered and made suggestions on the draft committee programme.
MINUTES
Briefing on Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill B20B-2006 by Department of
Minerals and Energy (DME)
Mr Ompi Aphane, Chief Director: Electricity, reported that the Bill had
been adopted by the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy in November
2006, and was now being introduced into the National Council of Provinces following
the Section 76 process. The provisions of this Bill had originally been
included as Chapter 4 of the Electricity Regulation Bill (ERB). However, since
ERB had contained both Section 75 and 76 provisions, Chapter 4 had been removed
and the remainder of ERB was promulgated in July 2006. The Section 76
provisions were now presented in the current Bill. The first draft of this Bill
had aimed to provide a holistic regulatory framework for electricity supply and
distribution but at the public hearings a number of issues were raised by
stakeholders. Hence the Bill as now presented encompassed a number of changes
adopted by the Portfolio Committee to address those concerns.
Mr Aphane stated that the Bill focused on distribution in the 130 kilovolt (kV)
to 240 volt (V) range, covering about ten million customers. The legislation
was vital since the current electricity distribution industry (EDI) structures
were inefficient, with few economies of scale, over 2000 tariffs, insufficient
investment by municipalities in ageing infrastructure, poor municipal
governance, and limited power to enforce the regulations granted to the
National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA). He explained that the
Regional Electricity Distribution (RED) process was a separate ongoing
structural issue; and this Bill dealt with the regulatory aspects only.
During the public hearings several concerns were raised. The separate
definitions of “reticulation” and “distribution” were challenged. The attempt
to distinguish between customers using under and over 500 megawatt hours (mWh)
per annum was problematic since some consumers would have fallen outside the
ambit of NERSA. The dual regulatory environment had caused concern since there
would have been uncertainty as to who would regulate municipalities’ supplies.
There were also concerns over exemptions for water pumping schemes and
traction.
Mr Aphane summarised some of the stakeholders' views, indicating that they were
very divergent. However, he stressed that all stakeholders were unanimous in
supporting the need for some regulation. One view stated that reticulation
should mean the entire distribution value chain, not limited by consumption.
Another held that reticulation should be limited to 380 volts, which would
encompass the domestic sector only. Some felt NERSA should license everything,
but others felt that licensing the reticulation part of the industry would
impede municipalities in carrying out their constitutional mandates. Some
suggested that enforcement of municipal obligations did not rest with the
Regulator, but was more appropriately dealt with under Section 139 processes.
This, however, could cause problems in emergency situations, and was perhaps
not appropriate for minor breaches.
The redraft of the Bill therefore attempted to address the definition of
reticulation, how it should be licensed and how breaches should be dealt with.
Each stakeholder submission was considered in the light of the implications for
the industry and the end users, and Mr Apane tabled a summary of the
implications. The Portfolio Committee amendments had resulted in the following
changes:
a) there was now no distinction drawn between “reticulation” and “distribution”
which effectively meant the same, and were defined
b) there was no separation of customers by consumption, so all references to
500mWh had been removed
c) All distributors, including municipalities, were now subject to the
regulatory framework of licensing and must hold licences issued by NERSA
d) Norms and standards formed part of the licence conditions
e) Municipalities could choose to enter service agreements with service
providers, in terms of the Municipal Systems Act
f) There was now conformity between the provisions of the legislation relating
to municipalities and NERSA so that conflicts had been avoided. All
distributors would be licensed through the Regulator and service providers were
properly covered.
In summary, therefore, the Bill aimed to facilitate the economic regulation of
the whole electricity value chain, including municipalities, to regulate
reticulated services while recognising the role of the municipalities, to allow
for service providers to be used, to provide uniformity in the treatment of end
users through a licensing process and to set a solid foundation for the
formation of the REDs.
Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the Committee would in all likelihood only
be able to finalise the Bill in March and it would probably be scheduled for
voting in the House on 28 or 29 March.
The Chairperson asked for an indication of the views of City of Cape Town
(CCT).
Mr Aphane replied that CCT had participated in the hearings and were intent on
getting their licence. A view was expressed that CCT perhaps did not need to be
licensed at all since the provision of electricity services was part of its
constitutional mandate, but the Department and NERSA held a contrary view and
were happy that CCT had recognised the jurisdiction of NERSA. The Department
believed that the Bill should clarify the jurisdiction in relation to distribution.
He reiterated that the RED process was still in discussion at another forum.
The Chairperson asked what input had been given by other departments, such as
Department of Public Enterprises (DPE).
Mr Aphane stated that DPE had shareholder jurisdiction over Eskom. Although no
written input had been given, DPE accepted that Eskom, as a State Owned
Enterprise (SOE) was currently responsible for generation and transmission,
both of which needed to be strengthened. Eskom would be exiting the distribution
process, subject to key performance indicators being in place, at a later
stage. DPE was not opposed to the process, but needed to safeguard certain
aspects of the Eskom transmission.
Ms M Temba (ANC, Mpumulanga)asked for some clarity on which stakeholders
had taken part in the public hearings.
