Department of Energy on its 4th Quarter 2014/15 & 1st Quarter 2015/16 Performance, with Deputy Minister

Energy

04 August 2015
Chairperson: Mr F Majola (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Energy (DoE) reported on its 4th Quarter 2014/15, saying that from a total of 39 fourth quarter targets, it achieved 17 (44%), partially achieved 13 (33%), and did not achieve 9 (23%). In total, the DoE received an adjusted budget of R7.44 billion in 2014/15; and as at 31 March 2015, R6.22 billion or 83.6% had been disbursed. Thus R1.22 billion or 16.37% was under spent mainly in transfer payments. The bulk of the budget (83.4%, R6.9 billion) was for transfers and subsidies. The top five cost drivers were: travel and subsistence (R 56.3 million), consultants (R 43.7 million), operating leases (R27.1 million), venue and facilities (R 19.7 million) and computer services (R 10.2 million).

Achievements:
- Draft Gas Utilization Master Plan has been completed
- Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) was implemented
- 712 out of 1050 (67.8%) licence applications were finalised within 90 days
- All invoices were paid within 30 days of receipt
- DoE received a clean audit from the Auditor General

Challenges:
- Filling of positions timeously was a challenge as well as obtaining the requisite skills
- Implementation of new contracting model for the Solar Water Heater (SWH) programme
- Ageing electricity distribution infrastructure
- Capacity of municipalities to deliver on the electrification programme, especially in rural areas
- Finalisation of the amendments to the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) Amendment Bill
- Electricity distribution backlogs.

For the 1st Quarter 2015/16, DoE achieved 33 (55%) of its 61 targets, partially achieved 11 (18%), and did not achieve 17 (28%). The DoE’s 2015/16 adjusted budget is R7.48 billion. On 30 June 2015, a cumulative budget of R1.92 billion was available from which R1.9 billion or 98.6% was utilized with under-spending of R27.19 million. A significant portion of the DoE’s goods and services spending, 38.58%, was directed towards travel and subsistence costs.

Achievements:
- Vacancy rate has decreased
- Consultation on Petroleum Pipelines Act with the National Energy Regulator of SA (NERSA) has taken place and Amendment Regulations are submitted for Ministerial approval to promulgate
- National Energy Regulator Amendment Bill (NERA) Bill has been approved by Cabinet with certain conditions
- Stakeholder engagement process with an additional 20 target municipalities conducted

Challenges:
- Development of the Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF) legislation could not be achieved this quarter
- Draft revision of the NNR Amendment Act and Fund Bill were not completed
- No SWH units installed this quarter.

Questions raised by Members included: Could the DoE provide a breakdown of what the R56 million spent on travel and subsistence entailed? What were the timeframes and deadlines for the IRP update? What information could the DoE give the Committee on the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Russia on the nuclear deal? Where exactly was the process? When would the programme be approved? However, another Member said it was annoying that at any given opportunity opposition parties raised the nuclear issue; and asked was there no way for DoE to completely put a stop to these discussions?  Other questions were: when would the SWHs return to production? What economic impact assessment has been done on the implementation of the nuclear program? What kind of funding model would be followed; would funding include cost reflective tariffs, would it include increased taxes? Why was the DoE advocating that the Strategic Fuel Fund be separated from the Central Energy Fund (CEF)? What was the DoE doing to address the national shortages of gas? How did the R15 billion loss at Petro SA affect the DoE moving forward, especially regarding gas? What plans were in place to minimize spending on consultants? What results have come from the public awareness programmes DoE had conducted on nuclear? What was the DoE doing to address under-spending? What were reasons for the delays in implementation of projects which resulted in this under-spending, especially those under Policy and Planning? Why has the 20 Year Liquid Fuels Master Plan not been submitted?

Meeting report

Ms Thembisile Majola, Deputy Minister of Energy noted that the Minister wanted to be part of the meeting; however she was running late.

Annual Performance Plan (APP) 4th Quarter 2014/15 Performance – DoE briefing
Dr Wolsey Barnard, DoE Acting Director General, noted that of a total of 39 fourth quarter 2014/15 targets, the DoE achieved 17 (44%) of its targets, partially achieved 13 (33%), and did not achieve 9 (23%). Under Programme 1 (Financial Management Services), the DoE achieved its target of approving invoices to be paid within 30 days of receipt. The DoE has maintained a good record in this regard.

Under Programme 2 (Energy Policy and Planning), the Draft 20 Year Liquid Fuel Master Plan was currently undergoing consultation with State Owned Companies before it could be submitted to Cabinet for approval. Also technical outputs from the DoE have been included in the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) final report. However the promulgation of norms and standards for municipal network asset rehabilitation has not been achieved, this was due to the delay in the finalisation of funding options.

Programme 3 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products Regulation) enforcement notices were issued in 85% of the cases where non-compliance was identified during routine compliance inspections. However some of the targets could not be achieved as they were dependant on external parties such as the Task Team on Biofuels which comprised of different departments and new issues were continually being added.

Programme 4 (Electrification and Energy Programme and Project Management) highlights of the targets achieved were: 14 030 non-grid connections were achieved against a target of 15 000, the 11th Independent Power Producers (IPP) report on construction has been completed and 25 IPPs have reached Commercial Date of Operation (COD) for Bid Window 1 and nine IPPs have reached COD for Bid Window 2 and were fully operational. The target to build 14 substations was not achieved, only two substations were built. The delay in the building of new bulk substations were due to the late start of the projects and the delays in the designs and the delivery of ordered materials.

Programme 5 (Nuclear Energy) some of the highlights in the programme were: the development of the implementation plan on the Mission Report was finalised and approved, nuclear security compliance reports were developed and approved, two nuclear safeguards compliance reports were developed and approved, one nuclear safeguard compliance report was developed and approved and three public awareness campaigns were conducted. However the development of the Fund Bill was not achieved, consultations on it with the Chief State Law Adviser were still in process. The procurement process for the new nuclear build programme was in place.

Programme 6 (Clean Energy) none of the targets were achieved. The solar water heater contracting model was submitted to Cabinet for moving the programme from Eskom to the DoE.

Financial Performance 4th Quarter 2014/15
Ms Yvonne Chetty, DoE Chief Financial Officer, provided an overview per economic classification, per top five major cost drivers for 2014/15, financial performance overview per programme and a breakdown of the transfer payments schedule for 2014/15. In total, the DoE received an adjusted budget of R7.44 billion; the bulk of this (83.4%), R6.9 billion was for transfers and subsidies. As at 31 March 2015, a total of R6.22 billion or 83.6% of this adjusted budget had been disbursed. This resulted in an unspent budget of R1.22 billion or 16.37% of the adjusted allocation, mainly due to the under spending in the transfer payments economic classification. The top five cost drivers within the DoE were: travel and subsistence (R 56.3 million), consultants (R 43.7 million), operating leases (R27.1 million), venue and facilities (R 19.7 million) and computer services (R 10.2 million). The top five cost items collectively accounted for 75.1% of the total spend, an increase from 74% reported in 2013/14. Financial allocations per programme were: Administration received R260 million, Energy Policy and Planning R53 million, Petroleum and Petroleum Products Regulation R78 million, Electricity and Energy Programme Management R4.2 billion, Nuclear Energy R846 million and Clean Energy R1.9 billion.

Dr Barnard indicated some of the notable achievements for 2014/15:
- Since approval and publication of first draft of the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) during 2013/14, the DoE has addressed the public comments and produced a draft report which includes the technical outputs. The final Integrated Energy Planning Report (IEP) report will be submitted to Cabinet in third quarter of 2015/16
- The Draft Gas Utilization Master Plan has been completed and it was being considered within the DoE
- The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) was implemented according to timeframes set out in the IRP 2010
- The total household connection target for 2014/15 was 265 000 grid and 15000 non-grid and achieved 247 485 with 233 455 grid and 14 030 non-grid connections
- Four workshops were conducted on business opportunities in the energy sector for women in Gauteng, Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga Provinces. A total of 350 women from historically disadvantaged communities participated. The workshops provided information on business opportunities in the energy sector which includes renewables, electricity infrastructure, oil and gas
- 712 out of 1050 (67.8%) licence applications received were finalised within 90 days
- All invoices were paid within 30 days of receipt
- The DoE received a clean audit from the Auditor General.

