Repair IRP 2023 – or face courtroom: Wayne Duvenage


The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) has slammed The Draft Built-in Useful resource Plan 2023 (IRP 2023) as “sloppy, inaccurate, outdated”. OUTA’s CEO Wayne Duvenage says it’s so “insufficient that it makes a mockery of the general public engagement course of”. He warns that if it isn’t torn up and redone correctly, OUTA will go to courtroom. “We want our authorities to truly begin making use of the calls for with regards to what’s in the perfect pursuits of this nation, of enterprise, of the economic system and its folks and the shoppers. They usually’re not demonstrating that. So what we imagine will occur going ahead is that if they don’t display that on this particular matter, then they are going to be hauled off to courtroom.”

Join your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to maintain you up to the mark with the content material that issues. The publication will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register right here.


Watch right here

Pay attention right here


Edited transcript of the interview ___STEADY_PAYWALL___

Chris Steyn (00:02.67)

South Africa’s draft Built-in Useful resource Plan ought to be torn up. So says Wayne Duvenhage of OUTA. Welcome Wayne.

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (00:11.278)

Hello Chris, good to be with you.

Chris Steyn (00:13.026)

What’s flawed with it?

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (00:16.75)

Effectively, firstly, it’s a vital doc. If we’re going to plan for our power safety, we’d like to take action very constructively and with assumptions that make sense and with a mannequin that may be accessed by civil society, by others who’re situation planners within the house specialists. So we will make head or tail of what their agenda is. And typically there may be an agenda…the primary one was put out in 2011, and this can be a doc that, if accomplished accurately, does assist the nation plan for its power safety properly into the longer term, since you don’t simply construct, take 10 years to construct a nuclear plant and discover out 10 years later, truly, we didn’t want this or it’s too costly. That you must be tendencies, it is advisable be doing a little…you possibly can’t actually say correct assumptions and forecasting as a result of forecasting is forecasting. However it is advisable actually apply your thoughts and put in fairly intricate and sophisticated modelling into these methods. And it goes proper right down to the place the grid is, the place it isn’t as properly. You may say, properly, that is what we’d like in power and say, however when you don’t have a grid, then it’s important to carry the grid in. And all these prices are prices that you simply and I’ve to choose up. So what’s flawed with IRP23? That is the draft one which, firstly, our frustration with the federal government, the Division of Minerals, Sources and Power, takes two years to get this doc out. The final one we did was 2019. These ought to be up to date a minimum of each two years as a result of the panorama is altering on a regular basis. And they should have public session and significant public session, not only a fast tick-box train we’ve consulted with the society.

Learn extra: Markus Jooste’s suicide got here a day after he agreed to provide himself as much as Hawks

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (02:13.39)

The final one which was accomplished, there have been street reveals. They invited folks into the room to debate, to listen to the federal government’s plan, and to reply questions. They didn’t try this correctly, not considerably this time round. And so what occurred is that they lastly bought this doc collectively after us and civil society saying, the place is the up to date IRP? Two years later, they get it out they usually give us a month to touch upon it, or it’s 5, six weeks.

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (02:41.964)

It comes out on the 4th of January, they usually say, give us your feedback someday in the midst of February. That’s unacceptable. It is a complicated doc. So once we did complain, numerous organisations and civil society, they prolonged that to, I feel, the twenty third of March, one other month. It’s nonetheless not sufficient time. Nonetheless, we’ve made the perfect of this time. We’ve bought our consultants and analysts in with us and began to unpack precisely what’s taking place right here.

