Civil Society Rejects Gas Expansion Plans In Draft IRP – Warns It’s A Costly Mistake The Public Cannot Afford

Civil society organisations are raising the alarm over the South African government’s renewed interest in gas-to-power projects in the draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The Green Connection – along with the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), the Centre for Environmental Rights, and other public interest organisations – warn that the IRP2023’s proposed addition of up to 19GW of gas capacity may risk locking the country into long-term fossil fuel dependency, while potentially driving up energy costs, and worsening inequality.

Strategic Lead at The Green Connection, Liz McDaid says, “There appears to be a growing influence of large industrial gas users – facing a looming “gas cliff” as pipeline supplies from Mozambique run dry – in shaping electricity planning. This is at the heart of our concern. These companies appear to be driving government efforts to secure new gas infrastructure to sustain their businesses/industry, when it should be supporting electricity generation for the public good. It seems that this latest IRP effectively creates artificial demand for gas in electricity generation to justify infrastructure that may primarily benefit the private industry. Why should ordinary South Africans risk having to carry the potentially higher tariffs just to secure supply for industry? Unfortunately, this appears to be an energy plan that is not for the people.”

Since the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is South Africa’s long-term electricity roadmap, it determines what energy sources are developed, when, and at what cost to the public. For that reason, environmental justice organisations say that public input is not just necessary but essential. This is especially important when government decision-makers and independent experts seem worlds apart in their assumptions. In the case of gas, government may be backing a much larger build than experts recommend, but without clearly explaining the assumptions informing its modelling. This lack of openness raises questions about good governance and accountability, which should be interrogated by the public.

“The IRP should reflect what is in the public’s best interest – not what suits a handful of powerful stakeholders,” says Lisa Makaula from The Green Connection. “We demand transparent modelling, full public participation, and a plan that delivers affordable, climate-safe energy to all South Africans.”

While the state claims that gas will help stabilise the grid, civil society groups argue the opposite. The proposed gas plans may need to rely on expensive infrastructure, volatile fuel prices, and long-term contracts – all of which may transfer unnecessary risk to the public and could raise electricity tariffs, making energy less affordable for households and communities.

Makaula adds, “Not only is there a possibility of increased electricity prices, but more gas may worsen the climate crisis, in addition to potentially delaying people’s access to affordable power, especially for poor and rural communities. Who exactly benefits here? Because it does not appear to be the people who are struggling to keep the lights on or those who are having to deal with the direct impacts of climate change.”

The organisations also underscore the understated but serious climate impact of methane, the primary component of natural gas. While it is short-lived, methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, trapping over 80 times more heat than CO₂ over a 20-year period. Leading scientists – including those contributing to the United Nation’s (UN) AR6 climate report – have stated unequivocally that no new coal or gas power projects are needed to meet global energy needs. Expanding gas would push the world further off course from the 1.5°C climate target.

“What we’ve seen in the draft IRP points to a troubling commitment to large-scale gas-to-power, effectively locking South Africa into a new fossil fuel,” says Brandon Abdinor from the Centre for Environmental Rights. “This will not only worsen the climate crisis but also tie us to an expensive and unreliable form of electricity. The policy shifts and assumptions that have allowed this gas build-out must be made transparent and open to proper scrutiny. Public consultation is not optional – it’s fundamental to a democratic process, and it cannot simply be side-stepped.”

Civil society organisations say the forced inclusion of gas and nuclear into the IRP model is especially concerning because it appears to ignore economic logic in favour of entrenched interests.

Executive Director of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), Francesca de Gasparis says, “The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2024 shows government plans for energy procurement in the coming years. SAFCEI is raising the alarm about the ‘forced’ (according to experts) inclusion of nuclear and gas into the model, which will have serious and far-reaching consequences. This version of the IRP, if approved, will raise already unaffordable electricity costs for households. It is our democratic right that there be a public participation process, and we see no signs of that happening.”

Instead of what appears to be the propping up of fossil fuel infrastructure with public funds, civil society urges government to invest in renewable energy solutions that may be faster, cheaper, and more suitable to diverse settings. Studies by the CSIR, Meridian Economics, and independent experts show that solar, wind and battery storage can meet South Africa’s electricity needs at far lower cost and risk. Renewables can also enable decentralised access, such as mini-grids for rural electrification – critical for addressing energy poverty.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, more than 85% of new renewable energy capacity installed globally in 2023 was cheaper than any fossil fuel option – a trend that continues to accelerate.

“This version of the IRP appears to diverts public money to potentially risky gas infrastructure under the guise of energy security,” says Makaula. “But real energy justice means clean, reliable power for all – not bailing out industry at the public’s expense.”