Updating South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for electricity has always been a perilous endeavour.

Despite various attempts, it took nearly ten years for the 2010 edition to be updated, following a gestation period that left the new 2019 document in almost immediate need of an overhaul itself, owing to the inclusion of outdated assumptions.

Updating the IRP2019 has faced similar hazards, with much of the pain being self-inflected by the policymaker.

Initially, the then Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe brushed away all calls for an update, arguing that policy certainty was required.

Belatedly, he initiated a revision that was opaque from the get-go, which resulted in a breakdown in trust between the department and many industry stakeholders.

The draft IRP2023 that was eventually released in early 2024 was lambasted as technically flawed and procedurally unfair, with the department having hosted mostly virtual public engagements that left little or no room for dialogue let alone critique.

Nevertheless, put-upon and ignored stakeholder still had resilience enough to submit no less than 4 338 written comments, including what the department adjudged to be 136 substantive comments.

While acutely aware of these criticisms, Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, who was initially appointed as the Minister in The Presidency Responsible for Electricity and later as the Government of National Unity’s Electricity and Energy Minister, promised to adjust the plan with some reference to the comments, particularly the ‘substantive’ ones.

That said, he also made known his preference for policy certainty over engagement and indicated he had no intention of starting over; an approach that several close observers felt was probably necessary in light of the obvious deficiencies of both the draft and the drafting process.

Instead, he requested the South African National Energy Development Institute to make technically sound changes to the initial draft that also took account of the public comments.

The upshot was no simple tweak but an entirely revamped document that included five scenarios, and which was eventually released at a hybrid event on November 28.

What’s more, participants were given scant notice of the meeting, while no clear commitments were made as to whether their inputs would be considered, let alone integrated into the IRP.

In the end, no further public consultations were held, and a document was, instead, prepared only for consideration at the National Economic Development and Labour Council, where the social partners are reportedly now considering it.

This document includes a so-called ‘Proposed Balanced Plan’ that outlines a mix that close observers argue has emerged despite, rather than because of, the underlying analysis and modelling.

While the IRP is less potent than it used to be as new generation procurement vistas open up, it remains an important guide and getting it wildly wrong carries costs, as well as the prospect of a potentially lengthy legal challenge.

Heeding the ‘less haste, more speed’ adage could well be wise in the circumstances.