The consultation process on proposed amendments to SA’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) has drawn strong objections from environmental lobby groups, which say it has been rushed and lacks transparency.
The department of electricity & energy has tried to allay these concerns, stating that the document still has a long way to go before it is finalised.
Apparent radical amendments to the IRP, SA’s long-term strategy for electricity generation, sparked heated debate among stakeholders last week.
A revised draft IRP was released on Tuesday, even though the department of mineral resources & energy only finished stakeholder consultations on Saturday. Cabinet approval is expected in March.
The revised draft IRP introduces a scenario in which coal plants’ lifespans are extended from 50 to 60 years, delaying decommissioning to deal with energy supply “cliffs”.
This essentially doubles down on SA’s coal reliance, flying in the face of international decarbonisation trends and SA’s own climate commitments, such as achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It raises serious questions about alignment with SA’s nationally determined contributions (NDCs), a revised version of which must be submitted next year in terms of the Paris Agreement.
It goes against the draft IRP 2023, which acknowledged that delaying coal decommissioning worsens environmental and health harms and undermines decarbonisation efforts.
Brandon Abdinor, climate advocacy lawyer at the Centre for Environmental Rights, said the organisation had “significant concerns around what so far appears to be a truncated public participation process”.
“What’s been presented is significantly different from the draft IRP ... that was released at the beginning of this year, and it sounds like there’s going to be further engagement on technical issues, which means it’s likely to change even further.”
Neither Business Day nor the environmental stakeholders have had access to the actual revised draft. However, a slide show of what is being referred to as the IRP 2024 highlights significant differences compared with the draft IRP.
Tsakane Khambane, spokesperson for the ministry of electricity & energy, said that the document causing the controversy “is merely a draft technical report”, saying the final draft, including its scenarios, would undergo further policy adjustments to “ensure alignment with our policy priorities”.
‘Reserve judgment’
After a stakeholder meeting last week, Liz McDaid of environmental NGO The Green Connection said: “I think we should be cautiously optimistic with this IRP... I would still maintain that it’s great to see the graphs (in the slide show), but graphs and pretty pictures are only as good as the evidence we see, so ‘I’d reserve judgment until we see the full report, even if it’s a draft.”
Khambane explained to Business Day that the coal plant lifespan extension to 60 years was only a scenario “to enable conversations on implications. The scenario seeks to explore the merits and demerits of 60-year life without making any commitments. An emission trajectory and a total system cost that accounts for externalities is given as part of the exploration”.
The IRP presentation assumes a sharp improvement in Eskom’s coal fleet energy availability factor (EAF), from 54% to 66%-72% by 2025. This optimistic assumption underpins plans to reduce dependence on renewables and manage energy shortages. However, it is unclear whether there is evidence to back this projection.
Khambane said that “the year-to-date EAF as of November 26 is 63%” and also highlighted the achievement of “more than 200 load-shedding-free days,” stating that Eskom’s generation recovery plan remains on track to meet its goals, “with no significant risks identified”.
In the IRP 2024 presentation wind energy sees a big increase compared with the IRP 2023, with 76.4GW allocated by 2050. However, solar PV’s role remains modest at just 24.3GW, despite falling costs and the potential to unlock new opportunities. This could lead to missed opportunities for quick deployment and cost reductions in solar energy.
However, Khambane said: “A sensitivity with more aggressive learning rates was studied to assess whether the hybrid combination would be feasible.
“This was not the case and one of the explanations is that the profile is best served by wind, based on how close their levelised costs compare at the same capacity factor.
“One of the changes in the assumption is the cost of wind technology that reduced compared to the draft IRP 2023. Further, wind has a higher correlation to the load profile than a combination of solar and battery,” Khambane said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.