The Economic Impact of Electricity Price Increases on ... - Eskom
The Economic Impact of Electricity Price Increases on ... - Eskom
The Economic Impact of Electricity Price Increases on ... - Eskom
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Ec<strong>on</strong>omic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Increases</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong><br />
Various Sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
A Report c<strong>on</strong>solidating the findings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> recent research
Purpose <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this study<br />
2<br />
• For much <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the past three decades, electricity prices in South Africa have been low and declining. But from 2008 the trend in<br />
prices took a dramatic turn when, in resp<strong>on</strong>se to serious power supply shortages, <strong>Eskom</strong> embarked <strong>on</strong> a massive build<br />
programme to increase power generati<strong>on</strong> capacity and between 2008 and 2011 real electricity prices rose by 78%.<br />
• This report was commissi<strong>on</strong>ed by <strong>Eskom</strong> as part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its preparati<strong>on</strong> for the third Multi-Year <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> Determinati<strong>on</strong> (MYPD 3)<br />
process. Given the sharp increases in electricity prices in recent years and the need for further tariff increases, the overall<br />
objective <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this study was to c<strong>on</strong>tribute towards an better understanding <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the potential impact that further electricity price<br />
increases could have <strong>on</strong> the various sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy by c<strong>on</strong>solidating the findings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
existing studies and academic papers <strong>on</strong> the subject.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> report is structured around four chapters:<br />
Introducti<strong>on</strong><br />
Chapter <strong>on</strong>e gives some c<strong>on</strong>text to the broader analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising electricity prices <strong>on</strong> different sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omy, by providing a brief overview <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the current structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy and the trend in and drivers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Chapter two <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fers an assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> different sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy to rising electricity<br />
prices.<br />
Chapter three c<strong>on</strong>siders the findings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies <strong>on</strong> the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising electricity prices <strong>on</strong> sector output, employment and<br />
pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability.<br />
In Chapter four we explore the policy opti<strong>on</strong>s available to government in the c<strong>on</strong>text <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> increasing electricity prices and the<br />
case for industry support.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.
C<strong>on</strong>tents<br />
3<br />
Purpose <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the study<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Analysis and Findings<br />
Chapter 1 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy & trend in electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
Chapter 2 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the SA ec<strong>on</strong>omy to rising electricity costs<br />
Chapter 3 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price increases<br />
Chapter 4 – Exploring policy opti<strong>on</strong>s available and the case for industry support<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.
Services dominate the SA ec<strong>on</strong>omy accounting for over two-thirds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
GDP and employment. However relatively energy-intensive primary and<br />
sec<strong>on</strong>dary industries still c<strong>on</strong>tribute around 28% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> GDP<br />
4<br />
South African GDP by sector (2010)<br />
Pers<strong>on</strong>al services<br />
6.2%<br />
General<br />
government<br />
services<br />
15.1%<br />
Finance, real<br />
estate and<br />
business services<br />
23.5%<br />
Source: Frost and Sullivan, Rec<strong>on</strong>structed: Stats SA<br />
Pers<strong>on</strong>al services<br />
12%<br />
General<br />
government<br />
services<br />
11%<br />
Finance, real<br />
estate and<br />
business services<br />
14%<br />
Transport, storage<br />
and communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
10.2%<br />
Agriculture, forestry<br />
and fishing<br />
2.5%<br />
Mining and<br />
quarrying<br />
6.0%<br />
Manu-facturing<br />
17.2%<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, gas and<br />
water<br />
2.1%<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
3.5%<br />
Retai, trade and<br />
hospitality<br />
13.7%<br />
Sectoral c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to total employment<br />
Transport, storage<br />
and communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
6%<br />
Source: Q3 2011, Quarterly Labour Force Survey - StatsSA<br />
(2011)<br />
Agriculture, forestry<br />
and fishing<br />
5%<br />
Mining and<br />
quarrying<br />
3%<br />
Retail trade and<br />
hospitality<br />
25%<br />
Manufacturing<br />
14%<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, gas and<br />
water<br />
1%<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
9%<br />
Key points<br />
Current Structure<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy is dominated by<br />
services-related activity – 67% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> GDP<br />
• Of the five largest sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy in 2010,<br />
four were services-related<br />
• It is however important to note that manufacturing<br />
remained the sec<strong>on</strong>d-largest individual sector<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tributor at 17.2% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> GDP in 2010 and together<br />
with other relatively energy-intensive sectors<br />
(mining, electricity and other utilities, and<br />
agriculture), 28% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> GDP.<br />
• Some sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy are<br />
by nature, more labour-intensive (high<br />
employment to GDP ratios) than others.<br />
• Sectors like c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, agriculture and<br />
wholesale\retail make a much larger proporti<strong>on</strong>al<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to employment than to GDP.<br />
• While sectors like finance and business services,<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tribute 23.5% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> GDP in 2010 but accounted<br />
for <strong>on</strong>ly 14% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> employment in 2011.<br />
Some sectors, including c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, agriculture and wholesale\retail trade are important in that they make a much<br />
larger proporti<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to employment than to GDP<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> extent to which an industry can generate employment for unskilled<br />
and semi-skilled workers is important in the c<strong>on</strong>text <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> South Africa –<br />
private households, agriculture and c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> top this list.<br />
% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total sector's<br />
employment<br />
5<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
11% 15%<br />
61%<br />
28%<br />
Private households<br />
49%<br />
36%<br />
Agriculture, forestry and<br />
fishing<br />
30%<br />
52%<br />
18%<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> demand for skilled, semi-skilled and<br />
unskilled labour by sector, 2010<br />
47% 48% 50% 53%<br />
65%<br />
69% 72%<br />
43% 42% 39%<br />
40% 29% 27% 22%<br />
10% 10% 11% 7% 7% 5% 6%<br />
Wholesale and retail trade<br />
Manufacturing<br />
Mining and quarrying<br />
Transport, storage and<br />
communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, gas and water<br />
supply<br />
Financial, insurance, real<br />
estate and business<br />
services<br />
Current Structure<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
• In South Africa, a large proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the potential workforce and unemployed have attained <strong>on</strong>ly a basic level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> educati<strong>on</strong> so the<br />
extent to which an industry generates or can generate employment for relatively low-skilled workers is also <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> interest to<br />
policymakers.<br />
• Frost and Sullivan (June 2011) argue that the ec<strong>on</strong>omy would become more energy intensive if it is reoriented towards creating<br />
employment for semi-skilled and unskilled workers but it is not clear that this would be the case since the industries that demand the<br />
largest proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low and semi-skilled labour are labour rather than energy-intensive - agriculture (85%), private households<br />
(89%) and c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> (70%) and wholesale\retail trade (53%)<br />
Source: Deloitte Analysis, Quantec<br />
Key points<br />
Community, social and<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>al services<br />
Skilled<br />
Semi Skilled<br />
Low Skilled<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
N<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals and gold mining are the single largest c<strong>on</strong>sumers<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity in SA, resp<strong>on</strong>sible for 25% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>, but they<br />
make a relatively small direct c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to GDP (about 4%).<br />
Key points<br />
6<br />
Deloitte<br />
Sectoral comparis<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity use and c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to GDP<br />
(2009)<br />
Current Structure<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
• By definiti<strong>on</strong>, energy-intensive sectors like gold mining, n<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals, soap and pharmaceuticals add relatively little value to<br />
the ec<strong>on</strong>omy (in terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> GDP) per unit <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> energy c<strong>on</strong>sumed.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> overall c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these sectors to GDP however, also depends <strong>on</strong> their linkages to sectors in the ec<strong>on</strong>omy. For example,<br />
while the direct c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the mining and quarrying industry to GDP is <strong>on</strong>ly 6% it is linked to number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> other sectors in the<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omy (e.g. Engineering services, financial and business services, banking, c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, transport, manufacturing etc.) and so<br />
its indirect c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to GDP would be significantly higher.<br />
Source: Rec<strong>on</strong>structed from Frost and Sullivan (2011)<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
Growth in electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> from 1980 to 2008 was largely due to<br />
increased demand from a few large manufacturers and from<br />
redistributors (municipalities) who primarily supply residential and<br />
Thousands<br />
commercial customers<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
Thousands<br />
200<br />
180<br />
160<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
7<br />
<strong>Eskom</strong> direct sales <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity to the<br />
mining sector (1980-2008)<br />
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 2006 2008<br />
Rest <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Mining<br />
Chrome Mining<br />
Diam<strong>on</strong>d Mining<br />
Copper Mining<br />
Ir<strong>on</strong> Ore Mining<br />
Coal Mining<br />
Platinum Mining<br />
Gold Mining<br />
Source: (Deloitte , 2009), <strong>Eskom</strong> Source: (Deloitte , 2009), <strong>Eskom</strong><br />
Trend in <strong>Eskom</strong> sales by category <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
customer (1980-2008)<br />
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 2006 2008<br />
Source: (Deloitte , 2009), <strong>Eskom</strong><br />
Residential<br />
Redistributors<br />
Industry<br />
Mining<br />
Agriculture<br />
Thousands<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
<strong>Eskom</strong> direct sales <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity to the<br />
manufacturing sector (1980-2008)<br />
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 2006 2008<br />
Current Structure<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
Rest <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
Manufacturing<br />
Precious & N<strong>on</strong>ferrous<br />
metals<br />
Ir<strong>on</strong> & Steel<br />
Chemicals<br />
Key points<br />
• In 2008 Gold was still the dominant c<strong>on</strong>sumer <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
electricity in the mining industry.<br />
• Decreases in gold mining c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> since 1990 have<br />
been replaced with platinum c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> so that<br />
overall, c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity by the mining sector<br />
has remained relatively stable since the 1990s.<br />
• By c<strong>on</strong>trast sales <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity to the manufacturing<br />
sector increased sharply from 1980 to 2008 driven<br />
mainly by growth and increased c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> by the<br />
