By Blessing Manale
On the eve of the Easter weekend, the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) submitted our initial comments on the Draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to President Cyril Ramaphosa for consideration by the government, as well in his capacity as chairperson of the Commission.
Our basis of departure is that electricity planning embodied by the IRP is of critical importance to economic development in South Africa with aspects such as energy accessibility and affordability. The IRP is central to energy security.
The introduction of long-term 2050 scenarios allows a far better analysis of climate compatible energy futures. These scenarios demonstrate that extending coal plant and new clean coal are not the least cost options. These recommendations are a product of consultations and reflective of the middle ground of the views of many South African experts and stakeholders.
Modelling approach and assumptions
The two-horizon approach, which considers energy planning until 2030 and beyond is welcome despite stakeholder concerns about the lack of transparency and sufficient information in the modelling inputs used. Specifically, regarding data sets, assumptions, lack of learning curves and costs in the IRP.
As it is known that South Africans remain equally concerned about the mooted extension or new built nuclear power station's lifespan with a call for openness on costs and the safety and toxic waste implications of extending the life of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station.
Additionally, the draft IRP includes extensive power generation from base load fossil gas and relies on “clean coal”, thus contradicting the recommendations of benchmark studies. These studies typically recommend for a rapid transition towards more renewable and greener forms of energy generation such as wind and solar photovoltaic (PV), that are least cost, environmentally sustainable and can be quicker to implement if there is grid availability.
Energy security and energy equity
The projected time frame of 2028 for addressing the electricity crisis was deemed unacceptable by all stakeholders as this will exacerbate the triple challenges of poverty inequality and unemployment. A call was made by all stakeholders for the IRP to integrate energy options that will provide energy security even in the short term.
Electricity affordability was also highlighted as a key concern, both for the end-users, especially the poor and for businesses and the private sector at large.
Our response on the IRP builds on our April 2023 Electricity recommendations.
Prior to the IRP’s re-release for further public consultation and consideration at Nedlac, the PCC recommends the following:
– Further analysis of other scenarios is required to make final decisions about a desired short- or long-term energy mix. A scenario to 2030 that more aggressively addresses load shedding is needed in the context of different electricity demand forecasts, including demand scenarios aligned with the National Development Plan.
– More detail on the proposed energy mix impact on cost relative to least cost options needs to be published. The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy needs to widen the breadth and duration of their consultations.
– A review of the extent of the cost and emissions differences between the IRP2023 and the PCC review of benchmark studies needs to be undertaken. The lack of learning curves in the models, fixing 2021 costs for technologies that are evolving over the period of the study, disadvantages technologies whose prices are rapidly lowering – in particular solar PV and storage.
– A detailed review of air quality and its impacts on technology choices is needed. There is a lack of comprehensive analysis in the IRP on the health impacts associated with different energy generation technologies. As it stands the IRP will be subject to legal action.
Blessing Manale is the head of Communication and Outreach, Presidential Climate Committee
BUSINESS REPORT