COSATU Today, 15 December 2009

On the 11th of December SACCAWU had an enormously successful protest march with more than 90% of SACCAWU members employed at Pick 'n Pay taking to the streets in four major cities.

In Cape Town SACCAWU was not granted permission by the SAPS to protest on the 11th of December and will now take to the streets on 18 December. We expect a similar turnout in Cape Town as we have seen in other parts of the country a week ago. We expect more than 4 000 of our 5 000 members to join the protest march in Cape Town this coming Friday.

Workers demands are clear; there has been a profound failure in the transformation of the workplace and racism is still rife in the workplace. This experiences by workers at Pick 'n Pay are borne out by a recent Department of Labour DG's report.

The report pointed out the following:

• The White Group is over-represented at top management level occupying 85% of positions at this level;

• White Males and Females are over-represented at Senior Management level occupying 63% of positions at this level;

• African Males earn below average in all but the top management level;

• White Males earn above average in all occupational levels;

• African Females do not occupy positions at top management level;

• Coloured Females do not occupy positions at top management level;

• Indian Females earn below average at all levels except at semi-skilled and unskilled levels;

• White Females earn above average at professional, skilled and semi-skilled levels.

SACCAWU workers demand the following:

• That the Company should enter into meaningful engagement with the Union over a programme aimed at transforming the Company;

• That the Company should speedily consult with our Union with a view of fast-tracking employment equity;

• The reconstitution of the Skills Development Committee with meaningful powers to shape the content of training programmes;

• That the Company should take decisive action against all those who promote and practice racism within the Company;

• An end to all racist practices which have been outlined on numerous occasions;

• Equal pay for work of equal value;

• Immediate steps aimed at reducing the Apartheid wage gap within the Company;

• Transparency, fairness and equity in employment and procurement practices;

• An immediate review of thresholds of representativity aimed at eradicating the current divide and rule tactics within the Company;

• That the Company’s Chief Executive Officer should publicly withdraw his racist remarks and tender a public apology for his unfortunate remarks.

The protest march will take place on Friday 18 December 2009 to hand over a memorandum with our demands.

Details of the march

9.00 am William Herbert Sports ground Rosmead Ave Kenilworth to Pick 'n Pay Office Park Rosmead Ave Kenilworth at 12 pm.

1.2 Sun International strike intensified through international solidarity

Mike Abrahams, SACCAWU Spokesperson 15 December 2009

After almost two weeks on the picket-line SACCAWU members at Sun international are intensifying their struggle.

The striking workers at Sun International have taken their strike internationally with tens of thousands of workers, unions and the international union federation the International Union of Food (IUF) workers, throwing their weight behind the striking workers. The IUF is composed of more than 348 trade unions in 127 countries with a combined membership of over 12 million workers.

In only one day the company received more than a thousand protest letters from all over the world and SACCAWU are calling all progressives to join this campaign to break the intransigence of the Sun International management. The International Solidarity have boosted the morale of striking workers and we have seen a greater determination amongst striking workers on the picket-line. More than 70% of all SACCAWU members at Sun International, that is more than 3 500 workers are still on the picket-line at all Sun International establishments throughout the country.

In the meantime the company remain intransigent and intensified their intimidation of striking workers. We have witnessed a growth in the use of violence, intimidation and provocation of striking workers coupled with other means to break the strike.

At Sun City hundreds of SACCAWU and COSATU members were harassed and prevented by the South African Police Services from picketing during a peaceful demonstration at the Miss Teen South Africa. When confronted by the local COSATU leadership the police the police alleged that they were instructed by the Sun International Human Resource Director to prevent the demonstration. On calling the HR Director he told police that they should not interfere with the picketers as their action is legal.

In the meantime we`ve been informed that a former full-time shop-steward used by the company to try breaking the strike was given a car and booked into Hotel in Durban by the company. His attempts to sabotage the strike back-fired as all the workers in his department have now decide to join the action and the Restaurant that he worked at are closed.

At Board Walk and Fish River in the Eastern Cape the police have removed all the picketers from the premises of the company and they are also not allowed to picket outside the company premises. Further all permission by the strikers to protest has been refused by the Local Municipality including planned protest marches to company premises to hand over a memorandum with their demands.

At Grand West in Cape Town the company approached the High Court to obtain an interdict against 700 striking workers on the picket-line to prevent striking workers from picketing outside the company premises. The application to interdict our members at Grand West Casino will be heard by the Cape Town High Court today.

At Morula Sun on Sunday striking workers demonstrating at a Jazz show were attacked and assaulted by the organisers disrupting the picket-line.

At Wild Coast, Naledi, Windmill, Carousel and Carnival City our members are still strong and participating in picketing despite harassment and intimidation by the private security and SAPS.

The international solidarity are playing an important role in this struggle by workers against an intransigent Sun International management. We wish to express our gratitude for the support and call on our comrades throughout the world to intensify the international solidarity.

2. South Africa

2.1 YCLSA concern about Malema’s insults

Gugu Ndima, YCL National Spokesperson, 14 December 2009

The YCL has noted with concern the collection of vitriolic insults hurled towards our National Secretary, Buti Manamela, together with Gwede Mantashe, Blade Nzimande and Jeremy Cronin. It is sad that Julius Malema has organised the ANC Youth League as an insult spurting machine, instead of a youth political formation.

The YCL will not legitimise nor dignify these insults with a response. We urge all our provinces to maintain a cool head and equally ignore this vitriol as we have nothing to learn from them. We have made our point.

The YCL will engage with Malema as and when he is prepared to embark on programmes that change the lives of young people from poverty, unemployment, HIV/AIDS and access to education. These are the pressing matters that will keep the YCLSA active, rather than insolence. We believe that the youth needs leadership and hope in this regard, we will continue to fill in that void.

2.2 COSATU’s Response to Eskom Multi Year Price Determination (MYPD2)

1. Introduction

COSATU welcomes the opportunity to make a representation on Eskom’s MYPD 2 Application. We particularly welcome the arrangement for public hearings in the provinces to enable as many interested parties as possible to air their views on the Eskom application.

Given the huge socioeconomic impact, this unprecedented increase in the electricity tariffs demands this extension of public hearings. Our only concern is the timing of the public hearings, which are scheduled almost immediately after the festive season. We however want to make a special appeal to NERSA to take the views of stakeholders seriously. We find it incomprehensible that despite about 170 submissions against Eskom’s application for an interim price increase of a 34% in April 2009, NERSA caved in to Eskom’s demand anyway and awarded it a 31.3% tariff increase.

In this submission we focus in the main on the impact of the proposed tariff hike on the economy and the low-income earners. The submission also covers proposals on the funding options for the capital expansion programme, free basic electricity (FBE) and costs and efficiencies.

2. Impact on the Economy

The 35% tariff increase each year over the three years is too high and would have devastating impact on the economy and will negatively affect any efforts to create decent work, particularly in the context on the ongoing global economic crisis. While the economy has shown signs of recovery, with the GDP growing by 0.9% in the third quarter of 2009, the country is not yet out of the economic crisis, given the fact that close to million jobs have been lost in the first three quarters of 2009. As part of measures to address the economic challenges facing the country due to the global economic melt-down, the government, business, labour and community have agreed in the Framework for SA’s Response to the Global Economic Crisis (the Framework) that electricity prices must be moderated and this is what the framework says: “[T]he parties recognise the need for adequate infrastructure to lay the basis for growth and development. At the same time, the parties agree that excessive increases in administered prices may exacerbate the negative impacts of the current situation and agree that increases in administered prices should carefully balance these different considerations”[1][1].

Eskom contends that its application is “based on balancing the short-term economic impact of price increases against the severe long term consequences of insufficient electricity supply”. Accordingly, instead of shocking the economy through a huge tariff increase, it has decided “to smooth the price trajectory to allow for more efficient adjustments to be made at both micro and macro levels of the economy”. At the same time, Eskom acknowledges and agrees with the findings of the Human Sciences Research Council’s July 2008 study which showed that high electricity prices “place the economy on a lower growth path, with higher inflation, lower GDP and employment” (Eskom’s MYPD 2, 30 Nov 69).

COSATU reiterates its views expressed in its submission to NERSA on Eskom’s application for a 34% interim tariff hike, that the high electricity tariffs have, among others, the following impact:

§ Destroys prospects for SME’s

§ Forces low income consumers to substitute electricity with dirty energy with significant negative externalities.

§ Huge arrears (as people fail to pay their bills), disconnections and illegal reconnections.

§ Reduction in the use of electric appliances with knock-on effect on the economy as the demand for electric appliances decline.

