South Africa’s economy took a brutal $155 billion hit in 2023 as Eskom’s rolling blackouts, euphemistically called “load shedding”, wreaked havoc on businesses, households, and industry. R2.8 trillion lost in a single year. That’s more than the country’s entire health and education budgets combined. But something changed in 2024. Suddenly, 300 consecutive days without blackouts. The crisis that had crippled the economy just a year prior simply vanished, with Eskom’s Energy Availability Factor (EAF) rising to 60% from 55% in 2023. Private solar and embedded generation filled in the gaps, with rooftop solar alone producing 5.8GW of electricity in the first three months of 2024. That’s 2.3TWh of power that should have come from Eskom.

At first glance, it looks like a success story: a broken system stabilizing. But let’s dig deeper, because while the lights may have stayed on, South Africans are now paying more for electricity than ever before. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) released its latest findings, exposing the ugly truth. Electricity prices surged another 12.74% in 2024, far outpacing inflation. Since 2014, South African electricity tariffs have skyrocketed by 190%, while inflation averaged just 5.2% annually. The national average price of electricity is now above the levelized cost of renewables. Solar and wind cost between R/kWh 0.5 and 0.6, yet consumers are paying c/kWh 195.93. Private sector investment in energy generation soared, with businesses and households realizing Eskom was a lost cause and installing enough solar to cut demand for state power by 3% in 2024.And yet, despite these improvements, South Africans are being bled dry by rate hikes. The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) is pushing for tariff increases even as power supply stabilizes. If Eskom is burning less diesel, if unplanned plant failures are down, if private solar is reducing demand, and if the country just went nearly a year without blackouts, why are electricity prices still climbing? Listen to what South African Billionaire Patrice Motsepe said in the past.

Let’s be brutally honest: South Africa’s energy crisis wasn’t just an accident. It was a decades-long looting operation, with Eskom used as a cash cow for corrupt politicians, shady tenders, and insider deals. Billions were funnelled into diesel generators while executives claimed the grid was collapsing. State capture turned Eskom into a feeding trough, and now the public is footing the bill. The same Western financial institutions that loaned billions for “green energy transitions” are now profiting from higher energy prices. And now, as foreign investors salivate over South Africa’s energy sector, the government’s focus isn’t on reducing costs, it’s on securing more international funding for renewables that will be sold to the public at premium prices. With R2.8 trillion lost in 2023 and electricity now priced higher than most global averages, the real concern isn’t just keeping the lights on, it’s who controls the power. Eskom has gone from being a failing state entity to a potential cash cow for foreign investors. The question South Africans should be asking isn’t just about electricity prices, it’s who really benefits from the so-called “energy recovery.” Because if history tells us anything, it won’t be the people.

Why Are African Utilities Struggling?

One of the most popular reasons is underinvestment and aging Infrastructure. South Africa’s Eskom, which generates over 90% of the country’s electricity, relies on aging coal-fired plants (average age ~40 years) that are prone to breakdowns. Underinvestment in maintenance and new capacity since the 1990s, coupled with cost overruns on projects like Medupi and Kusile, has left it unable to meet demand, leading to frequent load-shedding (rolling blackouts).  Zimbabwe’s Zesa operates outdated coal plants at Hwange and depends heavily on Kariba Dam’s hydropower, which is constrained by water rationing and maintenance issues. Lack of capital investment has capped its ability to expand or modernize. Zambia’s Zesco is heavily reliant on hydropower (e.g., Kariba), making it vulnerable to droughts, which have slashed output in recent years. Its thermal plants are inefficient, and new capacity hasn’t kept pace with demand growth. Kenya’s KenGen, while more diversified (geothermal, hydro, wind), faces challenges from fluctuating hydrology for its dams and delays in scaling up geothermal projects. It meets about 70% of Kenya’s demand, but gaps persist due to rising consumption and grid constraints.

We can’t not talk about the Financial Distress these companies have been through. Saddled with ~R440 billion ($30 billion) in debt, Eskom struggles to service loans while facing rising coal costs and low tariffs that don’t cover expenses. Bailouts (e.g., R59 billion over two years) haven’t resolved its structural deficits. Zesa loses millions monthly to power theft, defective prepaid meters, and inability to collect revenue due to economic instability in Zimbabwe. It also struggles to pay for imported power from Mozambique and Zambia. Low tariffs and non-payment by consumers, coupled with foreign currency shortages to pay for imports or maintenance, keep Zesco cash strapped. While KenGen is relatively better off, it still faces high capital costs for geothermal and wind projects, and its reliance on public funding limits expansion.

