This means that the way municipalities decide on annual electricity price increases will change. Everyone who uses electricity will now be able to see how price increases are justified. Municipalities will be compelled to publish key financial documents used to justify price increases.

The judgment also forces municipalities to plan far ahead by setting strict new deadlines for tariff applications.

Nersa is the regulatory authority for South Africa’s electricity, gas and fuel industries. It has to approve all bulk electricity tariffs proposed by Eskom, the state-owned energy provider. But it also has to do this transparently in a way that allows public input.

The court found that Nersa had failed on this point. Its process was consistently late and secretive, which meant the public didn’t have a good chance to give feedback on proposals to hike electricity prices.

Afriforum, an advocacy group for South Africa’s Afrikaner population, took Nersa to court because over a number of years, the regulator had recommended high price hikes without justifying this publicly.

For Nersa, the judgment means that it can no longer ignore rules that say it must consult the public. It will also need to do this in future according to a strict, court-ordered timetable.

I’m a legal academic who researches how the constitution promotes accountability, justice and rights such as the right to fairly priced electricity.

I believe the high court ruling is a victory for public transparency and accountability because it addresses long-standing failures in the system, such as secretive decision-making and impossible deadlines for public comment (for example setting aside just one day for people to make an input on the proposed electricity price hike).

Crucially, it introduces a strict new set of rules that could change how electricity prices are calculated.

Keeping vital information secret from the public

Every year, South Africans face rising electricity prices. For instance, in April 2025, the state-owned electricity provider Eskom announced a 12.74% price increase.

These steep annual increases are a financial burden for many households and businesses.

The process for deciding the increase starts when Eskom proposes its bulk electricity tariffs to Nersa.

Nersa approves Eskom’s bulk prices. Then municipalities set their own prices based on Nersa guidelines. By law, Nersa reviews municipal tariffs using a study that sets out how much the electricity costs to generate and supply. It then publishes the new prices for public comment, and only then approves them. Municipalities cannot charge unapproved rates.

The court found this system broken in practice. The first issue identified by the court was that the process was consistently late. Nersa delayed in telling municipalities the new Eskom bulk price, making municipalities late in submitting their own tariff applications to Nersa.

This delay squeezed the time available for public comment to such an extent that, in certain instances, there was no participation at all. Regulations under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act explicitly require a comment period of at least 30 days from the date a notice is published.

For example, proposed electricity price hikes for one local area (Mogale City, with a population of 438 000 people) were published on 19 June 2025, and Nersa approved it the very next day. This made public comment impossible.

The court also found that Nersa withheld the cost-of-supply studies from the public, claiming that they were confidential. The public was denied access to the single most important document needed to make a meaningful comment. This is unconstitutional because supply studies submitted to Nersa by municipalities are public documents that should be open for public scrutiny.

The court further found that Nersa had ignored the law by publishing proposed tariff increases only on its website and social media. The law clearly states that the notices must be published in the Government Gazette and South Africa’s newspapers in at least two official languages.

What the court ordered Nersa to do instead

The court issued binding directions that create a strict, non-negotiable timetable for all future tariff approvals.

• By 31 January every year, Nersa must tell municipalities what the new Eskom bulk tariff will be for the following year.

• Municipalities must submit their full tariff applications, including their cost-of-supply studies, to Nersa by 30 March of every year.

• The public must know exactly what proposed price hikes are based on. Therefore Nersa must publish every single municipal application for an electricity tariff increase along with its cost-of-supply studies.

• Finally, Nersa must finalise its decisions and communicate them by 5 May every year.

This new timeline is designed to end the chaos, which the court described as consistent lateness, that has plagued the process for years. It should ensure Nersa’s decisions are made in time for municipalities to finalise their own budgets, which must be tabled 90 days before their 1 July financial year starts.

Why this is important for ordinary South Africans

This judgment empowers ordinary citizens by compelling the publication of the cost of supply studies. This gives the public the tools to hold their local municipalities accountable. The law already provides for public participation in other municipal processes, such as Integrated Development Plans.

Even though studies have found that in practice this engagement is often ineffective, the electricity ruling is important because it means that for the first time, communities and experts can scrutinise the data and ask: is our tariff hike paying for efficient services? Or is it paying for a bloated salary bill, electricity theft and general mismanagement?

Hence, the judgment moves the public from passive bill-payers to active watchdogs. As active watchdogs, people will be able to make sure that electricity price hikes are transparent, timely and open to the public scrutiny.

Written by Felix Dube, Lecturer in the Department of Law, University of Venda

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.