South Africa Has Electricity: So Why Are Households Still Energy-Poor?

South Africa has made substantial progress in extending electricity connections, particularly in urban areas. However, the presence of a meter on the wall does not necessarily mean that a household enjoys affordable, reliable or sufficient energy.

A new study published in the journal Sustainability examines energy use, expenditure, safety concerns and renewable-energy awareness among households in Soshanguve, a large township in Gauteng province. The researchers distributed 140 questionnaires, received 121 responses and retained 115 validated surveys. Interviews were conducted face to face with adults from both electrified and non-electrified households, helping include residents who may have lacked internet access, personal devices or digital literacy.

The results complicate the familiar story of electrification. Electricity was the most commonly used cooking source, reported by 69.6% of respondents, but it was far from the only one. LPG was used by 40.9%, paraffin by 26.1%, and firewood, straw or charcoal by 8.7%. Solar cooking was almost absent, reaching just 0.9%. Respondents could select several sources, revealing how households combine fuels rather than move cleanly from one to another.

Lighting followed the same pattern. Electricity was used by 85.2% of households, but 33% also relied on candles and 22.6% used rechargeable lights. Solar lighting reached only 4.3%. This is energy stacking: the continued use of multiple fuels and technologies for different tasks, at different times and under different financial pressures. It is often treated as a temporary stage on the path to modern energy. In reality, it can become a permanent survival strategy.

Households may use electricity when it is available, LPG when cooking needs to be faster, candles during outages and paraffin when cash is scarce. What appears inefficient from a policy perspective may be entirely rational from the perspective of a family managing unreliable supply and unpredictable expenses.

The Real Crisis Is What Energy Costs

The study focuses on the financial and safety pressures hidden behind access statistics. Nearly 44.3% of respondents reported spending R600 or more per month on household energy. Another 18.3% spent between R150 and R500, while 37.4% reported expenditure of R150 or less. The authors caution that low spending should not automatically be interpreted as affordability. It may instead reflect constrained consumption, limited access or the use of cheaper alternative fuels.

Affordability perceptions were almost evenly divided. About 43.5% of respondents disagreed that they could afford their monthly energy costs, while 40.9% agreed. More than half, 53.9%, said alternative energy sources were insufficient to meet household requirements. These numbers show why energy poverty is not simply a question of whether electricity infrastructure exists. It is also about whether families can purchase enough energy to meet basic needs without cutting spending on food, transport, education or healthcare.

The consequences are not purely financial. Nearly 47.8% of respondents believed that available energy sources negatively affected household health. A larger share, 61.8%, agreed that unsafe energy sources created a danger of house fires.

The study does not measure actual respiratory illness, indoor pollution exposure or fire incidence. Its evidence is based on household perceptions. But those perceptions matter because they reveal an uncomfortable reality: people may understand that candles, paraffin or other alternatives are dangerous and still feel unable to stop using them.

Energy insecurity thus produces a chain of trade-offs. High electricity prices encourage households to ration power. Unreliable supply pushes them towards backup fuels. Poor housing can increase heating and cooling needs. Unsafe alternatives then expose residents to fire, burns and pollution.

The chain is especially important in low-income and informal settlements, where homes may be densely spaced, constructed from flammable materials or poorly insulated. In such settings, energy policy becomes inseparable from housing, urban planning, public health and social protection.

The study also tested whether renewable-energy knowledge varied significantly by age. It did not. The reported p-value was 0.114, above the 0.05 significance threshold, while Cramér's V indicated only a weak association. The result challenges the assumption that renewable-energy communication should focus primarily on younger residents. Awareness gaps may have more to do with income, education, trust, access to information and the affordability of technology than with age itself.

South Africa's Transition Will Fail If It Stops at the Meter

South Africa's national energy transition is often discussed via large numbers: gigawatts of renewable capacity, coal plants scheduled for retirement, transmission investment and climate-finance commitments. These are essential components of reform. But they do not automatically improve household energy security.

The country's electricity system remains highly dependent on coal, which the paper places at approximately 83.5% of the national energy mix. Aging infrastructure, plant breakdowns and rising operational costs have weakened reliability. Even in Gauteng, where electrification is relatively high, access has not guaranteed affordability or security.

The risk is that South Africa could deliver a technically cleaner power system while leaving low-income households trapped in energy poverty. A transition may reduce national emissions and attract investment but still deepen inequality if tariffs rise, household technologies remain unaffordable or grid reliability improves only in wealthier areas. In that scenario, the benefits of decarbonisation would be unevenly distributed, while vulnerable households would continue bearing the costs of unsafe fuels and inadequate service.

This is the difference between an energy transition and a just energy transition. A just transition must ask who can afford the new system, who receives reliable service, who gains access to cleaner appliances and who remains dependent on candles, paraffin or biomass. It must also recognise that households do not adopt technology simply because it is available. Upfront cost, financing, maintenance, trust and compatibility with everyday routines all shape uptake.

The minimal use of solar cooking and lighting in the Soshanguve sample is instructive. South Africa has abundant solar potential, but technical potential does not equal household adoption. A rooftop system or solar appliance may still be beyond the reach of families without affordable credit, secure tenure, trusted installers or access to repair services.

Businesses and investors face both an opportunity and a warning. There is a potentially large market for decentralised solar, efficient appliances, rechargeable lighting and clean-cooking technologies. But products aimed at low-income communities will fail if business models depend on high upfront payments or assume that consumers can absorb maintenance risks.

Governments and development institutions must also avoid measuring success only through installations. A solar system that fails after two years, an appliance that households cannot afford to operate or a subsidy that excludes informal residents will add to deployment statistics without delivering lasting energy security.

From Megawatts to Daily Life: The Policy Reset

The policy response must begin by redefining the goal. The objective should not be universal connection alone, but universal access to energy that is affordable, reliable, safe and adequate for daily life. In the short term, targeted lifeline tariffs and better-designed electricity subsidies could protect basic household consumption. Support should be calibrated carefully so that it reaches vulnerable users without rewarding excessive use or creating unsustainable fiscal costs.

Reliability improvements are equally important. Reducing outages would lessen dependence on candles, rechargeable devices and other backup sources. But supply-side reform must be matched by household-level interventions, particularly in communities where residents already struggle to pay for electricity.

Housing upgrades offer another neglected route. Better insulation, ventilation and energy-efficient design can reduce the amount of electricity or fuel required for heating and cooling. Integrating energy performance into public housing and informal-settlement upgrading could lower household bills while improving comfort and safety.

Clean-cooking policy also deserves greater attention. Electricity may remain the preferred long-term option, but governments should recognise that households currently use mixed energy systems. Policies should support safe, practical transitions rather than expecting families to abandon all alternatives immediately.

For decentralised renewable energy, affordability mechanisms will be decisive. Pay-as-you-go models, concessional finance, community ownership and targeted subsidies could widen access, but only when accompanied by consumer protection, quality standards and reliable maintenance.

Community engagement must move beyond awareness campaigns that simply promote the benefits of renewable energy. Residents need clear information about cost, performance, warranties, repair services and financing obligations. Engagement should also shape programme design, not merely persuade communities to accept decisions made elsewhere.

The study sample covers only 115 households in one township, so the findings cannot represent every urban or rural community in South Africa. Household income was not collected, preventing a precise calculation of how much income respondents devoted to energy. The cross-sectional design also captures only one moment and cannot show how behaviour changes as prices, incomes or reliability shift.

Future research should compare multiple townships, collect detailed income and consumption data, and follow households over time. Researchers should also test actual interventions: subsidised solar systems, housing retrofits, clean-cooking packages or redesigned tariff structures. Measuring indoor air quality, fire incidence and gendered impacts would add further depth.