Implementing a Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff in South Africa: The Beginning of a New Dawn

Author:Kola O Odeku - Edson L Meyer - Obeng Mireku - JLH Letsoalo
Position:Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Limpopo, Turfloop Campus, South Africa and a Fellow, Fort Hare Institute of Technology, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa - Director, Fort Hare Institute of Technology, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa - Dean, Faculty of Management and Law, University of Limpopo, Turfloop ...
Pages:45-49
 
CONTENT
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY
45
INTRODUCTION
The notion that nothing is possible belongs to those who
are reluctant or unwilling to take the first bold steps.
South Africa has taken a bold step in the right direction,
which may unlock various potential opportunities for renew-
able energy in South Africa. On March 31, 2009, the National
Energy Regulator of South Africa (“NERSA”)1 announced
the long-awaited Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (“REFIT”)
Regulatory Guidelines. South Africa, in order to source and use
energy in a sustainable way, has focused on renewable energy
as opposed to energy from conventional sources.2 REFITs “are,
in essence, guaranteed prices for electricity supply rather than
conventional consumer tariffs.”3 The underlying basic economic
principle underpinning this system is the “establishment of a tar-
iff (price) that covers the cost of generation plus a ‘reasonable
profit’ to induce developers to invest.”4
In October 2009, NERSA approved REFIT Phase 2 based
on the Levelized Cost of Electricity (“LCOE”).5 The newly
approved regulatory framework adds new technologies to the
existing REFIT guidelines, namely, biomass, biogas, concen-
trated solar without storage, photovoltaic (“PV”), concentrat-
ing photovoltaic, and concentrated solar power (central tower).6
Though the guidelines were generally welcomed by the role
players in the renewable industry, the overarching contention
was the omission of PV from the March 2009 RREFIT guide-
lines.7 Consequently, Phase 2 of the guidelines addressed this
concern and includes large-scale PV that is greater than 1 mega-
watt (“MW”)) due to economies of scale.8 It is expected that
during the annual REFIT review, small-scale PV technology
would be considered and added.9
The first and the second phases of the REFIT guidelines
are the culmination of a study initiated in 2007 by NERSA10
to facilitate the introduction of renewable energy generation
into the electricity network in order to meet the target of 10,000
gigawatt hours (“GWh”)11 from renewable energy sources, and
possibly surpass the target prior to the 2013 due date set by the
2003 Government White Paper on Renewable Energy.12 Articu-
lating the cost benefit of REFIT to the investors, NERSA likens
it to the cost recovery used to regulate utilities, which is based
on the cost of capital.13 There have been aggressive moves and
attempts by the proponents of REFIT to rename the mechanism
“Renewable Energy Payments” in order to stop using the term
tariff. However, these efforts proved unsuccessful and the name
still remains.14
IMPLEMENTING A RENEWABLE ENERGY FEED-IN
TARIFF IN SOUTH AFRICA:
THE BEGINNING OF A NEW DAWN
by Dr. Kola O Odeku, Professor Edson L Meyer, Professor Obeng Mireku, and Professor JLH Letsoalo*
REFITs are common in many countries and are aimed at
encouraging renewable energy generation by making renewable
energy generators financially viable.15 The REFIT approach
makes strategic sense in South Africa because it will serve as
a powerful tool to address rapid climate disruption.16 REFIT is
now promoting growth of renewable energy and private sector
and donor financing at the same time.17
Against this backdrop, South Africa has joined a number of
countries that have already introduced regulatory frameworks on
REFIT.18 With the proper political and administrative will, the
current steps taken towards aggressive implementation prom-
ise to be a success—particularly as the system was adopted by
South Africa from countries that have successfully introduced
and implemented REFIT.19 Germany, Spain, and Denmark are
among the countries that have successfully used legislation to
promote the least expensive and fastest growth of renewable
energy.20 As a result of substantial successes achieved through
renewable tariffs, massive increase in investments in renewable
electricity generation has occurred and these countries have
produced “more installed generating capacity and more robust
competition among manufacturers.”21 Moreover, the tariffs
have stimulated more renewable technology development, not
withstanding some problems encountered at the commencement
periods.22
POLICY FRAMEWORK SUPPORTS AND
BENEFITS OF REFIT
“Within a policy framework, the development of renew-
able energy in South Africa is supported by the White Paper on
Renewable Energy, which has set a target of 10,000 GWh [of]
renewable energy to [contribute to the final] energy consump-
tion by 2013.”23 REFIT is anticipated to run over fifteen years
until 2022,24 beyond the 2013 target of 10,000 GWh set by the
* Dr. Kola O Odeku is Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Limpopo,
Turfloop Campus, South Africa and a Fellow, Fort Hare Institute of Technology,
University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. Special thanks to Eskom Tertiary
Education Support Programme (“TESP”) South Africa for providing funds to
undertake this research.
