Latest news with #IntegratedResourcePlan
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Election Day for Georgia's Public Service Commission: Who's on ballot for primary
Two of the five seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission will be up for election this November. But before that, a crowded field of candidates are competing in Tuesday's primary election for a chance to appear on the November ballot. The commission of energy regulators reviews proposals from electric companies such as Georgia Power. These proposals outline how much the company plans to charge customers for electricity and where the company will get its energy — whether from solar, natural gas, coal, batteries, hydropower, or other sources. Every three years, the commission also holds hearings on Georgia Power's Integrated Resource Plan, gathering public comments and expert testimony, along with handling other responsibilities. This year, five challengers have lined up to run against two Republican incumbents: Tim Echols of District 2 and Fitz Johnson of District 3. The long-awaited race for the Georgia PSC begins with a crowded list of candidates. In District 3, three Democrats, Keisha Waites, Peter Hubbard and Robert Jones, are competing in the primary for a chance to contend with Johnson in November. Daniel Blackman, a former EPA Region 4 administrator and previous PSC candidate, was also running in this district but was disqualified after a judge ruled he did not provide enough evidence that he lived in District 3 for at least 12 months, as required by commission rules. Johnson was nominated for the seat by Gov. Brian Kemp in 2021. He laid out his priorities when it comes to being a commissioner in an interview with McClatchy earlier this year. 'Our mission here is safety, reliability, reasonable cost … with those three things in mind, then we can start to look at how clean energy is,' Johnson said. Waites is a former three-term state representative who served District 60 in Clayton and Fulton counties from 2012 to 2017. She led efforts on anti-bullying and HIV testing, and authored a bill to provide tuition assistance to children of fallen law enforcement officers. She also served on the Atlanta City Council beginning in 2021 and resigned in March 2024 to run for Fulton County Clerk. Waites' campaign focuses on renewable energy and goals to reduce Georgia Power's dependence on coal and natural gas. Hubbard is well-experienced in the energy sector, working as a consultant for over a decade, specializing in electricity and gas modeling, integrated resource planning, and advising utilities and executives on energy strategies. Currently, he develops solar and energy storage projects across the country. Hubbard's campaign centers on lowering electric bills, expanding reliable clean energy, and holding the Public Service Commission accountable to consumers rather than utility companies. He argues that the PSC has prioritized investor profits over the interests of Georgia families for too long and pledges to fight for ratepayers and more affordable, cleaner energy options. He also has been critical of the PSC's lack of transparency, the influence of utility company campaign contributions and what he sees as the commission's reactive approach to utility proposals. Hubbard wants the PSC to be proactive, seek out better solutions for Georgia's energy future, and ensure ratepayers have a stronger voice in decisions that affect their bills and the state's energy mix, according to his website. Hubbard previously ran for Georgia House District 90 in 2022, losing to Saira Draper, who has endorsed him in this race. Robert Jones wanted to run for the Public Service Commission in 2022 and again in 2024 against Tricia Pridemore, but both elections were canceled due to lawsuits. Jones has a background in utility and communication regulation, having worked as a senior regulatory analyst for electricity companies in Oakland and Seattle, and for AT&T (now Lumen Technologies). Jones, a Georgia Power customer and eight-year DeKalb County resident, says the commission has not been 'innovating or adapting to energy policies that society needs' over the last four to five years. Jones' campaign focuses on expanding rooftop and community solar energy, addressing community impacts of datacenters, limiting price increases and reducing green house gas emissions, among other things, according to his website. In District 2, Republican Lee Muns has filed to run against Echols. Alicia Johnson is unopposed in the Democratic primary and will be the nominee in November. Echols, who hasn't faced an election since 2016 — a five-year term that became nine years due to a Voting Rights Act case — will face Alicia Johnson in November if he defeats fellow Republican Lee Muns in the primary. Muns, a project manager from Columbia County and lifelong Augusta-area resident, has a background in power plant construction and is a strong supporter of nuclear energy. Muns said he will fight for Georgia families, protect ratepayers and push for smart, sustainable energy solutions and prioritize consumers, economic growth and job creation. Muns is committed to ensuring Georgians receive safe, reliable, and fairly priced services, according to his website. He prioritizes accountability and transparency from the Commission. He supports moving from statewide to district-based elections to give all regions a stronger voice. Muns pledges to freeze utility rate increases until there is full transparency from utility companies and advocates for commissioners to have access to complete data on the lifespans and costs of all current and proposed power plants. He is also committed to reducing utility disconnections, investigating Plant Vogtle cost overruns, and making comprehensive data on Georgia's energy system publicly available.. Echols told McClatchy that under his leadership, Georgia is moving aggressively toward a cleaner energy grid. He said he helped create a net metering program in 2019, allowing customers with rooftop solar panels to earn credits for extra energy they produce. This solar incentive program was removed in 2022 by the PSC. Echols said his biggest concerns for the future are potential increases in electricity bills in 2025 and 2026. Residents looking to vote on Election Day who aren't sure of where to go can find their registration information and their polling place on the secretary of state's website.