Mr Aphane stated that a full list would be available, together with their
detailed comments. Briefly, however, the stakeholders had included businesses,
municipal structures such as South African Local Government Association
(SALGA), individual municipalities, Eskom, EDI Holdings, organised labour,
through the unions, academic institutions, NERSA, and others.
Ms Temba asked if the Committee would have an opportunity to be briefed in more
detail on the specific provisions of the Bill.
Mr Aphane confirmed that it would be useful for the Department to have an
opportunity to brief the Committee on the Bill itself and invited the Committee
to arrange a suitable date.
Mr N Hendricks (ANC, Western Cape) was concerned that there seemed to be
over-emphasis on lack of maintenance by municipalities. In the Western Cape the
problem in interruption of supply lay rather with Eskom, whose forward planning
had been poor.
Mr Aphane stated that maintenance was only one of the factors causing
difficulty; in fact the lack of proper regulation, both of infrastructure and
economic aspects, was the main cause. Lack of management in any area
contributed to the structure collapsing.
Other critical aspects were skills development and economies of scale.
He accepted that problems had also arisen with Eskom, but the new Bill did not
distinguish between Eskom and other distributors, who would have to deal with
consumers in the same way.
Mr Hendricks asked how the standardisation of tariffs would affect some of the
municipalities who relied heavily on the income from electricity to run their
operations.
Mr Aphane confirmed that tariff setting needed to be examined carefully.
Insufficient tariffs meant that there was no money to put back into maintaining
or upgrading the infrastructure, whereas overcharging would clearly not benefit
the end users. Sustainability was a key factor in setting tariffs. The current situation would certainly not
promote sustainability.
Mr D Gamede (ANC, Kwazulu Natal) wondered if some of the equipment was now past
being maintained and rather needed to be replaced, particularly if regular
maintenance had not been carried out over the years.
Mr Aphane confirmed that in many instances the lack of maintenance resulted in
the need for serious refurbishment, and investment of a capital nature.
“Maintenance” had been used by him as an example, as this was most often in the
public domain and affected daily supplies.
Mr Gamede asked whether there really would be uniformity in tariffs. Mr Aphane
confirmed that this would result.
Mr Gamede further asked what would be the situation in small towns where
municipalities might be in charge of electricity to homes but Eskom in charge
of street lighting, or whether it was the intention that municipalities should
take over all responsibilities.
Mr Aphane stated that street lighting, being a low voltage activity, would fall
under the jurisdiction of the licence holder. In the past, street lighting fell
under one distributor and there was sometimes debate whether Eskom or the
municipality was responsible. This situation would now be phased out.
Mr Gamede further noted that provision of electricity was a core function of
municipalities and queried what checks would be carried out on delivery of
service after granting of licences, and how much time might elapse before they
could “take back” their licences.
Mr Aphane stated that part of this related to the structural process, but it
was not quite as simple as “taking back” a licence. The distributors would be
licensed in such a way that there was no adverse impact on their ability to
give continued service to the end user. Ultimately, municipalities would be
taking their place in the distribution chain, but this would not happen immediately.
They might not have the technical capacity and this process also needed to be
addressed. Eskom might have to provide a backstop over a period of time.
Mr T Setona (ANC, Free State) asked what would happen if a municipality was
licensed but did not have capacity to deliver the services.
Mr Aphane replied that although the delivery was a municipal mandate, it was
clear that certain municipalities did require assistance and in these cases
Eskom would be willing to assist.
Mr D Mkono (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked for clarity whether commercial and
domestic end users were now treated in the same way. He also asked whether
consumption was still a factor for consideration.
Mr Aphane confirmed that there was no longer a separation of consumers, as the
references to 500mWh had been removed. All supplies of under 132kV formed the
distribution customer chain, which basically included all customers connected
from a transmission substation. Absolute equality of treatment was not
possible. Although the aim was that everybody received a reliable supply,
domestic users, who were less susceptible to loss, took second place to
commercial or industrial users in the event of supply disruptions.
Ms L Matlhoahela (ID, Northern Cape) asked how the Bill intended to ensure that
municipalities would make sufficient investment into maintenance and
continuation of supply.
Mr Aphane stated that the Bill provided for certain regulations to be put in
place, including one that a certain percentage of income derived from the sector
would need to be invested back into it. There was also provision that
“normalisation” should also receive some investment, so that networks were
standardised and fit for their purpose. Some infrastructure dated back 70 years
and did not correlate to other infrastructure. The principal Act already
allowed for regulations to be promulgated to ensure “quality of supply”.
The Chairperson thanked the presenters and noted that a further briefing would
be arranged.
Consideration of Committee Programme
The Committee discussed the Committee Programme for the first session of 2007.
It was decided that the briefings to the provinces be moved to 15 February. It
was confirmed that the Chairperson would work on the details of the oversight
visit to the Northern Cape and the overseas trip. A preference was expressed by
several members for a trip to India.
The meeting adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.