By Nco Dube | 31 January 2025

Eskom has announced the implementation of Stage 3 loadshedding from 17:00 today 31 January 2025 until Sunday midnight, marking the first instance of rolling blackouts in over ten months. This decision follows a period of relative stability, during which South Africans enjoyed uninterrupted electricity supply, a testament to the success of Eskom’s Generation Recovery Plan. 

However, the utility has cited a “temporary setback” due to several breakdowns in its generation fleet, which have necessitated the use of emergency reserves. These reserves now require replenishment over the weekend, prompting the return of loadshedding.

Eskom’s Group Chief Executive, Dan Marokane, sought to reassure the public, stating, “This is a temporary setback, as loadshedding is largely behind us due to structural improvements in the generation fleet.” Similarly, Group Executive Generation, Bheki Nxumalo, emphasised that the R16.30 billion saved in diesel spend from April 2024 to January 2025 remains secure, and the utility is committed to avoiding a return to the severe loadshedding experienced in 2023.

While Eskom maintains that this is a short-term measure to replenish emergency reserves and prepare for the week ahead, the timing of this announcement has raised eyebrows. It comes just a day after the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) rejected Eskom’s proposed steep tariff increases, approving instead more modest hikes that are still significantly above inflation. The public cannot help but wonder whether these two events are connected, and whether Eskom is leveraging loadshedding to exert pressure on regulators and consumers.

This development risks undoing the fragile trust that Eskom has been slowly rebuilding with the public over the past year. After a decade of mismanagement, corruption, and operational failures, the 300-day streak without loadshedding had offered a glimmer of hope that the utility was finally turning a corner. However, the return of rolling blackouts threatens to reignite public skepticism and anger, reinforcing the perception that Eskom operates in its own interests rather than those of the people it serves. The timing of these two events has left the public questioning whether Eskom’s loadshedding warning is a genuine operational necessity or a retaliatory move aimed at pressuring regulators and consumers. Regardless of the truth, this situation risks undoing the fragile trust Eskom has been slowly rebuilding with the public over the past year.

The Fragile Trust Capital of Eskom

Eskom’s relationship with the South African public has been strained for over a decade. Years of mismanagement, corruption, and operational failures have eroded confidence in the utility’s ability to provide a reliable electricity supply. The term “loadshedding” has become synonymous with frustration, economic losses, and a lack of accountability. However, over the past year under the stewardship of Group Executive Dan Marokane and Chairman of the Board Meto Nyati, Eskom had managed to make some progress in restoring its credibility. The 300-day streak without loadshedding was a significant milestone, offering a glimmer of hope that the utility was turning a corner under its new leadership.

This period of stability was not just a technical achievement but also a psychological one. It allowed businesses to operate without the constant fear of power outages, households to plan their lives without the uncertainty of rolling blackouts, and the public to begin believing that Eskom was finally on the path to recovery. Trust, once broken, is difficult to rebuild, and Eskom had been making incremental gains in this regard. However, the recent announcement threatens to unravel this progress, reigniting public skepticism and anger.

The Timing of the Loadshedding Announcement

The timing of Eskom’s loadshedding warning is particularly suspicious. It comes immediately after NERSA’s decision to reject Eskom’s proposed tariff increases of 36.15% for the 2025/26 financial year and 11.81% for 2026/27, instead approving increases of 12.74% and 5.36%, respectively. While these approved increases are still well above inflation, they are significantly lower than what Eskom had sought. The utility has long argued that higher tariffs are necessary to cover its costs, reduce its debt burden, and fund critical maintenance and infrastructure projects.

However, the public cannot be blamed for perceiving a connection between NERSA’s decision and Eskom’s sudden warning of loadshedding. This perception is fuelled by Eskom’s alleged history of using loadshedding as a tool to exert pressure on regulators and the government. In the past, there have been instances where loadshedding coincided with key political or regulatory decisions, leading to accusations that the utility was leveraging its monopoly over electricity supply to achieve its objectives.

