[DEBATE] : Power for the people must be state priority, , Editorial,

[Riaz K Tayob]

I am not sure but look at the Trade Industry Policy (TIPs) research documents and Ebrahim Khalil Hassen's NALEDI paper as I seem to recall some references. As it stands, govt seems still intent on following the separation of Generation, Distribution and Transmission - the failed model in California. The iGoli documents are also instructive.

South Africa seems to be still in the laager when most countries are pursing Sovereign Wealth funds and we are pursuing a hodge podge of corporatisation and privatisation while the consultants and empowered make money and the people suffer. Of course as Erwin once said this may all be a political ploy to discredit the state. 

this unfortunately is analogous to what happened to the post office - great spin, then crash. Telkom is no different and continues to rip people off. 

So yes let us continue to liberalise and compete with rising tigers - and have faith ALL will be well....

riaz (pers)

From: "Hein Marais" <hein at marais.as>
Subject: RE: [DEBATE] : Power for the people must be state priority,
	Editorial,	Sindy
To: "'debate: SA discussion list '" <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
Message-ID: <000601c85b54$0ac78ed0$6d84fea9 at desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="windows-1250"


What I'm missing in the (very poor) reporting on the electricity debacle is
whether and to what extent Eskom indeed did attempt to plan for a radical
surge in demand, and when it did so. It seems a little to easy to blame it
all on a lack of planning.

I've seen a few references to Eskom approaching government with plans for
expanding capacityin the late 1990s, and that funding requests were turned
down. Does anyone have more details re this? When did this happen, at what
level were the requests discussed (ministerial, cabinent, presidency?), and
what reasons were given for the refusal? And who took the decision?

Ferial Hafajee's reference to this in her piece on the MG is eliptical but
tantalizing -- she suggests it happened in the heydays of GEAR
belt-tightening ... in which case the irrationality of 'rationalization'
again lumbers into full glare. 

Who can help?

H