nersa-answering-affidavit-b5061a0888ac88ee.pdf

This document is an answering affidavit filed by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) in the High Court of South Africa. NERSA opposes an application by the City of Cape Town, which seeks to allow Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to generate and sell electricity without a section 34 determination from the Minister of Energy, or alternatively, to have section 34 of the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA) declared unconstitutional.

• NERSA contends that electricity planning, including the authorization of new power generation, is a national government function primarily discharged by the Minister of Energy and NERSA, and that municipalities have no power to independently determine where to source their electricity.
• Under the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA), a section 34 determination by the Minister, in consultation with NERSA, is generally required to create new generation capacity. Alternatively, a license may be issued if the Minister approves a deviation from the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) under section 10(2)(g).
• NERSA argues that the national electricity grid must be subject to centralized control by Eskom as the System Operator because the energy balance (supply versus demand) must be exactly balanced every second to maintain a system frequency of 50Hz and avoid system outages.
• The document states that renewable energy generators are allowed to 'self-dispatch' due to the unpredictability of wind and sun, but this can impact the viability of other generators and increase overall electricity prices. NERSA notes that the average cost of renewable energy procured in 2016/17 was approximately R2.015/kWh, compared to Eskom's supply tariff to the City of R0.816/kWh.
• NERSA disputes the City's claims regarding the Darling Wind Project (DWP), stating it was a national pilot project and not intended to create new generation capacity under section 34. NERSA further claims the DWP underperformed, was placed into provisional liquidation, and that its energy was marginally more expensive than Eskom's.
• NERSA criticizes a CSIR study cited by the City, asserting that the data is incomplete and inadequate. Specifically, it claims the study ignores the cost of necessary back-up generation for intermittent renewables and uses an unrealistic tariff of 62 cents per kWh for wind and PV technology.
• NERSA asserts that the City of Cape Town's current energy demands are being met and there is no need for additional supply, noting that the City's demand has decreased over the past two years.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). nersa-answering-affidavit-b5061a0888ac88ee.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NERSA-Answering-Affidavit.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. nersa-answering-affidavit-b5061a0888ac88ee.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NERSA-Answering-Affidavit.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=nersa-answering-affidavit-b5061a0888ac88ee.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NERSA-Answering-Affidavit.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrightsndnersaansweringaffidavitb5061a0888ac88eepdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{nersa-answering-affidavit-b5061a0888ac88ee.pdf}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NERSA-Answering-Affidavit.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }