Tag Archive | IEP

Gas undoubtedly on energy back burner

Energy mix on gas unresolved…..

LP gasNot one word on gas and gas exploration, gas pipelines or gas as a contributor to the integrated resources plan has passed through Parliament in nearly one year. The last word was in respect of gas, whether oceanic or land-based, was the knowledge that fracking regulations had been published, the dropping of the oil price seeming to cool off any comment and certainly statements by international investors and companies.
President Zuma has, however made passing reference to Operation Phakisa, the plan to develop South Africa’s oceanic resources but most parliamentary reference to this programme has been in reference to the recent press releases by government in the form of a long term wish to build up South Africa’s maritime ability; create an international ship register and regulate for a merchant shipping fleet.
Going back a bit
In a parliamentary question in the National Assembly last year, Mr. S J NJIKELANAa, previously chairperson of the Energy Portfolio Committee, asked for a written reply by the then Minister of Energy on how far gas exploration had progressed and what urgent state intervention was planned, particularly as far as containment of fuel prices was concerned.
The reply came from the Department of Energy (DOE) in a reply that was somewhat evasive in that it summed what everybody knows; that the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP); the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP;) and the Gas Utilisation Master Plan (GUMP) are amongst the measures which were developed to improve South Africa’s multi-source security of energy supply.
The reply at the time gave responses on the then stage of renewable energy aggregating to cumulative contribution of 17800 MW to the IRP’s final estimate of energy from all sources of 40 000 Megawatts (MW). All of this really helped nobody.

Sourcing of energy
The second contributor to the formula was nuclear power contributing a much quoted 9600MW (and now expected to be more) and hydropower at 2600 MW, with“75% of new generation capacity being derived from energy sources other than coal”, it was stated.

 DOE finally got round to GUMP, describing it as “the development of a gas pipeline infrastructure for South Africa’s needs and to connect South Africa with African countries endowed with vast natural gas resources” but at the time DOE was still recovering from the shock of splitting up from environmental affairs and could not separate gas exploration from mining exploration, in that the Department of Mineral Resources was deeply involved. A total figure for gas has not been formulated.

Another problem for DOE.

In reality, the Petroleum Agency of South Africa (PASA) is technically responsible for GUMP although gas exploration seaDOE’s hydrocarbons division seemed to have been lumped with the problem of what has been described by most authorities and energy specialists as an “exciting hope” for solving SA’s energy problems.
In the meanwhile, it has become the poor child of the energy mix, Minister Joemat-Pettersson recently explaining last week DOE’s poor performance and lack of response on the gas issue as being due to short staffing and “too many issues” on hand.

Last definition

GUMP in fact, (when Parliament was last told} would take a 30-year view of the gas industry from regulatory, economic and social perspectives and this was in the final stage of internal approval and was expected to be released for public comment during the second quarter of the 2015 financial year.
The request for IP proposals for gas-fired generation through a gas-to-power procurement programme for a combined 3 126 MW allocation was expected to be released to the market in September this year, with a bid submission phase planned for the first quarter of 2016.

It seems that South Africa’s DOE can only handle one problem at a time. First it was Eskom and electricity and then the nuclear tendering process, which is in fact a very long term solution to South Africa’s energy problem, as put by one member.

Behind closed doors

Gas exploration, as a subject in itself, benefited from a final decision (which in fact is still mostly rumour in Parliament and unreported) that the Minister Rob Davies’s solution not to acquire 20% -25% “free carry” in gas exploration “finds” seems to be the last definitive action to be taken by government on the whole question of gas exploitation and development.

Meanwhile, Minister Joemat-Pettersson, Minister of Energy, was quoted in the media (and we quote tina-joemattEngineering News specifically) as saying that nuclear power was staying at 9600MW and hydropower at 2600 MW.
The Minister added, “We have paid little attention to gas . . . We have been preoccupied with nuclear [energy].  The South Africa we [are] dealing with now is not the same [as the one we dealt with] in 2013 [when many energy-generation plans were put into play]; the scenarios have changed,” she said to the Creamer organisation.

Not on the agenda

In the remaining few weeks of the third parliamentary calendar sessions, no meetings of the parliamentary committee on energy are scheduled for this vital component of the energy mix, although the anti-fracking lobby was particularly evident at a recent energy committee meeting on the five nuclear vendor agreements.

karoo2They were particularly agitated to hear that the South Korean nuclear vendor offers included development of uranium deposits as part of their deal, such deposits known to be in the Karoo. The only movement recently therefore on gas development would seem to be in the area of Sasol development in infrastructure development locally, presumably in pipelines, and a rather “cool” statement from Shell Oil on fracking possibilities in the Karoo related the world price of oil.
The shortage of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) to meet market demand appears to be the only gas issue to coming before Parliament in the near future.
Other articles in this category or as background
Fracking, shale gas gets nearer – ParlyReportSA
Competition Commission turns to LP gas market – ParlyReportSA
Gas Utilisation Master Plan gets things going – ParlyReportSA
Oil sea gas/debate restarted by Parliament
Uncertainty in oil and gas exploration industry

Posted in Energy, Enviro,Water, Facebook and Twitter, Finance, economic, LinkedIn, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Grand Inga hydro power possible

DRC clean energy destined for SA….

drc flagOpposition members of the parliamentary energy committee expressed a certain level of cynicism regarding the Grand Inga project treaty signed recently between South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the subject of which is a multi-phased hydro power station to be built on the Congo River.

They noted that the DRC is ranked second only to Somalia as the worst country on a worldwide index of failed states    However, despite this reservation, MPs in general noted that on the whole the project had “exciting possibilities”, albeit long term ones.

These points were made during a presentation by the department of energy (DoE) on the Inga treaty recently signed by President Zuma.   Inga 1 and Inga 2 dams are already in operation, supplying low output power. The issue of a hydro power link with the DRC has been “on the table” for some fifteen years.

Congo River cusec power

The new third Inga dam, which will be by far the largest and hence the title “grand” for the whole project. The project will be approximately 250 kms from the capital Kinshasa and 50kms from Africa’s West coast, the Congo River having the second largest and strongest flow after the Amazon, mainly as a result of the dams being sited after one of the largest waterfalls in the world. However, the Congo has by no means the longest and largest drainage area.

DoE said in response to the statement that the DRC was a failed state that whilst it recognised that the DRC had been unstable for years, especially in the North Eastern Region, most of the trouble was more than 200km from the Inga site and even when the civil war at its height, there had never been any interruption of power services.

The Grand Inga project, said DOE in quoting the developers, would be able to supply some 40,000MW in clean energy when all seven phases were completed for development in Central, East and Southern Africa.

SA power line to local grid

It is foreseen that new transmission line to South Africa necessary will be associated with the first phase of the project and which would probably traverse Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana.   It is estimated that the first phase will cost some R140bn at current prices.

The meeting in question was attended by the deputy minister of energy, Thembisile Majola, and DoE represented by Ompi Aphane, DDG: policy, planning and clean energy, DoE, who indicated that the treaty provided for the establishment of an Inga Development Authority (ADEPI). There would also be a joint ministerial committee drawn from the two signatory countries and a joint and permanent technical committee to facilitate the project.

Earlier failures

The deputy minister said that the new treaty had at last put behind the failed Westcor project, involving Billiton and essentially a SADC body involving SA, Angola, Botswana, the Congo and Namibia with the DRC as lead.

In 2010, the DRC announced it was pulling out of the arrangement and would develop the Inga dam complex on its own, which move collapsed the Westcor consortium. However, despite much wasted time and effort, Aphane said a good deal of the feasibility work had been completed.

Minister Majola said that what had been learnt from Westcor was that any future proposition had to be on a win/win basis for each participant in order to avoid such a collapse.    It was now recognised that the DRC had to meet its own requirements first as a basis for any project to succeed as a consortium, the minister added.

Getting in first

An MOU with the DRC was subsequently signed on this basis in 2011 and the current treaty provides not only a potential to generate the stated 40 000 MW after its seven phases but to provide relatively cheap, clean energy at any point, of which RSA has secured rights to import 12 000MW.

Ompi Aphane explained that in return DRC have agreed to grant SA the right of first refusal (ROFR) for both equity and off-take in respect of any and all future phases of the project or any related hydro-electric development of the Congo River in and around the Inga complex.

Once RSA is “locked in” to phase one and proceeds with implementation, it is committed to take 2500 MW as an off take.

SA gets lowest terms

US$ 10m is payable by SA in terms of the treaty into an escrow account as commitment fee in terms of the ROFR.    Aphane said that SA will be charged the lowest possible tariff and no other off-taker will be able to receive better terms than SA.

He continued, “DRC are to ensure that for each phase of the project, the developer company will reserve at least 15 per cent of the available equity to SA and South African entities, public or private, and SA shall be the first to be offered such share capital.”

Aphane said the “designated delivery point” will be at Kolwezi, about 150 km from the DRC/Zambia border and SA will be responsible for the 150 km line needed.   The DRC will either provide a concession to enable SA to construct and operate that portion of the line to the Zambian border, or commit to develop it themselves.   One of the DRC’s most obvious priorities was the supply of power to Kinshasa and Zambia’s “copperbelt”.

Parliament to approve

DoE concluded their presentation by telling MPs that the treaty would be introduced to Parliament for ratification in due course and negotiations on the outstanding protocols on tariff setting also needed to be finalised.    On a critical path plan were also negotiations with transit countries and a final feasibility study on the direction that the transmission line would take.

Ompi Aphane, in responding to a number of MPs questions, said that on environmental issues, which were in article 14 of the treaty, carbon credit matters has been taken into consideration and more would be heard on this.

SA not involved in dam

On the critical issue of finance, Ompi Aphane said that MPs should realize that other than the possibility of transmission lines, SA was not involved in dam construction and the country would be paying for power on connection, plus in all probability building a transmission line to connect to the SA grid.   Consequently there were no major debt issues arising at present.

Ntsiki Mashimbye, SA’s ambassador to the DRC, was present at the meeting and commented that the Grand Inga project “was not a project in isolation, not even just about electricity, but about industrializing Africa as a whole.”

The minister concluded by commenting that the integration of the African continent was the target as well as providing clean energy sustainability for South Africa and all the benefits that would ensue, including resale to other nations.
Other articles in this category or as background
http://parlyreportsa.co.za/uncategorized/grand-inga-hydroelectric-power-getting-under-way-at-last/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za/energy/integrated-energy-plan-iep-around-corner/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za/energy/doe-talks-biofuels-and-biomass/

Posted in Electricity, Energy, Enviro,Water, Facebook and Twitter, Finance, economic, Fuel,oil,renewables, Land,Agriculture, LinkedIn, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Integrated energy plan (IEP) around the corner

IEP a few months off

Benedict MartinsAn integrated energy plan (IEP) for South Africa covering the full energy spectrum will definitely be published before the year end, according to the director general, department of energy (DOE), a fact also confirmed by minister Ben Martins when addressing an energy conference in Johannesburg recently.

Ms Nellie Magubane, when addressing the relevant portfolio committee under chair, Sisi Njikelana who had called for an update on the energy plan, was accompanied by minister Ben Martins at the time and present for his first meeting in Parliament. The minister acknowledged and highlighted the importance of unfolding the plan as part of the country’s investment credentials as soon as possible.

Continuing energy story

Whilst re-confirming that the strategy was still at public participation stage, DG Magubane said there was “no end-state tomorrow” with the plan but rather a reflection of a “phased approach as the country’s appetite for energy as it  develops”.

The process began, she said, with the 1998 White Paper, the development of independent powers system operators (ISMO) and the accompanying ISMO Bill also awaiting the production of the IEP, the National Energy Act in 2008 and regulations on resources that have followed. The IEP this year would start the energy initiative rolling to be followed by gas development plans.

Not just supply factors

In the years since apartheid, said Magubane, when energy had different directives which were focused primarily on just maintaining supply, what had changed significantly were economic, environmental and social imperatives which now were being drawn in and superimposed. “The fixation with supply capacity is not now the only criteria to be considered in the energy paradigm”, she said.

The liquid fuels shortages of 2005 and subsequent electricity disruptions in the years up to 2008, Magubane said, had shown the need for coordinated planning to avoid disparate plans and contradictory initiatives in the sectors of electricity, liquid fuels and gas.

A twenty-year road map for the liquid fuels industry was in progress by the department, she said, and a gas planning infrastructure plan was to be developed once the extent of resources were better understood.

International view

Through time, and above all because of energy security, Magubane said, scenario planning has changed in South Africa to take in security, environmental and climate response factors. In conjunction to long-term climate change policy and agreements, lessons had been learnt from the IEA, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain, she said.

When asked what had been learnt from a study tour of the USA, DG Magubane said that the primary aspect learnt there was the success of establishing localised energy resources, focusing on what mattered most to the USA and reducing dependence on imports. We learnt, for example, that we must not try a change the impossible or employ unrealistic factors but move according to what was a fact locally. “For example, South Africa has a lot of coal but little water and these factors have to be built in, not ignored.”

She said that the overseas studies where different economies and different state policies were involved, due note that the position had changed radically in South Africa had to be acknowledged, as had been the case in many of those countries.

Control of resources

“For example, government has come from a position where in SA we were determining the appropriate level of involvement with the liquid fuel levels industry during transition to a rapidly globalising picture, to now having to maintain a strategic role in shaping all key sectors of the economy.”

In response to queries from parliamentarians, she acknowledged that the IEP to be produced would not incorporate any powers to the minister, who “would rather be able to exercise any powers affecting energy matters through normal regulatory enforcement contained in the many pieces of legislation that applied to the energy sector, such as the Energy and Gas Acts.”

Pricing restructuring

On pricing issues as far as the IEP was concerned, Ms. Magubane responded to questions that national treasury figures had so far been the base of determinations but in the light that submissions and input from stakeholders which were to emerge from the process now in progress, the issue of price factors could in all probability be reshaped.

In answer to complaints that that there was still no indication from her, or DOE, where the country was going in hydrocarbons, electricity or renewables and what pricing factors were involved for urgent investment needs, the chair asked that DOE be given time to develop the final report or “everything would go in different directions”.

DG Magubane assured parliamentarians that the final plan would enable everybody to weigh up infrastructure plans with government policy, even bearing in mind that the position is constantly changing given such issues as hydro input from neighbours, gas exploration in various forms and global tensions.

previous articles on this subject
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//uncategorized/mineral-and-petroleum-development-bill-grabs-resources/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//cabinetpresidential/president-obama-and-power-africa/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//cabinetpresidential/nuclear-goes-ahead-maybe-strategic-partner/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//energy/petrosa-has-high-hopes-with-the-chinese/

Posted in Electricity, Energy, Facebook and Twitter, Finance, economic, Fuel,oil,renewables, LinkedIn, Mining, beneficiation, Public utilities, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) not crystal ball gazing, says DOE

Department reports to Parliament on energy plan.

It must be understood that the integrated energy plan (IEP) for South Africa  was going to be a “simplistic representation of a number of possible future outcomes encapsulating the state of energy demand and supply that could materialize in light of current policies and macroeconomic trends.  The IEP will not be a representation of a most likely energy future.”

So said Ms Tshidmidzi Ramendozi, chief director, energy planning, department of energy (DOE) when addressing parliamentarians of the portfolio energy committee on the state of the IEP, where the DOE had arrived at in terms of producing such a plan and when it was likely to come about.

Under questioning Ramendozi estimated a final draft in the hands of the cabinet by  the middle of 2013.

The development of an IEP was envisaged in a White Paper on Energy in 1998 and the minister in terms of the National Energy Act of 2008 was then mandated to develop and publish such an IEP on an annual basis. The purpose of the IEP was described in the Act “to provide a road map of energy policy and technology development future energy landscape in South Africa to guide future energy infrastructure investments.”

Seven test cases would be studied in the current exercise, Ramendozi said, which would indicate what could happen if particular actions were taken. She was at pains to point out that such test cases were not really scenario planning exercises, which would have allowed for outside forces or factors over which DOE or those associated with energy generation had no control.

Major factors within the ambit of the planning exercise, she said, for projections in the IEP, were the original energy White Paper; the 2010 integrated resources plan; the national development plan; the new growth plan; the national climate change response paper; the national transport master plan; South Africa’s beneficiation strategy and the proposed carbon tax policy.

Parameters governing the base assumptions were, Ramendozi said, renewable energy targets; the fuel reserve margin; the limits governing annual carbon emissions and the penalties involved.   Naturally macroeconomic factors such as banking rates, economic growth and global oil prices were involved in the assessments.

From this base, for which DOE had to make certain assumptions on GDP factors forecast in the 2012 budget, was to take a middle, moderate growth scenario out of low to high growth patterns, and assume a certain amount of skills restraints into the future.    It also had to assume global oil price projections from the Energy Information Administration and, also to be accounted for, were international projections from the annual energy outlook documents of 2012 in order to establish some sort of formula to go forward.

Assumptions for various test cases could then be undertaken, Ramendozi said, with or without the new nuclear build programme; in one case with existing nuclear structures and one without and mothballing existing structures.  Such would form the basis in test cases one and two.

Then came test cases three and four, at which point Ramendozi referred to the national development plan which had presented a number of factors which had to be borne in mind although these directly affected the integrated resources plan (IRP) and were incidental to the IEP under consideration as far as test cases were concerned.

These factors were that as a net importer of crude oil, South Africa was very much a taker in the oil market and susceptible to fluctuating prices. Also to be considered were the new fuel specifications being considered and the fact that refineries were to be re-equipped to capacitate such and that South Africa would no doubts continue on its path of intensive use of fuel-powered vehicles but improving its national transport system generally.

She noted the options in the national energy development plan, as far as liquid fuels were concerned, and these were as DOE saw it – to build a new oil-to-liquid refinery; build a new coal-to-liquid refinery; upgrade existing refineries; import more refined product or build or buy a shareholding in a new refinery in Angola or Nigeria.  All this had to be considered at this point of the running of test models.

Turning to test case three in the process, Ramendozi said this included expanding existing refineries with greenfields operations. Test case four included upgrading or expanding refineries and possibly, in addition, increasing importation of refined product, allowing for consequent upgrades of port infrastructure and associated costs such as transportation.

Test cases five and six, DOE noted, included the issue of carbon emissions, which was based around South Africa’s international commitment to reduce emissions by 34% by 20120 and 42% by 2025. Factors to be considered were the findings of the long term mitigation exercise involved at the time which had established that South Africa’s energy use emissions constituted 80% of all emissions, 40% of which, a majority on a comparative generating basis, arose from the generation of electricity.

Test case five, Ramendozi said, therefore involved the issues of refurbishing the existing “fleet” of generating plants to meet targets set by the department of environmental affairs (DEA).  This would produce a result for this test case.

However, there was little doubt that such a “retrofit plan would still leave demand outstripping the supply of electricity” so that, as per test case six, the plan to be modelled would involve  “South Africa mothballing its (coal) power plants and investing solely in new technologies as a substitute.”

Ramendozi concluded that the issue of carbon tax finally arose in test case seven. Here, the impact of carbon tax on the choice of energy technologies throughout the entire value chain had to be considered, bearing in mind the DOE was aware of a current proposal to tax emissions of CO2 @ R75 per ton of with an increase of around R200 a ton.

For this modelling exercise and still to be completed, she said, was quality checking of the data collected; the actual configuring of the base for the test cases; subsequent analysis and evaluation and then the final report writing.

Stakeholders would be consulted before a draft report was issued, the draft report being considered first by cabinet before the draft became public.

MPs commented that quite obviously things were still therefore at a very early stage and were surprised that the DOE paper at this stage gave no evaluations of each energy source and no comments on job creation or job losses or skills so far reached.   Ramendozi replied to this, and a number of other similar questions on energy resources, that parliamentarians were confusing the IRP, which dealt with resources and the effects and consequences of their use, with the purpose of the IEP.

It was not the job of the IEP to evaluate and decide upon the quality of resources and their use or not.

The IRP was very much on the subject of electricity energy, she said, to repeated and similar parliamentary questions on coal issues and the future of coal as a primary industry.  Questions on gas reticulation and exploration off the Mozambique coast and what PetroSA were planning, for example, and similar issues in the hydrocarbons area, she noted, similarly involved specific resource evaluations and this was not what the IEP was about. She said the job in hand which looked at the whole sector in a broader sense.

“For example”, Ramendozi said, “when looking at the transport master plan it becomes quite evident that whilst improving rail transport systems, a knock-on result in a broader sense would be a swing perhaps from road to rail, meaning a different call upon the rail electricity need. This would be an IRP issue, however.”

This should answer many parliamentarian’s questions, she said, why there was so little to be said in the IEP on the specific issues surrounding liquid fuels in the planning process.

The IEP was to be a road map and the process leading to building such a plan would yet have to “unpack” many of the issues surrounding energy and the economy from a macro-economic viewpoint.  Such macro-economic issues as job losses and the use or over-use of water, for example, would indeed be in the considerations for individual test case models.

“This is going to be a particularly difficult aspect of preparing the IEP”, Ramendozi said, “because it involves cross-debate with many government departments, including treasury, environmental affairs, labour, health and transport, for example, and the final document needed to be both visionary and re-active to findings and take into account policy matters that had been adopted as courses of action”.

“What the IEP will not be”, she said, “is another IRP which evaluates resources but rather a document which will consider test case models, with or without certain weightings, based on inclusivity or excluding issues, and also to incorporate known supply options with given macro-economic factors.”

She commented, in reply to questions on the effect of carbon tax, that this would indeed be a “challenge” to assess, since whilst MPs saw this as an effect on the purse of the individual, DOE’s thinking on this at this very early stage might be to take the treasury viewpoint that the effect carbon tax could be countered by incentives in the system in the form of allowances, before costs reached the individual.

On augmenting the IEP with the liquid fuels strategy, Ramendozi said, that here again DOE was more concerned with producing transportation and demand factors at this stage. She said, in a similar vein, when asked about the Mathombo project, that her department could not even talk the need for a new refinery, “until we start running the various test case models”.

On questions regarding fracking and gas exploration activities in the Karoo, Ramendozi responded, “With all the geological and logistics issues facing fracking, we are hardly even considering this contribution in terms of the time frame of the IEP. We do not see Shellgas playing an effective role in the energy picture in the immediate future as far as short term test cases are concerned”.

She told parliamentarians that one of the test cases included natural gas related to electricity needs, compared with to gas to liquid technologies. However, she said the whole exercise was not to consider one resource against another but how to complement resources into a common system.

The IEP, she said, “must take on board government policy towards the environment, attitudes toward climate change and therefore such issues and water and water resources used in coal fired plants will have to be considered.   However, social issue answers are not something that will come out of the IEP”, she told parliamentarians.

In many cases we see the final IEP highlighting many issues but not addressing their manner of implementation”, she concluded.

Ramendozi said that in terms of producing the IEP, DOE would consider a reserve fuels margin of 19% and when asked as a final question by an MP what DOE were “going to do about the elephant in the room – the growth rate”, she responded that DOE had to follow exactly what treasury were stating for growth “otherwise all other related data would not make sense”.

Chair, Sisa Njikelana, concluded by saying the IEP presentation was the final document in an “important parliamentary year on energy matters,” stating that DOE had to get the concept behind the IEP right in their minds “before it moved into the nuts and bolts of the various test case issues”.

He said that the energy committee was to put on whole host of questions in writing to DOE based on a forthcoming parliamentary summation of the situation so far on the IEP, and this would be an exercise undertaken once parliament re-assembled in the New Year.

Posted in Electricity, Energy, Finance, economic, Fuel,oil,renewables, Mining, beneficiation, Public utilities, Trade & Industry, Transport, Uncategorized0 Comments

Energy plan assumptions on nuclear build out in New Year

Stressing that the final integrated energy plan (IEP) from the department of energy (DOE) will be subject to public scrutiny and comment, energy minister Dipuo Peters, in a written reply to parliamentary questioning, confirmed that her department will shortly be producing the first set of energy modelling assumptions involving nuclear energy planning for the country and these could be out in the New Year.

DOE have told Parliament seperately, however, that the final draft of the whole IEP will not be in the cabinet’s hands before the middle of 2013, the department having now completed a full round of presentations to interested portfolio committees in Parliament on the background and preliminary work to be undertaken on the IEP.   The IEP is not to be confused with the integrated resources plan (IRP) which will specifically study the individual energy resources themselves.

There will be extensive consultation before any matter on the IEP is even tabled in cabinet for approval, the minister noted.    Demand forecasts have also been finalised for some time, she said, and last month “quality checks on the data had been carried out on the data supplied.”

The minister also indicated that the final full draft document with all test cases incorporated with a plan might not be in the hands of cabinet before mid-2013.  As such it will be in draft form to be published for stakeholder comment.

Clearly nuclear energy is deeply involved in the IEP since the cabinet, at its latest meeting in Pretoria, has now agreed to the implementation of the nuclear build programme in time its seems for the IEP report. Working models will look at various plans with and without various resources, one of the critical resources being the nuclear issue.

A strategy to involve stakeholders in regard to nuclear build is also being worked out, cabinet says.    Kgalema Motlanthe, who heads up the national nuclear energy executive coordination committee, held the first meeting of this body in August and communication has been ongoing.

Eskom has also been endorsed by the cabinet as the owner-operator in terms of the nuclear energy policy

Cabinet has now approved the second version of the draft national energy efficiency strategy, following the 1998 White Paper, published for public comment some time ago.

Posted in Cabinet,Presidential, Electricity, Energy, Finance, economic, Fuel,oil,renewables, Mining, beneficiation, Public utilities, Trade & Industry0 Comments


This website is Archival

If you want your publications as they come from Parliament please contact ParlyReportSA directly. All information on this site is posted two weeks after client alert reports sent out.

Upcoming Articles

  1. MPRDA : Shale gas developers not satisfied
  2. Environmental Bill changes EIAs
  3. Border Mangement Bill grinds through Parliament

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories

  • Anti Corruption Unit overwhelmed

    Focus on top down elements of patronage  ….editorial….As Parliament went into short recess, the Anti-Corruption Unit, the combined team made up of SARS, Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority and Justice Department, divulged […]

  • PIC comes under pressure to disclose

    Unlisted investments of PIC queried…. When asked for information on how the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) had invested its funds, Dr  Daniel Matjila, Chief Executive Officer, told parliamentarians that the most […]

  • International Arbitration Bill to replace BITs

    Arbitration Bill gets SA in line with UNCTRAL ….. The tabling of the International Arbitration Bill in Parliament will see ‘normalisation’ on a number of issues regarding arbitration between foreign companies […]

  • Parliament rattled by Sizani departure

    Closed ranks on Sizani resignation….. As South Africa struggles with the backlash of having had three finance ministers rotated in four days and news echoes around the parliamentary precinct that […]

  • Protected Disclosures Bill: employer to be involved

    New Protected Disclosures Bill ups protection…. sent to clients 21 January……The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs will shortly be debating the recently tabled Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which proposes a duty […]