After the false start of January when the draft Integrated Resource Plan 2023 (IRP2023) was released to much criticism and even incredulity, an effort is now under way to have a revamped IRP2024 officially approved by the end of March.

This would be no small feat, given that South Africa has struggled every time it has attempted to update its electricity generation plan; one that should by all rights be refreshed yearly, so as to reflect changes in demand and supply, as well as the latest technology costs.

The 2010 edition, for instance, prevailed until the IRP2019 was eventually gazetted in October of that year, following a process so protracted that it meant that the new plan and all its assumptions were outdated from day one. Previous updating efforts, meanwhile, all failed amid the suspicion and mistrust of the State-capture period.

The same lack of currency will be true for IRP2024, even though the extensive remodelling conducted following the receipt of more than 4 300 public comments may make it less stale.

The fact that the plan has been entirely reworked poses a completely new challenge, however.

Is it right to treat public consultation on such a radically revised document as a simple continuation of the process that was run between January and March and which itself left many dissatisfied?

The simple answer is ‘no’.

The problem is that South Africa cannot afford ongoing uncertainty and there is, thus, real pressure for the process to be concluded.

It’s a case, therefore, of two things being true at the same time. Firstly, that the public consultation process has been sorely inadequate. And secondly, that the document itself loses more and more relevance with every passing consultation day.

Ultimately, South Africa needs to find a way to keep the IRP updated without sacrificing consultation on the altar of expediency. The same is true for many other areas, including other key energy documents that either fail to materialise (think the Integrated Energy Plan), or are outdated by the time they are approved (think Gas Masterplan).

Ideally, regular updating should become as routine as the yearly Budget process run by the National Treasury.

It is not immediately clear how that stage could be reached.

What is clear, though, is that having the update done by a technically credible organisation outside of the department would be a good start. Such a vendor could either be selected for a time- defined period by means of a competitive process, or the capability and capacity could be entrusted to a science council or even the system operator once Eskom is fully unbundled.

The IRP paramentres would be set by government, but all the assumptions and the model itself should be visible online.

There should be no surprises, therefore, when the reference case is released, and any policy adjustments will be fully transparent.