BRETT HERRON DEMANDS ANSWERS
CCN Editor – George April
A video circulating on social media has brought renewed attention to a dispute between the City of Cape Town and the national energy regulator, with GOOD Party leader Brett Herron questioning how much residents have paid for electricity and whether they could be entitled to refunds.
A dispute over electricity tariffs in Cape Town has come under fresh scrutiny following a video statement by Brett Herron, secretary-general of the GOOD Party and the party’s mayoral candidate for the city.
In the video, Herron challenges the Democratic Alliance-led City of Cape Town over electricity charges, court proceedings involving the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), and the potential financial consequences for residents.
At the centre of the controversy is Herron’s allegation that the City collected approximately R2 billion more during the 2025/26 financial year than would have been collected using the average tariff approved by NERSA.
The figure is a claim advanced by the GOOD Party and requires independent verification against the relevant tariff decisions, billing records and electricity sales data. No final court finding establishing that the alleged amount must be refunded has been identified in the material reviewed for this report.
Documents obtained through access-to-information request
According to a statement published by Herron on 19 October 2026, the GOOD Party obtained NERSA’s reasons for its decision on the City’s 2026/27 electricity tariff application through a request under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).
Herron said the documents disclosed that the City had challenged NERSA’s decision to approve a 12.8% tariff increase for 2025/26 instead of the 14.5% increase it had requested.
The dispute has implications beyond the difference between the two percentages.
Herron argues that the City proceeded with tariffs that included additional amounts despite NERSA’s decision, while the legal dispute over the regulator’s determination remained unresolved.
He maintains that the regulator’s decision remains operative unless and until a court sets it aside or otherwise changes its legal effect.
Three tariffs, three different figures
In the video, Herron presents a comparison of three average electricity prices per kilowatt-hour.
According to the figures displayed in his presentation:
- 2025/26 — NERSA-approved average tariff:87 cents per kilowatt-hour.
- 2025/26 — tariff the GOOD Party says the City charged:45 cents per kilowatt-hour.
- 2026/27 — approved average tariff shown: 305 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The difference between the first two figures is 27.58 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Herron says approximately 7.7 billion units of electricity were sold during the 2025/26 financial year. Multiplying that volume by the stated tariff difference produces an estimate of approximately R2.12 billion.
This arithmetic explains the basis of the party’s R2-billion claim. However, it does not, on its own, establish the amount legally recoverable or refundable. The comparison must be assessed against the applicable tariff categories, billing arrangements and the precise legal effect of NERSA’s decision.
The 2026/27 figure also needs to be interpreted carefully: a comparison between average tariffs does not necessarily represent the percentage increase experienced by every household, as customer categories, consumption and fixed charges can differ.
Not the first dispute over electricity tariffs
The current controversy follows earlier litigation involving the City and NERSA over municipal electricity tariffs for the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years.
The City announced in December 2024 that it was seeking High Court review of NERSA’s tariff-setting decisions, arguing that the regulator had failed to take adequate account of the City’s detailed cost-of-supply studies.
The City maintains that electricity tariffs must be based on a proper assessment of the costs of providing the service, including the need to maintain and invest in infrastructure.
The GOOD Party, by contrast, argues that the City should not charge residents above the tariffs approved by the regulator while challenging those decisions in court.
The different legal proceedings must be considered separately. A party’s decision to bring a review application does not, by itself, mean that its arguments have been upheld by a court.
City rejects claims about secrecy
The City has disputed the GOOD Party’s suggestion that the latest litigation was concealed from residents.
Xanthea Limberg, the City’s mayoral committee member for energy, told the Weekend Argus that the ongoing, multi-year court process was well publicised and was neither new nor secret.
According to the newspaper’s report published on 22 October 2026, Limberg said the litigation was initiated to protect the integrity of the City’s cost-of-supply and budget-determination processes.
The City has also defended its approach to electricity pricing by pointing to the regulatory and financial requirements under which municipal tariffs are determined.
The dispute therefore involves two competing positions: the GOOD Party’s argument that residents may have been charged more than the regulator approved, and the City’s position that its tariff-setting process and cost-of-supply calculations require legal scrutiny.
Who pays for the litigation?
Herron raises a further concern about the cost of the court proceedings.
He argues that residents and taxpayers ultimately fund both sides of the dispute: the City’s legal expenses are paid from municipal resources, while NERSA, as a public institution, also uses public funds to defend its decisions.
In his video, Herron challenges the City to disclose how much it has spent on legal fees in its various disputes with NERSA. He also asks whether residents would receive refunds if the courts ultimately rule against the City.
These are questions that require specific answers from the City, including the dates and scope of the relevant applications, the legal costs incurred to date, and the financial implications of any eventual judgment.
The existence of litigation alone does not establish that a refund is legally due, nor does it determine how any possible repayment would be calculated.
Affordability becomes an election issue
The dispute has also become part of the broader political debate about the affordability of living in Cape Town ahead of the 2026 local government elections. Herron argues that electricity costs place pressure on households already struggling with rising municipal bills and the cost of basic necessities.
The GOOD Party has made affordability a central part of its election platform, calling for greater restraint in municipal spending and for tariffs to be implemented in accordance with the applicable regulatory decisions.
The City, meanwhile, has defended its tariff-setting approach and says its processes are intended to protect the integrity of municipal budgeting and the provision of electricity services.
For residents, the central questions remain practical ones: what tariffs were legally applicable, how much was actually collected, what has the litigation cost, and what would happen if a court orders a change to the existing arrangements?
Those answers will depend on the documentary evidence, the City’s detailed response and the outcome of the relevant court proceedings.
CCN Online will seek further comment from the City of Cape Town and NERSA on the R2-billion calculation, the status of the litigation, the legal costs involved and whether any refunds could arise from a final court ruling.