But there has also been mismanagement and corruption in these companies. Allegations of state capture, with contracts awarded to politically connected firms (e.g., Gupta-linked companies), drained resources. A 2018 judicial commission highlighted systemic corruption in Eskom. Poor management and lack of transparency have led to inefficiencies, like overstaffing and uncompetitive coal contracts in Zesa. For Zesco: governance issues, including political interference in tariff setting and procurement, hamper efficiency. KenGen, though less plagued by overt corruption, but bureaucratic delays and political influence over project approvals slow progress.

Is Privatization the Solution to Africa’s Electricity Problems? No

Privatization—transferring ownership or operations to private entities—is often pitched as a fix for inefficiency, underinvestment, and mismanagement. It’s been a hot topic for Eskom especially but also discussed for Zesa and Zesco. KenGen, partially privatized (30% of shares are publicly traded), offers a mixed model. Yes Privatization could bring efficiency and investment. Private firms can bring capital, technical expertise, and streamlined operations. Eskom’s chairman has called for private investment in transmission infrastructure (~R350 billion needed), as the utility lacks funds. Kenya’s partial privatization of KenGen has attracted investment, though the state retains control. But there are affordability Concerns. Private companies prioritize profit, potentially raising tariffs beyond what low-income households can afford. South African communities have opposed Eskom’s privatization, fearing price hikes. Full privatization could cede strategic assets to foreign or private interests, reducing government leverage over energy policy. Privatization may prioritize urban or profitable areas, neglecting rural electrification goals. In South Africa, post-apartheid electrification expanded access from 34% to over 80%, a state-driven effort private firms might not replicate. Risk of Failure: Private entities can fail or abandon unprofitable markets, leaving taxpayers to bail them out or face service gaps, as seen in some privatized utilities globally. What do we have to say about Public Private Partnerships?

The push for privatization often comes from neoliberal frameworks that assume markets are inherently more efficient than state enterprises. But in Africa, where poverty is widespread and infrastructure is a public good, privatization can exacerbate inequality if not carefully managed. The narrative that state ownership is the root of all evil ignores how underfunding, political capture, and external shocks (e.g., droughts, coal prices) have starved these utilities. Privatization advocates also sidestep the risk of private monopolies or foreign control, which could replace one set of problems with another. I had a conversation with JC Okechukwu on this.

The Rockerfeller Foundation committed billions to move Africa to solar and wind

The other more interesting reason why these power utilities are failing to service their people is that it is deliberate because the Rockerfeller Foundation has committed billions to ensure Africa moves to solar and wind.

The Rockefeller Foundation has committed significant funds to advance clean energy in Africa, particularly solar and wind. Their investments focus on broader climate and energy access initiatives, with substantial allocations for distributed renewable energy (DRE) like solar mini-grids, off-grid solar, and clean cooking solutions. Key commitments include. $1 billion over five years (announced in 2023) to advance global climate solutions, with a significant focus on Africa’s energy transition. This includes funding for solar and other renewable projects but also spans food, health, and finance systems. $15.9 million announced at the Mission 300 Africa Energy Summit (January 2025) to support electricity access for 300 million Africans by 2030, including $10 million for Zafiri, a World Bank Group investment company focused on DRE like solar mini-grids and solar home systems. $10.9 million at COP29 (November 2024) for African-led clean energy, including $300,000 to integrate off-grid solar into electrification strategies in nearly two dozen countries and $5 million for over 1,000 solar mini-grids in Zambia. $100 million in catalytic capital (2021) for the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (GEAPP), co-financing up to $1.6 billion with the African Development Bank for DRE, utility-scale solar, and grid investments like the Desert to Power initiative for 250 million people in the Sahel. While solar and wind are central to these efforts, the Foundation’s investments also cover broader clean energy solutions and infrastructure. For example, the 2016 investment in Mainstream Renewable Power supported over 1.3GW of wind and solar capacity in countries like South Africa and Senegal.

This foundation is capitalizing on these ventures as carbon credit-generating projects, raking in billions more from the sale of these credits. To put this into perspective, carbon credits can be generated in three primary forms: nature-based, such as forests, farming, and technology-based initiatives. The situation with energy companies specifically highlights technology-based carbon credit generators. Furthermore, the Rockefeller Foundation is actively working to transform Mpumalanga’s highveld into a province that generates carbon credits, solely to serve its own profit-driven agenda. The ultimate goal is to shut down all coal-powered stations, as the foundation stands to gain more from the sale of carbon credits than from the actual supply of electricity.

Written by Tatenda Belle Panashe