STEVE NICHOLLS: Public engagement in energy planning is not spoiling the broth; it’s making it richer

The presidential climate commission (PCC) released its recommendations on electricity planning in early June. These were based on a critical review of studies on energy planning in SA, (for example, by the University of Cape Town-Energy Systems Research Group, the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research and Meridian, and the business community through the National Business Initiative, Business Unity SA and the Boston Consulting Group).

The study findings were consistent with similar studies from other entities (including Eskom) and universities including Stanford, Wits and Stellenbosch. They are also aligned with strategies at utilities around the world, including utilities that have comparable grids to SA, such as the Australian Energy Market Operator. 

Taking into account the carbon constraint facing our economy, there is nothing exceptional about the recommendations made by the presidential climate commission (PCC) — on the contrary, they are realistic recommendations aligned with the economic growth we need to meet our national development objectives. All these studies show that renewable energy supported by storage and peaking support are the least-cost development options that are best for our economy. Lower electricity costs will aid small and large businesses and lower carbon intensity will enhance access to capital and markets. 

Energy economist Lungile Mashele made two key points in her article “Too many energy cooks spoil the broth” (June 21): that there is confusion about who is responsible for energy planning and the transparency and robustness of the presidential climate commission stakeholder and modelling processes is questionable. 

Energy planning

No-one can usurp the role of the mineral resources & energy department as being primarily responsible for energy planning in SA. It has an enormous responsibility to keep in touch with the latest science and take a broad set of stakeholder and expert inputs into account when planning. It should do this every two years. However, to suggest that no other entity should make recommendations and inputs about energy planning is undemocratic and out of keeping with SA’s public discourse.   

The presidential climate commission has been set up by the government to advise the president and cabinet on all aspects of a just climate transition. Commissioners represent all social partners. Given the importance of electricity to climate change, to the just transition and to development, this has been an important area of focus for the commission and its stakeholders. The recommendations on electricity planning were also made in response to mineral resources & energy minister Gwede Mantashe specifically requesting input. 

The government is not obliged to agree with the commission’s advice; in fact there would be little point to an independent body if advice did not at times differ from government policy. Nevertheless, our work is carefully researched, widely consulted and in line with international best practice and the requirements of climate change. We offer it as an input into the official process. The government is required to consider the advice given to it, even if it disagrees with some or all of it. To ignore it or dismiss it out of hand would be irresponsible. 

While we disagree on some of the specifics, the commission agrees with some of the points made by Mashele. First, it is critical that any planning is done in an inclusive and transparent way. All the analysis requires public consultation and maximum transparency. The commission and the department are looking to work together on a more technical review process of the assumptions we make and how they relate to local and international trends and data. 

Public reports

The commission has released its recommendations in three reports, all of them publicly available, which detail our analysis and the reports on which we rely. Nearly all of our meetings (excluding those where stakeholders requested closed door sessions) are recorded and available online. The commission is completely open to share all of the assumptions it makes, as well as the assumptions that are made by the studies on which it has relied. 

The modelling methodology is similar across the different entities — Eskom, the business sector, the University of Cape Town, and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research — not to mention the experts consulted during their projects and the other local and international universities that use similar top tier methodologies for energy planning.

We agree that there is some uncertainty about long-term energy security at higher levels of renewable energy grid penetration. For this reason we make a recommendation in our report to do a more detailed spatial plan that deals with grid availability, the need to invest in the grid and how we would ensure grid level security adequacy in the long term. This is a study the presidential climate commission is conceptualising and it is in discussions with the department, inviting it to join this work. 

None of the recommendations made by the commission reaches levels of penetration that risk grid level security and adequacy in the short term. Building renewables as fast as we can is the most reliable and quickest way to alleviate load-shedding and buy space to take strained coal plants off the grid to do the necessary work to increase their energy availability factor. In many senses this is where we need to focus. We need to build renewable energy at 6GW-8GW of capacity for the next two to four years and can assess assumptions and the results of ongoing studies in the next Integrated Resource Plan assessment cycle. 

Finally, as a country we cannot afford to cherry-pick the risks and policy directions we like. We need to consider all of the complexity embedded in the World Energy Council’s energy trilemma (security, equity, environmental sustainability), as well as the social issues embodied in the just transition framework.

As Mashele points out, we need to consider “GDP growth, transmission capacity, system and grid requirements, technology planning and optimisation, ancillary services, carbon policy, energy prices and expected results”. 

But this should also include climate change, water and air quality. The latest climate science, published in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth Assessment Report, requires the global decarbonisation of the power sector by the early 2040s to stay within 1.5°C of warming. To miss this target would have consequences for more extreme climate events, decreased water availability and increased food insecurity, and increased deaths and health impacts for people. Notably, these impacts are worse for the poor. 

What is needed is a public debate where all parties put their data and assumptions on the table for public review. There can be no confusion; the onus is on the department to run a participatory process to develop a technically sound electricity plan. Such a plan must consider the carbon constraint on the economy and the imperative of the just transition. 

• Nicholls is head of mitigation at the presidential climate commission.