Some of the challenges faced by the DoE during 2014/15 were:
- Reduce escalating energy prices of both electricity and petroleum products, to cushion the adverse impact on the poor
- Provide short term/ immediate power solutions that would assist the country to meet the current energy demand, until Medupi, Kusile and Ingula pump storage station are fully operational in the absence of a clear ESI end state
- Filling of positions timeously was a challenge as well as obtaining the requisite skills
- Implementation of new contracting model for the SWH programme
- Ageing electricity distribution infrastructure
- Capacity of municipalities to deliver on the electrification programme, especially in rural areas
- Finalisation of the amendments to the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) Amendment Bill
- Electricity distribution backlogs.

Annual Performance Plan (APP) 1st Quarter of 2015/16 Performance – DoE briefing
Out of a total of 61 targets, the DoE achieved 33 (55%) of its targets, partially achieved 11 (18%), and did not achieve 17 (28%). There were no SWH units installed this quarter; however Cabinet approved on 26 June 2015 the moving of the SWH programme from Eskom to DoE via a Cabinet Memorandum which contains the clarification on the move of the programme.

1st Quarter Financial Performance for 2015/16
Ms Chetty said a cumulative budget of R1.92 billion was available for 1st Quarter from which R1.9 billion or 98.6% was utilized resulting in a budget under-spending of R27.19 million or 1.41%. The Transfers category accounted for 37.6% and goods and services for 59.9% of the total under spending. The top five cost items collectively accounted for 73.98% of the total spend; a significant portion of the DoE’s goods and services spending, 38.58%, was directed towards travel and subsistence cost. Allocation per programme was: Administration (R 242 million), Energy Policy and Planning (R 45 million), Petroleum and Petroleum Products Regulation (R 74 million), Electricity and Energy Programme Management (R 5.7 billion), Nuclear Energy (R 654 million) and Clean Energy (R 687 million).

Dr Barnard said some of the notable achievements were:
- Vacancy rate has decreased
- The 2014/15 financial year Consultation on Petroleum Pipelines Act with NERSA has taken place and Amendment Regulations are submitted for Ministerial approval to promulgate
- NERA Bill has been approved by Cabinet with certain conditions
- Stakeholder engagement process with an additional 20 target municipalities was conducted

Some of the challenges were:
- Development of the Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF) legislation could not be achieved this quarter
- Draft revision of the NNR Amendment Act and Fund Bill were not completed
- No SWH units installed this quarter.

Discussion
Mr G Mackay (DA) raised a concern about the large travel and subsistence budget; R56 million spent on travel was excessive. Could the DoE provide a breakdown of what these costs entail? What were the timeframes and deadlines for the IRP update? A lot of speculation has been going on about the nuclear deals; could the DoE clarify issues around nuclear security and the development and approval of the compliance report? Was this report a new innovation? Who were the safeguard reports conducted on and who were they approved by? What information could the DoE give the Committee on the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Russia on a nuclear deal; there has been conflicting information coming from the DoE on whether the procurement process had already started or not. Where exactly is the process? According to the Deputy Director General on Nuclear, the procurement process had not yet begun.

On the Solar Water Heater (SWH) programme, Mr Mackay said the DoE should not be surprised by the progress made with the implementation of the programme. The DoE lacked political leadership from the Minister and there was too much uncertainty on policy relating to the programme. When would the programme be approved and when would the SWH’s return to production? What economic impact assessment has been done on the implementation of the nuclear program? What kind of funding model would be followed; would funding include cost reflective tariffs, would it include increased taxed? Who determined what these studies would include? Why was the DoE advocating for the Strategic Fuel Fund to be separated from the Central Energy Fund (CEF)? What was the strategic motivation for this separation? What were the reasons for the delayed legislation? He said the National Nuclear Regulator was a disastrous regulator and there was a deep need for reform within the entity; what were the reasons for the delay in the amendment of the National Nuclear Regulatory Act?

Mr P Van Dalen (DA) said the DoE had spent 90% of its budget but only achieved 44% of its targets with budget cuts being said to be the reason for the DoE not reaching its targets. If funding was a challenge, why was the DoE not adjusting the targets accordingly? Achieving 44% of targets made the DoE seem incompetent and underperforming. He said the shortage of electricity had serious effects on the gas and petroleum sectors. There was a serious shortage of gas within the Western Cape; what was the DoE doing to address this? Poor communities were relying on gas and petroleum as a source of energy. He said Petro SA had lost R15 billion; how would such a loss affect the shortage of fuel and gas across the country, and how would this affect next year’s targets? He asked whether any skills audits on its management and board have been conducted. In recent times a number of public officials were filling posts which they were not qualified for; who was checking these? He suggested that a Chapter Nine institution be established to perform skills audits in all departments and state owned companies.

