1 / 15

NERSA Public Hearing Municipal Tariff Guideline, Benchmarks and Timelines - 2011/12

NERSA Public Hearing Municipal Tariff Guideline, Benchmarks and Timelines - 2011/12. Peter Fowles 7 October 2010. Contents. General Stakeholder comments #1 to #11. General.

braith
Download Presentation

NERSA Public Hearing Municipal Tariff Guideline, Benchmarks and Timelines - 2011/12

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NERSA Public HearingMunicipal Tariff Guideline,Benchmarks and Timelines - 2011/12 Peter Fowles 7 October 2010

  2. Contents • General • Stakeholder comments #1 to #11

  3. General • Conflicting interpretations of legislation covering legal competence to regulate municipal electricity tariffs - SALGA opinion • Initiative from NERSA to assist municipalities in meeting budget deadlines is appreciated • NERSA officials met with AMEU representatives on 21 September 2010 • Sufficient interaction with municipalities? • NERSA media statement – 24 February 2010

  4. Comment #1: Approach in determining guideline • Cost structure analysis based on sample of 60 municipalities to arrive at weighting • Results inaccurate and misleading • Significant variation due to size of municipalities • Recommend range of weights based on grouping • Eskom increase of 25.8% to result in municipal bulk tariff increase of 26.71%? • Actual cost increase not always at average level • Remove claw back mechanism

  5. Comment #2: Analysis of other costs • Benchmark level reduced from 11% to 8% to rectify a situation? • No breakdown of these costs • Services by other municipal functions –financial, meter reading, billing, legal, admin etc • Contributions to capital development • Contribution to rates (surplus?) - %age of revenue • Can NERSA regulate municipal surpluses? • Unlikely that reduction can be achieved

  6. Comment #3: Arrear (bad)debt • Assumed bad (arrear) debt at 0.5% of total revenue of municipality? • Based on Eskom’s approved arrear debt in MYPD2 • Level differs significantly among municipalities • Beyond control of distributors as decision of financial and political components • Electricity arrear debt of the order of 1% to 10%

  7. Comment #4: Cross-subsidisation • There already exists a significant level of cross-subsidisation in many tariffs • Paper quotes the range of cross-subsidisation ratios for `suitable customer base/mix’? • NERSA moving away from principle of cost reflectivity in EPP • Should NERSA be involved with socio-economic engineering • IBT – subsidising customers that do not need

  8. Comment #5: Other Issues • Cash flow – Eskom seasonal rates and differences in billing and payment policies • Theft/vandalism of cables, conductors, equipment • Pressures to introduce EEDSM initiatives – capital cost and reduction in kWh sales

  9. Comment #6: Are ranges appropriate? • Ranges quoted are for purchases, surplus, losses, cross-subsidisation ratios • Nothing for salaries, R&M, capital charges, other? • Presumably these ranges affect the benchmark limits • Not clear how if this is achieved • Suggest that these ranges may not apply to all municipalities – again suggest grouping

  10. Comment #7: Is financial analysis appropriate to determine efficiency? • What financial analysis and what is “efficiency of the municipality”? • Are “surplus percentage” or “system losses” indicators of municipal (electricity) efficiency? • Have cost of supply studies been carried out to justify cross subsidisation ratios and are these ratios used in assessing municipal applications? • What is the `appropriate customer base/mix’ to justify the ratios?

  11. Comment #8: Is approach to determine benchmarks appropriate? • No – approach is not appropriate • Uses unconfirmed bulk increase with debatable expense weightings to arrive at benchmarks for assumed group of customers • No apparent attempt to consider financial viability of distributors • 20.74% average will result in much higher increases for some customers to subsidise ±8% for IBT • Has impact of IBT been considered in proposals?

  12. Comment #9: Is benchmarking to assumed consumption per customer class appropriate? • Theoretically - Yes • Provided that these factors are reflective of the customer bases in municipalities • Emphasis would appear to be on IBT customers • Significant number of munics applied for different tariff increases in 2010 that were approved by NERSA – are benchmarks appropriate?

  13. Comment #10: Is benchmarking according to RED areas appropriate? • Understand objective to harmonise tariffs • EDI restructuring process has stalled and future uncertain • Municipalities within RED areas have different cost structures • Differences in benchmarks is minimal and not appropriate

  14. Comment #11: Timelines to assist with budget process • Appreciation for efforts to assist • Approved tariff guidelines by November is essential • Ideally, munics to submit initial applications and receive NERSA decision before end of March 2011 • Resubmissions and public hearings during April with final decisions by May 2011

  15. Thank youQUESTIONS?

More Related