ACHIEVEMENTS, CONSTRAINTS AND PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT - ELECTRICITY MUNICIPALITY PERSPECTIVE (CITY OF TSHWANE)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ACHIEVEMENTS, CONSTRAINTS
AND PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT
- ELECTRICITY
MUNICIPALITY PERSPECTIVE
(CITY OF TSHWANE)
Issues for Discussion • Background • Service standards • Achievements to date • Constraints • Plans for improvement
BACKGROUND
• Around 2 000 MW as peak demand.
• Generates about 10% of demand through own
power stations.
• Blurred accountabilities
– Some areas in the North supplied directly by Eskom.
– CoT also supplies areas outside its jurisdiction
(Madibeng). Also Mooikloof and Silver Lakes prior to
merger.
• Electricity used as a credit control toolBACKGROUND
• Operational resources:
Financial Year Budget Actual % Spent
2008/2009 3,618,674,520 3,532,216,935 98%
2009/2010 4,393,140,605 4,469,752,635 102%
2010/2011 5,290,485,240 5,213,813,917 99%SPATIAL CONTEXT
Revenue Framework
The following chart (exclusive of capital grants) is a high level summary of the 2011/12
MTREF (classified per main revenue source):
Property
rates, 3,461,000
19%
Service
charges, 10,489,
789
Other own 59%
revenue, 1,521,3
91
9%
Transfers
recognised ‐
operational, 2,36
3,729 Investment
13% revenue, 55,877
0%DELIVERY STANDARDS • 20 A prepayment system supply for RDP houses – free • Other categories pay per scheme. • Streetlights on bus routes • High‐masts in informal settlements and dangerous spots • 100 kW‐hr free per month for registered indigents • All approved indigents get prepayment systems. • Debt write‐offs for approved indigent accounts
ACHIEVEMENTS • Just under 80% of households have electricity ( 542 596 households out of total of 686 640.) • Over 20 000 of solar water heaters units installed – but installations ramping up. • Winterveldt electrification process (27 000 units) being concluded. • Over 7 000 conventional meters changed to prepayment systems annually. • 10 012 new streetlights put in the last 5 years. • Compliance to NRS048 • Unaccounted for losses at: : 07/08 (9.5%), (08/09: 9.7%), 09/10 (11%)
ACHIEVEMENTS • AMR at roll‐out phase (0ver R150m set aside in two years) – Could also be partnership driven – Experiences can also be shared as this is new direction • Successful piloting of various alternative energy technologies: – Solar Robots DF Malan and Fountain Circle – Solar streetlights – Queen Wilhemina – Highmast (lighting efficiency controller on 840 high masts) – 20 000 LP gas in Atteridgeville – Retrofitting ordinary streetlights (125W with 70W) – CDM desk established – Replacement of incandescent by fluorescents – Not much as far as Heat Pumps are concerned.
CHALLENGES • Illegal connections • Copper theft • Capacity shortage hampering development (the 2014 Eskom dilemma) • Old networks in the inner city • AG disallowing holding of critical spares • Less than optimal running of power stations: – Old equipment – Coal contracts – Unsuitable procurement methods (SCM over compliance)
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT • High tariffs passed over by Eskom – Municipalities absorbing increases – Default rate • General communication protocols – REDs? – Passing blame when commenting in public • Procurement involvement e.g. coal • State security bodies role in copper theft way overdue • Subsidies for energy efficiency – why through Eskom?
THE BIG DEBATE
• The social versus the economic motive?
– Should resources be channelled for economic infrastructure with the
understanding that the economic spin‐offs will also deal with the social
dilemma?
– Should infrastructure be put in ‘future economic nodes’ even prior to
developments? ‐ can this lead to the state determining where development
should take place?
– Is there empirical evidence of economic activities in areas electrified?
– Do standards and quality of living improve with electrification?
• Communication protocols
– Eskom versus Municipality as a supplier of choice?
– Does an average consumer understands tariffs?THE BIG DEBATE
• The Investment Dilemma?
– Bulk infrastructure linked to economic infrastructure should be funded
differently (municipalities allow private sector to put own infrastructure in lieu
of rates)
– Does this not alter the IDP and long term budgeting assumptions of the
municipalities?
– Above however only favours the established corporates.
– Generation poses serious opportunity for partnerships as currently we are
under‐utilizing the investment.
– What benefit is there in fitting SWH in a house that has no bath and no
shower?
– What are the implications of electrifying a non complying structure?THE BIG DEBATE
• Continues
– While admitting that there is maintenance backlogs, it is not practical for
municipalities to channel all revenues from electricity to electricity operations
– In some countries private sector can create infrastructure, run it and hand it
over to municipalities.
– Is the full impact of electricity understood by government?
• Economic growth
• Traffic, Safety and security
• Health and environment – waste treatment plants, etc.
– Alternative energy requires some form of social investment by corporates
• If traffic lights are not working does corporates not also lose out?
• If there is insufficient public lighting, does this not affect corporates directly?THANK YOU
15You can also read