Furthermore, steep electricity tariff hikes are in variance with the objective of the democratic government to address the legacy of the past in relation to access to clean and safe energy. This objective is clearly articulated in section 2.7.8 of the RDP which states that “[T]he electrification programme will cost around R12 billion with annual investments peaking at R2 billion. This must be financed from within the industry as far as possible via cross-subsidies from other electricity consumers. Where necessary the democratic government will provide concessionary finance for the electrification of poor households in remote rural areas. A national Electrification Fund, underwritten by a government guarantee, must be created to raise bulk finance from lenders and investors for electrification. Such a fund could potentially be linked to a Reconstruction Fund to be utilised for other related infrastructural financing needs. A national domestic tariff structure with low connection fees must be established to promote affordability”.

This section of the RDP also reminds all of us about important role of government in ensuring the sustainability of the electrification programme. Once more, in variance with this principled view on the role of government in the electricity sector, Eskom proposes far reaching measures to liberalise the electricity market. COSATU finds it outrageous and opportunistic for Eskom to use the crisis in the electricity sector, which is as a result of failed attempts in the late 1990's to privatise Eskom, to justify privatisation. In terms of the revised Eskom’s MYPD 2 application, Eskom will sell 30% of its stake in the Kusile (its construction now delayed to give Eskom a chance to get private equity) power station to private interests.

In as far as COSATU is concerned, privatisation of state owned assets can take various forms, including the following:

§ Outright sale of the enterprise;

§ Partial sale of the enterprise;

§ Introducing strategic equity partner;

§ Introducing management contract between government and the private sector; and

§ Commercialisation and corporatisation.

The country is likely to face even steeper electricity tariffs as private sector gets more involved in the electricity sector. Furthermore, Eskom wants more involvement of Independent Power Producers (IPPs) in the electricity market. Empirical evidence shows that reforms initiated by developing countries in the 1990s to attract private investment did not result in the expected outcomes. Instead, private investment declined rapidly after 1997. While initially Brazil and other Latin American countries attracted half of private investment, much of it was spent on existing assets that were privatised rather than on new projects[2][2]. To attract private investment countries adopt cost-reflective tariffs which “hurt low income consumers who are not able to afford even basic electric services”[3][3].

3. Impact on Low-income Households

Eskom’s revised MYPD 2 exposes the extent to which the Electricity Pricing Policy (EPP) will hurt the workers and the poor. The EPP allows Eskom to cover all the costs of generation, transmission, distribution and service to the network. The EPP calls for electricity tariffs to “reflect the efficient cost of rendering electricity services as accurately as practical...and that the tariff structures must be set to recover the energy costs, the network usage costs and service costs associated therewith for a particular consumer category”[4][4]. This implies that big industrial users will only pay for generation and transmission; and thus will continue to pay less. Domestic consumers will pay for generation, transmission and distribution.

Now Eskom wants NERSA to “permit prices to rise overtime to reflect the true economic cost or long-run marginal cost of producing electricity”. In keeping with Eskom’s desire to have market solutions to the electricity crisis, the MYPD 2 application contends that cost-reflective tariff would also ensure “complete elimination of the need for Government support and a consequent tax burden…and send the correct price signal to encourage efficient usage of electricity and optimal allocation of scarce resources to the macro-economic level, thus ultimately increasing economic efficiency, reducing the cost of doing business, reducing inflation rates and increasing economic growth rates” (Eskom’s MYPD 2, 30 Sept 64).

According to Eskom’s revised application, South Africa’s industrial and residential tariff levels of 50c/kWh and 28.99c/kWh respectively, are amongst the cheapest in the world[5][5]. While COSATU may not contest this assertion, our concern is the end-user price of the electricity. The price of Eskom electricity is a cost to municipalities, which is in turn passed to consumers. Using the average end-user residential electricity price of 80c/kWh, if Eskom gets 35% tariff hike each year of the MYPD 2 period, it means households would pay R1.08, R1.50 and R1.97 in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively in nominal terms. This translates to a whopping 146% increase over the MYPD2 period. The high electricity tariffs are likely to force the majority of poor people to revert to dangerous and dirty sources of energy.

COSATU has been consistent in raising its concern that residential consumers of electricity, while they use less of electricity, they pay more than industrial users. This has resulted in the tariff structure that is not equitable as reflected by the graph below:

Figure 1: Electricity Pricing Curve[6][6]

In terms of figure 1, those who consume more electricity pay less and those consuming less pay more. This has to change. In this diagram, Curves A and B represent a short-run marginal cost curve for electricity utility and a cost-plus mark-up tariff respectively[7][7]. Curve C is the ‘eco-social justice tariff’ which combines a free lifeline and redistribution from high to low electricity consumers. In essence, COSATU proposes a stepped-up lifeline block tariffs model, with cross-subsidisation to achieve this objective. If this is what NERSA meant by inclining block rate tariff to address affordability and to protect the poor in their June 2009 price determination, COSATU supports NERSA.

