Issued by Amirah Hassim on behalf of the FW de Klerk Foundation on 28/10/2025

There is a quiet sense of hope flickering across South Africa’s skyline. For the first time in years load-shedding has receded, the turbines are spinning again and Cabinet has placed on the table an audacious blueprint – the R2,23 trillion Integrated Resource Plan (2025) that aims to secure our electric future. Yet, behind the optimism lies a profound question: will this plan be a constitutional triumph for sustainable development, or another well-intentioned illusion that powers headlines, but not homes?

Still, one cannot deny the sheer ambition. The plan envisions 105 000 MW of new generation capacity by 2039 – that represents more than double what Eskom currently produces. It promises an energy mix that finally reflects the world of 2025: 24% wind, 18% solar, 11% gas-to-power and 5% nuclear, while coal’s dominance declines from 58% to 27%. The vision? Clean, modern and forward-looking. It speaks of a South Africa that refuses to be defined by darkness. And yet, ambition is not the same as achievement. Section 195 of our Constitution demands that public administration must be accountable, transparent and efficient – three qualities that have often been missing in our energy governance.

However, to understand what this plan really means, one must go beyond megawatts and modelled scenarios. One must ask: who will pay, who will build and who will benefit?

For the youth – the generation that has grown up studying by candlelight – the answer matters deeply. Yes, the youth are consumers of energy, but they are also the future technicians, engineers, data analysts and entrepreneurs who will either inherit a modernised grid or the debt of another miscalculation. Section 29 of the Constitution gives them the right to education and section 22 provides them with the right to choose a trade or profession freely. Both depend, fundamentally, on electricity – as without energy, opportunity withers.

Yet, the plan’s R2,23 trillion price tag casts a long shadow. It is more than the combined budgets of Health, Education and Police for several years. Government insists it will rely on private-sector funding “off the balance sheet”, with the state acting merely as the off-taker. That language is meant to calm investors, but it raises constitutional questions of fiscal prudence and oversight. Section 215 of the Constitution requires transparent, accountable budgeting that promotes “efficient and effective use of resources.” A plan of this scale – financed through contingent liabilities – risks transferring tomorrow’s burden onto today’s optimism.

There are still some bright spots. Eskom, once the symbol of dysfunction, has begun showing signs of life, posting a R24 billion pre-tax profit and cutting R16 billion in diesel costs. A newly appointed board, under Mteto Nyathi, brings corporate gravitas and technical skill. If managed well, this can mark the beginning of a constitutional renewal within the energy state – one that re-centres merit, integrity and efficiency as required by section 195. But, we must be wary that if political interference and procurement chaos return, the plan may burn out faster than a grid under pressure.

Perhaps the most invisible obstacle is not political, but structural. South Africa’s best solar and wind resources are found far from where its factories hum. The Northern Cape may bask in sunlight, but the industrial arteries of Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal remain energy-starved. Without urgent grid expansion, renewables will simply pile up behind transmission bottlenecks. Here lies the silent truth: power generation without transmission reform is like building ships without ports. Section 24 of the Constitution guarantees the right to an environment that is not harmful to one’s health or well-being and mandates sustainable development. A renewable future trapped behind an outdated grid fails both the environmental and developmental test.

Nevertheless, this is ultimately a story of morals. In a country where 46,1% of youth remain unemployed, every kilowatt of power represents a job that could be saved or created. The construction of solar farms, the laying of gas pipelines, the manufacture of turbine parts and the engineering of micro-grids are all pathways to dignity, as demanded by section 10 of our Constitution. However, this will only benefit the youth if the government ensures that localisation, training and youth participation are more than afterthoughts in glossy policy documents. The promise of 105 000 MW must translate into 105 000 livelihoods!

Yet again, the skills gap threatens this dream. A coal-based workforce cannot simply be re-planted into the renewables sector overnight. The IRP 2025 talks of industrialisation, but not enough about education. South Africa’s Technical and Vocational Education and Training (“TVET”) colleges, already struggling, need dedicated energy transition programmes – from solar engineering to smart-grid analytics. Without that, we will be importing both the technology and the talent, while our own graduates stand idle. A truly constitutional plan would link energy policy with youth development, fulfilling the spirit of section 29(1)(b): education that enables one “to participate fully in society”.

The environmental stakes are no less constitutional and as the world accelerates toward net zero, South Africa’s commitment to reduce coal to 27% by 2039 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050 is significant. It aligns with our obligations under the Paris Agreement, as well as  our domestic duty under section 24(b) to “secure ecologically sustainable development”. The re-introduction of nuclear energy – including small modular reactors – may raise old anxieties, but it also reflects the global reality that clean base load power cannot be achieved by renewables alone. The question is not whether we go nuclear, but whether we do so with transparency, safety and sound governance – lessons painfully learned from past failures like the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor project that cost $980 million and yielded nothing.

However, if this nuclear revival becomes a closed-door arrangement, shrouded in secrecy or geopolitical influence, it will once again violate section 1(d) of the Constitution – the founding value of accountability. Energy cannot be a playground for elites. It must be a participatory project of the people.

For all its risks, the IRP 2025 also carries the possibility of redemption. If executed with discipline, it could end load-shedding, revive the construction industry, attract green investment and restore faith in the state’s capacity to deliver. It could be the catalyst that allows South Africa’s youth to dream in watts and gigabytes instead of outages and excuses. It could turn despair into energetic aspiration.

That being said, every blueprint in our democratic journey has faced the same test: can good plans survive bad governance? Section 237 of the Constitution compels that “all constitutional obligations must be performed diligently and without delay.” If the IRP 2025 becomes another victim of bureaucratic inertia, corruption, or policy reversal, then we will once again have violated that simple constitutional instruction – to do what we promise and to do it well.

For the FW de Klerk Foundation, the measure of this plan lies not only in its engineering, but in its ethics. Energy policy is, at its core, a human-rights policy – because electricity determines whether a clinic’s incubator stays on, whether a student writes an exam online and whether a township entrepreneur keeps the lights of her small business burning. When section 27 of the Constitution enshrines the right to health care, water and social security, it implicitly assumes the existence of electricity to power those services.

In the end, South Africa’s energy future will not be determined by how many turbines we build, but by whether we build trust alongside them. The R2,23 trillion plan can either illuminate our constitutional path or expose, once more, the distance between vision and delivery. For the sake of our youth and our democracy, may this not be another plan that burns out before it shines.