I would like to find out what the views out there is on the new rates and tariff proposal from ESKOM and NERSA and how you think it will impact the solar industry

3 hours ago, U-Solar said:

I would like to find out what the views out there is on the new rates and tariff proposal from ESKOM and NERSA and how you think it will impact the solar industry

Personal 2c worth. I think in principle it's only fair to charge appropriate fees for availability and energy separately, in a way that is reflective of the cost structure. If it reduces the attractiveness of solar power, so be it. I can't place the interest of solar users ahead of the general population that can't afford inverters, the folks that have to carry the cost of the grid infrastructure even as solar users defect from paying for it although they depend on it.

Obviously there will be less money around to spend on solar kit, but I don't think it will kill the solar industry, not as long as we have aged power plants that don't have a replacement plan in place. It might be that folks gravitate to smaller or cheaper installations to complement public infrastructure, rather than replace it in whole. People who decide to cut the cord, I don't think will stay off-grid after a season or two.

On 2024/06/02 at 6:08 PM, GreenFields said:

Personal 2c worth. I think in principle it's only fair to charge appropriate fees for availability and energy separately, in a way that is reflective of the cost structure. If it reduces the attractiveness of solar power, so be it. I can't place the interest of solar users ahead of the general population that can't afford inverters, the folks that have to carry the cost of the grid infrastructure even as solar users defect from paying for it although they depend on it.

Obviously there will be less money around to spend on solar kit, but I don't think it will kill the solar industry, not as long as we have aged power plants that don't have a replacement plan in place. It might be that folks gravitate to smaller or cheaper installations to complement public infrastructure, rather than replace it in whole. People who decide to cut the cord, I don't think will stay off-grid after a season or two.

So you actually support mismanagement, theft and corruption and is 100% happy to pay for a communistic system where by those in power gets it all and the rest of the dummies must enrich the few at the top.

If they can only lie, steel and waste money for what reason must I support such a corrupt system?

They been lying and fooled you and appointed technical firms not based on knowledge but rather creaming the money for a few.  Did you perhaps forget about Zuma and the Gupta's?

There is corruption on every level and what you are saying is lets support it.

The high costs etc is not about technology its all about supporting those that can't think and therefore the manufacturing and design gets forced out of SA so that the dumb can lead the way and actually steel from the poor.

Have a look what the corrupt fake NEWS.  SABC, CNN, BBC ... combined with Google, Meta(FB) they appointed Biden and the whole world is suffering because of your "type of theory".

If technology is affordable why must we allow corrupts to steal from hardworking people?

Technology costs is not expensive the overheads of feeding the systems is  If facts shows that the amount of solar systems installed in SA is greater in KW than a power station like Koeberg which is 1900 MW/Hr, then for what reason must we pay a useless politicians to steel from us and enrich the comrade?

The problem with ESKOM and expenses is not the running and expansion of it but rather those that see it as a personal profit scheme to enrich themself without having the mental ability to create and grow.

Therefore steeling from the dumb and foolish is whats happening here and you are in support of it.

Take note I am not a supporter of any political party so its not about a party it is because we have people voting for dumb politicians why we are experiencing the high costs and the added costs.

 

There was a financial article that calculated the amount of installed solar in SA.  Consider this statement.

Should people be penalized for solar which is the impact of your view, you will have an immediate increase in black outs as the impact will be the same as one of the major power station outage in SA. 

People who installed solar directly impacted black outs. Therefore there are less blackouts and you suggest ESKOM must penalize them because they now have less to steel.

How can this make any sense?

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by NoJ

Nersa should rather implement structures that deals with corruption and sort the high costs but then they are part of the same network.

Also what you don't understand if I understand the new tariffs correctly Eskom wants a +/- R1000 just for the connection.

There are places currently that is paying more than R2000 per month for "electricity availability". Imagine before you have any electricity you must pay R2K.