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
The R440bn private transmission gamble that could finally end load shedding
Government fast-tracks private sector participation in grid infrastructure while the national transmission company prepares for a competitive electricity market by April 2026. South Africa's electricity salvation is called the Independent Transmission Projects (ITP) Programme – a joint venture between Kgosientsho Ramokgopa's Department of Electricity and Energy and Enoch Godongwana's National Treasury – and it's racing the clock to unlock billions in private investment and build the 14,000km of new transmission lines needed to connect renewable energy projects and end the country's electricity crisis. Speaking to the parliamentary committee on electricity and energy last week, Minister of Electricity and Energy Ramokgopa painted a picture of a country on the cusp of an energy revolution, but one that required unprecedented national rewiring coordination between government, the private sector and state-owned entities to succeed. Ramokgopa knows the stakes. It was his Integrated Resource Plan that estimated a desperate need of more than 14,000km of new transmission lines and 170 transformers over the next decade – requiring a minimum of the N1 road length from Joburg to Cape Town's worth of new lines annually – South Africa's current grid expansion pace is 'wholly inadequate', according to government briefings. Private sector rush The appetite for private sector involvement is clear. Between December 2024 and February 2025, the government conducted a request for information that received more than 130 formal responses from local and international developers, financiers, operators and equipment manufacturers. More than 44% of local participants indicated they intended to partner with international entities, suggesting the scale of investment required exceeds domestic capacity alone. The feedback was instructive: the industry reported a need for stable regulatory frameworks and a programmatic roll-out for pipeline predictability, while also flagging permitting, right-of-way acquisition and supply chain constraints as key risks requiring proactive mitigation. The government listened. First came the ministerial determination, gazetted on 28 March 2025, designating the Department of Electricity and Energy as the procurer and the National Transmission Company South Africa (NTCSA) as the buyer under Transmission Services Agreements. The determination defines Phase 1 scope as 1,164km of 400kV transmission lines across the Northern Cape, North-West and Gauteng. Expropriation trump card Next came the Draft Electricity Transmission Regulations, on 3 April, with public consultation closing on 22 May. The IPP Office will run the Phase 1 procurement, with pre-qualification tenders expected by end-July and requests for proposals by November. A persistent obstacle that the NTCSA inherited from Eskom is the complexities of securing land for its transmission lines. Ramokgopa confirmed that expropriation with compensation would be used 'as a final instrument' after exhausting other engagement options. For ITP projects, the government aims for 'late-stage tender' – resolving land acquisition, environmental impact assessments and statutory authorisations before developers take over execution, de-risking projects for private investors. Some discussions have stretched over four years without resolution, but the NTCSA says it is committed to meticulously adhering to proper procedures to mitigate the risk of litigation as it navigates these challenging negotiations. The R440bn funding puzzle The Transmission Development Plan requires R440-billion over the next decade. Ramokgopa was blunt about the funding reality: 'The sovereign balance sheet cannot provide a blanket sovereign guarantee for this investment, nor are Eskom's or NTCSA's balance sheets strong enough alone.' The government's solution is a 'bespoke financing instrument' backed by a Credit Guarantee Vehicle (CGV) developed with the World Bank. The CGV will be incorporated as a private non-life insurance company in South Africa and is expected to become operational in 2026. For the first five years, R155-billion will be spent on transmission infrastructure, with R30-billion expected from third-party debt by 2028. NTCSA's board has increased its five-year budget by about R40-billion to R130-billion, with 76% allocated for network expansion. A R219-billion provision from Budget 3.0 (part of the R1.03-trillion medium-term expenditure framework) was noted for strengthening the electricity supply network, from generation to transmission and distribution. Supply chain nationalism Ramokgopa pointed to the government's intention to build local industries on the back of energy investments rather than 'exporting opportunities'. The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition is coordinating interventions to ensure local production of Class 4 transformers and steel. The progress is evident: 22 factories have been accredited for various transformer classes, while five of six identified steel tower suppliers have been certified. Eskom announced a panel of transformer suppliers in June 2024 to address demand for 101 large transformers over the next decade. Racing against time With the competitive electricity market targeted for April 2026 and the Credit Guarantee Vehicle becoming operational the same year, timelines are tight. The NTCSA is simultaneously developing market codes, managing infrastructure roll-outs and preparing for its role as market operator once the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act is passed. The South African Wholesale Electricity Market School will launch at Wits Business School to build market participant capabilities, while synchronous condensers are planned to strengthen grid stability as renewable penetration increases. That said, for the first time in years, South Africa has a comprehensive plan, committed funding mechanisms and private sector interest to transform its electricity system. Whether it can execute fast enough to meet the 2026 competitive market deadline – and finally end load shedding – remains the R440-billion question. DM
