Complexities in regulation and financing of renewable energy projects in South Africa: An enquiry using a stakeholder analysis

Abstract

Starting from the observation that stakeholders in the renewable energy sector represent multiple interests, each exhibiting formal and informal power to varying degree, the study explored the stakeholder understandings of renewable energy in South Africa, and what that meant for policy and practice. To engage in the qualitative exploration, semi-structured interviews were conducted on a purposively selected sample of thirteen participants who represented independent power producers, households, regulators and financiers. Also utilised were secondary sources of data from research reports, news publications and other online sources such as interviews available publicly on YouTube. The study drew an understanding of how stakeholders view renewable energy regulation and finance and how they hoped the same could be regulated and funded going forward. By and large, there was a sense that regulation was lacking in quality, in clarity and in consistency. These sentiments were dominant among participants even though sympathy for the government’s position was expressed in some instances. Finance was understood to be well-structured although innovation on finance models was noticeably weak. Two dominant models were utilised by funders leaving room for more innovation to be attempted. Given the dynamic nature of the sector, the study’s theoretical contribution was in the form of a renewable stakeholder. Renewable stakeholder denotes stakeholder participation which is not fixed but continuously responsive to changes in the environment. With regular changes of regulations, of technology, of stakeholder interests and even of political appointments as was the case during the study, renewable stakeholders also adjust or reposition themselves. In this way, their understanding of the sector and the technology is not fixed and they continue to remain vibrant in the sector. In demonstrating flexibility and movement, the study augments to stakeholder theory’s portrayal of stakeholders; instead of fixed objects with fixed interests in fixed sets of relations, the stakeholders in the study presented here demonstrate flexibility and, in some senses, malleability.