IRP

PC Energy: Committee Report on draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2018): briefing


Committee Report on draft Integrated Resource Plan: briefing on first draft
Energy <pmg.org.za/committee/3/>
06 November 2018
Chairperson: Mr F Majola (ANC)
Share this page:
Meeting Summary
*Committee Report on draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2018) public hearings – available once adopted*
The Committee Report contained views and comments from all the public input received during the consultation process on the draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2018). The Chairperson emphasised that this was a first draft for consideration by the Committee. Attendees at the meeting included the Centre for Environmental Rights, SA Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute, Project 90×2030, PetroSA and the Department of Energy, as well as the media.
The Committee Secretary commented on the public participation process the Committee followed, noting that 41 written submissions were received and of these, 38 requested to make oral submissions as well. This was done during October 2018.
The Committee Researcher gave an overview of the views expressed in the public submissions.
Some of the initial recommendations included in the draft report were: • demand forecast had to be revisited and that it had to include socio-economic impacts • policy direction was required beyond 2030
• a national dialogue was needed on a Just Energy Transition • the public participation process had to be more transparent • the price of electricity was too costly for some South Africans • the risk of gas imports had to be addressed • more work was needed on hydro from Inga and the two new coal power stations. What would the impacts be if these were not implemented. • the IRP had to be dynamic with more frequent updates and incorporate the latest technological advances.
Due to time constraints, discussion on the report was postponed to the following week. The Chairperson said that some of aspects in the draft IRP were not easy, but Members could make their input, including written submissions, so that divergent views could be accommodated in the IRP – for example, coal or no coal and what to do with nuclear. The time has arrived for the IRP to be finalised and although it was impossible to get 100% consensus, the Committee had to work hard to get alignment on important aspects.
Meeting report
The Chairperson emphasised that this was a first draft for consideration by the Committee and it contained views and comments from all the public input received during the consultation process. He asked Members to assess the draft report prior to its adoption as the Committee Report on the Draft IRP for sending to the National Assembly. Members may wish to add more specific and definitive views to the report. The Committee had to apply its mind to important aspects specifically those where there was no consensus.
Other attendees at the meeting were the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), SA Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute (SAFCEI), Project 90×2030, members from PetroSA and the Department of Energy, as well as the media.
Committee Report on draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2018) – first draft briefing The Committee Secretary, Mr Arico Kotze, commented on the public participation process the Committee followed, noting that 41 written submissions were received; of which 38 requested to make oral submissions. The hearings were held during October 2018.
The Committee Researcher, Mr Sivuyile Maboda, provided the following key comments in respect of theviews expressed at the public hearings: *Coal* – there was strong opposition to the inclusion of the 1000MW of coal power stations. The main reason advanced for this was based on environmental grounds (continued harmful emissions) and also on constitutional grounds for the validity of its inclusion. *Grand Inga* – the majority of the views was not in favour of including hydro power from Inga. It was not justifiable and did not include any analytical or sound basis for its inclusion. It was felt that the DRC-SA treaty was not sufficient for its inclusion and all argued for its removal from the draft IRP. *Renewables *- this was welcomed by the majority of stakeholders but there was a concern on the constraints placed on the renewable energy (RE) programme build. This had to be removed so that RE could operate in an unconstrained footing. There were some views that the plan was biased towards RE (at the expense of other options like coal) and that RE was problematic in that it was intermittent and could not provide large base load power. *Wind Energy* – stakeholders expressed a concern around the gap in the procurement process and its negative impact on wind energy plans. The three year procurement gap was not supported and there was a recommendation that the roll out of wind energy and other sources like PV had to be fast-tracked *CSP (Concentrated Solar Power)* – stakeholders felt that this was not adequately addressed in the draft IRP and requested that the Department include it more definitively in the draft IRP. The modelling on CSP had to be redone. *Embedded Energy (own use)* – commentators felt that the 1000MW was inadequate and that this had to be increased to 5000MW. SALGA was concerned that own use energy could negatively affect the distribution facilities of municipalities. *Energy Storage* – stakeholders were concerned about the lack of adequate allocations for energy storage in the draft IRP. The grouping of it with the 2000MW allowed for embedded generation was not supported. The recommendation was that the draft IRP had to include specific allocations for energy storage. *Nuclear *- the majority of stakeholders welcomed the delayed decision on nuclear until after 2030 and said that even beyond 2030, nuclear was too expensive and that the country could not afford it. Some views however argued for its inclusion as a clean source of energy. *Gas* – while there was no significant opposition to gas in the draft IRP, there were some stakeholders who were concerned about the negative impacts of fracking and were not supportive of gas derived from this source. A further concern was that the draft IRP was not clear on the source of gas used in the plan. More work was need on the Gas Master Plan to provide direction. *Fuel Cells* – stakeholders were concerned that no specific allocation was made for fuel cells in the draft IRP and asked that it be included. *Technology costing* – the majority of views were critical of the cost data used in the draft IRP. It did not include all or adequate least cost data. In addition, the socio-economic impacts had not been properly modelled and that all relevant externalities had to be included. *Demand Projections* – there were divergent views on demand projections used in the draft IRP. Some felt the projections were too low and would not meet the growing energy needs of the country, whist others felt that the projections were too high and unachievable. Generally, it was felt that demand projections were inflated and not realistic. *Balanced Approach* – some stakeholders asked for a balanced approach (not just wind and solar) but other sources of energy *Just Energy Transition* – there was a need to incorporate the current views on climate change in the draft IRP to include a low carbon approach. This had to include saving and creating jobs and the draft IRP had to include specific plans to re-skill workers affected by the low carbon plan. *Policy and Process *- there were concerns that the DOE still needed to do more work on aspects of the plan. There was also a concern that plan was not forward looking enough (lacked “ambition”). The Department had to provide some policy direction beyond 2030. *Public Consultation* – concern was expressed that the DOE did not consult adequately with all stakeholders *Eskom *- some stakeholders felt that the draft IRP did not adequately address the situation at Eskom, especially the impact on the organisation when decommissioning power stations.
Some of the initial recommendations included in the draft report were: • demand forecast had to be revisited and that it had to include socio-economic impacts • policy direction was required beyond 2030
• a national dialogue was needed on a Just Energy Transition • the public participation process had to be more transparent • the price of electricity was too costly for some South Africans • the risk of gas imports had to be addressed • more work was needed on hydro from Inga and the two new coal power stations. What would the impacts be if these were not implemented. • the IRP had to be dynamic with more frequent updates and incorporate the latest technological advances.
*Discussion * The Chairperson asked if Members had any initial views on the draft report. He asked if Members wanted more detailed recommendations or if the current high level views in the report were adequate. Members had to interrogate the report in depth so that all important matters were raised and included in the Committee’s final report to the National Assembly (NA).
Ms Z Faku (ANC) proposed that the report not be discussed but that Members study the report and discuss it the following week.
Mr J Esterhuizen (IFP) said he was happy to wait until the following week, but wanted to raise a few points. The IRP had had to be reviewed every two years. He asked how the jobs created in the RE options were arrived at. He was concerned about coal – as this employed a significant number of workers and closure of coal fired power stations would lead to more economic hardship. He asked why the new coal fired power station that the Chinese wanted to build in Limpopo was not included in the draft IRP. He was critical of the inclusion of the Grand Inga hydro in the plan. There was no clear gas policy in the draft IRP. On least cost, some of the data in the plan had to revised, for example, nuclear offered one of the most reliable energy options for the country.
Ms T Mahambehlala (ANC) agreed with Ms Faku that the Committee should discuss the report the following week. She said some views raised in the public hearings were nor reflected adequately in the initial report – for example, she did not agree with the views expressed on coal as there were some stakeholders that did not agree on its exclusion or lesser role in the plan.
Mr M. Dlamini (EFF) was in agreement that more time was needed to adequately discuss the Committee Report on the draft IRP. He had a concern that the Committee could not just leave some actions flowing from the IRP in the control of Ministers as often the execution was not adequate.
The Chairperson commented that ways had to be found to ensure that recommendations made by the Committee (and Parliament) were followed through. He agreed that this aspect and others had to be assessed when the Committee finalised its report the following week. Some matters in the draft IRP were not easy, but Members could make their input, including written submissions, so that divergent views could be accommodated in the plan, for example, coal or no coal, what to do with nuclear. The time had arrived for the IRP to be finalised and although it was impossible to get 100% consensus, the Committee had to work hard to get alignment on important aspects.
The meetings was adjourned.

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com