EV charging station developer objects to SANRAL attempt to 'cash in' on roadside services

An electric vehicle (EV) charging station developer has formally submitted an objection to the South African National Roads Agency’s (SANRAL) proposed amendments to the policy that governs the rollout of EV charging infrastructure.

Zero Carbon Charge maintains that SANRAL's Rest and Service Facilities (RSF) Policy in its current form risks undermining private sector investment, delaying critical infrastructure rollout, and creating regulatory uncertainty at a pivotal moment in South Africa’s transition to electric mobility.

The proposed amendments would in fact affect all owners and operators of roadside businesses, including also filling stations.

Stephen Grootes interviews Joubert Roux, co-founder of Charge and its Director of Operations.

While SANRAL with good reason has control over access to our national roads, their construction and management as well as safety, what the Agency is now trying to do is almost "weaponise" this control, Roux says.

"They've said their policy is in with generating their own revenue, sweating their assets and ensuring commercial terms are fair and market-related. 'Sweating their assets' means sweating me, you and every single other road user."

"The rates they want to impose is 5-7% on all services and 2-3% on all energy sold on those sites. So it's a combined levy of up to 10% on all businsses within their 60-metre road reserve, or within 500 meters of an interchange."

SANRAL declined a request for an interview from The Money Show, saying they are waiting for a final report on theri nationwide RSF policy roadshows.

Roux maintains these roadshows were only undertaken because a court ordered a public participation process.

CHARGE’s core objections to the draft policy include:

Exceeding statutory powers:
The policy extends beyond SANRAL’s mandate under the SANRAL Act into areas such as land use planning, environmental regulation and commercial market structuring.

Regulatory overreach and legal risk:
Certain provisions may be unlawful and subject to review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

Conflict of interest:
The policy positions SANRAL as regulator, market planner and potential participant, raising competition concerns.

Investment uncertainty:
Retrospective provisions and discretionary approvals risk undermining investor confidence and delaying infrastructure development.

Competition law:
CHARGE is also concerned that SANRAL’s proposed amendments to the RSF Policy risk violating key provisions of the Competition Act.

Listen to Roux's argument in the interview audio at the top of the article