 

Nope when Eskom had people with knowledge working for them they where considered as one of the best utilities in the world and because people realized the cost of electricity and fuel has a direct impact on inflation it was kept as low as possible.

But then you have people that vote for some person called Bidon and the whole worlds suffer.

Nersa should drive costs down not up.  They should look intelligently at the complete model and not simply feed a bottomless pit that has a lot of useless people creaming it.

But then the question is how many at NERSA understand the impact on the poor and the the cost it will have.

No inflation that is the worst tax implemented by politicians should be driven DOWN not up.

For what reason must I pay R1000 per month that the installation costs was already paid for?
What reason justifies this?

I am sure that if the complete cost structure gets manage electricity can and will go down.

Think a little differently to the problem.

I can import a set of gears manufactured in India at +/- 30% of the local manufacturing costs. 

So its better for me to import that to sit with high fuel, electricity and mismanagement cost.

The high costs are driving businesses out OF SA that's the impact.

Think about it.

Elon Musk a South African moved a complete business from California to Texas because of the increase of costs
Apple moved
Oracle Moved and so I can continue.

All based on COST!!!!  and you happily want to allow NERSA to enrich the few at the top.

As for cost the DA is bragging about how they run the Western Cape.  But they are actually worse.

Their tax and cost structures combined with additional laws creates a different animal.

If I manufacture a PC board in Cape Town one bare board in Cpt costs more than the manufacturing, assembly and components for 5 outside SA.

In Cape Town I think the DA said there is a loss of about 700 businesses in the past few years.

People should actually email NERSA with a notice of objection rather than support for these increases.

 

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by NoJ

I wasn't planning to reply to this topic again, but the article below is touching on the same topic. Basically Eskom is saying solar users can't get away with freeloading, ie. can't be subsidized by the paying customers for their connection to the grid.

One can try to blame politics or corruption, and I'm certainly not saying I condone any such reasons, but I'm seeing a simple economic rationale behind it.

Nobody is forced to use Eskom, and anyone who doesn't like the proposed R1000 monthly charge is surely free to provide his own infrastructure, which would be in the ballpark of R150K-R200K upfront for a roughly equivalent 12kW hybrid inverter kit.

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/eskom-tariff-structure-changes-here-are-the-winners-and-losers/

Your correct @GreenFields, we have to choose full off grid or pay eskom. Corruption may be rampant on government but that doesn't mean ESKOM must provide power to our houses for free. It costs to bring power to our doors, the least we can do is pay a connection fee if we have a grid feed. We can debate about the price. I think R200 to R300 Max then +R1,50/kwh but less than R2,50/kwh for usage. If you select off grid then R0,00 payment but meter and cable must be removed from property.

If the freeloaders were minimal then R100 Max connection fee would suffice to cover their transmission costs.

 

 

@NoJ, I've been paying the municipal MCB charge in Pietermaritzburg for the last 16 years already. This charge is the basic connection fee dependent on the size of the municipal MCB, (mine is 50A). Before even 1 kW/h is consumed I pay R1068.00 for this connection. 😡 So when Eskom implements a similar structure, everyone will be paying for the corrupt "officials" and all the millions of freeloaders. 

I have had enough of this corruption and freeloaders, and am planing to move to a farm and totally off-grid lifestyle, so as to no longer pay this sickening socialist "tax".

We have people living up the road on "chiefs land" who have "official" illegal power and water connections, with NO meters on water or power. Their multiple spot lights are ALL on at night. At one of the mayors meetings, I brought this and other queries up, and was told, "it's payback time, and to basically pay up and shut-up." 😡

Totally sick and tired of these double standards, so aim to no longer pay this socialist "tax", and disconnect from the system.

Question. If years ago the power and water was so affordable so as not to be a burden, what has changed?

Answer. Mismanagement, incompetence, arrogance, theft, etc....

The volume of supply and demand is NOT the issue. Even illegal connections are due to the the above Answer.