Mr J Esterhuizen (IFP) asked if DoE has been consulting with traditional leaders about land where potential power stations would be built. He said the money which DoE was spending on consultants was too high; what plans were there to address this? Estimates suggest that R843 billion was to be spent on nuclear energy; have studies been conducted on financing options? What results have come from the public awareness programmes which DoE had conducted on nuclear? He said there were many benefits to using nuclear power over alternative energy sources. He agreed that nuclear power was much more reliable than other sources of power; Koberg was a good example of how reliable a nuclear plant was. Also information being spread by the media that the costs of solar and wind were less than nuclear were false; the future costs of these alternative sources of energy were very high because they were very costly to maintain.

Ms T Mahambehlala (ANC) agreed with Mr Esterhuizen that it was premature to speculate on the costs of the nuclear build programme. The presentation indicates that there was zero compliance on governance and compliance within DoE; how was this possible? Could DoE provide clarity on this? What was DoE doing to address under-spending? What were reasons for the delays in implementation of projects which resulted in this under-spending, especially those under Policy and Planning? The presentation indicated that a lengthy work study was warranted for some of DoE’s employees; for what kind of skills were these work studies for, were they for unique skills? Why has the 20 Year Liquid Fuels Master Plan not been submitted? Also the promulgation for norms and standards should have been submitted to Cabinet by now; what were the reasons for these delays in policy? Most of DoE’s programmes were reliant on policy; how was DoE going to implement its plans when there were no policies in place? What was the role of Petro SA in the development of the gas sector?

According to the presentation, Eskom was the main reason for under-spending, especially around Municipal Energy Efficiency Demand Side Management (EEDSM) programme money which was not transferred. Why was this consistently being reported on without much change? What was DoE doing to deal with this? She said the establishment of a Chapter Nine institution for energy-related issues did not make sense. People should stop trying to monopolise Chapter Nine institutions in an attempt to use them against the ruling party.

Ms Faku (ANC) asked about the non-grid electrification programme, which was very important for the electrification of rural areas, yet there have been significant delays in its implementation. Could DoE elaborate on why this was the case and what was DoE doing to address this? What mechanisms were in place to address these problems? Did DoE have any plans to roll out the programme on a larger scale? She said the delays in the municipal network asset rehabilitation were also a cause for concern.

Mr M Matlala (ANC) said after the 2014 national elections, the Committee on various occasions met with DoE to discuss progress made, and he asked why some of the same issues arere-surfacing. He said it was annoying that at any given opportunity opposition parties raised the issue of nuclear; was there no way for DoE to completely put a stop to these discussions? According to the presentation, there were three public awareness campaigns conducted by DoE; which provinces were these conducted in? He said the lines of accountability between DoE and Eskom were very blurred, this needed to be addressed. He said two senior personnel from Petro SA had been suspended, moving forward he suggested that the whole Board be suspended and a new Board be appointed. He said the costs of leasing office spaces were too high; why could DoE not simply buy its own offices, both nationally and provincially? He raised a concern about the number of senior DoE officials who were leaving; what mechanisms did DoE have in place to try and curb this trend? Why were people leaving; were they not happy within DoE?

Chairperson Majola said the presentation alluded to meetings held with other Directors-General on the capacity of the state. According to the presentation performance was at 41%; has DoE done any performance reviews in the past? If so, what was the trend? DoE needed to put better effort into choosing its priorities well so that DoE could better deliver on its mandate. DoE needed to work on its electrification programme because this programme has a direct impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. Energy security was another area of importance and policy relating to this needed to be finalised. DoE needed to find a way to ring-fence energy security.

Deputy Minister Majola said the bulk of the questions seemed to be around policy, she proposed that the responses start with those questions.