And the primary doc needed to be modified a bit as a result of they’d some severe omissions, however it’s nonetheless very, very weak. The lengthy and in need of it’s that it’s lacking a variety of data that’s required. The assumptions are outdated, particularly prices pertaining to new know-how, the tendencies and pricing fashions that relate to the prices of latest renewables and battery storage are literally out of line. They’re not right with present pricing fashions and with projected pricing fashions the place all the things is pointing to those prices happening. And keep in mind, it’s necessary that the goals, one of many goals that must be met is that that is reasonably priced to South Africa. So the prices are very, crucial. You may’t simply go in and say, properly, we’re going to place in one thing like Karpowerships and maintain the nation ransom for 20 years to the liquid pure gasoline prices and the Rand alternate fee when it simply turns into unaffordable and might’t afford it as an economic system. So it is advisable apply prices, it is advisable have a look at power safety of power, and it is advisable be sure that we begin transferring into the clear power house. And what’s that demand into the longer term? And that’s the place we discovered the present doc wanting in lots of regards. It additionally doesn’t appear to have taken under consideration the non-public sector’s personal power growth. And it nonetheless contains Karpowerships, for example…It’s bought mounted gasoline costs. It’s ludicrous given the present situation is enjoying out in foreign money alternate and worldwide costs of gasoline. Up to now too many flaws within the paperwork. What we’re saying in the end is basically that is a couple of public engagement course of on a doc that’s so flawed, the belief is just not clear, not correct, an excessive amount of missing in transparency in some areas. Are you able to repair these points which we now have – and never solely ourselves, Meridian Economics, actually specialists within the house as properly, have put out an important response to the IRP 2023. Have a look at these responses, have a look at our responses and different civil society enter. Repair this request for a public remark doc now and let’s begin once more as a result of the present one is only a mess.

Chris Steyn (05:52.75)

So other than it being outdated, it additionally contained a protracted record of errors and omissions. What have been the most important errors in that doc, Wayne?

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (06:01.974)

Effectively, it’s across the prices that they’ve assigned to renewables going ahead into the longer term. It’s this notion that, you already know, the present decommissioning plan of ESKOM’s coal-powered fleet is what it’s. We imagine it must be reviewed and possibly fast-tracked within the house of declining prices in renewables and different methods to get us to our targets of low emissions rather a lot faster. So one doesn’t simply take the given plan because the given plan on decommissioning, one wants to have a look at find out how to use new know-how and quick observe a few of these plans. As I stated, Karpowerships are nonetheless there. And there’s one other factor that they put on this plan that claims, you already know, the draft  IRP continues to be subjected to coverage changes.

Now, what will we imply by that? Effectively, that is the place politics begins to intrude. Or what are we speaking about? As a result of when you’re going to be opaque or silent on what you imply by coverage changes, then how will we give enter on that? As a result of these coverage changes may give rise to a really totally different closing power plan. So we have to perceive what these coverage changes. And in order that’s one of many issues we’re additionally asking for.

After which once more, nuclear prices seem like very low when in comparison with information that is available in from different planners and specialists within the house that say that the price is just not as little as what’s made out to be within the IRP. And even below present nuclear development world wide, we’re not in opposition to nuclear in any respect. We’re in opposition to dangerous choices and expensive choices that aren’t in the perfect curiosity of…

So we have to have readability on all of those issues … .As an example, coverage modifications may say, look, we from a job creation standpoint, we’re not going to decommission. We’re going to repurpose and reinvest in coal power in sure areas of the nation. Now, after all, we’ve bought to take employment challenges under consideration, but when that’s a coverage resolution, we have to know what that’s in order that the prices of which might be factored in. The desulfurization that should occur on many of those, in truth, virtually all of our coal -fired energy stations needs to be taken under consideration as a result of it begins to affect on our worldwide commitments and different agreements that play out in the long term and their prices to these as properly. So, yeah, we’d like absolute readability on what we imply by coverage changes.

Chris Steyn (08:00.75)

So if there have been coverage modifications that might truly overrule public participation, might it not?

Learn extra: Retracing Markus Jooste’s closing footsteps to seek out solutions on why now, why there?

Chris Steyn (08:52.55)

Now, how efficient is public participation for the time being? I imply, we’ve seen on another payments that public opinion was ignored to a big extent.