n<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals and ir<strong>on</strong> and steel sub-sectors<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
At a macroec<strong>on</strong>omic level, the key drivers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
are income and price. Income is the dominant driver <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> in South Africa but as real electricity prices c<strong>on</strong>tinue to<br />
rise they may have more impact<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>Ec<strong>on</strong>omic</str<strong>on</strong>g> growth has proven to be <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the main drivers in South Africa and by c<strong>on</strong>trast electricity prices (from 1986 to 2005)<br />
had almost no effect (Blignaut & Inglesi-Lotz , 2011).<br />
• But <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> elasticity has not been c<strong>on</strong>stant over time. When real electricity prices rose sharply in the early 1980’s, the price<br />
elasticity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity demand in South Africa was significantly negative (meaning that c<strong>on</strong>sumers decreased demand significantly<br />
in resp<strong>on</strong>se to price increases). From the mid-1980s to 2007 however, there was a steady decline in real electricity prices and over<br />
this period they had increasingly little influence <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> (Blignaut & Inglesi-Lotz, 2011).<br />
• It seems likely therefore that as real electricity prices rise (as they have d<strong>on</strong>e since 2008), c<strong>on</strong>sumers will again become more<br />
sensitive to price and prices will again play an important role in determining electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> in South Africa<br />
8<br />
Relati<strong>on</strong>ship between income (GDP) and<br />
electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> in SA , 1993 to 2006<br />
Source: (Inglesi-Lotz & Blignaut, 2011 a)<br />
Macroec<strong>on</strong>omic Drivers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> C<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> and income elasticities <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity<br />
demand, 1986 to 2005<br />
Source: (Blignaut & Inglesi-Lotz, 2011)<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
At a microec<strong>on</strong>omic level the two main influences <strong>on</strong> electricity<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> are the changing structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy or ‘structural<br />
effect’ and the influence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> new technologies or the ‘efficiency effect’<br />
100<br />
80<br />
% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total GDP<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
• Because the electricity-intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> producti<strong>on</strong> varies c<strong>on</strong>siderably from <strong>on</strong>e sector to the next, changes in the structure <strong>on</strong> an<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omy can have a significant impact <strong>on</strong> the trend in energy c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>. As the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy has evolved it has<br />
become more diversified, more services-based and less dependent <strong>on</strong> the primary sector (mining and agriculture).<br />
• Despite the increasing c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> less energy-intensive services to the ec<strong>on</strong>omy, the electricity intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omy more than doubled in the period from 1990 to 2007 (Inglesi-Lotz & Blignaut, 2011 b). This was probably due to the increase<br />
in energy-intensive manufacturing activities in the 1990s, particularly investment in the n<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals sector.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> decline in the electricity intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy since 2007 is probably due in part to the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the global ec<strong>on</strong>omic<br />
recessi<strong>on</strong> in 2008\9 but it could also mark the beginning <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a new phase in which growth will increasingly be based <strong>on</strong> the demand for<br />
less energy-intensive services.<br />
0<br />
9<br />
21 22 25 23 22<br />
15 15<br />
Changing structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South<br />
African ec<strong>on</strong>omy (1970 – 2010)<br />
16 19 24<br />
12<br />
5<br />
4<br />
18<br />
1<br />
21<br />
3<br />
13<br />
7<br />
4<br />
21<br />
2<br />
13<br />
3<br />
13<br />
7<br />
3<br />
20<br />
2<br />
11<br />
3<br />
14<br />
9<br />
2<br />
19<br />
2<br />
9<br />
3<br />
13<br />
10<br />
4<br />
17<br />
2<br />
6<br />
3<br />
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010<br />
Source: Deloitte Analysis, StatsSA 2011<br />
Community, social and pers<strong>on</strong>al<br />
services<br />
Financial, insurance, real estate<br />
and business services<br />
Trade and hospitality services<br />
Transport, storage and<br />
communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
Manufacturing<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> structural effect<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, gas and water<br />
Mining and quarrying<br />
Agriculture, forestry and fishing<br />
kWh / GDP (2005 prices, Rbn)<br />
1200<br />
1000<br />
800<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
Source: World Bank Data, 2011; SARB GDP data<br />
Current Structure<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South<br />
African ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
Improving energy efficiency is <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the most ec<strong>on</strong>omical ways <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
reducing energy c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> and there is evidence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> significant<br />
scope for energy-efficiency gains in South Africa<br />
• A study comparing the electricity intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> various sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy to the same industries in the OECD,<br />
found that there was significant scope for energy-efficiency gains in South Africa and noted that the importance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> encouraging<br />
energy-efficiency and demand-side management could not be overstated. (Inglesi-Lotz & Blignaut (2011 b) )<br />
• A decompositi<strong>on</strong> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> in South Africa suggests that main drivers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> from<br />
1993 to 2006, were output (ec<strong>on</strong>omic growth) followed by efficiency improvements (technology/substitute) and lastly structural<br />
effects.<br />
• However the overall increase in efficiency is misleading since the greatest gains in efficiency were in the transport sector and were<br />
in fact due to the collapse <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the rail freight sector and switch in transport modes from rail (which c<strong>on</strong>sumes electricity) to road<br />
freight (which c<strong>on</strong>sumes petroleum products).<br />
Source: (Inglesi-Lotz & Blignaut, 2011 a)<br />
10<br />
Drivers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
(1993 to 2006)<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> efficiency effect<br />
Current Structure<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
“Energy efficiency improvements refer to a<br />
reducti<strong>on</strong> in the energy used for a given service or<br />
level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> activity. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> reducti<strong>on</strong> in the energy<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> is usually associated with<br />
technological changes, but not always since it can<br />
also result from better organisati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
management or improved ec<strong>on</strong>omic c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in<br />
the sector (n<strong>on</strong>-technical factors).”<br />
World Energy Council<br />
Policy makers should focus <strong>on</strong> sector-specific measures to achieve such improvements given large inter-sectoral<br />
differences<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Ec<strong>on</strong>omic</str<strong>on</strong>g> growth is likely to remain the primary driver <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity<br />
demand over the next decade since it is unlikely that rising prices or<br />
increased uptake <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> energy efficiency measures will be sufficient to<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fset the positive impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising income…<br />
11<br />
toe per US$m 2005 GDP<br />
600<br />
580<br />
560<br />
540<br />
520<br />
500<br />
480<br />
460<br />
440<br />
420<br />
400<br />
Outlook for electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
• GDP is forecast to expand at an annual average rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 4% from 2012 to 2015. Given that the income elasticity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity<br />
demand is estimated to be around 1.2 (approximately unit elastic), in the absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> other influences, the demand for electricity<br />
would rise at a similar rate to GDP.<br />
• Forecasts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity intensity by the CSIR (in Frost and Sullivan 2010), suggest that the electricity intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South<br />
African ec<strong>on</strong>omy is likely to c<strong>on</strong>tinue to decline over the next two decades. While declining energy-intensity would assist in<br />
moderating the increase in the demand for electricity, forecasts by the Ec<strong>on</strong>omist Intelligence Unit (EIU) suggest that the energy<br />
intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> growth in South Africa will c<strong>on</strong>tinue to rise until 2020.<br />
• It seems likely that as real electricity prices rise (as they have d<strong>on</strong>e since 2008), c<strong>on</strong>sumers will again become more sensitive<br />
to price and prices will again play an important role in determining electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> in South Africa. However it is too early<br />
to identify the impacts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> recent prices increases so <strong>on</strong>e can <strong>on</strong>ly speculate about the magnitude <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the impact.<br />
Ec<strong>on</strong>omist Intelligence Unit forecast <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the energy<br />
intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the SA ec<strong>on</strong>omy (2010 to 2020)<br />
1990<br />
1991<br />
1992<br />
1993<br />
1994<br />
1995<br />
1996<br />
1997<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
2004<br />
2005<br />
2006<br />
2007<br />
2008<br />
2009<br />
f2010<br />
f2011<br />
f2012<br />
f2013<br />
f2014<br />
f2015<br />
f2016<br />
f2017<br />
f2018<br />
f2019<br />
f2020<br />
Current Structure<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
…It is also Source: not EIU Data, clear 2011 what impact structural effects will have <strong>on</strong> demand given the c<strong>on</strong>siderable differences <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
opini<strong>on</strong> around the future trend in the electricity intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy<br />
… or according to the CSIR?<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
For much <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the past three decades, electricity prices in South Africa<br />
have been low and declining (in real terms). In 2008 the trend in prices<br />
took a dramatic turn when in resp<strong>on</strong>se to critical supply shortages,<br />
<strong>Eskom</strong> embarks <strong>on</strong> a massive build programme<br />
Source: Deloitte Analysis, <strong>Eskom</strong> data and 2011 annual report<br />
Trend in average electricity prices realised by <strong>Eskom</strong> per kWh<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<br />
in SA<br />
In an uncanny resemblance to the events and trend in prices in the late 1970s, real electricity prices rose by 78%<br />
between 2008 and 2011.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
In 2006 South Africa had the lowest industrial electricity tariffs in the<br />
world (IEA). And despite a 78% increase in real electricity prices<br />
between 2008 and 2011, a recent survey reveals that South Africa<br />
(compared to 15 developed countries) still had <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the lowest<br />
average electricity tariffs<br />
13<br />
US$/KWh<br />
US$/kWh<br />
0.3<br />
0.2<br />
0.2<br />
0.1<br />
0.1<br />
0.0<br />
0.25<br />
0.2<br />
0.15<br />
0.1<br />
0.05<br />
0<br />
Italy<br />
Germany<br />
Spain<br />
Belgium<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> tariff for industrial c<strong>on</strong>sumers, 2006<br />
Source: (Internati<strong>on</strong>al Energy Agency, 2010) . Data for Netherlands, Luxembourg, Finland and Chile was not available for 2006<br />
Source: NUS C<strong>on</strong>sulting, 2011<br />
Average electricity price comparis<strong>on</strong>, 2011<br />
United<br />
Kingdom<br />
Austria<br />
Netherlands<br />
Portugal<br />
Finland<br />
Sweden<br />
Poland<br />
Australia<br />
France<br />
United States<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<br />
in SA<br />
South Africa<br />
Canada<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
1
C<strong>on</strong>tents<br />
14<br />
Purpose <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the study<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Analysis and Findings<br />
Chapter 1 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy & trend in electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
Chapter 2 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the SA ec<strong>on</strong>omy to rising electricity costs<br />
Chapter 3 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price increases<br />
Chapter 4 – Exploring policy opti<strong>on</strong>s available and the case for industry support<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.
An industry’s vulnerability to rising electricity prices depends, most<br />
obviously, <strong>on</strong> its reliance <strong>on</strong> electricity as an input to producti<strong>on</strong> but<br />
also <strong>on</strong> the extent to which it is able to mitigate against the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
rising electricity prices<br />
Reliance <strong>on</strong> electricity as an input<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> first group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria are indicators <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
firm\industry’s reliance <strong>on</strong> electricity as a factor input<br />
• Direct electricity costs as a proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total inputs<br />
costs<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensity (i.e. electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> per unit<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> output)<br />
• Direct and indirect electricity costs as a proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
total inputs costs<br />
15<br />
Vulnerability Criteria<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Ability to mitigate against rising prices<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> sec<strong>on</strong>d group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria are indicators <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the extent to<br />
which a firm\industry is able to adapt to rising prices and<br />
mitigate against the negative impact <strong>on</strong> its pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability<br />
• Ability to pass <strong>on</strong> the cost (i.e. pricing power and price<br />
elasticity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> demand)<br />
• Scope for electricity efficiency gains<br />
• Potential to substitute electricity with cheaper energy<br />
sources<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
Mining and quarrying emerges as the sector with the greatest reliance<br />
<strong>on</strong> electricity, with electricity accounting for almost 5% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the sectors<br />
total input costs<br />
16<br />
-<br />
Mining and quarrying<br />
-<br />
Transport, storage and communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
-<br />
Wholesale and retail<br />
-<br />
Manufacturing<br />
-<br />
Agriculture, forestry<br />
-<br />
Other services (gov &<br />
-<br />
Finance, real estate<br />
-<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
-<br />
-<br />
Direct electricity costs as a proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total input costs<br />
• Interestingly, the ratio <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity costs to total input costs is higher for the transport, storage and communicati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
wholesale\retail trade sectors than is it for manufacturing which <strong>on</strong>e would typically expect to be more reliant <strong>on</strong> electricity<br />
• This however is probably because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the c<strong>on</strong>siderable variati<strong>on</strong> in reliance <strong>on</strong> electricity within the manufacturing sector<br />
Value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumed expressed as a percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> intermediate inputs<br />
Source: Chamber <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Mines in (Pan-African Investment & Research Services, <strong>Eskom</strong>, May 2011)<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
%<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
In the C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> industry, which is at the other end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the spectrum, direct electricity costs are less than 0.5% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
total input costs.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
% Share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricty in costs<br />
A more disaggregated view <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity in the cost<br />
structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> South African industries was presented in a 2008 report by<br />
the HSRC. Of 94 sub-industries, n<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals is by far the most<br />
reliant <strong>on</strong> electricity<br />
* <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se estimates were calculated <strong>on</strong> the basis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> data provided in the 2002 Supply Use Tables (SUTs) published by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) in 2005. Sub-industries are<br />
ranked according to the share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity in their total costs – <strong>on</strong>ly data <strong>on</strong> the 30 most-dependent industries out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the total <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 94 have been presented<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> other manufacturing sub-industries in the top 10 include ’other’ textiles and knitting, general hardware, tyres, soap and<br />
pharmaceuticals. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> water and electricity supply industries are also am<strong>on</strong>g the ten most electricity dependent industries,<br />
together with gold mining.<br />
• 24 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the top 30 most reliant industries are manufacturing activities.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>ly service to feature in the top 30 is accommodati<strong>on</strong>, which is quite surprisingly ranked 11 th .<br />
• Mining also features quite str<strong>on</strong>gly - all 3 mining categories are am<strong>on</strong>g the top 30.<br />
17<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
11<br />
N<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals<br />
7<br />
General hardware<br />
6<br />
Knitting mills<br />
6 5<br />
Other textiles<br />
Tyres<br />
5 5 5<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> 30 most electricity–dependant sub-industries<br />
(electricity costs % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs), 2002<br />
4 4 4<br />
Source: Deloitte analysis, based <strong>on</strong> Human Sciences Research Council (2008)<br />
Water<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
Gold mining<br />
Soap<br />
Pharmaceuticals<br />
Accommodati<strong>on</strong><br />
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1<br />
Fish<br />
Other chemicals<br />
Treated metals<br />
Direct electricity costs as a proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total input costs<br />
Gears<br />
Lifting equipment<br />
Machine tools<br />
Cement<br />
Office machinery<br />
Petroleum<br />
Structural ceramics<br />
Meat<br />
Manufacturing<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, Gas & Water<br />
Mining<br />
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing<br />
Services<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
Handbags<br />
Grain mills<br />
Accumulators<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Other mining<br />
Bakeries<br />
Oils<br />
Food machinery<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2<br />
3<br />
Coal
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> industry and several major service industries<br />
including government, business services, insurance and media have<br />
very low reliance <strong>on</strong> electricity – less than 0.3% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> their total costs<br />
1<br />
0.9<br />
0.8<br />
0.7<br />
0.6<br />
0.5<br />
0.4<br />
0.3<br />
0.2<br />
0.1<br />
0<br />
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5<br />
Wood<br />
Sugar<br />
Textiles<br />
Household appliances<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> apparatus<br />
Clothing<br />
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3<br />
Source: Deloitte analysis, based <strong>on</strong> Human Sciences Research Council (2008)<br />
18<br />
Deloitte<br />
Footwear<br />
Publishing<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> 30 sub-industries least reliant <strong>on</strong> electricity<br />
(electricity costs % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs), 2002<br />
Electrical equipment<br />
Other manufacturing<br />
Radio and televisi<strong>on</strong><br />
Paper packaging<br />
Mining machinery<br />
Engines<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
Insurance<br />
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2<br />
Direct electricity costs as a proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total input costs<br />
Structural metal<br />
Agricultural machinery<br />
Motor vehicle parts<br />
Plastic<br />
General government<br />
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1<br />
Buildings<br />
Other paper<br />
Business activities<br />
Pesticides<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Manufacturing<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, Gas & Water<br />
Mining<br />
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing<br />
Services<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
Other food<br />
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are also several manufacturing activities that rank am<strong>on</strong>g the least reliant <strong>on</strong> electricity including motor vehicles,<br />
special machinery, wire and cabling, pesticides, plastics, agricultural equipment, structural metal, engines and mining<br />
machinery<br />
Wire and cable<br />
Special machinery<br />
Motor vehicles<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2<br />
Recorded media
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensity is another measure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the reliance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an industry<br />
<strong>on</strong> electricity based <strong>on</strong> actual c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> rather than expenditure <strong>on</strong><br />
electricity.<br />
Sectors<br />
19<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensity<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensity<br />
GWh/$milli<strong>on</strong> Ranking<br />
Output<br />
share Ranking<br />
Basic metals 1.095 1 7.1% 7<br />
Mining and quarrying 0.634 2 14.6% 2<br />
N<strong>on</strong>-metallic minerals 0.524 3 1.6% 12<br />
Agriculture and forestry 0.316 4 6.0% 8<br />
Paper, pulp and printing 0.207 5 2.8% 10<br />
Chemical and<br />
petrochemical 0.203 6 16.3% 1<br />
Transport 0.089 7 12.5% 3<br />
Wood and wood products 0.069 8 1.4% 13<br />
Textile and leather 0.067 9 2.5% 11<br />
Food and tobacco 0.021 10 12.0% 4<br />
Machinery and equipment 0.005 11 2.9% 9<br />
Transport equipment 0.003 12 9.8% 6<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> 0.002 13 10.5% 5<br />
Source: (Inglesi-Lotz & Blignaut, 2011)<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensity by sector, 2006<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Key points<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is c<strong>on</strong>siderable variati<strong>on</strong> from<br />
<strong>on</strong>e manufacturer to the next.<br />
• Basic metals industry (which<br />
includes ir<strong>on</strong> and steel and n<strong>on</strong>ferrous<br />
metals) is the most<br />
electricity-intensive <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the thirteen<br />
industries<br />
• But some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the other<br />
manufacturing activities including<br />
transport equipment, machinery and<br />
food in are am<strong>on</strong>g the least energyintensive.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
An firm’s vulnerability to rising electricity prices should also be<br />
assessed in terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its ability to pass <strong>on</strong> the increased cost and the<br />
scope for efficiency gains.<br />
% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Resp<strong>on</strong>dents<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
23%<br />
77%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
10%<br />
43%<br />
Str<strong>on</strong>gly Agree<br />
Agree<br />
Disagree<br />
29%<br />
14%14%<br />
Mining Manufacturing Metals<br />
Str<strong>on</strong>gly Disagree<br />
Did not answer<br />
A survey <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> large mining and manufacturing firms suggests that there is some scope for efficiency gains but for<br />
large manufacturers and mining firms, limited ability to pass <strong>on</strong> increased costs<br />
20<br />
Scope for electricity efficiency gains<br />
• In a survey <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 31 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>Eskom</strong>’s Key Industrial Customer, all<br />
resp<strong>on</strong>dents in the mining sector either agreed or str<strong>on</strong>gly<br />
agreed that efficiency gains had been realised as<br />
compared to 90% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>dents in ‘other’ manufacturing<br />
and 62% in metal manufacturing.<br />
Has your firm has been able to realise gains<br />
in electricity efficiency?<br />
Source: (Deloitte& <strong>Eskom</strong>, 2009)<br />
% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Resp<strong>on</strong>dents<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
Ability to pass <strong>on</strong> the costs<br />
85%<br />
15%<br />
30%<br />
60%<br />
10%<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
• In the same survey , when asked about their ability to pass <strong>on</strong><br />
a 50% price hike, the vast majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>dents felt they<br />
would not be able to pass <strong>on</strong> the cost – n<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the mining<br />
companies, <strong>on</strong>ly 14% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the metal manufacturers and 30% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
the ‘other’ manufacturers.<br />
Would you be able to pass <strong>on</strong> the cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