Whether or not this perception is accurate, it is damaging. It reinforces the idea that Eskom operates in its own interests rather than those of the public, and it undermines the utility’s claims of transparency and accountability. If Eskom is serious about rebuilding trust, it must address these perceptions head-on by providing clear, evidence-based explanations for its decisions and actions.

The Broader Implications of Loadshedding

Loadshedding is not just an inconvenience; it has far-reaching economic and social consequences. For businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, power outages mean lost productivity, spoiled goods, and increased operational costs. For households, it means disrupted daily routines, compromised safety, and additional expenses for alternative energy sources. For the economy as a whole, loadshedding is a drag on growth, discouraging investment and exacerbating unemployment.

The return of loadshedding also has psychological implications. It serves as a reminder of the fragility of South Africa’s energy system and the ongoing challenges facing Eskom. It undermines confidence in the utility’s ability to deliver on its promises and raises questions about the effectiveness of its turnaround strategy. If Eskom cannot maintain a stable electricity supply, it risks losing the support of key stakeholders, including the government, investors, and the public.

Restoring Trust: What Eskom Must Do

To avoid undoing the trust capital it has built over the past year, Eskom must take immediate and decisive action. First and foremost, it must provide a transparent and detailed explanation for the impending loadshedding. This includes sharing information about the specific challenges it is facing, the steps it is taking to address them, and the timeline for resolving the issue. Transparency is key to dispelling perceptions of ulterior motives and demonstrating accountability.

Second, Eskom must prioritise communication with the public. Regular updates, clear messaging, and proactive engagement can help manage expectations and reduce frustration. The utility should also acknowledge the impact of loadshedding on South Africans and express empathy for the difficulties it causes. This humanises the organisation and shows that it understands the challenges faced by its customers.

Third, Eskom must accelerate its efforts to address the root causes of its operational challenges. This includes investing in maintenance, upgrading infrastructure, and diversifying its energy mix to reduce reliance on aging coal-fired power plants. While these measures require significant resources and time, they are essential for ensuring long-term stability and reliability.

Finally, Eskom must work collaboratively with regulators, the government, and other stakeholders to find sustainable solutions to its financial and operational challenges. This includes exploring alternative funding models, improving efficiency, and addressing corruption and mismanagement. By demonstrating a commitment to collaboration and reform, Eskom can rebuild trust and confidence in its ability to deliver on its mandate.

The Role of the Public and Civil Society

While Eskom bears the primary responsibility for restoring trust, the public and civil society also have a role to play. South Africans must hold Eskom accountable for its actions and demand transparency and accountability. This includes participating in public consultations, engaging with regulators, and supporting efforts to reform the energy sector. Civil society organizations, meanwhile, can play a watchdog role, monitoring Eskom’s performance and advocating for the interests of consumers.

At the same time, the public must recognize the complexity of the challenges facing Eskom and the energy sector as a whole. While frustration and anger are understandable, constructive engagement and dialogue are more likely to yield positive outcomes than hostility and mistrust. By working together, all stakeholders can contribute to building a more reliable, sustainable, and equitable energy system.

Conclusion

Eskom’s announcement of impending loadshedding is a stark reminder of the challenges facing South Africa’s energy sector. It also highlights the fragility of the trust that Eskom has been slowly rebuilding with the public over the past year. To avoid undoing this progress, Eskom must act with transparency, accountability, and urgency. It must address the root causes of its operational challenges, communicate effectively with the public, and work collaboratively with stakeholders to find sustainable solutions.

The return of loadshedding is a test of Eskom’s credibility and commitment to reform. How the utility responds will determine whether it can regain the trust of the South African public or whether it will once again become a symbol of frustration and failure. The stakes are high, and the time for action is now.

(Dube is a Political Economist, Businessman, and Social Commentator on UkhoziFM and various newspapers. Read more of his articles here: www. ncodube.blog)