EE-News
News and announcements from EE Publishers  Issue 221, June 2013
EE-News masthead
 
Opinion

First power from Medupi by end 2013 increasingly unlikely
by Chris Yelland, investigative editor, EE Publishers

17 June 2013

Despite repeated assurances by Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba and Eskom CEO Brian Dames, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that power from Medupi, South Africa's first new base-load power station in 25 years, will be delivered into the national grid by the end of 2013... (more)

Medupi

Already more than two years late, Eskom has blamed the absence of a funding plan, geological conditions, its major contractors Hitachi and Alstom, labour unrest by the construction site workforce, and even its former construction execution partner Parsons Brinckerhoff Power, but never itself, for the construction delays at the 4800 MW coal-fired dry-cooled power station.
 
The bottom line, however, is that Medupi should have had 2400 MW of commercial power on stream by now, and the base-load power capacity shortage resulting from the delays is throttling economic growth in South Africa and weakening the Rand.
 
Ultimately, however, with Medupi not being a turn-key project, and the utility instead placing all major contracts directly, Eskom inevitably takes on the overall role and responsibility for coordinating, managing and commissioning the project itself.
 
A R125-billion engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) project of this size, with about 40 main contractors, hundreds of subcontractors and some 17000 workers on the construction site, is fraught with financial, contractual, labour, safety, technical, completion time and performance risks, and requires extremely close project management and attention at all levels.
 
In April 2013, Eskom's publicly announced that it had serious problems with its control and instrumentation contractor, Alstom. By late 2012, the boiler protection and the balance-of-plant software had failed acceptance tests in France three times, threatening first power from Medupi by end 2013, and in March 2013 Eskom called in Alstom's performance bond.
 
Asked last week whether the software has since passed the acceptance tests, Alstom would only say: "We confirm that tests are ongoing at this time, and we are closely collaborating with Eskom", and: "Alstom remains committed to delivering on the Medupi project on time".
 
However, Eskom advised that the software is still not to specification. Although the balance-of-plant software failed again last week, Eskom says the defects are fixable on-site. Acceptance tests on the more critical boiler protection software have been delayed, but will start on 17 June 2013, and will take a further three weeks to complete. Eskom says there will be no compromise on safety.
 
Eskom's problems with Hitachi Africa, a company 70% owned by Hitachi Europe and 25% by the ruling African National Congress party in South Africa via its investment wing, Chancellor House, and contracted to build the twelve 800 MW coal-fired boilers at Eskom's Medupi and Kusile power stations, have also been widely reported.
 
In early 2013, Eskom gave notice to Hitachi of its failure to meet various performance guarantees relating to boiler tube welding quality and procedures, and placed the company on terms to rectify the matter, failing which it would call in Hitachi's performance bond. According to Eskom, Hitachi subsequently did not comply with the notice, and on 12 February 2013 Eskom demanded payment of the performance bond for the Medupi boiler contract.
 
However, the next day, Hitachi obtained a court interdict suspending payment of the bond. It is believed that Hitachi claimed that labour unrest at Medupi, which resulted in a 10-week closure of the construction site by Eskom this year, had impacted adversely on its ability to timeously rectify the welding problems that had arisen.
 
Eskom immediately applied for leave to appeal, which was granted. But then on 21 February 2013, before the appeal was heard, Eskom and Hitachi reached an out-of-court agreement extending the performance date to 31 May 2013.
 
Asked whether it had since met its performance guarantees by 31 May 2013, and if not, whether it would now forfeit its performance bond or further oppose Eskom, Hitachi advised: "Unfortunately we cannot provide the information requested at this time". But Hitachi did confirm that: "All our remaining work can be done within the given time-frame, however our remaining risk is related to further industrial action". Eskom, on the other hand, has indicated that it wrote to Hitachi on 31 May 2013, and is currently evaluating Hitachi's response.
 
In the meantime, Eskom's finance director, Paul O'Flaherty, has moved to take control of site construction activities at Medupi, while Eskom has been working to stabilise labour relations on site.
 
After initially insisting that the site labour issues were not its problem but matters between its contractors and their own labour, Eskom appears to have belatedly come to the realisation that, whether it likes it or not, in its own and the national interest, it had to intervene to ensure consistent and acceptable treatment for all workers on the Medupi and Kusile sites.
 