But Eskom disagrees that industrial customers pay less than residential customers. According to Eskom, “the cost of supply to an average industrial customer is significantly less than the cost to supply a residential customer because:

§ Typically a residential customer is supplied on the network at a low voltage whereas a large industrial customer would be supplied on the network at a high voltage. This means that many more electrical networks have to built, maintain and operated to supply smaller customers than that which is required for larger customers on higher voltage networks. Residential tariffs overall costs therefore have a much bigger percentage of network costs than for larger customers.

§ More electrical losses occur at the lower voltages as the electricity has to travel further distances.

§ As a ratio of overall consumption, smaller customers also tend to use much more electricity in more expensive peak periods.

§ Smaller customers have a poorer lower load factor (use electricity inconsistently throughout the day) than larger customers. This means that their average cost of electricity per kWh is higher than of larger customer who uses electricity more evenly throughout the day” (Eskom’s MYPD 2, 30 Sept 65-66).

Furthermore, Eskom does not support stepped-up block tariff model because it is not in the EPP and that “the majority of Eskom’s residential customers are on Homelight 20Amp with an average consumption of 80kWh per month, of which 50kWh per month is already free. This option will result in the higher consuming poor and middle class (typically the township households) being mostly negatively impacted” (Eskom’s MYPD 2, 30 Sept 69).

4. Free Basic Electricity

The ANC’s 2000 local government elections manifesto promised free basic electricity to all the citizens of the country notwithstanding their income. This is what the manifesto promised:

‘ANC-led local government will provide all residents with a free basic amount of water, electricity and other municipal services, so as to help the poor. Those who use more than the basic amounts will pay for the extra they use’[8][8].

This commitment did not talk about any means-testing and targeting. It embraced the universality principle in meeting the basic needs of the people. The manifesto recognised the cross-subsidisation as a critical element of the FBE. It proposed that those who would consume more than the basic amounts must pay more per unit.

In implementing the manifesto commitment, the DME commissioned a study on FBE, which was done by the University of Cape Town (UCT). Unfortunately, the UCT study concluded that the 50kWh or 65kWh of FBE would be enough to cover the needs of the poor households[9][9]. Based on the outcomes of the study the DME adopted a policy which provides 50kWh of FBE. Clearly, the 50kWh of FBE is far too low and can only be used for lighting in the main. Furthermore, 20 Amps capacity may not be sufficient for a decent life. But Eskom is proposing an increase in FBE increased from 50kWh to 70kWh per month for all 20Amp FBE customers.

Eskom does not support an increase in FBE to 100kWh “because it would result in most of Eskom’s Homelight 20Amp customers not paying anything for electricity given that their average consumption is below the 100kWh per month” (Eskom’s MYPD 2, 30 Sept 70). But some municipalities are already giving consumers 100kWh of FBE per month. According to Komives, Foster, Hapern & Wodon (2005: 43), 40kWh (which is not too different from the 50kWh) of electricity can only be sufficient for a few light bulbs and a radio, while 120kWh per month can be enough for a few light bulbs, a small refrigerator and a modest television set. This suggests that 200kWh of FBE may go some way to helping low-income earners to lead a better life.

5. Costs and Efficiency

Eskom has now revised its sales forecast based on the impact of the demand side management (DSM) including the power conservation programme (PCP). The impact of DSM will in turn reduce primary energy costs by R12.6bn over the MYPD 2 period. COSATU support emphasis on DSM and calls for an urgent revival of the campaign for the efficient use of electricity. Any success on this front will make the building of additional coal-fired power stations unnecessary and relieve the working people and the poor from high electricity tariffs.

However, Eskom has to clarify its call to Department of Energy and NERSA for “commitment to promulgate regulations and associated rules”[10][10]. In as far as we are aware, there was supposed to be a cost-benefit study on the PCP as per the provisions of the Framework which stated that “[T]he parties recognise that the proposed mandatory rationing of electricity may have a negative impact on employment and therefore agree that the proposed approach be revisited in a way that addresses any negative impact on job retention”[11][11]. Eskom has also budgeted for R6212m for DSM over the MYPD 2 period[12][12]. It is important to know what would Eskom do with this amount of money. In our view, the DSM is not the terrain of Eskom as there is a clear conflict of interest. This view is in line with the resolutions of the 2008 Energy Summit, which was convened under the auspices of Nedlac.

