It doesn't matter if Eskom made a profit sometimes. What matters is that the Electricity Act denied it from increasing the cost of electricity and gave it an unsustainable political mandate of providing dirt-cheap electricity damned the costs or reality. Post-1994 profits were gained because there were more customers being added to the grid, and Eskom saved money by not adding on new generative capacity. Does this sound sustainable to you?
Also, are you really trusting a flawed AI model to answer a question? Look into the annual reports and financial reports as I did. You'll notice that the so-called profits were either built on irresponsible cost-cutting, subsidies listed as income, or based on the more recent overcharging of electricity.
Hi Nicholas, I think it's key to emphasize the "post-1994" reference which may be what Casper was referring to. If you consider the 1994 AFS of Eskom (with Gwede Mantashe on the Board interestingly), the financial performance demonstrated a self-funded, profitable and sustainable utility that was incurring capital investment toward increased capacity not just expanded electrification. The AFS also made it alarmingly clear where the utility was heading with commentary towards workforce transformation, supporting the national redistribution and development programme etc.
In short, although the regulatory environment (even in 1994) could make it seem that Eskom is destined to be just another drag on national fiscus, in practice it was a true going concern on a stand-alone basis.
This article is debunked on a simple google search of "did Eskom ever make a profit"
The statement of "Eskom failed to achieve even the most Kindergarten of economic rules. It failed to cover its costs." is therefore a lie !!!
It doesn't matter if Eskom made a profit sometimes. What matters is that the Electricity Act denied it from increasing the cost of electricity and gave it an unsustainable political mandate of providing dirt-cheap electricity damned the costs or reality. Post-1994 profits were gained because there were more customers being added to the grid, and Eskom saved money by not adding on new generative capacity. Does this sound sustainable to you?
Also, are you really trusting a flawed AI model to answer a question? Look into the annual reports and financial reports as I did. You'll notice that the so-called profits were either built on irresponsible cost-cutting, subsidies listed as income, or based on the more recent overcharging of electricity.
Hi Nicholas, I think it's key to emphasize the "post-1994" reference which may be what Casper was referring to. If you consider the 1994 AFS of Eskom (with Gwede Mantashe on the Board interestingly), the financial performance demonstrated a self-funded, profitable and sustainable utility that was incurring capital investment toward increased capacity not just expanded electrification. The AFS also made it alarmingly clear where the utility was heading with commentary towards workforce transformation, supporting the national redistribution and development programme etc.
In short, although the regulatory environment (even in 1994) could make it seem that Eskom is destined to be just another drag on national fiscus, in practice it was a true going concern on a stand-alone basis.