CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE — Members of parliament are intensifying their scrutiny of the proposed Eskom electricity price hikes for the 2027/2028 financial year, demanding clarity on how the utility’s tariff adjustments will impact households. The Standing Committee on Appropriations has challenged the power utility to explain exactly how many consumers will face increases exceeding the proposed 8.83% average, citing severe concerns over a lack of transparency.
Andrew Bateman, a member of the Standing Committee on Appropriations, expressed deep concern over Eskom’s recent tariff presentation. According to Bateman, the utility’s briefing lacked a detailed impact assessment for everyday South Africans, leading to suspicions that the presentation was engineered to obscure the true financial impact on consumers.
“What was disturbing to me about the presentation was that it didn’t unpack in very much detail at all what the tariffs were and what the effects would be on everyday South Africans,” Bateman stated. He suggested that the utility may have presented the information in bad faith to hide the reality of the costs, emphasizing that Parliament must hold the utility accountable for passing its waste and inefficiencies onto the public. He highlighted rising staff costs and large employee bonuses as areas where Eskom must demonstrate accountability before shifting further financial burdens to citizens.
The Controversy Over Fixed Charges
A major point of contention is the proposed shift from consumption-based charges to fixed fees for the privilege of being connected to the grid. While Bateman acknowledged the underlying logic of a fixed charge, he warned it disproportionately penalizes households actively trying to reduce their electricity usage and those who have invested in solar power to escape rising costs.
Users who conserve energy or generate their own power will end up paying proportionately more under the new model. This shift also appears to contradict government rhetoric aimed at strengthening social protection and lowering the base cost of electricity for vulnerable, lower-income households.
Without transparent data on how many families will be affected, their typical income levels, and the overall affordability of the new tariff structure, Bateman argued it is impossible to properly assess the impact on South African families.
Demands for Regulatory Oversight
To remedy these concerns, the committee is calling for a comprehensive impact assessment covering both households and businesses. Furthermore, lawmakers are demanding transparency regarding the cost makeup to ensure consumers are not subsidizing Eskom’s legacy costs or operational inefficiencies.
Bateman also raised critical questions about the analytical capacity of the national energy regulator to independently assess the fairness of these charges. Parliament has formally requested an independent evaluation of the regulator’s ability to properly scrutinize Eskom’s application and reject it if the hidden costs are unjustified.
A Shifting Energy Landscape
Looking at the broader energy sector, Bateman noted a gradual shift toward cost reflection rather than sheer cost reduction, driven by increased competition in energy production. While he found this transition encouraging, he noted it is happening too slowly.
Bateman criticized Eskom for relying on its captive market to continuously hike prices rather than addressing internal inefficiencies. Consequently, the utility has been losing paying customers who refuse to absorb the exorbitant costs, leading to a slight decline in actual electricity supply over recent years even as prices grow well above inflation.
Pointing out that the current 8.83% proposed increase remains significantly higher than the national inflation rate of 4% and the 3% target rate, Bateman underscored the urgent need for a fair, transparent, and consumer-centric pricing model that respects the financial realities of everyday South Africans.
