South Africa\u2019s Presidential Climate Commission said the energy ministry has an inadequate plan to tackle the country\u2019s power supply crisis, and its lack of attention to air quality and climate change puts it in conflict with the law and international agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The so-called Integrated Resource Plan, developed by the energy ministry, is currently open for public comments, and amendments may be made before it\u2019s finalized in May.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The scathing criticism by the body established to advise President Cyril Ramaphosa on climate issues highlights the schism in government caused by a reliance on coal for power generation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe has expressed a reluctance to move away from the use of the world\u2019s dirtiest fossil fuel, saying it’s necessary for electricity supply and employment, while the presidential climate body has been advocating for a green transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tensions around the dispute have been deepened by a power supply crisis that\u2019s crippling the economy as the coal-fired power plants that supply more than 80% of South Africa\u2019s electricity repeatedly break down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe IRP does not address its primary energy security objective and does not provide any analysis to show how this might be achieved in the short term,\u201d the commission said in a presentation released after a Feb. 16 meeting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe IRP does not effectively address the issues of climate change and air quality.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
South Africa is the world\u2019s 15th-biggest producer of climate-warming greenhouse gases and has one of the world\u2019s most carbon-intensive economies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Air pollution to the east and south of its biggest city, Johannesburg, is among the world\u2019s worst due to a concentration of coal-fired power plants, petrochemical complexes and other heavy industries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The criticism from the government body adds to concern from renewable energy advocates that a plan to build more than 100 gigawatts of power generation capacity by 2050 from a variety of sources isn\u2019t ambitious enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The master plan also does little to address access to energy concerns, doesn\u2019t propose using the cheapest power-generation technologies and could heighten inequality, the climate commission said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAt the very least, a scenario to 2030 that more aggressively addresses load shedding is needed,\u201d the commission said, using a local term for power cuts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA detailed review of air quality and its impacts on technology choices is needed. This is a legal requirement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n