In the Thaba Chweu Local Municipality, residents who invested in solar panels to escape grid instability were met with a predatory new charge: a fixed monthly levy of R582.64. The sheer audacity of this “Sunlight Tax” is best illustrated by its enforcement: the municipality has been charging this fee even on households that are completely disconnected from the municipal grid.

This isn’t an isolated extortion attempt. The Emfuleni Local Municipality recently tried to steamroll a R2,400 solar registration fee alongside a R463 monthly fixed charge. These levies represent a dangerous administrative precedent—punishing residents for a service they literally do not receive. It is a regulatory fiction designed to bridge the gap caused by years of municipal debt and administrative abuse.

“This is an unlawful, irrational, and unreasonable tax on sunlight.”

The “Cost-of-Supply” (COS) study is the only legal shield consumers have against arbitrary price hikes. By law, tariffs must reflect the actual, efficient cost of distribution, not a thumb-sucked number used to balance a failing budget. Yet, the investigation into NERSA’s 2025/2026 tariff approval process unmasked a massive regulatory fraud.

While NERSA publicly claimed that 130 municipalities had submitted the required COS studies, the truth was far more scandalous: only three municipalities had actually provided complete, lawful studies. The other 127 submitted nothing more than “watered-down explanations” that lacked any accounting rigour.

For too long, NERSA’s methodology allowed municipalities to treat electricity bills as a subsidy for their own incompetence. A major victory by the Pietermaritzburg and Midlands Chamber of Business and the Nelson Mandela Bay Business Chamber has finally put an end to this “inefficiency tax.”

The High Court unmasked a methodology that essentially forced consumers to pay for “rampant electricity and cable theft” and a systemic “lack of infrastructure maintenance.” The court’s ruling is clear: tariffs must be based on the efficient cost of distribution. Municipalities can no longer pass the bill for their own decay onto the ratepayer.

“This case will potentially impact the determination and approval of electricity tariffs charged by municipalities across the country, ultimately benefiting all South African businesses and consumers.”

In late 2025, NERSA and Eskom attempted a financial maneuver so egregious it bordered on the conspiratorial. Claiming a “calculation error” in NERSA’s adjudication of Eskom’s allowable revenue, the two entities tried to settle a dispute behind closed doors. This “secret” deal would have hiked tariffs by nearly 9% without a single minute of public consultation.

While the settlement attempt was pegged at R54 billion, the shock figure now on the table is a staggering R107 billion. Had this deal been made a court order, the impact on your pocket would have been devastating:

Analysts suggest that once the full R107 billion is recalculated into the system, the actual jump could hit 10% to 11%. The court rightly rejected this attempt to “negotiate away the rights of electricity consumers,” affirming that transparency is a non-negotiable component of lawful regulation.

NERSA and Eskom have spent years “steamrolling” consumers by submitting applications so late that public participation becomes a hollow, box-ticking exercise. The North Gauteng High Court has finally ended this malfeasance by imposing a strict regulatory regime with binding annual deadlines.

These timelines protect your right to participate before municipal budgets are finalized. Crucially, the court now requires that the ERTSA (Retail Tariffs Structural Adjustments Application)—the document that dictates the very structure of your bill—be submitted early enough for real scrutiny.