Without giving any further details, Eskom promises to implement efficiency initiatives in coal procurement. Furthermore, Eskom has not factored in its coal costs calculation the external costs as per the White Paper on energy. The petroleum market is characterised by price volatility and high oil prices will increase coal mining and transportation costs. It is therefore important for Eskom to manage petroleum price risk.

COSATU notes that Eskom will now save R2055m on human resources over the MYPD 2 period. Some of the staff members would be capacitated and redeployed to new businesses within the company. This is a welcome move which we hope would be done in consultation with organised labour. What is problematic is for Eskom to include issues which are supposed to be determined through the collective bargaining process in the application. For instance Eskom talks about “limiting salary increases and escalating them in line with CPI”.

6. Renewable Energy

COSATU submits that instead of building more coal-fired power stations there is an urgent need to upscale investment in the renewable sources of energy. Empirical evidence shows that while it is cheaper to produce electricity from coal now, it is going to be costly in the medium to long term. The inverse is true in relation to the renewable sources of energy; they will become relatively expensive infinitivally but cheaper in the long term. Upscaling investment in the renewable sources of energy will not only address the challenge of climate change but will create the all-important jobs in the economy.

The framework also recognises the importance of investing in green technologies to attain the objectives stated above already: “The parties recognise the opportunities in industries that combat the negative effects of climate change and believe that South Africa should develop strong capacity in these green technologies and industries. Accordingly, it is agreed to develop incentives for investment in a programme to create large numbers of green jobs, namely employment in industries and facilities that are designed to mitigate the effects of climate change. Government will be asked to develop a proposal for consideration by the parties. This proposal will, where appropriate, build on current initiatives of greening existing manufacturing and service activities”[13][13].

7. Nuclear Power

To reduce the costs, Eskom has decided to defer capital expenditure for the next nuclear station and target 2022 for its establishment; unless it can additional funding during the MYPD 2 period. COSATU believes that nuclear option must be removed from the energy mix. There is still a lot of question marks around the nuclear plant safety, radioactive waste disposal, and possible usage of uranium for weapons[14][14].

8. Funding

COSATU reiterates its call for government to foot the bill for the completion of Medupi power station. Part of the 787bn budgeted for infrastructure must be used to help Eskom complete the construction of Medupi power station. We have also called for a special, once-off tax on corporations for this purpose. Government can also increase taxes marginally while maintaining the tax-free income threshold. This would ensure that majority of low-income workers and the poor do not born the excess burden of the tax.

We have already indicated our view on privatisation and its impact on the economy through high electricity tariffs. Eskom is very keen to attract private investment, although it prefers this to be at project level; and it further indicates that it would not seek private equity into Eskom itself (and this is a welcome move). To be able to attract private equity, it contends that “tariffs should give lenders and credit rating agencies guidance as to whether Eskom will have sufficient internally generated net cashflow to service and redeem its debt”. By its own admission, Eskom acknowledges that “equity is the most expensive form of funding, which will have an adverse impact on tariffs in the long run” (Eskom’s MYPD 2, 30 Nov 27).

Alternatively Eskom proposes to source equity from development finance institutions (DFIs) such as the IDC and DBSA, a move that will result in electricity tariffs not increasing sharply in the short term. However, Eskom believes that these DFIs will also need “a price path to provide them with an appropriate return on investment, whilst loans are being serviced” (Eskom’s MYPD 2, 30 Nov 28).

COSATU believes that the DFIs have an important role in assisting Eskom in its capital expansion programme without causing electricity tariffs to increase steeply in a manner proposed by Eskom. We believe this is in keeping with clause 3.11 of the Framework which calls on DFIs “to place the promotion of productive employment and decent work opportunities at the centre of their investment mandates and to mobilise their available funds for the retention of employment and the creation of the largest jobs per unit of capital invested…”

3. International

3.1 Free Burma Campaign - South Africa (FBC-SA)

Dr Thein Win ,Free Burma Campaign South Africa, 14 December 2009

Maximum international pressure against the ruling military junta in Burma is more necessary than ever. "The persistent repression and blatant attacks on the most fundamental rights by the Burmese junta are simply unacceptable,"stated Guy Ryder,' general secretary of the ITUC.

