AS THE government prepares to champion the cause of developing nations at Copenhagen, what is the track record at home that can be trumpeted as an example of good climate mitigation practice? Sadly, the answer is a dismal one.
Although there was excitement when the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) published the Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs (Refit) to give impetus to a vibrant renewable-energy industry in SA, the programme has stalled at its inception due to the absence of all the other links in the chain needed to commercialise renewable energy. This is because of conflict over the control of the process. In the meantime, SA is losing out in the fields of job creation, sustainable development, a reduced burden on Eskom, climate mitigation and an industry that is one of the fastest growing in the world. For Africa in particular, drought, food shortages and conflict over scarce resources must be addressed as part of the climate change debate.
Before the methods of producing energy change from the old world of coal and oil to the use of sun, wind, water, biogas or biomass, there must be:
n A champion, and high-profile role models to lead the way;
n Co-ordination of the activities of stakeholders in the process; and
n An enabling environment so individuals and municipalities can do the right thing.
Everyone benefits when we steer away from the wasteful use of natural resources, inefficient use of dirty energy sources and centralised provision of energy by one utility towards energy efficiency, renewable energy and decentralised energy provision from multiple sources.
The government has taken initiatives and adopted laws, but these fall within the of so many government departments that there is paralysis due to bureaucratic procedures or competing agendas. Energy provision is linked to the departments of energy, trade and industry, environment, finance, public enterprises, science and technology, not to mention Eskom and Nersa. It is difficult to find out who manages which initiatives, and entities hold conflicting views about the same thing.
The government’s agenda with regard to energy remains unclear. In the mix of coal, nuclear and renewable, how much will be produced from which sources? An updated integrated resource plan — the framework within which energy planning is done — was supposed to be approved recently. The document leaked about four weeks ago shows a business-as-usual approach — renewable energy will supply a mere 700MW of electricity to reach the measly target of 10000 GWh by 2013. Of this, 40% will come from solar water geysers and 60% from electricity. So far, less than 5% of this target has been reached. So, not only is our current performance dismal but the integrated resource plan, drafted by energy planners at Eskom, aims at little better. Even the best scenario offered therein would not meet 50% of the long-term climate mitigation strategy target agreed to by the Cabinet.
Waiting in the wings to be installed is 4000MW of wind and, to be developed, the concentrated solar power industry. In spite of having the best climate in the world, excellent research capacity and investors wanting in, there is no champion for this technology. The Department of Energy seems convinced that only coal and nuclear stations have the capacity to provide base-load power. But much of it could come from combining multiple renewable sources of wind, solar thermal, hydro, biomass, landfill gas, biogas digesters and biodiesel from cellulose, or from hybrid solutions. These would also reduce the waste pouring into rivers, the agricultural waste burnt into the atmosphere, and the tons of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere. Tons of biomass produced here are being exported because we have no policy for its viable use.
All of Africa could be linked through varying renewable energy resources, using mainly concentrated solar power in the north and south, hydro in the centre and a hybrid mix of other types of renewable energy as a versatile and flexible back up.
Through the launch of a solar water heating programme last month, Energy Minister Dipuo Peters signalled a beginning to that part of the renewables strategy. But the Refit introduced by Nersa will be of no value until a viable power-purchase agreement that balances liability between Eskom and independent power producers is introduced. There is no buyer’s office with financial capacity yet established to back the setting up of power- purchase agreements. The electricity grid, also under Eskom’s control, is not in a good state to absorb the electricity that could come from addition renewable energy sources. The exact mechanism whereby power producers will be selected to feed their energy into the grid has not yet been defined.
Hence, we are stalled on the road that was intended to reach the 10000GWh target. The paralysis is partly due to government departments handling energy operating in silos. It is often blamed on Eskom, referred to as the elephant in the room, making change difficult, if not impossible. But what is Eskom? The government is the sole shareholder. Eskom is both a public company and a parastatal and therefore has double accountability through the common law and the Public Finance Management Act. Yet the figures on which Eskom bases its plans, which are the basis for the SA’s energy and climate future, are not accessible to the public for review.
Eskom sets the agenda for the energy mix of the country without input from Parliament. But there is serious doubt that Eskom’s agenda is the right one for SA.
The solutions lie in an energy champion, possibly Parliament, adopting a Green Energy Act. It would deal with Refits, solar water heating, access to and control of the grid and provide an overarching framework for the development of a strong renewable energy industry. The private members bill (Refit and Renewable Energy Bill) drafted by me this year and supported by all parties, could form the basis of a wider Green Energy Act.
The Act should also:
n Provide a national framework for obligatory introduction of solar water geysers or heat pumps at local level;
n Require the South African Bureau of Standards to urgently alter national building codes to cater to best environmental practices wherever possible, including to allow for municipal solar water by laws;
n Guide municipalities in a process to purchase electricity made from bio-mass and to feed it into the grid;
n Initiate a process for repair and expansion of the grid, possibly locating it within an entity other than Eskom; and
n Require the adoption of rules governing reverse metering of photovoltaic power into the grid, with technical features that make this safe.
A working group or advisory panel could be appointed to bring representatives from ministries involved in renewable energy out of their silos, to bring energy planners out of hiding and to incorporate some nongovernmental organisations, business representatives, academics and international financiers. A special commission or committee should be set up to investigate Eskom’s power purchase programme, to renegotiate contracts with the 45 intensive energy users and to make Eskom answerable to the government and taxpayers, rather than the other way round.
By now, talk shops and flagship projects should be a source of embarrassment. We all share one earth. Each of us has one life. Everything is interconnected. Our actions have a ripple effect that affects the entire globe. Today’s talking is futile if it does not lead to decisive action tomorrow.
n Dr Rabinowitz is the director of MamaEarth and the southern African co- ordinator for the World Alliance for Decentralised Energy.
Eskom sets the agenda for the energy mix ... but there is serious doubt that Eskom’s agenda is the right one for SA