Prof. Edson L Meyer is Director, Fort Hare Institute of Technology, University
of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa.
Prof. Obeng Mireku is Dean, Faculty of Management and Law, University of
Limpopo, Turfloop Campus, South Africa.
Prof. JLH Letsoalo is Acting Director, School of Law, University of Limpopo,
Turfloop Campus, South Africa.
WINTER 2011 46
Department of Minerals and Energy (“DME”) in the 2003 White
Paper on Renewable Energy.25 The “DME’s macroeconomic
study of renewable energy, developed under the now completed
Capacity Building in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(“CaBEERE”) project, has established that the achievement of
this target would provide a number of economic benefits, includ-
ing increased government revenue amounting to R299 million,
increased GDP of up to 1 billion [rand] per year and the creation
of an estimated 20,500 new jobs.”26 “In addition, the develop-
ment of renewable energy beyond the 10,000 GWh target holds
further employment benefits and would maximize the number of
jobs created” per terawatt hour (“TWh”).27
One of the activists for the promotion and deployment of
wind energy for electricity generation saluted the courage and
the bold step taken by South Africa and described the REFIT as
a laudable project.28 Stefan Gsänger, the Secretary General of
the World Wind Energy Association said in a release that “South
Africa is the first African country to introduce a feed-in tariff
for wind energy. Many small and big investors will now be able
to contribute to the take-off of the South African wind indus-
try. Such decentralized investment will enable South Africa to
overcome its current energy crisis. It will also help many South
African communities to invest in wind farms and generate elec-
tricity, new jobs and new income.”29
Furthermore, REFIT has many advantages over other mech-
anisms in spite of the extra initial cost.30 In order to ensure stable
return on investment by the investors renewable power prices
should not be subjected to the forces of demand and supply in
the market place.31 Guaranteeing profits for project developers
will serve as an impetus for the investors to expand the business
by applying for credit/loan facility from banks and other finan-
cial institutions since repayments are guaranteed from the sale
of electricity.32
SOUTH AFRICAS RENEWABLE ENERGY FEED-IN
TARIFF: AN OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND TO INITIATIVES TAKEN BY ROLE-PLAYERS
REFIT was introduced in South Africa to progressively
reduce carbon-based power generation by creating a move
towards sustainable energy sources, along with socio-economic
and environmentally sustainable growth.33 Endless debates in
Parliament about energy crises, global footprints, endangered
species, and new coal-fired power stations had done little to
solve South African problems. Stemming from this lack of
progress, efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions fostered
a movement known as e-Parliament Renewable Energy Activ-
ists (“eREACT”) by some parliamentarians with the objective
of shifting the government’s focus away from coal and nuclear
towards renewable energy.34 The introduction of REFIT was ini-
tially met with stiff opposition from those entities that believed
in business as usual.35 But, in 2008, South Africa endured a
serious energy crisis when the national energy supplier, Eskom,
failed to meet electricity demand.36 As a result, eREACT was
able to influence future decisions and present the financial via-
bility of developing renewable energy in South Africa.37
This initiative commenced the bold step towards the estab-
lishment of the current energy generation mix in South Africa.