So as to the question of new rates and tariffs, my condolences to all who aim to stay on-grid. 😢

 

10 hours ago, GreenFields said:

I wasn't planning to reply to this topic again, but the article below is touching on the same topic. Basically Eskom is saying solar users can't get away with freeloading, ie. can't be subsidized by the paying customers for their connection to the grid.

One can try to blame politics or corruption, and I'm certainly not saying I condone any such reasons, but I'm seeing a simple economic rationale behind it.

Nobody is forced to use Eskom, and anyone who doesn't like the proposed R1000 monthly charge is surely free to provide his own infrastructure, which would be in the ballpark of R150K-R200K upfront for a roughly equivalent 12kW hybrid inverter kit.

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/eskom-tariff-structure-changes-here-are-the-winners-and-losers/

I don't think you can say nobody is forced to use Eskom. People are where there is no other supplier due to the monopoly.  What they are working towards is to get R1K for availability and no effort.  I do not use COCT water but I must pay an availability fee every month. R250 is acceptable.

The monthly fee for electricity is R219.21 and they do regular upgrades and maintenance.  We very seldom have power outages due to failures so this model is totally acceptable.

This can not be said of ESKOM as they abuse, waste, no maintenance, mismanage  and theft is an acceptable practise.  The R1K is totally to high.

Then in the case of a block of flats where the flats are liable for the distribution with in the flats must they get R1000 x 150 flats or R1K.

If you install a solar geyser (heating not panels) gas stove and people are working with no pool then the usage is very low in any case.

R1K is a subsidizing fee not an availability fee.

Edited June 13, 20242 yr by NoJ

8 hours ago, TimCam said:

 

I guess then with R1K per month for nothing it is better to support China with batteries and disconnect completely.
R1K per month one can then say its a maintenance fee on batteries rather than a connection fee.

The reality is the COCT income from buying excess solar in my case is in the table below.  For the council they have lost 0.  In this case its better to be connected to COCT than Eskom.  This summer I will have even more feedback so I recon my excess will be +/- 4MW per month Sept -

Whats interesting is in the case of council they do not loose any income.  In the case of COCT I think they are very fair.  The table below is the current monthly surplus/excess in KWHr and then the money COCT receives by selling "our solar energy".

1256.083	R-1,066.97
1192.301	R-1,051.24
1833.817	R-1,824.59
1967.088	R-1,998.83
1735.952	R-1,719.64
1724.778	R-1,645.90
1138.854	R-926.68
962.096	R-637.51
685.0925	R-128.63
12496.0615	R-10,999.99

Considering that we have our own RO in our case the COCT out of pocket cost dropped from +/- R7K per month to a surplus.

Our total Kwhr solar inverters is 30KWhr the table above is for 15Kwhr with the increase the R11k should become R22K....

Congrats to COCT I think they have the best model in the country

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 20242 yr by NoJ

On 2024/06/04 at 6:00 AM, NoJ said:

Also what you don't understand if I understand the new tariffs correctly Eskom wants a +/- R1000 just for the connection.

OK. I'm out the country right now, and it seems I missed something? 1K for a connection? What sort of connection? 

Flip side of coin: 1K is about what residential users in Jhb are paying in fixed fees on the default tariff. So what's new? Also it is the City charging that, not Eskom. 

I'm on prepaid in Jhb. Currently no fixed fees, though that is about to change. And a comparison with my neighbour illustrates the problem. He pays ±1K per month just for being connected. I pay more per kWh but no flat fees. Yet the City must provide us both with the same infrastructure. 

Consumers will always play the tariffs game to get the lowest price. We're silly if we think the providers will not react to that. 

53 minutes ago, Bobster. said:

OK. I'm out the country right now, and it seems I missed something? 1K for a connection? What sort of connection? 

Flip side of coin: 1K is about what residential users in Jhb are paying in fixed fees on the default tariff. So what's new? Also it is the City charging that, not Eskom. 

