To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.

POLICY & REGULATION South Africa’s IRP planning loses its lustre When South Africa launched its first integrated resource plan (IRP) in 2010 it was greeted with a good level of enthusiasm in many parts of the power sector; its successor in 2013 less so. T here are a number of reasons for this. Certain sectors are seen to be losers in the updated draft IRP of 2013, such as wind, which has had its allocations reduced in face of complaints from opponents of this technology, and more significantly the increasing price competitiveness of solar photovoltaic technology. Many of the power generation technology options have seen their scale reduced, including the potential nuclear build programme, based on projections of lower electricity demand over the 20 year IRP period. The pricing assumptions made by the IRP draft update for nuclear energy have been labelled as flawed. Other reasons for a lack of enthusiasm include real concerns over the underestimation by the update of future electricity demand based on current usage figures and developed world trends towards private distributed power. There are fears this fails to take into account the shortage of power in sub-Saharan Africa and existing supressed demand in South Africa, as well as the desired future industrialisation of the country and region. The IRP update also focuses on a list of technology choices and generation options, but pays less attention to equally important transmission and distribution system requirements. Another major problem with the IRP process in general is that instead of being a modelling and planning tool it has become prescriptive and is being used to enforce state control, as had been feared and warned against, and the attempts to cover different scenarios fail to hide that. However, perhaps the overarching reason the latest IRP update fails to draw much enthusiasm is summed up by the refreshingly outspoken chairman of the South African Independent Power Producers Association (Sappia), Doug Kuni. “Does the IRP reflect reality?” he asks, implying he believes that is ESI AFRICA ISSUE 1 2014 anything but the case. Kuni worked on the first IRP in 2009, and half a decade later the country faces a similar scenario to what it did then. It is a scenario of power emergency notices by Eskom to cut usage, as the utility struggles with a fragile system, open cycle gas turbines running well beyond just emergency peaking demand, and the lights being kept on barely but at the economy’s expense. Kuni points to the assumption that Medupi and Kusile are accepted as will happen. As he is a former generation manager at Eskom Generation, it is worth noting what he says. He points out that the first unit of Medupi was supposed to be commissioned in June 2011, though he said if it made June 2013 it would be lucky. “The moment Eskom appointed itself as project manager was a fatal move. The 9,600 MW of Medupi and Kusile will be a fifth of the country’s total capacity, but we have been waiting for new capacity since 2008.” Kuni, who has executed a number of power generation projects, says in reference to Medupi that one cannot start commissioning a unit until the boiler protection system is in place and working, and Siemens recently replaced Alstom at Medupi in providing the boiler protection system. He says Siemens will mitigate risk on all interfaces before it gives a date to say when the system will be working and ready. “So when will the first Medupi unit be commissioned? No one knows. Construction sites are difficult places. Cables get stolen from running units let alone on such sites. When you press the buttons to commission the plant, only then will you find out what is missing. It is unrealistic to see Medupi and Kusile being promised by plans that give certain dates. It suggests those who are putting together such plans are doing so on a wing and a prayer. The risks associated with commissioning this unit and having it at commercial load are large.” Sappia chairman Doug Kuni (right) together with Eustace Davie who heads the energy policy unit of the Free Market Foundation. 45