South African Member of Parliament Dr. Ruth Rabinowitz,
explaining the stiff opposition encountered in the Parliament,
said that at the hearing of the private members’ legislative com-
mittee in the South African Parliament on the REFIT, “in spite
of overwhelming support from NGO’s, businesses, academics,
local governments and civil society, both the DME and Eskom
were opposed to the idea of separate REFIT legislation” claim-
ing that the Guidelines had already been drafted and would be
introduced to the public in early 2009.38 “Their resistance to
Parliament’s involvement is hardly surprising since the Eskom
monopoly is unlikely to suddenly give way to diversity, flex-
ibility and open competition.”39 The firm commitment and per-
severance of parliamentarians who believed that South Africa
should jettison the notion of using cheap coal to generate elec-
tricity and shift to renewables eventually led to the promulgation
of the regulatory guidelines.40
THE GUIDELINES IN CONTEXT
The most potent legislative mechanism being used world-
wide to introduce and implement the use of renewable energy to
generate energy is feed-in tariff. South Africa has just joined the
numbers of the countries that are using renewable energy to gen-
erate power. It is the responsibility of NERSA to ensure that the
energy utility, Eskom, purchases energy from the generators at a
fixed price, provided they conform with the standard prescribed
by NERSA.41 The guidelines contain twelve sections. Section 1
provides a general introduction, while sections 2 and 3 highlight
the purpose, scope, and objectives of the guidelines in detail.
Purchase obligations of all players and stakeholders are outlined
in section 4, while sections 5 and 6 deal extensively with the
qualification criteria and the application process respectively.
Section 7 enumerates tariffs applicable to different technolo-
gies. The rights and obligations of qualified renewable power
generators, regulator, and renewable energy purchasing agency
(“REPA”) are provided for in sections 8, 9, and 10 respectively.
While section 11 provides for the monitoring, reporting, and
review mechanisms, section 12 provides for appropriate appli-
cable law to resolve dispute arising from the guidelines. Any
ensuing dispute must be resolved in accordance with section 5 of
the Electricity Regulation Act 2006 of South Africa (including
the Regulations).
EXPOSITION, ANALYSIS, AND CRITIQUE OF
THE GUIDELINES
Introduction, Purpose, Scope, and Objective
Section 1 of the guidelines provides an overview of why
the government has opted for renewable energy provisions side
by side with the current conventional energy. One of the key
reasons is that renewable energy resources in South Africa are
enormous.42 In a move to enlarge the market implementation,
government has now, through NERSA, introduced REFIT.43
“This is quite similar to the concept of cost recovery used in
utility rate regulation based on the costs of capital”44 invested in
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY47
each technology deployed.45 With regards to cost, using the tech-
nique of degression, both the grid interconnection and metering
are covered by REFIT.46 The overarching benefit of this is that
the costs are spread across electricity customers and the tariff is
reduced overtime.47 The essence of this technique is to mount
pressure on the generators to continue to lower the costs of gen-
erating electricity from REFIT so that it will be affordable.
The IPPs will be remunerated based on the renewable
energy power they feed into the national grid.48 The guidelines
allow IPPs operators to receive preferential rate in a pay-for-
energy-delivered contract allowing them to earn payment over
and above conventional prices.49 It is hoped that REFIT system
will create and foster an enduring and economically sustainable
renewable energy industry in South Africa.50
The scope and objective of the guidelines are outlined in
section 3.51 Section 3.1 provides for the applicable rules and
requirements governing license applications and the issuing
of approved licenses to energy developers.52 Section 3.2 gives
NERSA the mandate to determine the prices and the conditions
under which generated electricity may be supplied.53 Sections
3.3 and 3.4 provide that all subsequent relevant Acts of Amend-
ment would also be applicable in conjunction with relevant
license procedures.