I'm on prepaid in Jhb. Currently no fixed fees, though that is about to change. And a comparison with my neighbour illustrates the problem. He pays ±1K per month just for being connected. I pay more per kWh but no flat fees. Yet the City must provide us both with the same infrastructure. 

Consumers will always play the tariffs game to get the lowest price. We're silly if we think the providers will not react to that. 

Once we get a free market to sell power when Eskom has no monopoly we will see what is a fair price decided by supply and demand. 

We have seen that power consultants have for decades indicated that Eskom transmission we charging too high a price purely for transmitting HV power bought from generation. That was the time that transmission were buying power from the cheapest power station on a daily tender basis. This worked while there was a lot of power that could be generated. Some power station were running but idling and only came to the party if the cheaper station had a generation problem. 

Perhaps in a decade we might see a total different power supply network and operation. 

Due to monopoly we are just far behind the rest of the world. 

31 minutes ago, Scorp007 said:

Once we get a free market to sell power when Eskom has no monopoly we will see what is a fair price decided by supply and demand. 

We have seen that power consultants have for decades indicated that Eskom transmission we charging too high a price purely for transmitting HV power bought from generation. That was the time that transmission were buying power from the cheapest power station on a daily tender basis. This worked while there was a lot of power that could be generated. Some power station were running but idling and only came to the party if the cheaper station had a generation problem. 

Perhaps in a decade we might see a total different power supply network and operation. 

Due to monopoly we are just far behind the rest of the world. 

How will this work like a fibre rollout? Will the new provider have to provision their infrastructure/cables to the homes?

I have no problem paying eksdom for the amount of their electricity I consume. I also have no problem paying a connection fee. However, the simple rationale is willing buyer, willing seller. Having said this, in what way does the fact that I have a solar system have anything to do with eksdom at all? Why should I have to pay more for a connection fee than people that do not have a solar system? 

The same logic can then be applied to people that opt to drive Hybrid cars. Should they pay more per litre fuel than others simply because their vehicles have the capability to run off batteries?

This new tariff proposal is completely communistic in its approach.

 

 

2 hours ago, JacoG said:

How will this work like a fibre rollout? Will the new provider have to provision their infrastructure/cables to the homes?

I cannot say but I think it will be a payment using the existing network. The supplier thus pays the network owner for bulk usage. It just frees up buying say from me with feed in and selling to the property next door. Hopefully at a good rate. Easy to do. It could become just a sum of power game. 

This can I think open up private firms for erecting their own cabling just like fibre. 

We already see it AFAIK where cell networks/fibre is used by 1 seller say a bank but using one of the other mobile producers bandwidth and SIMS. 

 

It is inevitable that end-user tariffs will change to reflect realities.    You’re naive if you expect that you can connect solar, over-generate in the day and draw at night and only pay the for the net kWh consumed in a month.    The grid is not your loss-less and free battery and I won’t subsidize your model.   There are idiots with solar and storage that after evening loadshedding run their loads from grid AND recharge their batteries at 1C, in effect presenting double the kVA load on the rest of the country.   Stuff that!

By FAR the bulk of power and energy is delivered under Time of Use tariffs whether that be to metro or council or large Eskom direct customers.    That involves a NMD fee per kVA, a monthly peak demand fee per kVA, peak/standard/offpeak kWh fees and half a dozen other minor charges.   A few small towns are not on Megaflex.

I’ve done large solar since 2013 and my town was a bit silly at the beginning, giving us 1:1 credits.   I say silly because that ignores that they have the cost of reticulation and maintenance.    That party ended and they went stupid the other direction by slashing kWh (to 115c/kWh) so that solar is compared to that not 275c/kWh and because they know there will be a half hour somewhere in the month that the sun don’t shine, they smacked R415/kVA peak demand.   My response was adding more solar and more storage and grid shaving because I’d be stupid not to.   So now have 425kW solar and 600kWh battery on one of my transformers, will do the others this year.