Mr Ompi Aphane, Deputy Director General, Energy Policy and Planning, responded to the questions around timeframes and deadlines on the IRP, DoE has made a commitment that by March 2016 the plan would be concluded. He asked that DoE come back to the Committee at a later time to do a presentation on the SWH programme. On the National Energy Regulator Amendment Bill, he said the conditions referred to by Cabinet were in relation to the institutional arrangement. A two tier regulator was proposed, a commission and a review board, similar to the composition of the competition commission. Cabinet raised issues in relation to the review board, and DoE was dealing with the issues pertaining to the review board. On the question around the shortage of gas, he said from a policy perspective DoE had a policy position to introduce gas into the energy mix. On the 20 July 2015, DoE issued a request for information for short and medium term goals for the introduction of various gases, which would range from liquid petroleum gas, piped gas to natural gas and shale gas possibilities. After doing this DoE could then move away from relying on refineries and shortages could be addressed. Additional storage capacity would also be looked into. However this process would not unfold overnight. DoE hoped to see a big difference in the availability of gas by next winter.

On the question around not consulting traditional leaders, he said this should be taken in the context of the build programme as DoE selected the various locations which in some cases would require the engagements with the traditional leaders from those affected communities in as far as land use was concerned. With regard to the role of Petro SA in the development of gas he said the state played a very central role in the development of the sector. By its nature, gas infrastructure was monopolistic and the state through its state owned entities such as Petro SA would seek to transform the sector. On the questions around why DoE has not advanced to the state where it was supposed to have on the IEP, norms and standards and on the 20 Year Liquid Fuels Master Plan, he said unfortunately DoE was not able to move beyond what it had reported on, for various reasons.

On the question on Eskom and the SWH programme, he said the programme has been a problem for the past three years and it was indeed a bit of an embarrassment for DoE. Fortunately DoE progress has been made in this regard and DoE would come back to provide a detailed presentation to the Committee. He acknowledged that DoE was facing some real problems; load shedding being one of them, one which was more critical than other issues. In trying to address this DoE was looking at short term solutions, not that DoE was trying to move away from its responsibilities. On the question around the economic impact assessment of nuclear, he said with the IEP of which nuclear was an integral sub-set, an economic impact assessment has been done and it has informed some of the choices taken by DoE on nuclear.

Dr Barnard said some of the questions raised by Members needed to be put into context. For example, Eskom did not report to DoE, Eskom was an independent state owned entity and DoE was not involved in its day-to-day activities. Therefore some of the questions asked where not for DoE to respond to. DoE only assisted in the development of policy. On the questions on nuclear he said the procurement process would be announced, the process was currently under discussion between DoE and the National Treasury’s Chief Procurement Office, which was overseeing all mega projects. This process was still ongoing. The same process was also dealing with financial modeling. He agreed that DoE sometimes did not reach some of the targets it had set. However a lot of DoE’s processes needed to be approved by other processes and the department was at the tail end of these. DoE did not plan for the long overrun of these processes.

On Petro SA he said it was important to note that the Minister with the assistance of DoE was currently acting on the issues which were of concern. However the Minister could not hire and/or fire board Members, DoE could only provide guidance. On SWH he said DoE could not install enough SWH systems because there was a huge demand for these currently. Worldwide, SWH were a growing demand. Eskom however was an independent entity. With regard to the price of electricity, he said the issue needed further discussion, however like Germany, the country was moving towards renewable energy sources. He agreed that the use of consultants was always a red flag; however there were certain functions which DoE could not perform. For example, DoE did not have labs for petroleum testing and these external functions were bundled up in the use of consultants.

On the electrification programme, he said although DoE has not reached its full target, each 42 seconds of a working day, DoE connected one household in deep rural areas. However working in deep rural areas was sometimes very difficult, sometimes it took weeks for DoE to even get their equipment into these communities because of a lack of proper roads for example. Worldwide DoE was being praised on its electrification programme, the Secretary General of the United Nations; Ban Ki Moon praised the country for the programme. With regard to the role-play between DoE, Eskom and the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa), he said DoE set policy, Eskom was a utility which operated according to the Acts set by DoE with a mandate from government. DoE was not involved in Nersa’s decision making. On the senior staff leaving DoE he explained that two had reached retirement age and one went off due to a very serious illness. He agreed that there were always staff moving from one department to the next but DoE supported the development of staff, 10% of DoE’s vacancies were due to the department’s normal turnover.