The underlying economic basis of section 3.2 is that eco-
nomic principles of supply and demand do not affect prices
because NERSA has the absolute authority to determine the
rates. The rationale for this is that these prices have been chosen
to promote and increase investment in renewable energy, allow
small enterprises to make substantive entry into the market, and
operate by generating electricity for sale. This model is suitable
to developing countries in view of the fact that energy markets
are small in number and dispersed.54
But these guidelines could be amended by subsequent Acts
under section 3.3,55 which raises some concerns. The section
sets no boundaries on what type of amendments are permit-
ted.56 A preferred approach would be to exempt certain provi-
sions from future amendment. One provision that, if amended,
would undermine the entire regulation is the guarantee of pay-
ments over a specified period of time. This is assuredly the only
way an investor can realize the projected return on investment.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no explicit prohibition
on amending any section, the fears of the investors have been
allayed by virtue of section 3.5(ii), which states that one of the
key objectives and principles of REFIT is the establishment of
“a guaranteed price for electricity generated from renewables for
a fixed period of time that provides a stable income stream and
an adequate return on investment.”57
Obligation to Purchase
Section 3.5(iv) enables access to the grid and obligates
Eskom to purchase power generated by IPPs. Eskom is des-
ignated as the Single Buyer and appointed as the Renewable
Energy Purchasing Agency (“REPA”) under sections 4 and 4.3.
To be eligible the generator must follow the rules and proce-
dures of the regulatory body duly licensed under section 5.4 and
fulfill all the license conditions under Section 5.5. While Eskom
must purchase electricity from the IPPs at set rates, under sec-
tion 4.4 the IPPs can also sell renewable energy to buyers out-
side of REFIT.58
If a particular generator receives a license and fails to pro-
duce electricity for any reason, NERSA faces no obligations to
the generator and Eskom cannot be compelled to act on its pur-
chasing obligation.59 Consequently, the maxim nemo dat quad
non abet meaning you cannot give what you do not have applies
to the generator if it fails to produce electricity.
Financial Implications for Consumers
Section 3.5(v) mandates the establishment of an equal
playing field with conventional electricity, but this provision is
ambiguous in both context and content.60 The meaning of “an
equal level playing field” is not defined in the guidelines and
this may result to different interpretations. Section 3.6 allows
for future inclusion of more technologies, bands within tech-
nologies, and incentives for projects in different geographical
areas.61 Section 4.5 provides that the financial subsidy required
to offset the difference in the cost of energy purchased under
REFIT and the Avoided Cost will be borne by all Eskom elec-
tricity customers through existing “pass-through” arrange-
ments for costs of independent power production.62 While this
provision makes good economic and financial sense, a cursory
look at the section shows that neither the poor nor the rich are
exempted from the “pass-through” arrangements.63 The implica-
tion of this is that various customers of Eskom, irrespective of
their resources, will bear the financial burden. In South Africa,
both advanced and developing economies operate alongside one
another. Those who live in perpetual abject poverty outnum-
bered the rich elites.64
The huge disparity of income in South Africa is reflected in
limited access to electricity, with the majority of the population
in rural areas living without modern electricity.65 Even where
there is access, electricity is not usually affordable and is consid-
ered a luxury by most residents. Even in those areas serviced by
a grid, there have been reports of persistent default or non-pay-
ment of electricity bills and in some instances, these people have
improvised and connected to the grid illegally.66 The drafters of
the guidelines should have excluded indigents and the poor from
the current additional burden of paying more for electricity.67
Governments in countries such as Denmark, Australia, and a
number of U.S. states are sensitive to the plight of indigent citi-
zens who would not be able to afford electricity. Consequently,
various concessions in the form of subsidies and incentives such
as reduction in bills, special loans, extra rebates and so on, are
being offered to unemployed, elderly, disabled, and low-income
households.68 As noted earlier, section 3.3 authorizes amend-
ments; the guidelines should be amended to offer a range of con-
cessions to the poorest of the poor, as has occurred in the United
States, Australia, and Denmark.
Qualification Criteria for the Generator
Section 5 lists the qualification criteria for renewable
generators. Section 5.1 defines renewable energy, and section
WINTER 2011 48
5.2—read together with the newly published phase 269—sets out
the specific types of renewable energy technologies that qual-
ify for participation in the REFIT scheme. Section 5.3 requires
NERSA to consider adding additional technologies to the list of
qualifying generators.70
By virtue of section 5.5(i), renewable energy generators
may generate electricity from non-renewables. But the gen-
erators must report the quantities of electricity generated from
these two different sources.71 Section 5.5(ii) provides for moni-
toring and verification to ensure credible production of renew-
able energy.72 Failure on the part of any electricity generators to
comply or act in accordance with sections 5.5(i) or 5.5(ii) leads
to the imposition of sanctions under section 5.5(iii), including
termination of the REFIT license.73
Importantly, under section 5.7, REFIT does not include any
electricity generated off-grid.74 Rather, “REFIT only includes
power generation from generators connected to the Transmis-
sion System and Distribution System and excludes off-grid
power generation.”75 Although this is the current scheme, in the
near future advancement in technology innovation and diffusion
might allow for the consideration of off-grid.76
Application Process
Sections 6.1 to 6.4 require the renewable electricity gen-
erator to state the specific REFIT technology and tariff category
for electricity produced in accordance to section 6.2. This will
enable regulatory authority to “specify the technology, the tariff
approved, duration of the REFIT, and other specific licensing
conditions” in compliance with section 6.4.77 The purpose of
this section is to ensure that applicants state the type of technol-
ogy used, due to different prices for electricity produced from
each technology.78 It is expected that the majority of the appli-
cants will use technologies that are economically beneficial in
terms of cost and maintenance, and at the same time reap the
so-called “reasonable profit” because this will continue to guar-
antee return on investment and the continuity of the venture.
Tariffs
Section 7.3 protects the licensees against inflation in each
year of operation and allows for an adjustment to the tariffs once
per annum using the consumer price index (“CPI”) or another
suitable inflation index.79 Section 7.4 requires monitoring of the
performance and the impacts of each technology, as well as anal-
ysis of reports from the monitoring to ascertain whether there is
any need for review.80 Irrespective of whether or not inflation
occurs, a full tariff review will take place every year for the first
five-year period of implementation and every three years there-
after.81 Section 7.5 stipulates that the resulting tariffs will only
be applicable to new projects.82 Section 7.6 provides for future
pricing of electricity produced by the generators. Consequently,
at the end of the contracted REFIT tariff, the generator will be
required to negotiate tariffs under current market conditions.83
The implication is that the economic principles of demand and
supply will dictate prices to be charged by the regulator. While
this is beneficial to the regulator, it does not foreclose the appro-
priate intervention by the regulator at any point in time—this
is achievable in view of the fact that the generators still have
to negotiate tariffs under market conditions. The significance
of these tariffs is that they will stimulate the inflow of invest-
ment into the renewable sector and increase the pool of capital
in the sector, which may be used to promote the innovation and
advancement in renewable technology.84
Rights and Obligations of Generators, Regulators,
and REPA
Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the guidelines explicitly provide
for the rights and obligations of all parties.85 Any meaningful
discussion on rights and obligations must necessarily be founded
on conceptualization of both terms. The description of rights as
enshrined in the guidelines recognizes the legal rights of the gen-
erators to be entitled to an amount that will ensure their invest-
ments are properly protected, connected to the grid, and able
to provide a reasonable return on investment. In the same vein,
regulators are expected to act responsibly by virtue of section
8.5, which mandates that all the parties be on an equal level.86
It must however be mentioned that failure to act as stipu-
lated under section 8.5 of the guidelines imposes an obligation
on the regulator to apply the appropriate sanction that could lead
to termination of the erring generator’s license.87 This is the only
reason why the right of the generator could be restricted. Conclu-
sive and well founded evidence that a generator has acted con-
trary to section 8.5, for instance by generating electricity from
non-renewable technology mentioned in the guidelines without
a full disclosure to the regulator, will automatically affect all the
inherent rights in the guidelines and allow for imposition of the
appropriate sanction.
