In 2020 Minister Mantashe submitted a determination under section 34 of the Electricity Regulation Act to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) calling for the procurement of 2500MW of new nuclear generation capacity. After a public consultation process, NERSA issued a ‘conditional concurrence’, specifying three suspensive conditions. The main one of these was that the Minister had yet to demonstrate that such a procurement would be ‘rational’. The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) then submitted a response to these conditions to NERSA in July 2023 but controversially did not release that response to the public. The DMRE then announced it had received full concurrence from NERSA and was proceeding with the procurement process.

Many civil society organisations and academic groups maintain that there is no rational basis for a nuclear procurement, which is a possible explanation for the attempt by the DMRE and Mantashe to proceed without public scrutiny. Two organisations, SAFCEI and Earthlife Africa launched a court challenge which demanded that the reasons for lifting the suspensive conditions should also be subject to public comment.

In addition, the national Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) last updated in 2019, was due for an update, and announcements had been made that it would be released in the near future. It was clearly irrational to proceed with a commitment to a decade-long process of a nuclear build when a new IRP would be issued within months.

Enter Minister Ramokgopa

This hot mess was inherited by Minister Ramokgopa, who was appointed when the energy portfolio was taken away from Mantashe and given to a new Ministry, headed by Ramokgopa. Mantashe has a long history of losing court battles despite appealing High Court rulings, such as the Shell case and the unlawful dismissal of Peter Becker from the National Nuclear Regulator. Facing an almost certain court defeat, Ramokgopa announced on 16 August 2024 that he was withdrawing Mantashe’s determination. This was clearly a slap in the face of Mantashe, and also demonstrated Ramokgopa’s confidence in his new position. 

Ramokgopa repeated his emphatic commitment to transparency and admitted that the lack of transparency had been a major flaw in nuclear power processes in the country in the past, once again a bit of an implied swipe at Mantashe.

Comments on the announcement

“The Minister made the correct decision and really he had no choice,” said Koeberg Alert Alliance spokesperson, Lydia Petersen. “It was ridiculous to allow public comment on the initial application to NERSA but to allow the rationality of a new nuclear build to be justified by Minister Manatashe’s department in secret.” she said.

“All objective academic studies by academic groups such as the Energy Systems Research Group at UCT show that nuclear has no place in a system delivering least cost, reliable electricity in South Africa,” said former director of the NNR, Peter Becker

Hilton Trolllip, Research Associate at Energy Systems Research Group at the University of Cape Town said: “In all of the independent modelling done which asks the question what makes sense to put onto the grid for a least cost energy system that provides reliable power, nuclear never comes up. It just doesn’t.” 

Trollip’s view is that a very powerful nuclear lobby is responsible for ‘dodgy statements’ about nuclear power to keep it alive. “I am almost sure… that when the new IRP comes out, it will show that nuclear is techo-economically irrational,” he said. 

“Ramokgopa is under intense political pressure and it is a pity that this charade of being committed to nuclear procurement has to be prolonged,” continued Becker. “It is wasting a significant amount of money on a process which will inevitably end with a decision not to procure a nuclear power plant for economic reasons,” he said.

“He’s merely applying stalling tactics,” according to Petersen. “It is also irresponsible to even consider more nuclear power when there is still no plan for disposing of the high level waste that has already accumulated at Koeberg.”

The delay will allow public input on the updated IRP. “With each delay, the case for not having nuclear in a future energy mix becomes more clear; in fact, the tipping point, based purely on economics, happened about ten years ago,” said prominent South Africa energy analyst, Clyde Mallinson.  

The withdrawal of the determination was also welcomed by Liz McDaid of The Green Connection who believes issuing the determination was premature in the first place. “Successful court action by the green connection and SAFCEI ensured that an integrated energy plan (IEP) be put in place by March 2025,” said McDaid. “Such an overarching energy plan should include meaningful public participation in deciding our energy choices for the future. Only after that should we look at a new IRP which would determine if nuclear is an appropriate technology which South Africa should invest in for electricity generation,” she said.

Nuclear and cost overruns

In democratic countries, nuclear projects consistently take three times or more the planned cost and time to implement such as has occurred at Vogtle in the USA and Olkiluoto in Finland where costs escalated from €3 billion to €11 billion. Becker points to the cost overruns at Koeberg and claims that Eskom is lying about the expenditure being incurred on the refurbishing of the plant. “Eskom refuses to reveal the actual projected total cost of refurbishment of Koeberg, deceiving the media when asked by using phrases like ‘The budgeted cost is R21bn…’ and ‘It has been stated by Eskom that to date it has cost around R21bn… ‘. Minister Ramokgopa’s commitment to transparency is admirable and now he needs to apply that to Koeberg.”

SAFCEI and Earthlife Africa issued a statement welcoming the decision and added: “We uphold that transparency in government decision-making is a cornerstone of our democracy.”

Koeberg, the only operating nuclear power plant in Africa, came to the end of its design life in July 2024, but one of the reactor units has been granted a conditional twenty year extension by the NNR. The NNR is meant to be a neutral independent watchdog ensuring nuclear safety but that independence has come under question from international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and local civil society groups. In a ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeal issued on June 28 2024, the court found that the board of the NNR was not neutral and had adopted a pro-nuclear stance.

Project 90 by 2030’S youth spokesperson, Gabriel Klaasen, said: “We are excited to see the withdrawal of the decision by the minister, it has built up hope for our energy future, however our fight isn’t over yet. Following the poor public participation process for the LTO of Koeberg nuclear power station and the subsequent decision to extend it for 20 more years, we are doing all that we can as civil society to appeal this decision and call all who want safe, affordable, and clean energy to do the same.”

Conclusion

While there has been a pattern of civil society successfully using the courts to overturn decisions relating to energy, there appears to be hope that the new Minister, with his repeated commitments to transparency will listen to civil society before there is a need to involve the courts.

However, the recent decision by the NNR to grant a life extension to Koeberg is currently open to appeal and if the Minister rejects those appeals, it is likely that this will also be subjected to legal challenges.

The next steps will need to be a public examination of the submission by the DMRE which claims to have satisfied the suspensive conditions specified by NERSA, and also an examination of the draft IRP 2024, which will need to demonstrate the need for nuclear power before a new determination can be issued by Minister Ramokgopa.