increased electricity prices if they rose by 50%?<br />
14%<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Possibly<br />
Did not answer<br />
57%<br />
Mining Manufacturing Metals<br />
Source: (Deloitte& <strong>Eskom</strong>, 2009)<br />
29%<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
A comparis<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the electricity intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SA industries to their<br />
counterparts in the OECD suggests that there is significant scope for<br />
efficiency gains<br />
21<br />
Sectors<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensity<br />
GWh/$milli<strong>on</strong><br />
South<br />
Africa<br />
OECD Difference<br />
Difference between<br />
OECD & SA<br />
Weighted<br />
relative to<br />
output<br />
difference<br />
Agriculture and<br />
forestry<br />
0.316 0.016 1870.90% 1242.4%<br />
Basic metals 1.095 0.111 887.30% 644.2%<br />
Chemical and<br />
petrochemical<br />
0.203 0.034 494.70% 462.9%<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> 0.002 0.087 -97.90% -155.9%<br />
Food and tobacco 0.021 0.023 -11.30% -7.8%<br />
Machinery 0.005 0.028 -81.20% -416.9%<br />
Mining and<br />
quarrying<br />
0.634 0.026 2305.60% 482.1%<br />
N<strong>on</strong>-metallic<br />
minerals<br />
0.524 0.02 2517.70% 3169.7%<br />
Paper, pulp and<br />
printing<br />
0.207 0.021 891.50% 1758.6%<br />
Textile and leather 0.067 0.01 548.80% 398.3%<br />
Transport<br />
equipment<br />
0.003 0.004 -20.10% -21.7%<br />
Transport sector 0.089 0.013 563.40% 505.7%<br />
Wood and wood<br />
products<br />
0.069 0.027 153.60% 162.5%<br />
Source: (Inglesi-Lotz & Blignaut, 2011)<br />
Scope for electricity efficiency gains<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Scope for efficiency gains<br />
• This is particularly true in the n<strong>on</strong>-metallic<br />
miners, mining and quarrying, agriculture,<br />
paper and basic metals sectors<br />
• While a useful starting point, high-level<br />
comparis<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity intensity across<br />
sectors may mask fundamental differences in<br />
the characteristics <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the industries across<br />
countries – e.g. the c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> industry in<br />
South Africa is far more labour intensive than<br />
the industry in OECD<br />
• If South Africa is to remain competitive relative<br />
to its OECD counterparts under more stringent<br />
trade regimes, including carb<strong>on</strong> and climate<br />
change c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s, improvements in<br />
efficiencies will be necessary (Inglesi-Lotz and<br />
Blignaut , 2011)<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> efficient technologies can be costly<br />
and can take a l<strong>on</strong>g time to implement,<br />
especially within capital intensive sectors like<br />
mining.<br />
• A study by the HSRC (2008) found that the<br />
<strong>on</strong>ly short term energy saving opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available to the mining sector, which did not<br />
involve reducing output, were in the hostels or<br />
administrative <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fices<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
Opportunities for fuel-switching as means to avoid rising electricity<br />
costs appear to be c<strong>on</strong>centrated in a small number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sectors by the<br />
cost savings can be significant<br />
22<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Potential to substitute electricity with<br />
cost-effective alternatives<br />
• A survey c<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong> behalf the South African Nati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
Treasury, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 32 firms across 17 sub-sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omy found that a few firms had implemented fuel<br />
switching investments in resp<strong>on</strong>se to rising electricity<br />
prices (DNA <str<strong>on</strong>g>Ec<strong>on</strong>omic</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, 2011).<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> vast majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these investments have been made<br />
since 2008 when real electricity prices began to rise<br />
sharply.<br />
• Most <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the firms who were invested in fuel substituti<strong>on</strong><br />
were switching away from grid electricity towards more<br />
efficient and less costly low-carb<strong>on</strong> alternatives including<br />
gas, waste and biomass.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs as % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity in total costs varies c<strong>on</strong>siderably from <strong>on</strong>e<br />
type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mining operati<strong>on</strong> to another because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the c<strong>on</strong>siderable<br />
additi<strong>on</strong>al electricity costs associated with underground mining (gold<br />
and platinum)<br />
23<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
14<br />
Simmers & Jack Mines<br />
12 12<br />
DRD Gold<br />
Share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity in total costs -<br />
selected mining companies<br />
Harm<strong>on</strong>y<br />
7<br />
Gold Fields<br />
6<br />
AngloGold Ashanti<br />
7<br />
Northam Platinum<br />
6<br />
Impala Platinum<br />
5 5<br />
Anglo Platinum<br />
Aquarius Platinum<br />
3<br />
L<strong>on</strong>min<br />
21<br />
Merafe<br />
7<br />
African Rainbow Minerals<br />
4<br />
Exxaro<br />
3 3<br />
Anglo American **<br />
Gold Platinium Diversified Mining<br />
Groups<br />
Kumba Ir<strong>on</strong> Ore<br />
Source: (Deutsche Securities (Pty) Ltd, 2010)<br />
Mining and quarrying<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
• Of the mining firms, gold are the most reliant <strong>on</strong><br />
electricity as an input to producti<strong>on</strong> (with electricity<br />
costs as a percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs ranging from 6 to<br />
14%), followed by platinum miners and lastly the<br />
diversified mining groups.<br />
• A major challenge in trying to assess the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
rising prices at firm level is that there are many<br />
instances where costs between local and <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f shore<br />
activities cannot be distinguished from <strong>on</strong>e another –<br />
so attempts to assess exposure to rising costs or<br />
impact <strong>on</strong> pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability will not be robust.<br />
• This problem is further exaggerated in the case <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
large global diversified mining groups who are involved<br />
in a multitude <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> activities and typically <strong>on</strong>ly report<br />
financial results at a group level.<br />
• According to the report by RMB-Morgan Stanley<br />
(2011) the c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> utility costs to total costs has<br />
rose steadily from 2007 to 2010, probably largely as a<br />
result <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the sharp and c<strong>on</strong>sistent increases in real<br />
electricity prices over the period<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
Of the mining firms, it is <strong>on</strong>ly platinum producers that are likely to be<br />
able to pass higher electricity costs <strong>on</strong>to their c<strong>on</strong>sumers<br />
Firm Sector <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
costs %<br />
total costs<br />
Comment Ability to<br />
pass <strong>on</strong><br />
costs<br />
Northam Platinum 6.6% Good<br />
AngloPlat Platinum 5.0%<br />
Implats Platinum 6.0%<br />
L<strong>on</strong>min<br />
Platinum<br />
Reliance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> selected mining companies <strong>on</strong> electricity and<br />
ability to pass <strong>on</strong> increased costs<br />
Big geographic c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> but, in the medium term,<br />
pricing power in Platinum is str<strong>on</strong>g.<br />
Big geographic c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> but, in the medium term,<br />
pricing power in Platinum is str<strong>on</strong>g<br />
Very Good<br />
Very Good<br />
Platinum 3.0% Good<br />
Harm<strong>on</strong>y Gold 12.0%<br />
Worst positi<strong>on</strong>ed within the Gold sector. We see the<br />
ability to pass this cost <strong>on</strong> as very poor.<br />
Very Poor<br />
Gold Fields Gold 7.0% Poor<br />
AngloGold<br />
Ashanti<br />
Gold 6.0% Poor<br />
Merafe<br />
Diversified<br />
mining<br />
21.0%<br />
We believe ability to pass cost <strong>on</strong> is reas<strong>on</strong>ably good -<br />
SA is<br />
50% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> world producti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
ARM is generally a price taker and as a result has<br />
limited ability to pass prices <strong>on</strong>to customers. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> PGM<br />
Good<br />
ARM<br />
Diversified<br />
mining<br />
7.0%<br />
and ferrochrome industries are dominated by SA<br />
supply, and as prices are in the high percentiles <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
total cost curve, there is better ability than other<br />
materials to pass <strong>on</strong> price increases, or face closure<br />
For heavy minerals the operati<strong>on</strong>s are not the global<br />
prices setters but costs are near marginal cost, and<br />
Poor<br />
Exxaro<br />
Diversified<br />
mining<br />
4.0%<br />
there has been limited benefit from higher prices in<br />
recent years. SA is not large enough to directly<br />
influence prices but the steepening <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the cost curve is<br />
supportive.<br />
Only commodities where SA is the marginal producer<br />
Poor<br />
Anglo<br />
Diversified<br />
mining<br />
3.0%<br />
are able to pass cost increases <strong>on</strong>to c<strong>on</strong>sumers. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se<br />
include PGMs (Platinum Group Metals), ferrochrome,<br />
and, to some extent, manganese<br />
Ir<strong>on</strong> ore prices are determined between large Brazilian<br />
Moderate<br />
Kumba<br />
Diversified<br />
mining<br />
3.0%<br />
and Australian producers and Eastern c<strong>on</strong>sumers.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is no ability to pass price pressure <strong>on</strong>to<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumers other than for the cost plus c<strong>on</strong>tracts with<br />
ArcelorMittal SA<br />
Poor<br />
24 Source: Deloitte analysis adapted from (Deutsche Securities, 2010)<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Passing <strong>on</strong> the costs<br />
• Given limited above-ground stocks,<br />
the large proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> global<br />
producti<strong>on</strong> that SA c<strong>on</strong>tributes and<br />
the current level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> industrial<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> , it is argued that the<br />
platinum sector should be able to<br />
pass higher electricity costs <strong>on</strong>to its<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumers<br />
• Gold sector analysts believe that the<br />
sector will have little capacity to pass<br />
<strong>on</strong> any costs to c<strong>on</strong>sumers because<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> large above ground reserves and<br />
SA’s falling percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> world<br />
producti<strong>on</strong> (8% - 10%).<br />
• Of the diversified mining companies,<br />
<strong>on</strong>ly Merafe (really a manufacturer) is<br />
in a good positi<strong>on</strong> to pass <strong>on</strong><br />
increased costs, since it c<strong>on</strong>trols 50%<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> world supply. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> other diversified<br />
miners are believed largely to be<br />
price takers in the markets in which<br />
they operate and so have little pricing<br />
power.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
about the vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the sector to rising electricity prices. Basic<br />
metal, Cement and Paper producers are am<strong>on</strong>g the most reliant <strong>on</strong><br />
electricity…<br />
Manufacturing<br />
• Basic metals are <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the most heavily reliant <strong>on</strong> electricity, both in terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity in direct costs and measures <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
electricity intensity.<br />
• Cement producti<strong>on</strong> is also quite heavily reliant <strong>on</strong> electricity, however the ability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cement producers to pass <strong>on</strong> increased costs is<br />
relatively str<strong>on</strong>g (in a c<strong>on</strong>centrated market the competiti<strong>on</strong> will not be willing to absorb price increases unless there is significant<br />
surplus capacity)<br />
• Paper and pulp-manufacturing is also a relatively energy intensive activity, but the share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity in total costs seems to vary<br />
c<strong>on</strong>siderably from <strong>on</strong>e plant to the next. Sappi report that electricity costs ranged from 5% to 9% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs for three <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its plants<br />
• Manufacturers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> metal, glass, paper and plastic packaging for food and beverages is surprisingly reliant <strong>on</strong> electricity as an input with<br />
electricity costs for a diversified packaging company, such as Nampak, amounting to 4% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs (Deutsche Securities, 2010).<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> is a relatively small porti<strong>on</strong> (around 2.3%) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs for major food manufacturers such as Tiger Brands and Pi<strong>on</strong>eer<br />
Foods. In additi<strong>on</strong> food producers can pass <strong>on</strong> higher costs relatively easily.<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
80<br />
34<br />
15<br />
10 10 9 9 6 5<br />
1<br />
% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Opex<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
Source: (Deloitte& <strong>Eskom</strong>, 2009) Source: (Deloitte& <strong>Eskom</strong>, 2009)<br />
30<br />
20 20 20<br />
% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Opex <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> manufacturing sector is too diverse to make any generalisati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
25<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs as a % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total operati<strong>on</strong>al costs<br />
- various manufacturers<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs as a % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total operati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
costs - metal manufacturers<br />
10<br />
3.9<br />
2
Rising electricity prices could have a material impact <strong>on</strong> food retailers<br />
whose share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity costs in total costs ranges from 3% to 4.3%...<br />
Firm Sector Electric<br />
ity %<br />
total<br />
costs<br />
26<br />
Comment Ability to<br />
pass <strong>on</strong><br />
costs<br />
Sec<strong>on</strong>dround<br />
impact<br />
Lewis Retail 1.0% Moderate High<br />
Spar<br />
Food<br />
Retail<br />
1.0%<br />
Franchisees pick up direct<br />
electricity cost, making it the<br />
excepti<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g food retailers.<br />
Good Low<br />
JD Group Retail 1.6% Moderate High<br />
Truworths Retail 1.8%<br />
We have not included the indirect<br />
comp<strong>on</strong>ent via leases –<br />
Truworths is <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the more<br />
exposed in this regard.<br />
Moderate Moderate<br />
Clicks Retail 1.9% Moderate Moderate<br />
Foschini Retail 1.9%<br />
We have not included the indirect<br />
comp<strong>on</strong>ent via leases – Foschini<br />
is <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the more exposed in this<br />
regard.<br />
Moderate Moderate<br />
Massmart Retail 2.3% Moderate Moderate<br />
Woolies 3.0%<br />
Pick n Pay<br />
Shoprite<br />
Reliance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> selected retailers <strong>on</strong> electricity and ability to<br />
pass <strong>on</strong> increased costs<br />
Food<br />
Retail<br />
Food<br />
Retail<br />
3.1%<br />
4.3%<br />
Cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> refrigerati<strong>on</strong> makes<br />
electricity more significant for food<br />
retailers.<br />
Cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> refrigerati<strong>on</strong> makes<br />
electricity more significant for food<br />
retailers.<br />
Source: Deloitte analysis adapted from (Deutsche Securities, 2010<br />
Cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> refrigerati<strong>on</strong> makes<br />
electricity more significant for food<br />
retailers.<br />
Good Low<br />
Good Low<br />
Good Low<br />
Retailers<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
• For food retailers, refrigerati<strong>on</strong> is<br />
another significant driver <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>. As such<br />
food retailers are generally exposed<br />
to a much higher proporti<strong>on</strong><br />
electricity costs in total costs.<br />
• N<strong>on</strong>-food retailers report that their<br />
direct electricity costs are between 1<br />
and 2% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total costs.<br />
• A further source <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity-related<br />
cost pressure in the retail industry is<br />
the increase in ‘comm<strong>on</strong> charges’<br />
incorporated in lease costs.<br />
Clothing retailers such as Foschini<br />
and Truworths appear to be most<br />
exposed to this category <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs<br />
• Food retailers are in good positi<strong>on</strong><br />
to pass <strong>on</strong> increased electricity<br />
costs to their c<strong>on</strong>sumers because<br />
they face relatively inelastic demand<br />
but given the c<strong>on</strong>centrated nature <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
the retail market most retailers<br />
should be in a relatively good<br />
positi<strong>on</strong> to pass <strong>on</strong> costs.<br />
(Deutsche Securities, 2010).<br />
…But n<strong>on</strong>-food retailers are exposed to the sec<strong>on</strong>d-round impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> price increases since, c<strong>on</strong>sumers with<br />
squeezed real incomes are likely to reduce their spending <strong>on</strong> discreti<strong>on</strong>ary items<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> industry emerges c<strong>on</strong>sistently the industry with the<br />
lowest reliance <strong>on</strong> electricity. Firms in finance, insurance and banking<br />
and telecommunicati<strong>on</strong>s and media also have very limited direct<br />
exposure to electricity costs…<br />
Firm Sector <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs as a<br />
% total costs<br />
Absa Banks 1.0%<br />
Metropolitan Life Assurance 1.1%<br />
Nedbank Banks 0.8%<br />
FirstRand Banks 0.8%<br />
ABIL General financials 0.7%<br />
Standard Bank Banks 0.7%<br />
Discovery Life Assurance 0.6%<br />
Liberty Life Assurance 0.6%<br />
Sanlam Life Assurance 0.2%<br />
Old Mutual Life Assurance 0.2%<br />
Source: Based <strong>on</strong> Deutsche Securities, 2010<br />
27<br />
Finance, insurance and banking industry<br />
electricity as a % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs<br />
Deloitte<br />
Telecommunicati<strong>on</strong>s and media<br />
electricity as a % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs<br />
Company Percent (%)<br />
Telkom 0.76<br />
Vodacom 0.43<br />
MTN 0.09<br />
Naspers Media 0.5%<br />
Source: Based <strong>on</strong> Deutsche Securities, 2010<br />
Source: Deutsche Securities, 2010<br />
Key Points<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> has very limited direct exposure to rising<br />
electricity prices but may be impacted indirectly through lower<br />
investment spending and lower demand for new c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
• C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> companies in South Africa including WBHO,<br />
Murray and Roberts Holding, Group Five and the Aveng Group<br />
face direct electricity costs <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> between 0.25% and 0.3% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total<br />
costs.<br />
• Firms in the finance, insurance and banking sector are<br />
relatively resilient to electricity prices increases since electricity<br />
costs <strong>on</strong>ly account for between 0.2% and 1.1% their total<br />
operating costs .<br />
• That said, the pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> firms in this sector could be<br />
negatively impacted by the sec<strong>on</strong>d-round impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> higher<br />
electricity prices.<br />
• Firms in the telecommunicati<strong>on</strong> and media sector also have<br />
very limited direct exposure to rising electricity prices, since the<br />
proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity costs in total costs is between 0.1% and<br />
0.8%<br />
• Until this becomes a more material cost, there will probably<br />
little resp<strong>on</strong>se by media and telecommunicati<strong>on</strong>s firms to rising<br />
prices<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
Summary <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Key Findings<br />
28<br />
HSRC, 2008<br />
Pan African<br />
(2011)<br />
Deloitte<br />
(2009)*<br />
Deutsche<br />
Securities<br />
(2010)<br />
GWh/$milli<strong>on</strong> kWh/R GDP<br />
Inglesi-Lotz &<br />
Blignaut (2011b)<br />
C<strong>on</strong>ningarth<br />
(2011)<br />
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1.1 1.5 0.316 0.16<br />
Deloitte<br />
(2009)*<br />
Deutsche<br />
Securities<br />
(2010)<br />
Mining and Quarrying 2.5 5 8 6.7 0.634* 0.32* No No No<br />
Gold Mining 4.8 10.2 No<br />
Platinum Mining 5.1 To a degree<br />
Other\Diversified Mining 2 4.3 No<br />
Coal Mining 1 < 4<br />
Manufacturing 1.5 1.7 0.33*<br />
Frost &<br />
Sullivan<br />
(June 2011)<br />
Other manufacturing (average) 1.3 0.082 To a degree To a degree<br />
Chemicals and petrochemicals 1 to 4 9 6 0.203 Yes<br />
Paper and pulp 0.8 5 to 9 3 to 5 0.207 No<br />
Food and Beverages 1.4 2.3 0.021 To a degree<br />
Cement 2.1 10 to 15 5 Yes<br />
Packaging (paper, glass etc) 0.3 4 To a degree<br />
Metal manufacturing (average) 3.1 17 1.095 Limited No<br />
Ferrochrome 20 21 Yes No<br />
N<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals 11<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, gas and w ater 4.9 Yes<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.002 To a degree<br />
Services Sectors<br />
Wholesale and Retail Trade 0.6 2 1 to 4 To a degree Yes<br />
Transport, storage and<br />
telecommunicati<strong>on</strong><br />
0.3 to 1.2 2.2 0.1 to 1 0.089 0.04 To a degree To a degree<br />
Finance and business services 0.1 to 0.9 1.1 0.8 to 1 0.03 Yes Yes<br />
Real estate and Accomodati<strong>on</strong> 0.7 to 4 1.1 22 To a degree<br />
Community, social and pers<strong>on</strong>al<br />
services<br />
Overall<br />
vulnerability<br />
ranking<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> as % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total operating costs<br />
Value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumed as % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total<br />
intermediate inputs<br />
0.2 to 0.5 1.3<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> costs as % <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
total operating costs<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> Intensity<br />
Vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sectors to rising<br />
electricity prices<br />
Able to pass <strong>on</strong> costs?<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
2
C<strong>on</strong>tents<br />
29<br />
Purpose <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the study<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Analysis and Findings<br />
Chapter 1 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy & trend in electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
Chapter 2 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the SA ec<strong>on</strong>omy to rising electricity costs<br />
Chapter 3 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price increases<br />
Chapter 4 – Exploring policy opti<strong>on</strong>s available and the case for industry support<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.
Assessing the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price increases <strong>on</strong> sector employment,<br />
output and pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability<br />
30<br />
Introducti<strong>on</strong><br />
• In the previous secti<strong>on</strong> we assessed the relative vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> different sectors, sub-industries and firms in the<br />
South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy to rising electricity prices. But it is also important to c<strong>on</strong>sider the impact rising prices would<br />
have pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability, output and employment in these sectors.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are a few studies that attempt to assess the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price increases <strong>on</strong> the different sectors and<br />
firms within the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se studies typically focus <strong>on</strong> the impacts <strong>on</strong> employment, output, and<br />
pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability for the various sectors or sub-sectors over various periods <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time and under different assumed price<br />
increases.<br />
• We discussed the results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> two separate empirical analyses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising electricity prices <strong>on</strong> the South<br />
African ec<strong>on</strong>omy:<br />
o <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Increases</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <strong>Eskom</strong>’s Capital Expenditure Programme and <str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> the SA Ec<strong>on</strong>omy,<br />
c<strong>on</strong>ducted by Pan-African Investment & Research Services in May 2011.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> net impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising electricity prices and <strong>Eskom</strong>’s six-year capital investment programme were evaluated<br />
in the c<strong>on</strong>text <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> both a dynamic time-series macro-ec<strong>on</strong>ometric (TSME) framework and a static Computable<br />
General Equilibrium (CGE) framework.<br />
o Meeting South Africa's Future <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> Needs - An <str<strong>on</strong>g>Ec<strong>on</strong>omic</str<strong>on</strong>g> Growth and Development c<strong>on</strong>ducted<br />
by C<strong>on</strong>ningarth ec<strong>on</strong>omists in 2011<br />
As part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the study the vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sector pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>its to real electricity price increases were modelled and<br />
compared.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.
As part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> broader study C<strong>on</strong>ningarth ec<strong>on</strong>omists explored the ‘pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it<br />
vulnerability’ <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> different sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy to increases in real<br />
electricity prices<br />
31<br />
Pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it Vulnerability<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising<br />
electricity prices <strong>on</strong><br />
different sectors<br />
• While the methods and data used in calculating the relative ‘pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability’ were not clearly articulated in the<br />
report, it appears that the analysis was based <strong>on</strong> data from the 2006 nati<strong>on</strong>al social accounting matrix for South<br />
Africa and that the gross operating surplus <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> each industry may have been used as a proxy for its pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it<br />
• ‘pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability’ was defined as the real electricity price an industry could absorb before becoming unpr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itable<br />
• Some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the industries that exhibit the greatest ‘pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability’ to electricity price increases are the Cereal &<br />
Crop, Gold, Ir<strong>on</strong> Ore, Magnetite, Silver, Asbestos, other n<strong>on</strong>-metallic minerals, Platinum, St<strong>on</strong>e quarrying, Zinc,<br />
Paper & Paper Products, Publishing & Printing, Wood and Wood Products, Manufacturing <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Transport Equipment,<br />
Rubber, Basic Metals, Meat, Fish and Vegetables industries.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability by C<strong>on</strong>ningarth (2011) implies that in 2006, these industries would have been<br />
unable to absorb more than a 50% increase in real electricity tariffs prices before they became unpr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itable (some<br />
<strong>on</strong>ly 10%)<br />
• Had this measure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability’ been accurate most <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these industries would have already closed<br />
down since real electricity prices increased by close to 80% between 2008 and 2011<br />
• While it is clear that industries are able to absorb a larger cumulative increases in real electricity prices than these<br />
rough estimates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability suggest, they probably still provide us a with a reas<strong>on</strong>ably good indicati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
which sub-sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy are more vulnerable to electricity price increases than others<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
3
% change in real electricity prices<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> results suggest that electricity intensity in itself is not a good<br />
predictor <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability’, some relatively low-intensity industries<br />
such as paper and wood products have slim pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it margins and <strong>on</strong> this<br />
basis are vulnerable to price increases<br />
Mining sector pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability to real price <str<strong>on</strong>g>Increases</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
% increase in Real <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<br />
450<br />
400<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
500<br />
450<br />
400<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
10 10 10 10 10 10 20 30 40 50<br />
90<br />
150 150 150 150 150<br />
Low electricity intensive manufacturing pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it vulnerability<br />
10 10 20 20<br />
150<br />
200<br />
Source: (C<strong>on</strong>ningarth Ec<strong>on</strong>omists, 2011)<br />
250<br />
200 200<br />
350 350<br />
250<br />
450<br />
400<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising<br />
electricity prices <strong>on</strong><br />
different sectors<br />
Results<br />
• Within the mining sector,<br />
gold, platinum, ir<strong>on</strong> ore,<br />
silver, magnetite and<br />
asbestos mining are the<br />
most vulnerable to electricity<br />
price increases<br />
• Manganese and coal mining<br />
emerge as the least<br />
sensitive to electricity price<br />
increases and at 2006 levels<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itability could have<br />
absorbed real electricity<br />
price increases in excess <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
200%<br />
• Am<strong>on</strong>g the manufacturing<br />
industries with a relatively<br />
low electricity intensity,<br />
paper and wood products<br />
and printing and publishing<br />
appear to be the most<br />
vulnerable to price<br />
increases, presumably<br />
because rising electricity<br />
prices would <strong>on</strong>ly put further<br />
pressure <strong>on</strong> their already<br />
slim pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it margins<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
3
% chnage in real electricity prices<br />
crops industry that relies heavily <strong>on</strong> electricity for irrigati<strong>on</strong> and the<br />
dairy industry are more vulnerable to price increases than most<br />
agricultural activities<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
High <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> Intensive Manufacturing Sectors Pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it Vulnerability to<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Increases</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
10 10<br />
10<br />
30<br />
200 200<br />
60<br />
250 250<br />
70<br />
90<br />
350 350<br />
150 150 150<br />
400 400 400<br />
200 200<br />
Agricultural Sectors Pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it Vulnerability to Real <str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Increases</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
% change in real electricity prices <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is c<strong>on</strong>siderable variati<strong>on</strong> within industries – the cereals and<br />
Source: (C<strong>on</strong>ningarth Ec<strong>on</strong>omists, 2011)<br />
450<br />
550<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising<br />
electricity prices <strong>on</strong><br />
different sectors<br />
Results<br />
• Am<strong>on</strong>g the electricity<br />
intensive group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
manufacturing industries<br />
that are already relatively<br />
exposed to price increases,<br />
rubber products, basic<br />
metals, meats, fish and<br />
vegetables and basic<br />
chemicals are the most<br />
vulnerable while the<br />
structural metal and<br />
machinery and equipment<br />
industries appear to be less<br />
vulnerable<br />
• Aside from the cereals and<br />
crops industry that relies<br />
heavily <strong>on</strong> electricity for<br />
irrigati<strong>on</strong> and the dairy<br />
industry that is also<br />
relatively electricity<br />
intensive, all the agricultural<br />
industries should be able to<br />
absorb at least a 200%<br />
increase in real electricity<br />
prices before they become<br />
unpr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>itable<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
3
Summary <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Key Findings<br />
Community, social and pers<strong>on</strong>al<br />
services<br />
34 Deloitte<br />
Pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it Vulnerability<br />
Max % increase in real electricity<br />
prices that industry can absorb<br />
25% for 3yrs and<br />
6% for 7yrs<br />
Pan African (2011)<br />
TSME Model<br />
25% price increase<br />
- low er estimate<br />
Pan African (2011)<br />
CGE Model<br />
25% for 3yrs and<br />
6% for 7yrs<br />
Pan African (2011)<br />
TSME Model<br />
25% price increase<br />
- low er estimate<br />
Pan African (2011)<br />
CGE Model<br />
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 10% to 550% (320% <strong>on</strong> average) -0.05% -1.39% -1.77% -1.32%<br />
Mining and Quarrying 10% to 400% (105% <strong>on</strong> average) -1.83% -1.62% -4.38% -1.76%<br />
Gold Mining 10% -1.60% -1.80%<br />
Platinum Mining 20%<br />
Other\Diversified Mining 10% to 250%<br />
Coal Mining 400% -0.20% 0.50%<br />
Manufacturing 10% to 450% (141% <strong>on</strong> average) -0.23% -5.29% -2.16% -4.55%<br />
Other manufacturing (average)<br />
Chemicals and petrochemicals 60% q-0.1% to -0.6% 0.1% to -0.5%<br />
Paper and pulp 10% 0% 0.40%<br />
Food and Beverages 250% to 350% -1% -0.90%<br />
Cement<br />
Packaging (paper, glass etc)<br />
Metal manufacturing (average) 10% to 200%<br />
Ferrochrome 10%<br />
N<strong>on</strong>-ferrous metals 10% -4.60% -3.70%<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Electricity</str<strong>on</strong>g>, gas and w ater 9.3% 11.1%<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> -0.30% -0.21% -0.98% 0.63%<br />
Services Sectors<br />
Wholesale and Retail Trade -0.64% -1.37% -1.44% -0.81%<br />
Transport, storage and<br />
telecommunicati<strong>on</strong><br />
Overall<br />
vulnerability<br />
ranking<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price<br />
increase <strong>on</strong> output<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising<br />
electricity prices <strong>on</strong><br />
different sectors<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Impact</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price<br />
increase <strong>on</strong> employment<br />
-0.80% -1.95% -3.02% -1.53%<br />
Finance and business services -0.22% -1.84% -0.71% -1.13%<br />
Real estate and Accomodati<strong>on</strong> -2.00% -1.10%<br />
-2.91% -1.68%<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
3
C<strong>on</strong>tents<br />
35<br />
Purpose <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the study<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Analysis and Findings<br />
Chapter 1 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African ec<strong>on</strong>omy & trend in electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
Chapter 2 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the SA ec<strong>on</strong>omy to rising electricity costs<br />
Chapter 3 – <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price increases<br />
Chapter 4 – Exploring policy opti<strong>on</strong>s available and the case for industry support<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> sharp increases in electricity tariffs since 2008 have been met with<br />
significant public resistance. Some critics c<strong>on</strong>tend that “c<strong>on</strong>sumers<br />
have borne the brunt <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a series <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> unjustifiable electricity price<br />
increases”<br />
Key Points<br />
• An associati<strong>on</strong> representing large industrial electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumers, the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG) have argued that rising<br />
electricity prices pose a serious threat to growth and that many industries are at “the tipping point” (EIUG, 2011).<br />
• In a 2011 report, the Energy Intensive Users Group maintain “ that South Africa must have a transparent affordable [electricity] price”<br />
and argue that the affordable price path is <strong>on</strong>e that balances viability, ec<strong>on</strong>omic growth, global competitiveness and social<br />
development (where viability is defined as a price path that reflects a fair and efficient cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supply) (EIUG, 2011).<br />
• While the EIUG appear to support the noti<strong>on</strong> that the electricity prices need to rise to a ‘cost-reflective’ level in principle, they argue<br />
that lower and more ‘affordable tariffs’ can be achieved by manipulating five aspects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>Eskom</strong>’s ‘allowed revenue’ formula–<br />
namely the rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> depreciati<strong>on</strong>, the rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> return <strong>on</strong> assets (WACC), the cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> new capacity, assumpti<strong>on</strong>s regarding independent<br />
power producers and taxes and levies.<br />
• Following a similar line <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> argument, Xstrata Alloys (January 2011) and Frost and Sullivan (2011) call for a ‘justifiable’ electricity price<br />
path for South Africa which <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fers viable and affordable tariffs and that balances and supports future supply requirements with<br />
developmental objectives. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y argue that four opti<strong>on</strong>s to mitigate high electricity prices should be c<strong>on</strong>sidered (see below)<br />
36<br />
Industry Opti<strong>on</strong>s to<br />
Mitigate High <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<br />
Lower <strong>Eskom</strong>’s allowed return <strong>on</strong> assets<br />
D<strong>on</strong>’t revalue the asset base (retain historic cost accounting)<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
Lower the target for renewable energy generati<strong>on</strong> capacity in the<br />
current integrated resource plan<br />
Allow independent power producers (IPPs) to sell to a system<br />
operator and to trade bilaterally<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
However each <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the opti<strong>on</strong>s presented by industry representatives<br />
suffer from c<strong>on</strong>siderable drawbacks. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> first opti<strong>on</strong>, lowering <strong>Eskom</strong>’s<br />
ROA is not c<strong>on</strong>sistent with the fundamental principles <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an effective<br />
pricing regime – tariffs that are ‘cost-reflective’ tariffs and promote a<br />
financially sustainable electricity supply industry.<br />
Opti<strong>on</strong> Argument Criticisms and Implicati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Lower <strong>Eskom</strong>’s<br />
return <strong>on</strong> assets<br />
(ROA)<br />
37<br />
Deloitte<br />
• A return <strong>on</strong> assets<br />
sensitivity analysis<br />
indicates that this is <strong>on</strong>e<br />
variable which can be<br />
