Chapter 7: Regimes and regulation
7.2. Results
7.2.4. Rules and temporal disjunctures
During periods of embeddedness in the City of CT it became evident that there are considerable temporal disjunctures and time lags between regulations and technology in relation to transitions.
These temporal disjunctures were present in almost every energy initiative the City had planned or was implementing. Figure 7.1 provides a broad outline of disjunctures between rules or technology in relation to various City energy initiatives. These were identified from observations and interviews with officials alongside an analysis of applicable regulation.
Temporal disjunctures between rules and technology take a number of forms. First, there are cases where rules attempt to regulate change in contexts where technology is not suitably mature. For instance, the Compulsory Norms and Standards (DME, 2008b) required municipalities to install ripple control devices111 (CCT, 2011k; CCT, 2013a). The Electricity Department argued that they could not comply with this because ‘reliable technologies for such a function do not currently exist’
and that a number of technical conditions112 had to be in place ‘before implementation could occur’
(Head: Green Energy. Interview 11. 04 December 2012). These top-down regulations accordingly
111 To remotely control electricity supply to non-essential loads
112 Regulator of Communications would have to ensure power line communication frequency spectrum promulgation and the Bureau of Standards would have to test the reliability of devices.
176 prematurely attempted to regulate change in an implementation landscape without mature technologies and technical pre-conditions.
Figure 7.1: Proposed energy intervention and associated regulatory disjunctures
Second, rules may dictate a particular technological patterning in implementation landscapes that lack appropriate systems or protocols. For example, the Compulsory Norms and Standards (DME, 2008b) directed municipalities to roll-out smart meters to large electricity users. According to the Electricity Department this would be problematic due to ‘an absence of appropriate open protocols that would allow smart meters to be rolled-out using equipment from multiple suppliers’ (CCT, 2013a). The associated risk of being locked into proprietary technologies is highlighted by the Head of Pricing and Regulation:
Being locked into a single supplier carries significant financial and technical risk and cannot be entertained for such critical systems. It would significantly interfere with the openness and integrity of the City’s metering infrastructure (Interview 16. 16 September 2013).
According to the CEO of GreeenCape, the challenges from these rules partly stems from the fact that conventional distribution in the City used a single meter supplier model and was designed to
•No standards for bi-directional meters. No type testing and SABS approval of bi- directional meters
Small-scale embedded generation
•No protocol or regulations for municipal power purchase agreements Renewable energy supply
•No protocol for municipal engagement with national REIPP Programme Generation from own operations
•No energy efficiency appliance standards Energy efficiency
•No protocol for planning approval of renewable installations Heritage and planning approvals
•Systems to administer time of use unreliable and no software. Data management protocols lacking
Time-of-use
•No standards and reliable devices to remotely control supply to non-essential loads Ripple control
•No open protocols or standards for smart meters Smart meters
177 allow for one-way communication (GreenCape, 2012). Smart meters, conversely, would enable two-way communication between the City and the consumer and allow for multiple suppliers to connect to the grid (CCT, 2011k). Accordingly, national regulations were not properly aligned with the evolution of technology and failed to consider risks of a particular technological patterning on the City’s electricity regime.
Third, there are many cases of regulations that required the City to roll-out novel technologies without provision for financing or capacity development. For instance, the roll-out of smart meters would place a significant financial burden on the City as it ‘would need to replace 760 000 pre- payment and credit meters at a cost of approximately a billion rand’ (CCT, 2012g). Implementation would also require significant re-training and up-skilling (CCT, 2013a). As highlighted by the Head of Green Energy:
We already suffer from capacity constraints – directions to install smart meters fail to plan or fund the needed capacity building efforts. Software for administering smart meters is unreliable and staff would struggle to operate such systems (Interview 11. 04 December 2012).
The regulations however give no provision for funding or direction on allocation of cost, resources and financial risk. The above highlights that in the City, funding, skills and management practices have developed around particular technologies, such as pre-payment and credit meter infrastructure, and institutional and investment decisions thus reinforce these technologies.
Accordingly, there is resistance to manage the roll-out of different technologies, particularly without corresponding provision of resources to support new technologies.
Four, rules may require the roll-out of technologies without accompanying standards and testing.
For instance, the Standard Conditions (NERSA, 2011a) instructed municipalities to facilitate SSEG.
According to the Electricity Department it would be necessary to roll out bi-directional meters to facilitate SSEG (CCT, 2012d). However, there is uncertainty as to whether the City can legally install bi-directional meters in terms of the Distribution Metering Code (NERSA, 2007b). The Code (NERSA, 2007b) states that municipalities can only install metering equipment once it has been ‘tested to determine if it meets supply utilities requirements and is based on international standards’.
However, according to the Electricity Department ‘there are currently no international standards or test records for bi-directional meters’ due to the novel nature of the technology (Interview 21.
16 September 2013) resulting in inertia in implementation (CCT, 2013b; CCT, 2012e; AMEU, 2011).
The above cases, in general, highlight a misalignment between rules and technology change. They indicate that rules developed by national government, including NERSA, DOE and the Department of Trade and Industry, either struggle to keep abreast with technology change or regulate change
178 prematurely. It further highlights that rules developed to facilitate change, directed at implementing agents that do not have the means or guidelines to comply, creates inertia and further resistance to change.