'For nearly 50 years, the south-east Asian state of Burma has been in the yoke of a military dictatorship that has subjected the majority of the population to a life of abject poverty. Forced labour, the genocide of minorities, widespread human and trade union rights abuses, forced displacements, child soldiers, rape...all are part of the daily repression.'

During the struggle for freedom and democracy in South Africa, the world united in its collective efforts to bring about a change in government, freedom and democracy to the people of South Africa, and an end to apartheid.

Many various organisations and individuals the world over raised their voices strongly and relentlessly against the many human rights violations perpetrated against South Africa's oppressed people, as well as using sanctions and other actions to help weaken and bring down the apartheid rule.

Although South Africa recently issued a statement in support of Ang San Suu Kyi during her recent trial, much more support and action is needed from South Africa as the people of Burma continue suffering under the world’s present most brutal and oppressive military regime.

The current International Trade Union Confederation conference is an opportunity for the South African trade unions affiliated to ITUC to demonstrate their support and solidarity with many other international groups and individuals who are standing up and speaking out for Burma.

With its large membership below, ( information obtained from the ITUC website), the South African trade unions affiliated to the ITUC have the ability along with their members to become a strong force in Southern Africa in mobilising support from leaders and organisations in southern Africa and to actively join the existing global call and international actions to end the military junta's brutal dictatorship.

IIt is also an opportunity for the South African trade unions, with their influential role in South Africa :

1. to speak out strongly at every opportunity in South Africa regarding current issues in Burma and in accordance with the ITUC Resolution on Burma , to put ‘continuous pressure on the military regime’.

2. to be part of global campaigns and calls along with international leaders, politicians, celebrities and organisations and be heard on the international stage in issuing statements and taking part in international campaigns and actions for the release of the democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners and an end to all human rights violations

3. through their collective large membership to inform the wider population in South Africa of the human rights violations and crimes against humanity in Burma in order to mobilise greater support for an end to the brutal military junta rule

4. to support the Global Unions Burma Campaign – to identify businesses linked to Burma and discourage business links - ITUC works closely with the Global Unions. http://www.global- unions.org/spip.php?rubrique57

5. to urge the South African government to be part of the continual and relentless widespread international condemnation of the junta, – the ITUC states that ‘Continuous pressure on the military regime is needed’ -Brussels April 2007

6. to enlist the support of other organisations within South Africa to add their voices to the international pressure on the junta – international solidarity, an objective of the ITUC.

7. to encourage and support South Africa in joining as a signatory to the letter sent to the UN Security Council 10 December 2009, International Human Rights Day, urging the United Nations Security Council to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the Burmese military junta’s ‘Crimes against Humanity’, referred to in the ITUC Burma Conference April 2007 and the joint ITUC- FIDH statement December 2007.

The Free Burma Campaign- South Africa ( FBC-SA) urges the South African
trade unions affiliated to the ITUC in accordance with the various ITUC statements on Burma including:

· The ITUC Burma Conference and its Final Declaration, Nepal, April 2007,

· The ITUC Brussels April 10 document,

· The ITUC Resolution on Burma Dec 2007,

· The joint ITUC-FIDH mission December 2007

· To actively join the ITUC, world leaders, celebrities and international organisations in applying maximum international pressure against the ruling military junta at every opportunity.

[1][1] Framework for SA’s Response to Economic Crisis, section 3.13

[2][2] World Energy Investment Outlook, 2003, p.368

[3][3] Ibid, p.371

[4][4] EPP, 2008. p.17

[5][5] Eskom’s MYPD 2 Application, 30 November, p.74

[6][6] Patrick Bond: Presentation at May 2009 COSATU Electricity Workshop

[7][7] ibid

[8][8] ANC 2000 Local Government Elections Manifesto

[9][9] Options for a Basic Electricity Support Tariff: Supplementary Report, 2003

[10][10] Eskom’s MYPD 2, Nov 30, p.47

[11][11] Framework for SA’s Response to International Economic Crisis, section 3.12

[12][12] Eskom’s MYPD 2, Nov 30, p.49

[13][13] Framework for SA’s Response to Global Economic Crisis, section 3.6

[14][14] Energy Information Administration/International Energy Outlook 2009, p.66

image001.jpg

image003.png

image005.jpg

image008.gif

image009.jpg

image010.png

image011.jpg

image012.jpg

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages