 South Africa's power crisis is worsened, with state-owned enterprise SCOM extending stage 6 power cuts, which involve 6 to 8 hours of outages or more. The crisis in the country has been going on for months, and SCOM authorities and the African National Congress-led government have been harshly criticised for letting it continue. What is the current situation in the country, and how have the government's policies led to it? Bhagamele Khlubi Majola, the National Spokesperson of the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa explains. Yes, so unfortunately, SCOM has just announced stage 6 load shedding. We've ramped up from stage 4 to stage 6, which means there will be an increase in the number of hours that we will not have electricity. And of course, this is just part of the continuous energy crisis that South Africa continues to experience at SCOM. As NUMSA, we see the energy crisis as really existential to our survival as a country, because until we can actually get a handle and we are able to control this persistent load shedding that we're subjected to on a daily basis, there's no way that we can expect any meaningful economic growth to take place. And this for us is something that requires urgent intervention. According to our own research, according to the CSIR, we are losing about two billion rand a day as a result of persistent load shedding. So really, this is something that we've got to resolve because of the socioeconomic conditions that the majority of the working class in South Africa are exposed to. Well for us, first of all, we do believe that the ANC government is not really serious about dealing with this issue. We think that because the ANC government, from the time that it took over running this country, it has been driving an agenda for privatization. What we see in terms of this persistent load shedding that we're exposed to, we see this as an example of how energy generation in this country is going to be privatized because as long as there's no solution to load shedding, then we will accept any cost for the price of energy as long as whoever the service provider is, is able to guarantee energy supply. And if you look back in ESCOM's recent history, we had GCEOs of ESCOM in the form of Brian Walefe and Matelo Coco, who were actually able to reduce load shedding significantly even to the extent of eliminating it completely at some point. And now where we are under the leadership of André de Reiter, South Africa is subjected to the highest levels of load shedding in the history of ESCOM's existence. We have the lowest energy availability factor. This is having a direct and detrimental effect on all businesses in this country. And certainly us as a trade union, because we are losing members as a result of job cuts and retrenchments where so many of the companies where we are organized, certainly in the manufacturing sector, are closing down or shutting down or retrenching because of the impact of persistent load shedding. And if you look at what the ANC has been driving, they've been driving the privatization of state-owned enterprises. And as long as we don't have a solution to load shedding, then it becomes easier to justify the involvement of private energy companies in the provision of energy generation in South Africa. And we feel that this is ultimately where they're taking us. They want to be able to basically involve the private sector as much as possible in the generation of energy in South Africa. South Africa has also been in the news for its ambitious plans to shift to renewable energy. The government recently launched the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan. However, it has been slammed by critics for failing to give any major role to ESCOM and instead trying to include private players. How is the Just Transition linked to the wars of ESCOM? Well, as Noom Sir, we aspire to the principles of the Just Transition as defined by the International Labor Organization. And the ILO is very clear that the process of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy must be a process that does not disadvantage the working class majority and future generations in any way. And what we see when you look at the process that's being rolled out in South Africa currently is that the South African government has taken decisions which in fact will disadvantage the majority of people. First of all, the companies that are going to be tasked with rolling out renewable energy are going to be privately owned renewable energy companies. ESCOM has not been allocated a role to play in providing renewable energy that has been handed over to the private sector. And as Noom Sir, we feel that if we are genuine about dealing with the issue of climate change and if we're genuine about tackling the impact of climate change and how it's affecting the poor and the working class, then the thing that would actually make sense would be to give ESCOM 70% of the renewable energy market because in so doing you are forcing ESCOM as an entity to transition and to depend less on coal but to also form part of this process of being able to contribute and provide renewable energy as a solution for energy in this country. And the fact that the NC government has not allocated ESCOM a role in this to us means that they're not serious about adhering to the principles of a just transition. Right now ESCOM employs a minimum of 30,000 staff and if privately owned renewable energy companies continue to dominate in rolling out renewable energy, then it means ESCOM will shrink. It means more and more workers will lose their jobs. And again, this violates the principles of a just transition which really are about protecting communities, protecting workers, protecting their jobs and their livelihoods. And we're not seeing that with the South African government. Secondly, if we are to transition in a genuinely just way, then renewable energy should be in the hands of the state. The state should own the technology so that communities and workers and the country at large can benefit directly from it. If it's going to be strictly in the hands of the private sector and what we were seeing is that so far, those who are dominating are foreign owned privately owned renewable energy companies, then where's the benefit to the working class majority? There's no benefit. It's simply another example of capitalist extraction for the benefit of the private sector. And it's not going to result in what just transition is actually trying to achieve. What we know, for example, is that the CSIR has said that at least 100,000 jobs will be lost in the province of Umbu Malanga if there's no social plan which is devised to ensure that workers in those communities are either upskilled and retrained or the whole economy of Umbu Malanga is sort of realigned so that it can play a meaningful role in renewable energy. We're not seeing that happening. And so this is why we're saying that when the South African government claims that it's implementing a just transition in South Africa, they are perverting the meaning of that phrase. They're perverting it because this transition is dependent on loans, which will have to be paid back, very, very, very expensive loans costing billions of rand. And at the same time, there's no ownership component, which is going to benefit workers and communities. And at the same time, we're expecting hundreds of thousands of job losses. So this is why we have a real problem with this process because at the end of the day, it's going to be the working class and the poor who are going to suffer. The private sector is going to become extremely rich from this process. Electricity will cost more. And it will mean that the poor and the working class, again, will be denied access to something that really is going to assist in development. And what will this mean for South Africa's development agenda when we are beholden to Western Europe in the form of extremely costly loans? It means that our developmental agenda is reversed. It means that as a country, we will never escape the profile of being a developing nation because we will now have to pay back these loans. And these loans will definitely affect our growth as a country. So this is why we are raising the alarm and doing so very loudly as a union to say that the just transition in South Africa is unjust and will result in more suffering for the working class and the poor. Is there any way to turn around ESCOM and ensure better power supply for working class South Africans, as well as bring about a sustainable transition to green energy? Well, we believe that ESCOM can be restructured in the sense that, first of all, what should happen is that this process of breaking ESCOM down into three parts, that should stop. You have to change ESCOM's balance sheets. In fact, if anything, you're going to duplicate roles because you're going to create three separate companies that are going to require executives to run them. So you're actually going to increase ESCOM's cost burden from a salaries perspective. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, ESCOM should play a greater role in renewable energy. And if we were to do that, we would be future proofing ESCOM for future generations. We would be ensuring that this entity is playing a positive role in this climate change crisis that we're facing. And thirdly, if we are genuine about a just transition, then we would choose a path that is number one, affordable to the country. And number two, results in the least loss of jobs as possible. And most importantly, results in the empowerment of communities and the working class. That is how, that is what a just transition looks like. It's a process where working class, the working class and communities are driving that program for their benefit. And where they, in the long term, it results in the long term sustainability of the masses, not in the enrichment of an elite minority. That is what a just transition is supposed to look like.