South Africa is in an unnecessary energy crisis because nobody wants to follow the democratic outcomes of the country’s Energy Planning.
In particular, the electricity crisis is a result of the vicious circle.
The failure is a result of not sticking to the democratically agreed Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
This can only be informed by the most updated Integrated Energy Plan (EIP). This plan in itself is a product of the White Energy Paper of 1998. The White Energy Paper reads as follows:
“South Africa is a country endowed with abundant energy resources. Fossil fuels, such as coal, uranium, liquid fuels, and gas, play a central role in the socio-economic development of our country, while simultaneously providing the necessary infrastructural economic base for the country to become an attractive host for foreign investments in the energy sector. Successful tapping of all possible energy carriers in our country is vital for sustainable economic growth and development.”
So where then is the disconnect? The disconnect resides in the difference between the EIP and IRP. The development of a National Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) was envisaged in the White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa of 1998. In terms of the National Energy Act, 2008 (Act No. 34 of 2008), the Minister of Energy is mandated to develop and publish the IEP in the Government Gazette.
The purpose of the IEP is to provide a roadmap of the future energy landscape for South Africa. And this guides future energy infrastructure investments and policy development. The IEP analyses current energy consumption trends within different sectors of the economy (such as agriculture, commerce, industry, residential and transport) and uses this to project future energy requirements, based on different scenarios.
– IEP focuses on demand for all energy forms across all the economic sectors at a high level.
– IRP focuses on a more detailed analysis of different demand growth profiles and supply-side options for electricity generation.
– Gas Utilisation Master Plan (GUMP): GUMP focuses on a more detailed analysis of different demand growth profiles and supply-side options for liquid fuels supply and the gas sub-sector in totality.
However, the current IRP is leaving behind the EIP and is discriminatory against coal and nuclear technologies. This seems to be done on purpose because it fails to explain why leading economies overseas are embracing both coal and nuclear, while South Africa is not. This appears to be the secret.
Once both coal and nuclear are successfully left out of the IRP, it opens up opportunities for the vicious attack in electricity technologies that favour state-based interventions in electricity generation and provision which promote energy democracy.
As evidence we unveil the results of a democratic process that was overseen by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee prior to the gazetting of the current IRP 2019-2030 that is now under review for possibly emerging as an IRP 2023-2035.
The democratic process made 14 recommendations in regard of 2019-2030, and these recommendations were preceded by public consultations. The road map consisted of two elements of expediting the finalisation of the IRP 2018 within the current financial year to restore public confidence and promote policy certainty in the energy sector, and review of the IRP every two years. To this end an immediate study should be conducted to better inform the review of the IRP. Fourteen recommendations were made but for brevity we focus on the first five.
First, the Department of Mineral Resources' lack of transparency around theenergy model deployed for the IRP is problematic.
Second, those behind the work at the Department of Mineral Resources refuse to be known and challenged, and this leaves the energy model deployed for the IRP as a grand suspect of state capture.
Third, given the uncertainty in future demand, technologies and innovation, the committee recommends that any IRP should be flexible enough to respond to these uncertainties. Again, this was never done. Otherwise, Eskom would not be challenged in prioritising coal, gas and nuclear power to accommodate the uncertainties.
Fourth, direct the department to conduct a thorough socio-economic impact assessment of various energy mix scenarios in preparation for the review of the IRP by 2020. The public and communities affected by this have never seen that study, let alone being consulted and their consensus being sought.
Fifth, hold a national dialogue on the Just Energy Transition during the current financial year. This should particularly focus on communities that are going to be affected by the transition from the use of fossil fuels.
The Green lobby groups hijacked this Parliamentary Portfolio Committee mandate. Eskom went ahead to close coal power stations to make way for the Renewable Energy privately- owned Independent Power Producers.
Hlathi Zak Madela is an executive director of the South African Energy Forum (SAEF). He is a Chemical Engineer Graduate from Wits University with 25 Years Work Experience in the Energy Industry.
BUSINESS REPORT