Monitoring, Reporting, and Review.
In accordance with sections 11.1 to 11.10, the regulator
will closely monitor the overall activities of the players and
stake holders enshrined in the REFIT. Monitoring, collection,
and maintenance of data on energy purchased under REFIT are
outlined in section 11.2, and the publication of summary of the
progress report by June 1st of every year is required by section
11.4. Section 11.4(iii) mandates the regulator to disclose the
financial impacts of REFIT, which includes both the increase
in electricity prices and the additional overall cost to consum-
ers.88 This proviso serves as a basis for determining whether the
poor and previously disadvantaged people are able or not able
to access electricity services due to the additional cost imposed
on them. If the majority of the poor are unable to access and use
electricity based on the increase in cost, one of the fundamentals
of poverty reduction and eradication, as enshrined in the prin-
ciples set out in the Millennium Development Goals, will not be
achieved.89 One of the ways to assist the poor in realizing their
economic and social aspirations is to offer them concessions on
electricity. It is suggested that in the interim, costs should be
passed on to the affluent in the hybrid residential and industrial
areas of urban South Africa. Various electrical appliances and
industrial equipment that are not energy efficient are used in
these areas. Increasing the costs of electricity for the more afflu-
ent might encourage them to use energy efficient appliances. An
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY49
additional benefit of this differential pricing would ultimately be
less pressure on the transmitters from reduced energy use.
Resolution of Disputes and Remedies
Section 12 provides that any disputes arising from the oper-
ation of REFIT would be resolved as laid down in sections 42 to
43 the Electricity Regulation Act 2006.90 Before the commence-
ment of any dispute resolution, the Minister is compelled by vir-
tue of section 42(3) to prescribe the procedure to be followed for
the mediation and the fees to be paid.91 However, mediation or
arbitration of disputes occurs only at the request of the parties to
the dispute by virtue of section 42(4).92 While section 42(1)(a)
compels the regulator to appoint a mediator in a dispute between
licensees if so requested by both parties to the dispute, sections
42(1)(b) and 42(2) give discretionary power to the regulator to
appoint a suitable person to mediate.93
However, if any party disagrees with the outcome of the
decisions regarding adjudication as provided in section 42, such
party, under section 43, can seek remedies pursuant to section 10
of the National Energy Regulation Act of 2004, and specifically
invoke sections 10(3)(4)(a)(b) which provide that:
Any person may institute proceedings in the High
Court for the judicial review of an administrative action
by the Energy Regulator in accordance with the Promo-
tion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of
2000). Any person affected by a decision of the Energy
Regulator sitting as a tribunal may appeal to the High
Court against such decision. The procedure applicable
to an appeal from a decision of a magistrate’s court in
a civil matter applies, with the changes required by the
context, to an appeal contemplated in paragraph (a).94
Section 10(1)(a) of the Act recognizes the supremacy of the
Constitution of the Republic South Africa.95 Hence every deci-
sion of the regulator or of the mediator, arbitrator or any person
appointed by the regulator, must be consistent with the provi-
sions of the Constitution and applicable laws. The legal impli-
cation is that any party who is not satisfied with the decisions
arising out of section 42 of the Electricity Regulator Act, can
appeal for review of the decision, and ultimately appeal consti-
tutional rights up to the Constitutional court.
CONCLUSION
The establishment of REFIT in South Africa provides an
excellent opportunity for South Africa to increase the use of
renewable energy and enhance the growth of the sector both
nationally and internationally. Most of the renewable energy
considered for the initial implementation has been included as
a result of experiences and success stories in countries that have
introduced and implemented REFIT. However, there is need
for extensive and expansive improvements in areas such as,
namely, harmonization of various policies on renewable energy,
enhancement of the standard to achieve sustainability, dissem-
ination of information on the benefits of renewable energy to
attract investors, making stakeholders be more proactive, and
creating enabling policy and law for concessions and incentives
that will continue to bring down the cost of investment and make
cost of electricity affordable.
Endnotes: Implementing a Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff in South Africa
1 NATIONAL ENERGY REGULATOR OF SOUTH AFRICA (NERSA), SOUTH AFRICA
RENEWABLE ENERGY TARIFF (REFIT), REGULATORY GUIDELINES (2009)
[hereinafter REFIT].
2 Nthambeleni Gabara, South Africa: NERSA Announces Renewable Energy
Feed-in
Tariffs, ALLAFRICA (Mar. 31, 2009), http://allafrica.com/stories/200903310659.
html. But see Suzanne Goldenberg, World Bank’s $3.75bn Coal Plant Loan
Defies Environment Criticism,
GUARDIAN, Apr. 9, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/09/
world-bank-criticised-over-power-station.
3 REFIT, supra note 1, at 1.
4 Id.
5
Id.
6
Id.; see also NERSA, PHASE 2 OF REFIT BASED ON THE LEVELISED COST OF
ELECTRICITY (2009).
7 REFIT, supra note 1, at 16; see also Christy van der Merwe, Renewable
Energy Industry Players Make Refit Submissions to Nersa, ENGINEERING NEWS
(Sept. 3, 2009), http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/renewable-energy-
industry-players-make-refit-submissions-to-nersa-2009-09-03.
8
See Christy van der Merwe, Regulator Includes More Renewable Technolo-
gies in Refit, Outlines Purchase Agreement, ENGINEERING NEWS (Jul. 20, 2009),
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/regulator-includes-more-renewable-
technologies-in-refit-outlines-purchase-agreement-2009-07-20.
9 Id.
10
NERSA, CONSULTATION PAPER RENEWABLE ENERGY FEED-IN TARIFF 4 (2008)
[hereinafter NERSA CONSULTATION PAPER], http://www.nersa.org.za/Admin/
Document/Editor/file/NERSA%20REFIT%20%20consultation%20paper%20
02%20Dec%202008.pdf.
11
An electrical unit equal to one billion (109) watts (1,000 megawatts) used for
one hour.
12 DEPT OF MINERALS & ENERGY (DME), GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER ON RENEW-
ABLE ENERGY (2003) [hereinafter DME WHITE PAPER], http://unfccc.int/files/
meetings/seminar/application/pdf/sem_sup1_south_africa.pdf; see also Dirk
Visser, Renewable Feed-in Tariffs Announced, UNIV. OF CAMBRIDGE PROGRAMME
FOR SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP (Apr. 1, 2009), http://www.cpsl.co.za/2009/04/
renewable-feed-in-tariffs-announced.
13 NERSA CONSULTATION PAPER, supra note 10, at 4.
14 Benjamin Sovacool, The Importance of Comprehensiveness in Renewable
Electricity and Energy-Efficiency Policy, 37 ENERGY POLICY 1529, 1535 (2009).
15 NERSA Announces the Long Awaited Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs,
ESKOM INTELLIGENCE BRIEF (ESKOM, Johannesburg, S. Afr.), Mar. 31, 2009.
16 Kolawole Odeku & Edson Meyer, Climate Change: Strengthening
Mitigation and Adaptation in South Africa, in JOINT ACTIONS ON CLIMATE
CHANGE: CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 272 (R.D. Andersen & M. Lehmann eds.,
2009), http://diggy.ruc.dk//bitstream/1800/4339/1/Conference_Proceedings_
JAOCC_2009_final.pdf.
17
ADELE FAURE, CLIMATE CHANGE: WHOS DOING WHAT IN SOUTH AFRICA? 5
(2009), http://durbanportal.net/ClimateChange/Reports/SA_Climate_Change_
Mapping_Report_Final.pdf.
18 Paul Gipe, South Africa Introduces Aggressive Feed-in Tariffs, RENEWABLE
ENERGY WORLD (Apr. 1, 2009), http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/
news/article/2009/04/south-africa-introduces-aggressive-feed-in-tariffs.
Endnotes: Implementing a Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff in
South Africa continued on page 89