Richards Bay Gas: Turning a court defeat into a national strategy

South Africa has now crossed more than 140 consecutive days without loadshedding. For many, this represents a reprieve, a breathing space after years of rolling blackouts that drained an estimated 3 percent of GDP annually and eroded investor confidence across every sector of the economy. It is also a signal to markets that reform and improvement are possible, though still fragile. Yet the Supreme Court of Appeal’s recent decision to overturn Eskom’s authorisation for a 3 000 MW gas plant at Richards Bay is a reminder that our energy future remains exposed. The court did not reject gas as an energy pathway. It rejected the procedural and governance shortcomings that shaped the project.

This points directly to South Africa’s central dilemma: why, in a continent rich with gas reserves and new LNG infrastructure, does our policy environment remain paralysed? The answer lies in fragmentation, where approvals are divided across multiple authorities, each capable of delaying projects on technical grounds. It lies in legal vulnerability, where environmental impact assessments collapse in court because they fail to address cumulative impacts or plausible alternatives. It lies in narrow framing, where gas and renewables are presented as adversaries rather than as complementary parts of a balanced system. And it lies in external pressures, where advanced economies that built prosperity on hydrocarbons now expect South Africa to leapfrog directly into renewables while our own developmental path is constrained by unemployment, costly baseload and persistent energy poverty.

The court’s judgement highlighted three shortcomings. Eskom had not credibly assessed whether renewables combined with storage could replicate the duty cycle of gas, particularly in managing evening ramps and winter peaks. It had neglected to quantify the broader climate impact of the project, including methane emissions across the value chain. It had failed to deliver meaningful consultation in isiZulu, undermining the legitimacy of the process. These are not flaws in the role of gas. They are gaps in governance. Corrected, they could render projects more credible, investable and socially durable.

Gas and renewables should not be seen as rivals. The real test is whether a renewables-plus-storage system can provide the same operational resilience as gas at an equivalent or lower system cost, while accommodating land and port constraints. If the evidence shows this to be possible, it should be transparently presented. If not, then gas should be recognised for what it can provide: stability where it is most urgently required. Nersa itself has identified this “mid-merit gap” as the critical challenge in maintaining grid reliability.

The potential benefits of a credible Richards Bay gas programme are considerable. By reducing Eskom’s reliance on diesel peakers, which currently absorb tens of billions of rand annually, it would ease tariff pressures and stabilise costs. It would stimulate employment in construction, welding and associated trades while supporting supplier industries across the infrastructure value chain. It would provide reliable power for smelters, ports and manufacturing hubs that anchor the country’s export competitiveness. If coupled with an accelerated LPG rollout, it would enhance household welfare by replacing paraffin and biomass with safer and cleaner alternatives.

A number of issues need to be managed carefully to ensure that gas contributes positively to the energy mix. Long-term contracts must be designed with flexibility so that South Africa does not become tied into agreements that extend beyond their usefulness. Methane emissions require consistent monitoring and clear standards so that gas remains a cleaner transitional option. Renewables with storage will continue to grow rapidly, but until they are proven at the scale needed for evening peaks and seasonal shortfalls, gas has a defined role to play. Community participation is also essential. Local engagement in meaningful ways and visible benefits for affected communities will secure confidence in the sector. Fiscal space remains tight, but gas infrastructure can be positioned as an investment that reduces diesel imports, attracts private capital and supports industrial growth.

The real question is whether South Africa will continue to frame its choices narrowly, or whether it will recognise that coal, diesel, gas, renewables, hydro and nuclear each occupy distinct roles in the system. Coal will remain in the portfolio for years, diesel will always be the emergency stopgap and renewables will expand as the cheapest new-build. Gas should be seen as the linking element that stabilises the grid, fuels industry and provides transitional flexibility.

This is not about choosing one pathway over another. It is about constructing an energy portfolio that reflects balance and complementarity. Advanced economies had the privilege of industrialising through hydrocarbons before pivoting. Africa must claim the same right: to industrialise using all available resources, managed with care and responsibility. South Africa’s transition must therefore be anchored in its own capacity, not in externally imposed timelines or narrow definitions of what qualifies as “green.”

For this to happen, governance must improve. The Richards Bay ruling should not leave the courts as the main referee of energy policy. Instead, it should be a catalyst for raising standards across government. That means redesigning environmental assessments to include full system comparisons, lifecycle emissions and genuine participation. It means embedding methane standards into contracts. It means codifying transparent LNG access at Richards Bay and integrating the Matola pipeline to diversify Gauteng and Mpumalanga’s supply base. Above all, it means creating a unified approval process with firm deadlines to end the cycle of delay and fragmentation.

Far from undermining renewables, such a framework would strengthen them. Gas provides the flexibility to integrate more solar and wind into the system without destabilising the grid. It also secures industrial processes and transport corridors that cannot yet be electrified at scale. By using coal more carefully, it avoids overexertion of those reserves while reducing reliance on diesel as a last-resort lifeline. The outcome is an energy portfolio that is more affordable, more resilient and more developmentally aligned.

The Richards Bay ruling should not be seen as defeat but as an opportunity in disguise. It challenges South Africa to raise its standards, to move beyond narrow debates and to govern with credibility. If pursued with clarity, this pathway can stabilise tariffs, protect households and rebuild an industrial base that generates employment and growth. Most importantly, it allows South Africa to chart an energy path that draws on every resource responsibly, from coal to gas, diesel to renewables, hydro to nuclear, within a coherent and pragmatic system. That is the measure of leadership. Progress will not come from inherited arguments or imported templates. It will come from using Africa’s endowments wisely, on its own terms, and with industrialisation as the ultimate goal. That future is tangible. It means affordable electricity bills, competitive industries and dignified homes. Only then can energy poverty be overcome, employment created and sustainable prosperity secured.

Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa.

*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.

BUSINESS REPORT