South African national energy policy Says: Build more renewable energy facilities and make them faster.
But players in the energy sector are finding it difficult to do so. about 74% The country's electricity is produced by coal-fired power stations owned by the state-owned electricity provider, eskom. This makes South Africa a higher place coal dependent economy.
Reforms are underway to unify Eskom and introduce more competition. But over the years, it has been operating almost as a monopoly, with coal at the centre.
A recent court case demonstrates how difficult it is to break Eskom's monopoly, even for giant corporations that want to switch to solar power.
In 2023, South Africa's largest gold producer, Sibanye Stillwaterwanted to make giant solar photovoltaic plant To power one of its mines. The 50 MW plant (equivalent to powering 40,000 homes) would have significantly reduced the mine's dependence on the national electricity grid.
This would free up electricity for use by homes, hospitals, schools and other businesses and also reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
But the mine plan faced stiff resistance state utility. For more than a year, Eskom refused to allow the mine's solar power lines to cross its enslavement (running cables on the same land where Eskom's power lines pass). Eskom had given all other approvals for the project.
The mining company took the matter to court. It argued that Eskom's refusal was unlawful on the grounds of errors of law and improper motives, and that Eskom had not proven that there would be technical or safety problems if the solar power lines crossed the easement.
In February 2026, the Gauteng Division of the High Court Cancel Eskom's decision. The mine could eventually build its own solar plant and go off the grid.
i am one SPECIALIST Who in Environment and Climate Change Law research How international and domestic law can be used to advance climate justice in South Africa and across Africa. I think this decision is important for several reasons. Firstly, for the Siboney Stillwater mine and its related companies, as it allows their solar project to proceed following Eskom's refusal to effectively block a major private investment. This also matters for other mining houses and larger companies that want to build their own renewable energy plants.
The court ruled that Eskom cannot use red tape to block renewable energy projects that comply with the law. This provides greater certainty to energy investors. But it also highlights how resistance to solar power from powerful institutions like Eskom could slow South Africa's energy transition, and how the courts can keep the transition on track.
How Eskom tried to derail a solar project
Sibanye mine is planned solar facility It was designed as a “behind-the-meter” project. This means it will generate electricity primarily for its own use rather than selling it back to the national grid.
To connect the solar plant to its own power substation, the company needed Eskom's VELIV (administrative permission to build within Eskom's infrastructure corridor) to build a 6 km power line crossing Eskom's enclave. (Anyone who wants to run cables, pipelines or other infrastructure on land where Eskom's power lines are located must obtain this permission to ensure the safety and security of the network.)
The mine's planned solar facility was already Safe Had complied with all necessary regulatory approvals and technical and grid code requirements from the government. It was also designated as a Strategic Integrated Project under Infrastructure Development Act. This meant that solar plants were recognized in law as infrastructure of national importance, which needed to be moved forward rapidly.
Eskom's internal technical units supported the project, on the condition that for safety reasons the mine would use underground cables in the area where it crosses Eskom's infrastructure. Eskom then sought and received payment R15 million (US$950,000) to secure that connection.
But Eskom's Ad Hoc Distribution Executive Committee later rejected permission. It claimed that the project poses regulatory and operational risks. Instead, the utility proposed that the solar plant be connected to a separate substation and the power delivered to the mine via Eskom's network – a process known as “wheeling” – at an additional charge of about 30%. The mine told the court that this additional cost would make it too expensive to proceed with the project.
Why did the court intervene?
Eskom, which relies heavily on selling electricity to large industrial customers, is facing declining revenues as more companies generate their own renewable energy. The scale of this change is significant. Since 2018, National Energy Regulator of South Africa recorded more than 2,300 private power generation facilities With a combined capacity of about 18 gigawatts, most of this solar power is produced by mines, manufacturers and commercial businesses. The surge reflects companies trying to reduce the risk of load-shedding and rising electricity costs.
but under South Africa ConstitutionPublic bodies must act lawfully, justly and for reasonable reasons. They cannot use their powers to protect their own commercial interests when the law clearly allows private power generation.
Court reviews Eskom's refusal to grant leave Promotion of Administrative Justice ActWhich gives effect to the constitutional right to lawful and proper administrative action. It found that Eskom's decision was illegal and invalid. it held That there was no risk in the project and that Eskom had acted for an ulterior motive to protect its revenues.
The court also rejected Eskom's claim that it had a “right of first refusal”. Electricity Regulation Act.
The court took the unusual step of ordering the road to be abandoned. This is an extraordinary step in administrative law, reserved for exceptional circumstances. (Normally, the court would have sent the case back to Eskom for reconsideration.)
why does matter matter
This matter is not just about one mine. South Africa's energy crisis affects everyone. When scheduled power cuts (load shedding) occur due to not having enough power in the grid, it causes disruption to households, losses to small businessesnegatively want worker and forced Economic development. The expansion of renewable energy generation is widely recognized as part of the solution.
When large industrial users such as mines generate their own renewable energy, they:
-
reduce pressure on the national grid
-
potentially free up power for other users
-
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent further global warming
-
Bring private capital into the energy sector
-
Create and protect jobs.
These are all elements of a just energy transition, a shift to clean energy that also supports economic stability and livelihoods.
When legitimate renewable projects that are in line with national policy are blocked for commercial reasons, investment slows. Uncertainty increases and confidence in legal reform weakens. The consequences reach beyond a company's profits. They could affect how quickly South Africa can stabilize its electricity supply, move away from coal and pursue efforts to limit the impacts of climate change.
Policy ambition versus institutional practice
The decision also highlights structural tensions within South Africa's electricity sector. Reforms in the country's energy laws are increasingly supporting decentralized and private renewable generation. Yet institutions like Eskom face financial pressure as customers leave the grid or generate at least some of their electricity from the sun, resulting in lower electricity bills to be paid.
This tension is not exclusive to South Africa. globally, Transition away from state-controlled electricity monopoly Have a tendency to cause friction.
The High Court's decision indicates that The rule of law remains central For South Africa's energy transition. This confirms that renewable energy reform is not just an ambitious policy. It has binding legal consequences.
Angela van der Berg does not work for, consult, hold shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond her academic appointment.
By Angela van der Berg, Director of the Center for Global Environmental Law; Associate Professor Department of Public Law and Jurisprudence, University of the Western Cape, University of the Western Cape