Nice write-up. This is exactly the kind of criticism which I was arguing is valid. (Possibly in another thread.)
I would remove the “Home user” charge though since most of us are on it anyway, if you have an electricity connection. It shifts the calculations somewhat. Not orders of magnitude, but somewhat. And if they can bring down the up-front cost it becomes at least not offensive to those charitable souls trying to do their bit for the country.
The meter reading fee still smarts though. I *suspect* (though I haven’t looked into this) that this is less a CoCT fee than one by whatever private entity won the contract to supply these meters because they have a captive audience. That might fall away or reduce if they can actually find a cheaper meter as they said they are looking for.
I would argue that their claim - you can get money, is utterly bogus.
With or without the meter charge.
Realistically given system size feedback limitations its going to be virtually impossible to break a credit, with or without that charge, and when their 25c bonus falls away, regularly impossible
Again, their claims are more greenwashing than anything, and not much different to previous years where you could get credited for use, but not make a "profit".
They've basically removed that to look good, as at some point
NERSA National Treasury will issue an exemption and sign off to say customers can feedback (eta mid year+-), but its still rigged fairly in CoCT's favour.
That said, I don't know the solution here. Definitely the meter needs to be free - muni's need to have a time of use meter in place according to NERSA, and all muni's are decades late on that.
The 4 quadrant meter can do TOU, so thats really fulfilling one of their own requirements at consumers cost. The reading fee is bullshit, especially when its cheaper to automatically read remotely vs have staff come visit. Doubly so, when they've been replacing spinny disk with Conlog AMI prepay meters in some area's which talk over PLC, but
those mysteriously don't have that added fee.
CoCT appears to use SyM2 hardware, but I haven't really had much insight other than grepping PDF's and looking at budget spending.
Overall AMI is a cost benefit to muni's so adding costs at the consumer end is a bit heinous.
Excellent research here on SA implementations -
http://www.africancityenergy.org/uploads/resource_127.pdf
Ideally increased feeding limits, and upgrade of backend infrastructure in area's with higher density of solar would make sense. This is realistically going to mean upgrading rich area's, and those will subsidise poorer area's as electricity can be transited to there (assuming cabling not stolen, electricians not murdered, and substations not set on fire, etc etc.)
This will of course lead to complaints that the have's are getting upgrades, and its unfair. C'est la vie though.
Ultimately solar is going to benefit the consumer, vs the muni, we know it, they know it, and they're fighting it tooth and claw.
Neither party are enemies though, and a more balanced approach would be better. This isn't it though.