Ms Chetty responded to the question on the R56 million spent on travel, there were over 70 international trips during 2014/15. A complete breakdown would be provided to the Committee. She said funds appropriated but not spent during that financial process were rolled over to the subsequent year, subject to the approval of National Treasury. This would need to meet specific criteria however. On leasing of accommodation, she said the Department of Public Works managed the portfolio for government infrastructure. None of the national departments were therefore allowed to purchase property or build any structures; this needed to be undertaken by the Department of Public Works; which was managed by the Government Infrastructure and Asset Management Act. She agreed that the amount spent on computer services was high; this was related to the services DoE had received for all licensing and transversal systems used within DoE. DoE had to pay for these services. A report providing a breakdown on the funds spent on travel would be provided to the Committee. DoE’s policy and planning had a significant amount for under-spending; this was regarding the review and the announcement of energy data collection and management tools. There was a problem with the service provider which was undergoing a restructuring process which negatively impacted the project. The contract has since been moved to another supplier. With regard to the delays on non-grid INAP she said there has been a project management intervention. DoE had to undergo a lengthy process of work studies; DoE underwent a restructuring process and some of these positions had to undergo a work study process. A list of these would be provided.

Ms Elize Monale, Chief Director: Nonproliferation, DoE, responded to the questions around nuclear, she said DoE has realised that there was a gap in DoE’s legislation, however the amendment of the National Nuclear Regulator Act would be fast tracked. The amendment would be submitted to Chief State Law Advisors by the end of the second quarter. DoE was a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and there were requirements that nuclear material should be protected in accordance with the set nuclear security measures. DoE therefore ensured that the authorization holders’ security measures were in line with the international obligations. With regards to safeguards, she said South Africa has signed a non proliferation treaty which ensured that nuclear material was used for peaceful purposes. She indicated that DoE has conducted public awareness workshops in Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein and Gauteng. On the Russian agreement she explained that the MOU has been concluded, and it covered training South Africans in Russian fields. With regards to the questions relating to the studies which have been conducted she said DoE would like to come back and make a proper presentation to the Committee.

Mr Mthokozisi Mpofu, Chief Director: Infrastructure, DoE, responded to the questions regarding delays in the non-grid programme, the delays were caused by appointed service providers who did not provide the necessary documentation on time. However in the current financial year all service providers’ contracts were concluded in time therefore the challenges would not be repeated. DoE was planning to meet all planned connections for the year.

Mr Mackay asked whether DoE was committing to provide the two nuclear reports to the Committee. He said the Minister has personally asked to meet the Committee however she was not in the meeting, however this was not surprising seeing that the Minister had only attended four out of 27 meetings last year. Was the Minister still coming or not?

Mr Esterhuizen said DoE’s target to connect 250 000 households was ambitious and unbelievable.

Dr Barnard said the nuclear reports which have been completed internally still needed to be formally approved, after this they would be shared.

Deputy Minister Majola said there were a number of questions raised which would require more focused discussion, such as those around nuclear and renewables and the costs between these two. There was a lot of talk which was not very scientific thus not providing a true reflection of what the choices were and what the reasons for these choices were. The IRP has tried to do the mix so the country had an optimum blend while still being conscious of the environmental risks involved. There were discussions taking place around CEF and Petro SA, where the country’s end state on electricity was a major area of discussion. She said it was unfortunate that the Minister was unable to attend the meeting because she would have loved to share some information with the Committee. The R15 billion impairment at Petro SA did not take place in one year; it was a result of many processes which had taken place over many years. The issue of governance in this regard was therefore very important.

With regard to connections, there were a number of factors which had an impact on these, one being the urban versus rural debate. These connections under non-grid were therefore not simply. In most rural areas, the responsibility to connect households was Eskom’s; therefore DoE had to work closely with the entity in this regard. In some cases residents rebelled against renewables. With regard to the relationship between Eskom, DoE and Nersa she said the regulator was very independent, and decisions taken by Nersa have undergone very serious processes. Treasury had also withheld funds from 20 municipalities which owed Eskom, DoE found that a lot of these municipalities have very little responsibility in terms of electrification, but because they were political heads they were under most of the pressure. Eskom therefore also owed a lot of municipalities a lot of money because connections were Eskom’s responsibility.

Chairperson Majola indicated that the Minister had said she was no longer able to attend the meeting. He said the Committee would need to discuss how to process the issues relating to nuclear.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Share this page: