10/02/2026
The January dust has settled and 2026 is now in full swing and after an incredible year for renewables in 2025, we’re poised for a consequential 2026.
To recap - last year, renewables overtook coal globally for the first time, while South Africa’s 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2025) set out ambitious new wind energy targets. The plan more than doubles the total onshore wind allocation relative to IRP 2019 (34 GW by 2039 vs 14.4 GW by 2030), which is a very positive signal for the South African wind energy sector.
This momentum comes at a crucial time. With the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) taking effect in 2026, South Africa’s carbon‑intensive economy faces growing pressure to decarbonise and protect export competitiveness. Over and above this, SAWEM (the South Africa Wholesale Electricity Market) is scheduled for official launch in April 2026 to liberalise power trading and support greater renewables integration.
In December 2025, Minister Ramokgopa approved Eskom’s revised unbundling strategy. However, the decision has attracted considerable criticism for not delivering the full independence originally envisaged.
What’s been approved?
The new structure creates an independent Transmission System Operator (TSO) as a state‑owned company sitting outside Eskom. This TSO will be responsible for system and market operations, central purchasing and non‑discriminatory grid access. Meanwhile, NTCSA (National Transmission Company South Africa), which achieved legal separation as an Eskom subsidiary in July 2024, will continue to own the transmission assets and roll out the Transmission Development Plan of roughly 14,000 km of high‑voltage lines. The full unbundling process is expected to be completed by 2030.
But how independent is “independent”?
Many experts have argued that what has been approved is not the unbundling envisioned by the Presidency in 2019, nor the structure outlined in the original Eskom roadmap, nor the model required by the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act. The core concern is that a TSO without assets cannot raise capital at reasonable cost, cannot build the 14,000 km of new transmission that South Africa requires, and cannot fully guarantee system adequacy or equal access for all market participants.
The original reform logic was clear: a competitive electricity market cannot function if the dominant generator also controls the grid. By keeping asset ownership within Eskom Holdings (via NTCSA) while the TSO operates without assets, critics argue that the structural conflicts of interest the reforms were meant to resolve are largely preserved.
Our CEO, Mark Tanton, having seen first‑hand the real and perceived issues around Eskom’s independence in grid access and allocation throughout the NECOM engagements, shares the concern that this structure risks severely undermining future independence.
hashtag
hashtag
hashtag
hashtag