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (09:12.29)

Yeah, it’s a superb query, Chris, as a result of we’ve seen this time and time once more, proper again to the ethyl days once we began public engagement fairly often with the federal government as a tick-box train. So, fairly often, and we see it on this IRP 2023, the legal guidelines and the foundations say that public engagement must be a minimal of X days, 30 days, fairly often it’s. And it doesn’t say that’s what it ought to be. It simply says a minimal of and 9 occasions out of 10 the federal government applies the minimal. Even on complicated issues like this, they apply the minimal. And when there’s an outrage, they’ll prolong it barely. This requires a minimum of three to 4 months of public engagement and significant public engagement. That’s one other factor that we wish to add in. Public engagement must be significant. That’s within the Structure. It can not simply be a tick field train. So once we bought concerned in the entire R2 matter, they’d public engagement periods across the nation. We went to plenty of these. The general public that have been invited and that have been there, have been actually there for the drinks and the snacks and to not hear what the actual points have been. Folks have been lacking, huge business gamers and folks that this R2 matter was going to affect weren’t essentially within the room at these public engagement periods. And so what we wish the federal government to start out doing much more meaningfully round public engagement, is to focus on public engagement in a approach that you simply appeal to and get the gamers, the function gamers, the stakeholders into the room and never simply say, properly, right here it’s, make your submission. We don’t typically know what number of submissions they get. And we fairly often don’t know whether or not they have utilized their minds to the problems which might be raised in these submissions from the general public and from the assorted specialists that give enter. And so it appears to us that we’re losing our time, that that is only a tick-box train and the federal government goes to say, sure, thanks to your submissions. We took discover of them and we’re going forward regardless. So we’ve made a few modifications. They don’t typically come again and say, these are the principle points that we grouped. That is how we’re going to alter this system, no matter it’s, in accordance with these considerations. We don’t get that kind of suggestions on most of, in truth, virtually all the public engagement processes with our authorities.

Chris Steyn (11:47.438)

That’s why some persons are shedding religion within the public engagement course of. They assume it’s a waste of time.

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (11:50.734)

Yeah, and we will’t lose religion. We’d relatively put stress on the federal government to alter it and to do it meaningfully. And that’s the place the rule of legislation comes into play. And we’ve seen this play out in plenty of courtroom challenges that we’ve introduced, the place we now have proven the courts that public engagement was not significant. It was a tick-box train and the judges and the courts are listening to that. And when you can display to the courts, when you problem these huge issues in courtroom, that the federal government has not been significant round its public engagement, then you definitely get beneficial courtroom rulings. And that’s why it’s necessary for us to make use of the rule of legislation to indicate the federal government that they want to do that correctly.

Chris Steyn (12:35.278)

Now, what does the plan because it at present stands, bode the way forward for electrical energy provide in South Africa?

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (12:42.35)

Effectively, because it stands now, we wish to, the deadline will probably be reached subsequent week on the IRP 2023. They are going to hopefully undergo the submissions and hopefully they’ll take cognisance of the extent of and the veracity of the complaints which might be coming at them. And we all know that as a result of we have interaction with many power specialists.

Wayne Duvenage – OUTA (13:08.268)

And we will see that there’s an enormous pushback on this IRP. So we wish the federal government to do it correctly. In the event that they go forward and forge forward and we will see that they’ve not utilized their minds to a variety of these issues, then I can guarantee you that matter will probably be challenged in courtroom. So the message to the federal government is simply take this enter critically. Let’s repair this IRP. We’re not saying we don’t want an IRP. We want a superb IRP. Let’s repair it, redo it, take account of the complaints that you simply’ve obtained and the constructive criticism, and let’s work with you as a authorities to make sure that we get the precise power wants for the way forward for this nation and at finest value to society as a result of we in the end pay for it. And in the event that they wish to rush forward and put out a request for proposals on 2 ,500 megawatts of nuclear power, earlier than we actually know if we’d like it within the IRP, then that’s the kind of behaviour that we’ve additionally bought to cease. So we’d like our authorities to truly begin making use of the calls for with regards to what’s in the perfect pursuits of this nation, of enterprise, of the economic system and its folks and the shoppers. They usually’re not demonstrating that. So what we imagine will occur going ahead is that if they don’t display that on this particular matter, then they are going to be hauled off to courtroom.

Chris Steyn (14:28.418)

Thanks. That was Wayne Duvenhage of OUTA talking to BizNews concerning the draft Built-in Useful resource Plan, which he believes ought to be torn up and redone. Thanks, Wayne. I’m Chris Steyn

Learn additionally:

Visited 4 occasions, 4 go to(s) right now



Related Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles