The message delivered by Electricity and Energy Minister Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa that the reforms under way in the electricity sector are “irreversible” is an important one. Doubly so, given that he emphasised it at a briefing attended by senior Eskom executives.

The Minister’s statement was made against a backdrop of some anxiety that the reform agenda is at risk of stalling.

There is particular concern about whether Eskom supports the changes under way. The State-owned enterprise, which has been on the backfoot operationally, financially and reputationally for years, is seemingly more emboldened of late to flex its monopolistic muscles, as loadshedding wanes.

The last time it acted so boldly was arguably in 2015, when the executives at the time took the dubious decision to refuse to sign contracts for private generators legally procured by government in 2014 on the basis that it had sufficient capacity. Only for the most extreme period of loadshedding to follow a few years later.

Much of this new assertiveness is not highly visible. Nevertheless, chronic frustration with the way Eskom manages the provision of grid access to independent power producers spills into the public domain from time to time. Those that have sought to navigate this process too often leave with questions about whether the State-owned company is genuinely committed to the reform agenda.

Far more visible, however, has been Eskom’s belated opposition to the issuance by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) of electricity trading licences. Belated, as the State-owned company failed to raise objections when several licences were issued over the past number of years, with the first sign of any protest emerging only in July last year during a public hearing.

That objection then took on legal form, when Eskom approached the High Court last month to have five domestic trading licences issued by Nersa in 2024 reviewed and set aside.

From the outset, it looked as though Eskom was overplaying its monopolistic hand, which it sought to mask behind a seemingly reasonable appeal for clarity on the regulatory framework. However, Nersa had already taken the sting out of that argument by initiating a process to finalise the rules and Ramokgopa’s intervention to shorten that process from 12 to three months robbed the challenge of all rationality.

The Minister’s intervention, which followed strong criticism of Eskom’s legal challenge by Business Unity South Africa and Business Leadership South Africa, is significant. It signals that he, rather than Eskom (or the courts), dictates the policymaking pace.

This is especially important given that Ramokgopa is now also Eskom’s shareholder Minister, which has led to well-founded concern that he could place the utility’s commercial interests ahead of the interests of the electricity sector as a whole.

By standing up to Eskom, which he typically praises and supports in public, the Minister is indicating that he aims to adopt a ‘policy-first’ stance. A subtle yet crucial development given the complex structural changes still ahead.