![\"\"](\"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Chris-Yelland-1.jpg\")
<\/a>Eskom knows this. And yet, in a desperate attempt to cling to its monopoly, Eskom\u2019s court papers now argue that these licences represent \u201ca unilateral policy shift\u201d that \u201chas not been the subject of public consultation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That claim is not only false \u2013 it is egregiously dishonest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The five trading licences that Eskom now seeks to nullify were granted by NERSA after following due process, including public participation by Eskom itself, as mandated under both the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006, and the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act that came into effect on 1 January 2025. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom also had the opportunity to comment on the Acts themselves during the industry consultation process and parliamentary promulgation processes, and no doubt did so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
By waiting until after the licences were granted to launch a legal challenge, reeks of strategic delay and corporate obstructionism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Worse still is Eskom\u2019s inflammatory language. The utility claims that traders are now allowed to \u201cpoach the best of Eskom’s customers\u201d without bearing any of the \u201credistributive responsibilities\u201d enabled by Eskom\u2019s current tariff structures. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This argument is deliberately misleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom Distribution holds two distinct licences: a distribution licence, which grants it exclusive rights over the wires business in its service areas, and a trading licence, which is non-exclusive and places Eskom in direct competition with other energy retailers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The tariffs charged for network access are regulated and paid by the customer, regardless of who supplies the electricity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In other words, Eskom continues to recover its costs for maintaining infrastructure even when it loses customers to another licensed electrical energy trader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To conflate distribution revenues with energy trading revenues \u2013 as Eskom does \u2013 is a sleight of hand aimed at preserving an outdated monopoly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Retail competition is not \u201cpoaching\u201d \u2013 it is how liberalised and competitive energy markets function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom is free to compete for customers based on service quality, price and energy attributes such as green credentials. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If Eskom cannot compete on those terms, that is a reflection on its product offering \u2013 not on the rules of the game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Weaponising social justice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Eskom-power-station-1024x576.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nEven more farcical is Eskom\u2019s suggestion that allowing competition will cause prejudice to \u201cusers of electricity generally, the many poor people reliant on subsidisation\u2026 and to the taxpayer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a thinly veiled attempt to weaponise social justice rhetoric in defence of institutional self-interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom’s bloated operating model, high losses and culture of inefficiency are the primary threat to affordability \u2013 not the emergence of competitors who can deliver electricity more efficiently or more sustainably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let us also not forget: the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act, which came into force on 1 January 2025, was the result of years of public engagement and parliamentary debate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It entrenches the legal foundation for competitive electricity markets and affirms the legal standing of electricity traders. Eskom did not oppose this Act or its predecessor. It cannot now claim surprise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, PowerX \u2013 South Africa\u2019s first licensed trader \u2013 was granted its licence as early as 2009, sixteen years before this court application. The licensing of several other traders has followed since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom never challenged these licences. To now cry foul \u2013 after traders have operated for over a decade and with policy clearly evolving toward competition \u2013 is both disingenuous and opportunistic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom\u2019s challenge also betrays a deep contradiction at the heart of its rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On one hand, it laments the risk to its revenue and its ability to cross-subsidise poor households. On the other, it has consistently failed to deliver on its service obligations to those very households \u2013 many of whom face load reduction, unaffordable tariffs or outright disconnection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What Eskom fears is not harm to the poor \u2013 it is the erosion of its customer base by more agile, customer-centric alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The true risk to Eskom\u2019s business model is not NERSA\u2019s licensing of traders. It is Eskom\u2019s failure to reform itself in line with the policy it helped shape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This case reveals Eskom for what it is: a state-owned behemoth engaged in regulatory brinkmanship to preserve its dominance, even as the sector moves on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead of adapting to the market evolution it helped script, Eskom is now deploying legal tactics to delay the inevitable: a competitive, diversified electricity supply industry where customers have choice and innovation can flourish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the court entertains Eskom\u2019s arguments, the result will be profound uncertainty for all prospective market entrants. It will deter investment, undermine regulatory credibility, and signal that vested interests can override both law and policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But if Eskom\u2019s challenge is dismissed \u2013 as it should be \u2013 it will reinforce the integrity of South Africa\u2019s electricity reform process and signal that the country is serious about enabling a modern, competitive energy sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In conclusion, Eskom\u2019s court challenge is not merely a legal objection \u2013 it is a full-frontal assault on reform. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It misrepresents the law, distorts policy history, and manipulates socio-economic concerns to shield its own inefficiencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The courts \u2013 and the public \u2013 must see this for what it is: a desperate attempt to turn back the clock on two decades of progress.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Energy expert Chris Yelland says Eskom’s attempts to stop energy regulator Nersa from issuing new electricity trading licences is a desperate ploy to preserve its monopoly in South Africa.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":833368,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[5504,1164],"class_list":["post-833351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-business-opinion","tag-chris-yelland","tag-eskom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/36"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=833351"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":833370,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833351\/revisions\/833370"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/833368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=833351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=833351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=833351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nEven more farcical is Eskom\u2019s suggestion that allowing competition will cause prejudice to \u201cusers of electricity generally, the many poor people reliant on subsidisation\u2026 and to the taxpayer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a thinly veiled attempt to weaponise social justice rhetoric in defence of institutional self-interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom’s bloated operating model, high losses and culture of inefficiency are the primary threat to affordability \u2013 not the emergence of competitors who can deliver electricity more efficiently or more sustainably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let us also not forget: the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act, which came into force on 1 January 2025, was the result of years of public engagement and parliamentary debate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It entrenches the legal foundation for competitive electricity markets and affirms the legal standing of electricity traders. Eskom did not oppose this Act or its predecessor. It cannot now claim surprise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, PowerX \u2013 South Africa\u2019s first licensed trader \u2013 was granted its licence as early as 2009, sixteen years before this court application. The licensing of several other traders has followed since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom never challenged these licences. To now cry foul \u2013 after traders have operated for over a decade and with policy clearly evolving toward competition \u2013 is both disingenuous and opportunistic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eskom\u2019s challenge also betrays a deep contradiction at the heart of its rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On one hand, it laments the risk to its revenue and its ability to cross-subsidise poor households. On the other, it has consistently failed to deliver on its service obligations to those very households \u2013 many of whom face load reduction, unaffordable tariffs or outright disconnection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What Eskom fears is not harm to the poor \u2013 it is the erosion of its customer base by more agile, customer-centric alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The true risk to Eskom\u2019s business model is not NERSA\u2019s licensing of traders. It is Eskom\u2019s failure to reform itself in line with the policy it helped shape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This case reveals Eskom for what it is: a state-owned behemoth engaged in regulatory brinkmanship to preserve its dominance, even as the sector moves on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead of adapting to the market evolution it helped script, Eskom is now deploying legal tactics to delay the inevitable: a competitive, diversified electricity supply industry where customers have choice and innovation can flourish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the court entertains Eskom\u2019s arguments, the result will be profound uncertainty for all prospective market entrants. It will deter investment, undermine regulatory credibility, and signal that vested interests can override both law and policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But if Eskom\u2019s challenge is dismissed \u2013 as it should be \u2013 it will reinforce the integrity of South Africa\u2019s electricity reform process and signal that the country is serious about enabling a modern, competitive energy sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In conclusion, Eskom\u2019s court challenge is not merely a legal objection \u2013 it is a full-frontal assault on reform. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It misrepresents the law, distorts policy history, and manipulates socio-economic concerns to shield its own inefficiencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The courts \u2013 and the public \u2013 must see this for what it is: a desperate attempt to turn back the clock on two decades of progress.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Energy expert Chris Yelland says Eskom’s attempts to stop energy regulator Nersa from issuing new electricity trading licences is a desperate ploy to preserve its monopoly in South Africa.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":833368,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[5504,1164],"class_list":["post-833351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-business-opinion","tag-chris-yelland","tag-eskom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/36"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=833351"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":833370,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833351\/revisions\/833370"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/833368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=833351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=833351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=833351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}