IOL News
08-06-2025
- Business
- IOL News
South Africa's Independent Transmission Projects Programme: Key progress and future plans
Wind turbines lined up at Rietkloof Wind Farm. According to the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2019) and Eskom's Transmission Development Plan (TDP 2024–2033), over 14 000 km of new transmission lines are required within the next decade to accommodate an additional 53 GW of generation capacity. South Africa's Department of Electricity and Energy (DEE) and National Treasury have announced significant strides in the Independent Transmission Projects (ITP) Programme, a public-private partnership aimed at revolutionising the nation's transmission infrastructure. The initiative seeks to unlock billions in investment, accelerate economic growth, and support the country's energy transition by modernizing its overstretched power grid. According to the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2019) and Eskom's Transmission Development Plan (TDP 2024–2033), over 14 000 km of new transmission lines are required within the next decade to accommodate an additional 53 GW of generation capacity. With the current grid expansion lagging at an inadequate pace, the government aims to construct at least 1 400 km of lines annually to ensure energy security and economic stability. "Government is acting deliberately, and decisively to partner with the private sector to assist the National Transmission Company of South Africa (NTCSA) to accelerate the rollout of the transmission infrastructure to enable economic growth and the addition of the renewable energy capacity," DEE and Treasury said in a statement on Friday. They said the government has made notable progress since the programme's inception. A global market sounding exercise conducted between December 2024 and February 2025 garnered over 130 responses from local and international developers, financiers, and manufacturers. Key findings highlighted strong interest in partnerships, with 44% of local respondents planning collaborations with global entities. Stakeholders agreed there was a need for a stable regulatory environment and a predictable project pipeline to ensure investment and supply chain readiness. "Risks identified included permitting, Right of Way, and supply chain constraints, which will be proactively mitigated through upfront government measures, drawing on global best practice," they said. On March 28, 2025, a landmark Ministerial Determination was gazetted, designating the DEE as the procurer and the NTCSA as the buyer under Transmission Services Agreements (TSAs). The determination outlined a 1 164 km project scope of 400kV transmission lines across the Northern Cape, North-West, and Gauteng, with procurement adhering to fair and competitive tendering processes. Further advancing the programme, draft Electricity Transmission Regulations were gazetted for public comment on April 3, 2025. These regulations establish transparent cost recovery mechanisms, defined regulatory approval processes, and enforceable project implementation frameworks to ensure the programme's bankability. Following the close of public consultations on May 22, 2025, the DEE is finalising the regulations for promulgation, DEE and Treasury said. Structured Procurement Timeline The Independent Power Producer (IPP) Office, leveraging its proven expertise in energy procurement, will oversee the ITP's Phase 1 tender process. A pre-qualification tender (Request for Qualification) is set for July to shortlist capable bidders, followed by a Request for Proposals by November. "These timelines provide developers with sufficient lead time for due diligence and consortium formation, ensuring a robust and credible procurement process," they said. Innovative Financing Solutions To bridge South Africa's infrastructure funding gap, the government, in collaboration with the World Bank, is developing a Credit Guarantee Vehicle (CGV). Operating as a licensed non-life insurance company, the CGV aims to mobilize private capital and support the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) decarbonisation goals. "A draft Information Memorandum (formal offer via private placement of shares in the CGV) which provide granular details on how the CGV 4 of 4 will operate has been developed and will be shared with our development partners. Following the sharing of the Information Memorandum, the team will in July 2025 engage in one-on-one discussion with the identified development partners who expressed interest in participating in phase one of the CGV. It is envisaged that the CGV will become operational in 2026," the statement said. Looking ahead, the government reaffirms that a programmatic, multi-phase ITP rollout will follow the Phase 1 tender, ensuring a clear pipeline of future bid windows to: • Stimulate industrialisation, support local manufacturing, and build domestic technical capability. • Enable continuous improvement in procurement design and risk allocation. • Foster market depth, investor confidence, and price discovery. BUSINESS REPORT
Mail & Guardian
26-05-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
The skills needed for a just energy transition can't be an afterthought
