To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Energy Efficiency tax
incentive in South Africa
South Africa has introduced a tax incentive for energy efficiency in the
industrial and commercial sectors, amounting to 45c per kWh saved.
T he regulation announcing this
incentive, was published on the
9 December 2013 and subsequent
to that and during the first quarter of 2014
workshops were undertaken to explain
how companies can participate in the
scheme. Workshops with industry groups
on an invitation basis were followed
by a national roadshow across all nine
provinces in South Africa.
This particular tax incentive
represents a significant change in energy
efficiency incentives in South Africa,
that has traditionally been dominated by
national utility Eskom, which has seen
its funding for its Integrated Demand
Management (IDM) programmes
suspended, due to funding constraints.
It is a significant
development, since
it can be argued
that Eskom has
in part been
able to keep
the lights on
due to the
effectiveness of its IDM
programme over the last
couple of
years. While
Eskom’s IDM scheme
was working
effectively the
argument, a valid
one, is that the
national utility’s
agenda (managing peak demand and keeping
the lights on) and the country’s agenda
(a national drive towards energy
efficiency and associated environmental
improvements) will not always be
aligned. As the tax incentive is aimed at
the industrial and commercial sectors,
Eskom’s IDM programme is likely to
focus increasingly on residential demand
side management.
Barry Bredenkamp, senior manager
at the South African National Energy
Development Institute (SANEDI),
which is overseeing implementation
of the energy efficiency tax incentive
programme on behalf of the national
treasury and department of energy, says
the philosophy was to stop talking about
such a scheme and get something out
there, even if it is not perfect and
has to be tinkered with to refine
it. The alternative would be
years spent in planning with
no forward progress. “The
national energy efficiency
tax incentive, generally
referred to as the 12-L tax
incentive, provides an ideal
opportunity to have one
incentive that is consistent
over time, easy to control
and levels the playing
field,” Bredenkamp says.
One of the problems
with previous energy
efficiency programmes
undertaken by
Eskom Barry Bredenkamp, senior manager at the South African National Energy Development Institute
(SANEDI), which is overseeing the energy efficiency tax incentive programme on behalf of
government. ESI AFRICA ISSUE 1 2014
is that they have been erratic in nature
and have not necessarily provided
the certainty for the creation of long-
term careers and businesses in the
sector. For many years Eskom’s IDM
programme focused on residential
measures, dominated by the replacement
of incandescent lamps with compact
fluorescent lamps. As the gains from
that programme tapered, in the past two
years the utility put into place incentive
schemes such as its Standard Offer and
Standard Product schemes for industrial
and commercial customers. These were
working well, with incentives offered,
largely in advance, of up to R1.2/kWh
dependent on the technology in question.
This ground to a halt in about October
2013, in terms of awarding the incentive
to new projects, which illustrates the
boom-bust nature of such programmes.
From a policy perspective the
12-L energy efficiency tax incentive in
South Africa is not intended to replace
the Eskom IDM programme – its
mechanisms and fundamental nature are
quite different. Its exclusion of the peakier
residential sector, and Eskom’s natural
focus area, is just part of it. So too is
the lower value of the tax allocation of
45c/kWh translating into tax incentives
for an effective 12 month period. The
45c/kWh rate is subject to a marginal
tax rate of 28% which means the end
user retains an effective 12.6c/kWh
saved and verified. There are other
exclusions too.
Almost all the parties that have
looked at the energy efficiency tax
incentive legislation (12-L) agree that
the exclusion of cogeneration and
renewable energy options from the
incentive scheme is a shortfall. Ideally,
the participants feel they should be
able to decide if they wish to invest in
renewables as displacement alternatives
or in energy efficiency measures, and in
what balance to do this. The argument
for the omission has been that there is
a national incentive scheme for small
31