Budget 2026: From crisis management to system redesign of energy sector

For more than a decade, the policy debate around energy in South Africa has been conducted in the lingo of crisis management: loadshedding stages, diesel burn, bailouts, etc. The 2026 Budget is different. It sets energy policy within a broader growth strategy, one grounded in stabilisation, infrastructure expansion and institutional renewal, writes professor Roula Inglesi-Lotz, SARChI chair in Just Energy Transition, department of Economics, University of Pretoria.

The most striking aspect of this year’s Budget speech was not the allocations announced or the policy announcements made – it was the tone. It was a tone of controlled structural transition, implying that South Africa is moving from crisis response to institutional redesign.

The message is unmistakable: “Lights staying on” is no longer the policy goal – redesigning the system is.

The R1-trillion medium-term plan for infrastructure development in the public sector, with R213.6 billion allocated to the energy sector, is not positioned as a rescue. It is positioned as growth-enhancing capital formation. In this narrative, infrastructure is the foundation of long-run economic growth, with more than half of the planned investment to be implemented by state-owned companies and other public entities.

This is important. There is no longer talk of energy infrastructure as a rescue. It’s becoming normalised as part of the economic infrastructure. From a macro-economic point of view, this is a big deal, because it indicates a shift from firefighting to system-building.

The grid: The architecture of market reform
The most underappreciated, though perhaps most significant, theme in the Budget is transmission and grid reform. The Budget speech and accompanying documents place considerable emphasis on facilitating investment in transmission and promoting private-sector participation. Unsurprisingly, this is no accident.

South Africa has already unlocked more than 23 900 megawatts of private generation capacity, mostly in renewable energy. However, this alone is not sufficient for creating a competitive market structure. Without transmission capacity, renewable energy cannot be efficiently integrated. Without grid expansion, competition cannot be scaled up. Without open access and improved regulatory effectiveness, the transition to a competitive market structure would still be incomplete. In this way, then, transmission is not simply a technological upgrade. It is the institutional enabler of market diversification. In its focus on grid investment in infrastructure planning, the Budget appears to be signalling the recognition of this reality: that the key to energy reform is no longer capacity but connectivity.

In previous years, Eskom dominated fiscal debate through debt relief measures, operational failures and emergency procurement. In this Budget, however, Eskom is no longer framed in this manner; rather, it’s presented as undergoing an institutional transition. Technical task teams are now described as supporting restructuring reforms. It is about enabling a competitive electricity market, not saving a failing monopoly. This is a subtle but profound shift. It suggests that there is confidence that the most critical operational crisis has been contained.

Loadshedding has been suspended since May 2025. Generation, transmission and distribution are no longer treated as a single risk, and are now being institutionally separated, regulated and repositioned.

Electricity reform as governance reform
A central shift in the Budget’s energy narrative lies in its treatment of municipalities. Electricity reform is no longer framed solely as a national policy issue; it’s explicitly a governance reform challenge. The Budget highlights performance-based grants, the Metro Trading Services Reform, stronger financial accountability, cash flow management and infrastructure maintenance. It also recognises underperforming municipalities as binding constraints on service delivery and economic performance.

This is critical. Electricity distribution is fundamentally municipal. Financial instability, non-payment and weak local infrastructure maintenance can undermine national-level reforms. By placing municipal reform at the centre of the electricity agenda, the Budget redefines energy security: it is not only about generation capacity, but about the financial and institutional sustainability of the sector at the local level.

Although the Budget highlights market reform and scale, electrification is very much part of the social dimension of the energy system. The Integrated National Electrification Programme remains committed to connecting households, electrifying informal settlements and expanding bulk infrastructure to increase access.

This has particular significance for the just transition. Energy reform is more than just markets and megawatts. It is also about access and inclusion. The expansion of grid access, affordability and ensuring that infrastructure reaches the underserved are all part of transition legitimacy.

A controlled structural transition
This Budget does not declare victory. It signals redesign: fiscal stabilisation provides the macro foundation; infrastructure investment provides the capital backbone; the grid is the architecture of market reform; Eskom shifts from being in crisis to being in an institutional transition; municipal reform focuses on governance bottlenecks; and electrification is a driver of inclusion.

All of this is indicative of a more profound change. The change in energy policy is from crisis management to structural redesign. The crisis required survival. This phase requires governance. Governance is what makes transitions last.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Pretoria.