Preparing the workforce for a just energy transition requires a fundamental rethink of how education and training are approached. Photo:As South Africa marks Energy Month, we will once again hear the familiar refrains: load-shedding persists, investment is needed and policy certainty remains elusive. This year's Integrated Resource Plan, with its multiple scenarios and unclear direction, has added further uncertainty — both about our energy future and how we prepare for it. Yet amid the policy and planning debates, one question gets asked too narrowly, if at all: Are we truly preparing our people — all of them — for this transition? Even asking, 'What skills do we need for a just energy transition?' might be the wrong starting point. The speed of technological change, shaped by the fourth industrial revolution and a shifting global economy, means that the skills themselves are constantly evolving. The real question we must grapple with is: 'Are our education and training systems flexible and future-ready enough to respond to this transformation?' The just energy transition is not just about new technologies or job creation in green sectors. It is a structural transformation of our economy, society and everyday life — and that means skills development must be just as broad and integrated. We need skills and training not only for those who will work directly in renewable energy, electric vehicles and green hydrogen. We need to empower the average citizen to understand what these transitions mean for their daily lives, for the energy choices they make, for how their household budgets shift, for how communities organise around new infrastructure or adapt to new risks. The just transition is not something happening to people — it must happen with them. South Africa has taken promising steps in this direction. Among other examples, the Just Energy Transition Skills for Employment Programme (JET SEP) is helping align training with demand in emerging sectors. The AWEaP Skills Development Programme is building leadership capacity among women in the energy sector. Proposed skills development zones will focus on priority areas like renewables, electric mobility and green hydrogen value chains. These initiatives matter — but they are not yet enough. Preparing the workforce for a just energy transition requires a fundamental rethink of how education and training are approached. Training programmes should respond to the actual demands of emerging industries, rather than rely on outdated content. Local context must shape learning — what works in one community may not work in another. Inclusivity is essential — women, youth, people with disabilities and historically disadvantaged groups must have equal access to opportunities. No single institution or sector can drive this change alone; collaboration between government, business, academia and civil society is essential. And, finally, planning must become more forward-looking, anticipating future skills needs instead of reacting to shortages after they arise. Across the globe, the link between youth empowerment and the energy transition is gaining traction. The EU, for example, has South Africa must follow suit. Our youth are not just future workers in green industries — they are future homeowners, policymakers, voters and innovators. If we don't equip them now with the knowledge, tools and agency to shape a just energy transition, we risk designing a future that excludes the very people who will inherit it. South Africa's Yet, we cannot stop at acknowledging the need — we must deliver on it. A whole-of-society approach means embedding just transition thinking not only into technical training for new green industries, but also into schools, universities, public discourse and local government planning. The transition cannot be something only understood by experts — it must be lived and shaped by everyone. While we speak of education, inclusion and local empowerment, our national energy planning tells a more complicated story. The recently released Integrated Resource Plan 2025, though broader in scenario design, introduces uncertainty about which path South Africa will actually follow. It misses an opportunity to connect technical energy planning with the human and educational dimensions of a just transition. Without clear explanations of how 'best-cost' options weigh long-term risks — or how central planning aligns with the surge in private-sector and off-grid investment — we risk misaligning our training efforts with the realities of the energy market. As a result, universities, technical institutions, and other training providers, are left in a reactive position, trying to prepare graduates for an energy future even the government itself seems unsure about. This disconnect is not sustainable. Against this backdrop, my recent awarding of the SARChI Chair on Just Energy Transition at the University of Pretoria — in collaboration with RWTH Aachen University in Germany — marks a timely opportunity to rethink how education supports the transition. This initiative opens a new phase in advancing interdisciplinary teaching, research and engagement that responds directly to the complexity of South Africa's energy challenges. The focus is on breaking down silos, integrating diverse fields of expertise and fostering collaboration with communities and policymakers. While this is an important step, it represents only one part of the broader, systemic effort required across the country. The skills required for a just transition are more than only learning to code or operate a new machine. They involve systems thinking, adaptive planning, social dialogue and the capacity to navigate complexity and uncertainty — at all levels of society. If we treat skills development as an afterthought, something to retrofit once policy decisions are made, we risk deepening inequality and leaving too many people behind. The transition will not be just by default. It must be built — person by person, institution by institution. Energy Month and Youth Month should not merely be for reporting on progress. They should be a national checkpoint — are we building the human capabilities needed for the energy future we claim to want? Professor Roula Inglesi-Lotz heads the Energy Economics Research Unit and is the DSI-NRF Bilateral SARChI-Chair in Just Energy Transition, University of Pretoria.
Daily Maverick
08-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Nuclear and gas ‘forced in' SA's draft updated electricity masterplan
South Africa's draft Integrated Resource Plan 2024 (IRP) is 'deeply flawed' in both process and outcome, according to a panel of independent energy economists, climate policy specialists and engineers. A group of eminent South African technical experts have roundly criticised the draft Integrated Resource Plan 2024 (IRP) – the country's electricity blueprint for the future – as being flawed in both process and outcome, with at least one expert saying that nuclear energy and gas were 'forced in' despite there being no techno-economic rationale for their inclusion. These extra costs could be 'socialised' and filter through to taxpayers and electricity tariffs. The Electricity Regulation Act defines the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) as 'an indicative, forward-looking plan [established by the national sphere of government to give effect to] for electricity generation, which reflects national policy on electricity planning, which plan specifies the types of energy sources and technologies from which electricity may be generated and indicates the amount of electricity that is to be generated from each of such sources or technologies.' The current draft of the IRP is being discussed at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) before Cabinet considers a final version later this year. Subesh Pillay, acting director-general of the Ministry of Electricity and Energy, gave the opening address at a webinar focused on policy and planning considerations for energy and electricity in South Africa in the years to 2050. He said conversations around the IRP were happening as the country was at an inflexion point from an energy perspective. Pillay said past energy debates were framed by scarcity and load-shedding, but improved generation performance now allowed 'long-term thinking' and 'evidence-based planning'. However, other attendees would later suggest that the document best exemplifying this long-term thinking – the IRP – was anything but a display of 'evidence-based planning'. Dr Grové Steyn is MD at Meridian Economics. He specialises in infrastructure regulation, policy and restructuring. He said executive policy-making was bound by the constitutional principle of legality, which essentially required a minimum level of rationality and that least-cost power-system planning mattered greatly – tariffs were likely to increase as old Eskom coal plants were retired. 'Securing a reliable supply at the lowest possible economic and environmental cost is one of the most critical challenges in supporting our long-term development. This challenge is immensely complex and requires rigorous analysis.' A credible IRP, Steyn said, was one where, in terms of process, 'outcomes must follow logically from the results of proper analysis, outcomes have to be evidence-based, it should be grounded in sound, transparent and well-documented techno-economic analysis.' The IRP should also be consistent with other policy frameworks such as South Africa's climate commitments, local air quality regulations and broader socioeconomic goals. Based on these considerations and others, he described the draft IRP as deeply flawed. Integrated Resource Plan 2024 by Ethan van Diemen on Scribd Nuclear 'forced in' 'So the IRP, as in earlier years, develops essentially a 'modelled optimised reference case'. In this case, this includes the existing committed public procurement projects and also the private sector plans that are very far advanced,' said Steyn. He noted that the optimiser's 'emerging technology mix' pointed only to wind, solar PV, gas and storage, with no new nuclear, coal or pumped storage in the least-cost case. 'The modelled scenarios using the actual optimiser in the model does not build nuclear so the IRP modellers wanted to have a nuclear scenario and I presume the policy makers – the government – wanted that investigated and the only way they could do that was essentially to take away the other generation options that [were] available to the model to build the power system to meet demand.' He said modellers disabled new gas options after 2030, in effect, forcing the model to 'build nuclear.'. 'That is how the nuclear scenario was built. So the nuclear case is not an outcome of the model's optimisation, it's a forced-in scenario.' Gaps in the data Steyn highlighted more flaws he said undermined the credibility of the IRP. 'It's astonishing that the document does not show data on the technology capacity, energy mix costs or emissions for the modelled scenarios or the actual proposed balanced plan. Technically, of course, this means that it does not qualify as an IRP in terms of the legal definition.' 'It's not clear to us how Nedlac can participate in a meaningful consultation process if this information is simply not in the document.' 'The assumptions about nuclear technology are overly optimistic… The analysis does not test compliance or alignment with other policies, whether it is our net-zero emissions objectives or our local air quality objectives, etc, no information is available on how we meet those requirements.' 'The key concern here is that the proposed balanced plan is not logically derived from the underlying analysis presented in the IRP document. The conclusions and the plan are not the result of the analysis presented in the IRP document,' Steyn said. The IRP creates an illusion of science-based planning when its recommendations do not follow the evidence, Steyn argues. 'We have an IRP that neither went through a meaningful public consultation process nor benefited from review by independent experts, an IRP that contains lots of technical descriptions of our power system modelling, but does not adequately investigate the most critical uncertainties affecting future outcomes, an IRP that presents recommendations that do not follow logically from the analysis or are not otherwise substantiated or for which the technical and cost implications are not presented and, in fact, creates an illusion that the recommendations are based on scientific and economic principles when they are clearly not.' 'The technologies that are uneconomically forced into the plan, especially gas and nuclear, will actually rely on public procurement with limited competition, where risks and costs of these investments will be socialised,' Steyn warned. 'Unfortunately, as we all know, South Africa's recent empirical experience with these types of projects provides stark warnings about the enormous risk for cost overruns, opportunities for rent-seeking and even corruption.' Lebogang Mulaisi, executive manager responsible for policy and research at the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC), questioned whether short notice for stakeholder meetings constituted 'meaningful consultation', noting no public record of how inputs changed the document had been made available to her. Policy-based evidence-making Professor Harald Winkler with the Policy Research in International Services and Manufacturing (Prism) unit in the School of Economics at the University of Cape Town (UCT) summarised the views of others and shared his thoughts about the draft plan. 'I don't think the current draft of the IRP meets the standards of a good IRP in terms of its outcome, and in terms of process.' 'The fundamental approach should be one of evidence-based policy making based on clearly stated data and assumptions,' said Winkler. Winkler, whose research includes equitable transitions away from fossil fuels and low-emission development strategies, continued, 'It's remarkably clear that this is not a least-cost plan, but even more in terms of process, the balanced plan is not logically derived from the underlying analysis. 'It's more like an exercise in policy-based evidence-making… which is the opposite of what we need, which means policy determines outcome.' 'It must be the other way around, policy must be evidence-based, plans must be based on strong evidence, and I think that was not the case.' Chris Yelland, managing director at EE Business Intelligence, said, 'The current draft IRP currently before Nedlac is deeply flawed both in terms of process and in terms of substance. In terms of collaboration, in terms of consultation and the way it's been put together, I think it's deeply lacking.' 'I take heart from one thing… We're moving from a time of prescriptive IRPs into a time of indicative IRPs because, ultimately, Eskom and government don't have the balance sheet to finance this, it relies on external finance and government and National Treasury do not have the appetite to give government guarantees, and therefore everything hinges upon the business case of the different proposals. 'It's easy to put something in an IRP like 10,000 megawatts of new nuclear power that was in IRP 2010 that never happened, and we're moving to a stage where if it does not make business sense, it will not fly. And because it will have to fly without government guarantees, and external investment will insist on a business case that makes sense for their investment… I just don't see some of the ideas put in the IRP as flying.' 'They'll be in there, but they will not happen. So, in a way, the situation is moving to a stage where it just has to make sense as opposed to being ideologically driven,' said Yelland. 'It worries me when a Minister of Energy and Electricity says long before the finalisation of the IRP that 'there will be significantly new nuclear and gas in the IRP' because it presents an ideological position as opposed to a rational position one has taken after doing a socio- and techno-economic study like the IRP should be.' DM