easily adjusted to change<br />
the trajectory <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
electricity price path.<br />
• Dropping the allowed<br />
ROA from 8% to 6%<br />
drops the electricity price<br />
by 10c/kWh while still<br />
allowing <strong>Eskom</strong> to<br />
effectively manage its<br />
balance sheet.<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> ROA comp<strong>on</strong>ent should be designed to ensure the sustainability<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>Eskom</strong> by providing for sufficient revenue to maintain and upgrade<br />
existing infrastructure and investment in new capacity when required<br />
(Danilyuk, 2009).<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> allowed return <strong>on</strong> assets is not determined arbitrarily but must be<br />
referenced to the utility’s actual risk-adjusted weighted average cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
capital (WACC).<br />
• If the ROA is set below the true risk-adjusted cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> capital, the<br />
resulting tariff is not cost-reflective, will not allow <strong>Eskom</strong> to recover the<br />
full cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its assets or provide incentive to invest further. IPPs facing a<br />
higher cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> capital also have little incentive to invest.<br />
• Tariffs that do not reflect the true cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity supply lead to a<br />
misallocati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> nati<strong>on</strong>al resources and to mismatches between<br />
electricity supply and demand (Vedavalli, 1989).<br />
• To assume that equity costs less than it actually costs implies that the<br />
shareholders (the state and taxpayers) would be subsidising electricity<br />
prices. (Joubert, October 2011).<br />
• In additi<strong>on</strong> as noted in secti<strong>on</strong> 2.6.1.2 for the current MYPD2 period<br />
NERSA did not in fact calculate <strong>Eskom</strong>’s allowable revenue <strong>on</strong> the<br />
basis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its published methodology. NERSA determined the<br />
“reas<strong>on</strong>able margin or return” <strong>on</strong> assets to 8.16%, but instead awarded<br />
<strong>Eskom</strong> a real (pre-tax) Weighted Average Cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Capital (WACC) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
0.08%, 2.8% and 4.2% for the three respective financial years. This is<br />
because <strong>Eskom</strong> is currently still transiti<strong>on</strong>ing to more cost-reflective<br />
tariffs and a massive <strong>on</strong>e-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f price adjustment would be politically<br />
unviable.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> sec<strong>on</strong>d opti<strong>on</strong>, retaining historic cost accounting practices, would<br />
in all likelihood give rise to more rapid electricity price increases over<br />
the next few years. Lowering the target for renewable energy would<br />
result in lower tariffs but at the expense <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the envir<strong>on</strong>ment.<br />
Opti<strong>on</strong> Argument Criticisms and Implicati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
D<strong>on</strong>’t revalue <strong>Eskom</strong>’s<br />
assets<br />
38<br />
Deloitte<br />
• One <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the more c<strong>on</strong>troversial<br />
changes in the pricing<br />
methodology has been the<br />
reweighting <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> historical assets to<br />
reflect l<strong>on</strong>g run marginal cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
electricity. By 2025, the amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
new build capacity in the system<br />
would effectively raise the<br />
average value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the assets to<br />
replacement cost.<br />
• By simply following the natural<br />
progressi<strong>on</strong>, the price path is<br />
lowered significantly.<br />
Less Renewables • 33% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the new build plan is<br />
committed to renewable energy<br />
technologies and almost all to<br />
carb<strong>on</strong> neutral technologies<br />
• From 2022 there is also a<br />
significant amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> OCGT<br />
capacity added to balance out<br />
uncertainty regarding renewable<br />
feedstock.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> high capital costs for<br />
renewables combined with high<br />
operating costs for OCGT inflates<br />
tariffs and increases uncertainty<br />
regarding security <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supply.<br />
• A slower transiti<strong>on</strong> to renewables<br />
would allow for a lower tariff and a<br />
more thorough evaluati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
efficiency and reliability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
renewable technology<br />
• Ir<strong>on</strong>ically (as noted in secti<strong>on</strong> 2.6.1.1), the historic cost method gives rise to higher initial<br />
revenues (and therefore higher prices) than the depreciated replacement cost method<br />
during a period when large investments are undertaken. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore if NERSA retains the<br />
historic cost approach to asset valuati<strong>on</strong>, tariff increases, as <strong>Eskom</strong> expands its build<br />
programme in the next few years, will in all likelihood increase more rapidly than if it adopts<br />
the depreciated replacement cost method. In additi<strong>on</strong> all the drawbacks <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the HC<br />
approach in the c<strong>on</strong>text <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the electricity supply industry (as outlined in secti<strong>on</strong> 2.6.1.1)<br />
would c<strong>on</strong>tinue to apply in future.<br />
• It is also important to note that while NERSA have in principle adopted the depreciated<br />
replacement cost approach to asset valuati<strong>on</strong> it has not yet been fully implemented. Tariffs<br />
currently remain well-below levels that reflect the true depreciated replacement cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<strong>Eskom</strong>’s assets because NERSA will <strong>on</strong>ly allow <strong>Eskom</strong> to transiti<strong>on</strong> to cost-reflective tariffs<br />
over a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> years so as to avoid a <strong>on</strong>e-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f adjustment (and massive price shock). In<br />
the ‘MYPD2 reas<strong>on</strong>s for decisi<strong>on</strong> document’ NERSA implied that to achieve this transiti<strong>on</strong><br />
it is phasing in 3 comp<strong>on</strong>ents <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the tariff formula – the ROA, the value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the asset base<br />
and the depreciati<strong>on</strong> charge. (Joubert, October 2011).<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
• A slower transiti<strong>on</strong> to renewables would result in lower electricity prices to the extent that<br />
electricity produced from renewable technologies costs more than from c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al<br />
technologies. However this may not be true if the external envir<strong>on</strong>mental costs <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al coal-fired power stati<strong>on</strong>s are factored in.<br />
• It is government policy to apply multi-criteria to the evaluati<strong>on</strong> and choice <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> technologies<br />
for future electricity infrastructure planning, not <strong>on</strong>ly the criteria <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> lowest cost. (Joubert,<br />
October 2011). Envir<strong>on</strong>mental sustainability in electricity pricing is recognised as a<br />
objectives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the South African government in the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficial electricity pricing policy, “<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
producti<strong>on</strong> and transport <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity should be d<strong>on</strong>e in a sustainable way and be mindful<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the impact <strong>on</strong> the envir<strong>on</strong>ment.” ( DME, 2008).<br />
• Envir<strong>on</strong>mental costs may so<strong>on</strong> be internalised through the introducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> taxes <strong>on</strong> carb<strong>on</strong><br />
and other greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s both domestically and internati<strong>on</strong>ally.<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> argument that the introducti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> IPPs would result in lower tariffs<br />
is the most robust since it has been proven that increased competiti<strong>on</strong><br />
in the electricity supply industry <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten results in lower prices but this is<br />
not always the case since IPPs also face a higher cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> capital<br />
Opti<strong>on</strong> Argument Criticisms and Implicati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Allow IPPs to sell to<br />
a independent<br />
system operator<br />
39<br />
Deloitte<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are several reas<strong>on</strong>s<br />
that introducing IPPs<br />
lowers the price path. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<br />
are proven to manage their<br />
CAPEX and OPEX more<br />
efficiently than SOEs, their<br />
speed <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> implementati<strong>on</strong> is<br />
faster and lastly, as<br />
opposed to <strong>Eskom</strong>, they<br />
are unable to earn a return<br />
<strong>on</strong> work under c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
• By allowing <strong>Eskom</strong> to<br />
complete committed and<br />
new nuclear build plans<br />
and with IPPs delivering<br />
the remainder <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> new build<br />
, it is possible to maintain<br />
the price in between the<br />
justifiable range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
75c/kWh to 85c/kWh.<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
• IPPS are unlikely to enter the electricity supply industry until tariffs are<br />
cost-reflective and provide the incentive for them to do so.<br />
• It is <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten argued that IPPs deliver power at least cost and lowest risk. In<br />
practice there is wide variati<strong>on</strong> in the outcomes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> IPP projects but there<br />
are many projects that are viewed as a success by investors and their<br />
host countries alike. (Woodhouse, 2005).<br />
• While IPPs in a competitive envir<strong>on</strong>ment may manage capex and opex<br />
more efficiency than <strong>Eskom</strong>, they would also face a higher cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
capital which greatly increases the cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supply in the capital intensive<br />
electricity supply industry and this may <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fset any potential reducti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
capital and operating costs due to improved efficiency.<br />
• Allowing a return <strong>on</strong> works under c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> (WUC) is a comm<strong>on</strong><br />
practice that has been widely adopted by regulators in countries<br />
including the UK, Australia and the US. Although it implies that some<br />
revenue is collected before the asset is operati<strong>on</strong>al, it is compensated<br />
for by reduced revenue over the rest <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the operati<strong>on</strong>al life <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the asset<br />
resulting in a similar present value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the total future revenue stream.<br />
• Regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether there is an independent system operator or<br />
<strong>Eskom</strong> acts as a single buyer, the final electricity tariffs c<strong>on</strong>sumers’ face<br />
will be a blended rate, so while <strong>Eskom</strong>’s tariffs may be lower due to the<br />
avoided capital expenditure, the blended tariff would include the IPP<br />
tariffs which will presumably be cost-reflective. (Joubert, October 2011).<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> failing to achieve cost-reflective tariffs can be enormous<br />
and also has distributi<strong>on</strong>al implicati<strong>on</strong>s…<br />
If c<strong>on</strong>sumers d<strong>on</strong>’t bear the full cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity supply, the taxpayer will<br />
• Too <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten the criticism levied against <strong>Eskom</strong> or NERSA with respect to electricity prices hikes simply<br />
implies that tariff increases can be avoided without c<strong>on</strong>sidering how the cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> new power capacity<br />
will be paid for or who will ultimately bear the burden.<br />
• We found that while debt and equity are used to prefund major capital investment in electricity supply,<br />
ultimately tariffs need to cover the full cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity supply, including the provisi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an<br />
acceptable return <strong>on</strong> the equity or debt provided by the utility’s shareholders and lenders. So in other<br />
words, if electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumers d<strong>on</strong>’t bear the full cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity supply, the taxpayer eventually will.<br />
In additi<strong>on</strong> many studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising electricity prices fail to acknowledge that load<br />
shedding and ‘unserved energy’ (foreg<strong>on</strong>e growth) comes at far greater cost to the ec<strong>on</strong>omy than<br />
rising prices.<br />
40<br />
• Most studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity price increases also focus solely <strong>on</strong> the short-run impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
rising prices <strong>on</strong> employment and output but fail to note that in the absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cost-reflective prices,<br />
costly mismatches between supply and demand are likely to c<strong>on</strong>tinue to occur. It has been proven<br />
that power outages or ‘unserved energy’ come at far greater cost to the ec<strong>on</strong>omy than rising electricity<br />
prices.<br />
• A study by Deloitte (2008) found that load-shedding had substantial ec<strong>on</strong>omic impacts across most<br />
sectors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy and c<strong>on</strong>tinued at 10% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total power capacity over a year could shave as<br />
much as 0.7 percentage points <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f GDP growth.<br />
Deloitte<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are however several policy opti<strong>on</strong>s available to government to<br />
mitigate the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising electricity prices ….<br />
41<br />
Deloitte<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
Any measure that keeps energy prices for c<strong>on</strong>sumers below market<br />
levels can be deemed an energy subsidy so as l<strong>on</strong>g as electricity<br />
tariffs in South Africa remain below cost-reflective levels,<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity are effectively receiving a subsidy from the<br />
government or taxpayer…<br />
• Many Governments, while aware <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the enormous costs <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintaining inefficient electricity prices<br />
have been reluctant to increase them and c<strong>on</strong>tinue to provide implicit or explicit electricity subsidies.<br />
• This implicit subsidy not <strong>on</strong>ly distorts the efficiency <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the electricity market but promotes a transfer <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
wealth from South African taxpayers to the large c<strong>on</strong>sumers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> electricity (which include large<br />
industrial c<strong>on</strong>sumers with substantial foreign shareholding).<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
42<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Subsidies<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
Funding subsidies through budget provisi<strong>on</strong>s is always more<br />
efficient than cross subsidies, because it better preserve proper<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omic price signals (and therefore investment and c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
decisi<strong>on</strong>) and avoid the negative impact <strong>on</strong> other customers that are<br />
not subsidised<br />
• Subsidies no matter how justified socially severely distort demand patterns for energy and<br />
associated with significant ec<strong>on</strong>omic, financial and envir<strong>on</strong>mental costs…<br />
• But cross subsidies are particularly insidious because they imply that not <strong>on</strong>ly that some<br />
customers benefit from tariffs that are below cost-reflective levels but that some c<strong>on</strong>sumers must<br />
possibly bear tariffs that are higher than cost-reflective levels to fund them.<br />
• While all subsidies are associated with significant drawbacks, the provisi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a subsidy can be<br />
justified if it enhances access to sustainable modern energy or has a positive impact <strong>on</strong> the<br />
envir<strong>on</strong>ment, while sustaining incentives for efficient delivery and c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong><br />
• A good subsidy should be targeted, efficient, based <strong>on</strong> a rigorous analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the costs and<br />
benefits, practical, transparent and should <strong>on</strong>ly be provided for a limited amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time. As<br />
such, we found that temporary and well-targeted subsidies could potentially be provided to<br />
vulnerable industries to give them time to adjust to higher electricity prices<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
43<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Subsidies<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
More gradual tariff adjustments are <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten proposed as an obvious<br />
way to minimise the impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising electricity prices <strong>on</strong> the<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omy but this policy prol<strong>on</strong>gs energy-inefficient investment and<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> and as a result could increase the risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> loadshedding<br />
• It is <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten argued that increasing tariffs more gradually is <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the most obvious ways to minimise<br />
the short-run impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rising prices <strong>on</strong> output and employment<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> basic reas<strong>on</strong>ing is that gradual price increases over a given time path, provide firms with<br />
certainty, gives them time to adapt and therefore minimise adjustment costs.<br />
• However, the policy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> gradual price adjustments also suffers from some drawbacks. Firstly, if costreflective<br />
tariffs are to be attained, domestic electricity prices must still rise faster than world<br />
electricity prices over the ‘transiti<strong>on</strong> period’. Sec<strong>on</strong>dly, introducing tariff increases more gradually<br />
prol<strong>on</strong>gs the period over which energy-inefficient investment takes place and also moderates the<br />
pace <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> improvements in energy-efficiency.<br />
• Given that South Africa is currently facing power capacity c<strong>on</strong>straints, introducing tariff increases<br />
more gradually could prove very costly if limits the extent to which higher prices encourage<br />
efficiency-improvements and therefore exacerbates the shortage and results greater load-shedding.<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
44<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Gradual <str<strong>on</strong>g>Price</str<strong>on</strong>g> Adjustment<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
A sudden adjustment to ‘cost-reflective’ prices combined with<br />
transiti<strong>on</strong> credits proporti<strong>on</strong>al to current c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> is a policy<br />
alternative to gradual price adjustments. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> advantage is that it<br />
provides an immediate incentive for c<strong>on</strong>sumers to become more<br />
energy-efficient but could be costly to administer<br />
• An alternative to gradual price adjustments would be to move electricity prices suddenly to costreflective<br />
levels and then recycle revenue to c<strong>on</strong>sumers in the form <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a temporary subsidy or<br />
‘transiti<strong>on</strong> credit’ which would be proporti<strong>on</strong>al to the c<strong>on</strong>sumer’s initial or current energy<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> advantage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this approach is that it provides an immediate incentive for c<strong>on</strong>sumers to<br />
investment in more energy-efficient technologies because the credit is <strong>on</strong>ly provided <strong>on</strong> historical<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> and any additi<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> is immediately subject to cost-reflective prices.<br />
• <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> drawback <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this approach (relative to more gradual price increases) is the cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> administering<br />
such a program but if it were feasible to administer efficiently, this policy opti<strong>on</strong> would have the<br />
same benefits as a gradual price adjustment without incurring the costs.<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
45<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> Credits<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
Subjecting the electricity supply industry to greater competiti<strong>on</strong> and<br />
private sector involvement has been proven to increase efficiency <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
supply so that electricity demand can be met at a lesser cost (and<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequently lower tariffs)<br />
• South Africa has been unsuccessful in attracting private sector involvement but higher tariffs and<br />
regulatory reform will encourage participati<strong>on</strong><br />
• Internati<strong>on</strong>al experience has shown that <strong>on</strong>e way to achieve improved efficiency in the electricity<br />
supply industry is to promote commercialisati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> state-owned utilities and exposure the industry to<br />
greater competiti<strong>on</strong> and private sector involvement.<br />
• Despite the stated intenti<strong>on</strong>s, South Africa has failed to attract IPPs into the electricity supply<br />
industry. Low electricity tariffs and an unfavourable regulatory envir<strong>on</strong>ment have been identified as<br />
some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the main factors that have hindered progress <strong>on</strong> this fr<strong>on</strong>t.<br />
• One <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the first steps in encouraging IPPs to enter the market it to provide the right price signals by<br />
subjecting customers to cost-reflective prices. In additi<strong>on</strong>, the South African government is in the<br />
process <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> creating an independent system operator that would act as a n<strong>on</strong>-c<strong>on</strong>flicted buyer <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
power, the Independent System and Market Operator Bill was approved by Cabinet <strong>on</strong> 16 Mar 2011<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
46<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Increased Competiti<strong>on</strong><br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
Improved incentives for energy-efficiency and demand side<br />
management could c<strong>on</strong>tribute to lower electricity prices although it<br />
has been proven that prices are the primary driver <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mitigati<strong>on</strong><br />
behaviour…<br />
• Promoting the accelerated uptake <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> energy-efficiency and demand side management initiatives<br />
reduces the need for additi<strong>on</strong>al generating capacity so provided it is more cost-effective than new<br />
supply can also be c<strong>on</strong>sidered a strategy to mitigate against higher electricity tariffs.<br />
• Studies have noted however that South African firms have historically made little use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> public or<br />
external support energy efficiency and that increased energy prices and not incentives had been the<br />
primary driver <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mitigati<strong>on</strong> behaviour.<br />
• It has been noted that improved incentives may speed up mitigati<strong>on</strong> behaviour and is it encouraging<br />
to note that <strong>Eskom</strong> has recently revamped its EEDSM business model and in 2011 launched a<br />
standard <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fer programme that promises to promote more rapid uptake <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> EEDSM.<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
47<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Accelerated EEDSM<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4
Providing transiti<strong>on</strong> credits that are proporti<strong>on</strong>al to existing<br />
electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> or other carefully targeted subsidies could<br />
be a means to accommodate the special characteristics <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the most<br />
vulnerable c<strong>on</strong>sumers<br />
• Finally, given that electricity in prices in South Africa have been subsidised implicitly by the taxpayer<br />
for a c<strong>on</strong>siderable length <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time, it can be argued that it is necessary to provide additi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
‘transiti<strong>on</strong>’ support to industries that have come to rely <strong>on</strong> low electricity prices as a source <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
comparative advantage and that are vulnerable to price increases .<br />
• Providing transiti<strong>on</strong> credits that are proporti<strong>on</strong>al to existing electricity c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> or other carefully<br />
targeted subsidies could be a means to accommodate the special characteristics <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these<br />
particularly vulnerable c<strong>on</strong>sumers.<br />
• Identifying the vulnerable sectors for targeted policies would present some significant challenges<br />
since there is c<strong>on</strong>siderable variati<strong>on</strong> in the vulnerability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> different firms and sub-industries within<br />
major sectors to electricity price increases<br />
• Policy makers may want to c<strong>on</strong>sider supporting <strong>on</strong>ly those vulnerable industries that also make a<br />
significant c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to the ec<strong>on</strong>omy.<br />
Providing<br />
targeted<br />
support to<br />
vulnerable<br />
industries<br />
Accelerated<br />
EEDSM<br />
48<br />
Subsidies<br />
Policy Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Promoting<br />
competiti<strong>on</strong> in<br />
the electricity<br />
supply<br />
industry<br />
Gradual price<br />
adjustments<br />
Transiti<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
Provide transiti<strong>on</strong> support to vulnerable industries<br />
Exploring the<br />
policy opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available<br />
©2012 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. All rights reserved.<br />
4