SLICE: Watts the charge? Joburg’s R270 surcharge
Joburg’s surcharge hike from R200 to R270, may target the city’s most vulnerable, burdening struggling residents under the guise of policy.
- There is no financial transparency, the city has not shown how the R230 monthly charge improves service or infrastructure.
- Public voices were ignored, and the policy was implemented without meaningful consultation.
- The surcharge deepens inequality, disproportionately affecting low-income.
The City of Johannesburg’s R230 prepaid electricity surcharge, effective since July 2024, continues to weigh heavily on low-income households yet the city seems unmoved.
As a prepaid user myself, I have felt this increase choke an already tight budget. It’s no longer just about buying electricity; it is about being penalised every month before even switching on a single light.
The surcharge, split between a R70 service fee and a R130 network capacity charge, is meant to support infrastructure upkeep. But here’s the issue: this logic does not hold when the people being charged the most are the same ones who use prepaid to manage meagre incomes and are trying to avoid electricity debt.
BusinessTech recently reiterated that there’s still little clarity on where this surcharge money goes, with City Power unable to point to specific projects funded by it.
OUTA’s Julius Kleynhans rightly called it a “lazy fundraising mechanism,” and I agree. This is not proactive governance. It’s a blunt and careless solution to a deeper financial mismanagement issue in the city. Many of us budget for electricity weekly. That R230 could easily mean the difference between powering our homes or going without.
The city has defended the surcharge by saying it aims to target affluent users who moved to prepaid to dodge higher postpaid bills. But the data doesn’t back that up. According to OUTA, the city’s indigent register used to exempt vulnerable households is outdated and excludes thousands who qualify. So, who is really paying? Those of us in working-class neighbourhoods, pensioners, students, and unemployed residents, many of whom top up R20 at a time.
Even political parties have criticised the surcharge. ActionSA called it “anti-poor” and rejected the adjustment budget that included it. Meanwhile, the DA launched a petition that’s gained thousands of signatures, arguing that the city pushed the fee through without meaningful consultation
The sad irony? Those who steal electricity or don’t pay at all are unaffected. Those of us who play by the rules are being punished for it.
It is now May 2025, and nothing has changed. City Power recently doubled down, with CEO Tshifularo Mashava saying that those who can afford to live in areas with “big houses and electric fences” must pay more yet this broad brush unfairly paints every prepaid user as wealthy. It’s an assumption that ignores how diverse the city’s residents are and how unevenly income and infrastructure are distributed across the suburbs.
Electricity is not a luxury, it is a basic necessity. If Johannesburg wants to talk about sustainability and fairness, it must start with a policy that protects rather than punishes responsible users. Until then, this surcharge feels less like a service fee and more like a fine for being poor and trying to keep the lights on.
FEATURED IMAGE: A picture of a meter box. Photo: Lindelwa Khanyile
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Wits Vuvuzela, Residents vent their frustrations as City of Johannesburg holds open day for its Accelerated Service Delivery Initiative in Braamfontein , May 2025
- Wits Vuvuzela, PHOTO ESSAY: Thembelihle – the fight for electricity, August 2014