A fair system imposes a fixed fee based on the size of connection you want available (they reserve and pay for that NMD with Eskom), a variable fee based on that month actual peak kVA (they also pay Eskom for that) and then a Time of Use tariff for kWh.    The fastest way we get people to swap power demand out of peak periods (when the country is paying for R8/kWh peaking diesel and implementing loadshedding) is that peak period energy costs R5/kWh and off-peak costs R1/kWh.   Maybe in a year or two my council pays me to inject 200kVA in peak periods.   I can program that and then recharge between 11PM and 4AM.    If they deducted 100kVA from my demand fees for the 200kVA that I wheel to them plus they pay me half their Megaflex peak cost per kWh, they score and I score.

Smarter tariffs need not be bad for consumers, it can also open up benefits.

1 hour ago, Scorp007 said:

I cannot say but I think it will be a payment using the existing network. The supplier thus pays the network owner for bulk usage. It just frees up buying say from me with feed in and selling to the property next door. Hopefully at a good rate. Easy to do. It could become just a sum of power game. 

This can I think open up private firms for erecting their own cabling just like fibre. 

We already see it AFAIK where cell networks/fibre is used by 1 seller say a bank but using one of the other mobile producers bandwidth and SIMS. 

 

There are places where that is in place by way of wheeling.    So Acme buys energy from SolaRus and basically council charges a toll fee for using its reticulation.   Putting in place new reticulation would be insanely inefficient.    Where that gets hairy is whether the wheeling is firm or not = whether council charges NMD and Demand fees on Acme’s full 2MW connection or the half that SolarUs is not providing.

Edited June 13, 20242 yr by macafrican

1 hour ago, Paul Tappan said:

I have no problem paying eksdom for the amount of their electricity I consume. I also have no problem paying a connection fee. However, the simple rationale is willing buyer, willing seller. Having said this, in what way does the fact that I have a solar system have anything to do with eksdom at all? Why should I have to pay more for a connection fee than people that do not have a solar system? 

The same logic can then be applied to people that opt to drive Hybrid cars. Should they pay more per litre fuel than others simply because their vehicles have the capability to run off batteries?

This new tariff proposal is completely communistic in its approach.

 

 

They cannot charge a user with solar a different tariff than a user without.    (They can levy an admin fee for reverse billing but that is tiny or zero if you paid for the smart meter).     What they will do is design the tariff that both users are on, in a way that the user without solar is not in effect subsidizing the user with solar.     The laws and regulations require tariffs that are non-discriminatory and cost reflective.   I have taken council to Nersa and won, though it took two years.

12 hours ago, NoJ said:

I guess then with R1K per month for nothing it is better to support China with batteries and disconnect completely.
R1K per month one can then say its a maintenance fee on batteries rather than a connection fee.

The reality is the COCT income from buying excess solar in my case is in the table below.  For the council they have lost 0.  In this case its better to be connected to COCT than Eskom.  This summer I will have even more feedback so I recon my excess will be +/- 4MW per month Sept -

Whats interesting is in the case of council they do not loose any income.  In the case of COCT I think they are very fair.  The table below is the current monthly surplus/excess in KWHr and then the money COCT receives by selling "our solar energy".

1256.083	R-1,066.97
1192.301	R-1,051.24
1833.817	R-1,824.59
1967.088	R-1,998.83
1735.952	R-1,719.64
1724.778	R-1,645.90
1138.854	R-926.68
962.096	R-637.51
685.0925	R-128.63
12496.0615	R-10,999.99

Considering that we have our own RO in our case the COCT out of pocket cost dropped from +/- R7K per month to a surplus.

Our total Kwhr solar inverters is 30KWhr the table above is for 15Kwhr with the increase the R11k should become R22K....

Congrats to COCT I think they have the best model in the country

 

 

 

I’ll presume you mean 30kW solar not 30kWh inverters.    You then assumedly also must be commercial on MV connection,  else whomever connected your 15 never mind the 30kW on a shared LV connection is in big trouble and so are you if anything goes wrong!