On 12 June 2013, Eskom announced it was party to a new site-specific labour agreement, along with organised labour and the contractors who employ most of the labour, replacing the old project labour agreements. "Eskom is taking a much more active role in the labour relations on our project sites", says Paul O'Flaherty.
 
But while Eskom is putting in serious efforts to mitigate the problems of site labour unrest and the known issues posed by the boiler and control and instrumentation contracts, it is the grey areas and interface conflicts between contracts, and the problems that that will inevitably arise as commissioning of the first unit at Medupi commences, that may pose the greatest risks of all to electricity from Medupi by year-end.
 
Opinion
ICASA's "Cost to Communicate" programme -
Is this the way to go?

by Hans van de Groenendaal, features editor, EE Publishers
 
17 June 2013
 
Last week the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) released details of its "Cost to Communicate" programme, which seeks to review regulations that impact on the cost of communications in South Africa, such as the call termination regulations and the local loop unbundling framework... (more)
 
Presenting the programme to the media, ICASA's Pieter Grootes said that the programme stems from concerns raised by various parties, including government, about the high cost to communicate. He said that the call to reduce communication costs is echoed in various platforms, including the minister of communication's recent budget speech where Minister Dina Pule announced the intention to issue a policy directive on transparent pricing of services such as sms, voice and data, to ensure market pricing transparency for the benefit of customers.
 
ICASA says it will ensure implementation of open-access principles enshrined in the Electronic Communication Act (ECA), one of the ECA's objectives being to promote and facilitate the development of interoperability and interconnected electronic networks. ICASA will enforce the provisions of Chapter 8 of the ECA regulating facilities leasing regulations, and ensure effective and efficient utilisation of local loop infrastructure.
 
While no one will object to reduction in the cost to communicate, the question must be asked: Is this ICASA's role? If we are in a competitive market economy, then surely market forces should come into play, with no unduly restrictive pricing regulations?
 
Grootes said the goals of the programme are to:
  • stimulate public debate around the cost to communicate in South Africa
  • establish regulatory needs to address concerns regarding the cost to communicate in South Africa
  • stimulate and enhance competition in the telecommunications sector
Looking at some statistics, when it comes to mobile tariffs South Africa's prices are amongst the highest - 23rd from the top out of 140 countries, and 4th from the top out of 34 African countries - clearly not a good position.
 
The programme started on 14 June 2013 with a request for information, and is to be followed by a series of consultations which will lead to the release of draft regulations for public comment on 10 December 2013. ICASA says it will publish the final regulations on 14 April 2014.
 
But is it more regulations and price controls that we want? When Seacom announced its submarine cable project landing on South Africa's east coast, the then minister of communications wanted to regulate the industry so that government could control interconnect costs, which at the time they considered to be too high and controlled by monopolies. After a lot of noise it did not happen - instead the market responded with several new cable initiatives which resulted in connection prices tumbling down.
 
In other parts of the world, market forces have brought down the cost of communication, but in South Africa this cannot happen until ICASA sorts out spectrum allocations. Until that happens, telcos cannot compete on level playing fields to build efficient, high-speed networks. When that happens, the cost to communicate will look after itself as competitive market forces take over.
 
While regulations are necessary, they must facilitate market growth without too much bureaucracy. ICASA must be able to play its independent role without ministerial interference. Over the past few years every new minister of communications has changed policy directions, with the result that we have a communications department that seems paralysed, and an independent regulator that is far from independent. In successful economies, market forces take care of what our government has been unsuccessfully attempting to do for years.
 
At its briefing, ICASA argued that both consumers and mobile operators have benefited from the reduction in the mobile termination rates, which saw an increase in termination minutes and revenue. "Because the rates were substantially reduced, customer's made more calls", said Grootes.
 
I am sure he was saying: "You see, regulations work to bring down the cost". But I would ask whether market forces and competition could have done the same, if not more, had there been no regulation of the termination rates.
 
Or do the operators collude and fix prices?
 
In this issue...
Opinion: First power from Medupi by end 2013 increasingly unlikely
Opinion: ICASA's "Cost to Communicate" programme - Is this the way to go?


EE Publishers apps July 2012
Get the latest EE journals free-of-charge:
(Tablet and PC editions)
energize_e-zine_june_2013
  
  
(Tablet and PC editions)
EngineerIT June 2013
  
  
(Tablet and PC editions)
Is Chernobyl Dead

Brian Rowell Book