7 hours ago, Bobster. said:

OK. I'm out the country right now, and it seems I missed something? 1K for a connection? What sort of connection? 

Flip side of coin: 1K is about what residential users in Jhb are paying in fixed fees on the default tariff. So what's new? Also it is the City charging that, not Eskom. 

I'm on prepaid in Jhb. Currently no fixed fees, though that is about to change. And a comparison with my neighbour illustrates the problem. He pays ±1K per month just for being connected. I pay more per kWh but no flat fees. Yet the City must provide us both with the same infrastructure. 

Consumers will always play the tariffs game to get the lowest price. We're silly if we think the providers will not react to that. 

It could coincidence but since the DA consortium won the court case about "ANC only" load shedding drop drastically. So all of a sudden ESKOM maintenance is on schedule, the correct coal is delivered and the coal no longer get wet in the rain and so we can continue.

I agree there must be "payment" .  My objection is the politicians messed up everything in SA and then people can't stop steeling.

This is the actual problem we are facing enriching useless crooks and get nothing in return.

As for the DA in COCT I do believe they have the best model.

Currently we are getting R 0.87 per KwH if I am right that is what they are paying Eskom
Then they have an incentive of R 0.25

Its actually a excellent model they are running and I am sure that they will reduce the 0.25 and eventually they might even drop it.

The mess created by the ANC actually worked very well for us in the COCT.

My total savings on solar currently is more that R6K per month somewhere there is an article on it.

Will be interesting if Gauteng situation might pushing things this way and maybe other places to follow.

When we complained about the meters COCT now have one for R6K..

When we complained about the data costs they attended to that and that is now R 4.92 per month.

When I complained about data quality they reacted fixed stuff installed a 12dB yagi for LTE... and now it is working very well plus the monthly cost is lower and the cash back is higher.

Mr Lewis I think as far as the total package they are "offering" us is very good and the grid in Cape Town is running very well extremely low faults as they do spend money on the maintenance and up grades of the grid.

For that the way its is currently working is very good and compliments to them for this!!!
 

1 hour ago, macafrican said:

They cannot charge a user with solar a different tariff than a user without.    (They can levy an admin fee for reverse billing but that is tiny or zero if you paid for the smart meter).     What they will do is design the tariff that both users are on, in a way that the user without solar is not in effect subsidizing the user with solar.     The laws and regulations require tariffs that are non-discriminatory and cost reflective.   I have taken council to Nersa and won, though it took two years.

User using solar how can they subsidize none solar users?  That I do not understand. COCT s charging every one the same fee of R 2.6833 and R 3.71 above 600units.

I do not have batteries for after hour use I therefore use COCT power when there is no sun.

This table shows +/- what COCT pays Eskom the right column and what they got from selling our solar that was put back in the grid.

If there are differences COCT does not like sharing this info. but only they would know why.

Well done with the win

 

 

R-1,066.97	R 339.84
R-1,051.24	R 284.14
R-1,824.59	R 229.29
R-1,998.83	R 204.30
R-1,719.64	R 224.63
R-1,645.90	R 285.85
R-926.68	R 348.84
R-637.51	R 440.04
R-128.94	R 177.98
R-11,000.31	R 2,534.90

1 hour ago, macafrican said:

I’ll presume you mean 30kW solar not 30kWh inverters.    You then assumedly also must be commercial on MV connection,  else whomever connected your 15 never mind the 30kW on a shared LV connection is in big trouble and so are you if anything goes wrong!

No 30KW inverters I have more than 30KW solar panels and it is for my HOUSE.  Soon I will add another 30KW plus.  Iw ill stop when I have about 65KW that I can push back

 

 

Edited June 13, 20242 yr by NoJ

35 minutes ago, NoJ said:

No 30KW inverters I have more than 30KW solar panels and it is for my HOUSE.  Soon I will add another 30KW plus.  Iw ill stop when I have about 65KW that I can push back

 

 

Is there no longer a limit in place that a house can export in CoCT? 

They should rather make people with solar a mandatory to buy a minimum number of units a month to stay connected.  Like if they say use 500 every month if not pay the equivalent in any case. 500units is just a bit above R1000 but atleast you get units to use.. 

Paying just a connection fee is ridiculous at that amount. I am willing to pay R300 max because i will still have to buy electricity right

If one does not have solar, do they pay connection fee? If someone is spending R2500 monthly on electricity then now it should R3500.00. They are joking

 

 

1 hour ago, NoJ said:

User using solar how can they subsidize none solar users?  That I do not understand. COCT s charging every one the same fee of R 2.6833 and R 3.71 above 600units.

I do not have batteries for after hour use I therefore use COCT power when there is no sun.

It's the other way around - @macafrican is saying that at the Eskom customers WITHOUT solar are currently paying on behalf of the people that DO have solar.

The old tariff structures were fine when nobody was using solar, but now more and more solar is buggering up the assumptions that are underlying the old billing.

The point is, the true cost is made up of a fixed rate for the infrastructure before you've even used a single unit, and a variable rate for burning coal to produce power. This is what is charged to your municipality by Eskom. However, the municipality in turn was always charging the individual households NO fixed charges, and everyone the same fee per unit, probably for simplicity. If everybody keeps buying from Eskom, the billing models make sense. But when Solar users are buying for example just 10 units per month, then they are not buying enough units anymore to cover the fixed charges of maintaining the grid. That cost then falls to the remaining people that are still buying around 600 or whatever units. That's the less bad scenario when at least folks are using batteries.

A further problem, on top of that, and that's the case here, there's the issue that it costs Eskom differently at different times of the day to generate power, low-cost during the night and most of the day when generating from coal, and a much higher cost during peak time when they have to run expensive gas and diesel peaker plants. Let's say - just making up the numbers for illustration but it's not far off - that it costs 80c per unit to produce power at noon, and R8,00 per unit to produce power at 6pm - as long as people are paying around R2.68-R3.71 all around the clock, it sort of works out. You "overpay" at noon, and you "underpay" at 6pm but on average it's fair. Now what happens with solar is that people are not paying anything during the day anymore, but at night they want to buy the most expensive power at below the cost of generation. The utility can only lose like that. Not just losing out on sales, but actively losing money that other customers must somehow cough up for. And the solar user is either oblivious, or doesn't care, and gets indignant about it, as if buying solar power gives him a right to do what he wants when he wants no matter the costs to others.

Just in principle, the only fair way is to start passing on the billing to the end user in the same way as the municipality gets billed by Eskom. A fixed rate, combined with a time-of-use billing, including also a time-appropriate rate for selling into the grid. At appropriate corruption-free price levels, whatever that may be. And it does change the economics around choosing the right solar system if you're buying new, and it screws up the assumptions you may have had if you've already bought.

 

 

2 hours ago, Scorp007 said:

Is there no longer a limit in place that a house can export in CoCT? 

This is from Kassie Nassiep executive director of energy at Coct. 

"They haven’t been allowed to export more than they consume, so we’ve changed the rules and we’ve said, okay, starting with the commercial sector now, you can then actually export as much surplus power as the network can absorb based on the point of intake, and we will pay you. We’ve already given out the figure, which is the 78.9c which is the feeding tariff, plus the 25c which is the incentive added to that.

So that process has started for the commercial sector. We’ve engaged the market and we are ready to contract with them in the coming month or so. Beyond that, the residential sector will come on board later, probably towards the end of the year, as we still have to refine the technical limitations on how much can be absorbed in a particular environment and [what] we can actually accordingly manage. So that process, a bit of technical due diligence, will have to be done on the net. Then from there we offer the same type of scheme to our residential customers."

Edited June 13, 20242 yr by Derek3
Spelling