Source: Pexels In just 100 days, 4 861 MW of electricity generation capacity secured environmental approval. Minister Aucamp confirmed this in February 2026, noting that 54 of the 80 environmental impact assessment (EIA) applications processed by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) during that period were linked to energy generation and transmission infrastructure. His predecessor, Minister George, reported that between June 2024 and March 2025, the DFFE finalised 220 independent power producer-related EIA applications at a 99% efficiency rate within the 57-day decision-making timeframe prescribed for projects in Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDZs) and Strategic Infrastructure Projects.
The DFFE has also consulted on a Flexible EIA System, a risk-based screening approach that would fast-track low-impact projects while retaining full EIA requirements for high-risk developments. On paper, this is a success story. But there is a catch.
The 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), approved in October 2025, calls for over 43 000 MW of wind and nearly 29 000 MW of solar photovoltaic capacity by 2050. That amounts to more than 72 000 MW of renewable generation to be assessed, authorised, financed, constructed, and connected over 25 years. By any measure, this is the most ambitious energy plan South Africa has ever undertaken.
Yet Eskom’s 2025 Generation Connection Capacity Assessment states that grid capacity in the Northern Cape, Western Cape, Eastern Cape, and Hydra Central supply areas has been depleted. These are precisely the provinces with the best wind and solar resources, where the REDZs are located, where the DFFE’s streamlined 57-day process applies, and where the IRP expects the bulk of new capacity to be built.
The mismatch
The result is a growing mismatch. Projects are receiving environmental authorisation at world-class speed, but in locations where the grid cannot accommodate them. A solar photovoltaic project in the Northern Cape can satisfy every requirement of the environmental process (impact assessment, public participation, approved environmental management programme), yet if there is no transmission capacity to evacuate the electricity, that authorisation permits a project that cannot operate.
Developers are pivoting
For project sponsors, site selection can no longer be driven primarily by resource availability and environmental sensitivity. A site inside a REDZ with excellent solar irradiance and low sensitivity classifications may score well on every environmental metric yet prove commercially worthless if grid access cannot be secured. Developers are already pivoting to Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal, and Gauteng, where grid capacity remains available, notwithstanding weaker renewable resources. The REDZs were gazetted on the basis of Strategic Environmental Assessments that assumed a materially smaller pipeline than the IRP now demands.
A question of bankability
For lenders, a difficult question arises: does an environmental authorisation that cannot be implemented within its validity period constitute adequate security for project finance? Authorisations are not perpetual. If grid access is delayed beyond their lifespan, developers must apply for extensions or amendments, potentially under new regulatory frameworks. What was once considered a bankable asset is becoming less certain.
A policy trade-off
For government, there is a resource allocation question. The DFFE has finite institutional capacity. Every application processed for a project in a grid-constrained area represents capacity that cannot be deployed elsewhere. If the overriding objective is to bring megawatts onto the system expeditiously, there is an argument for prioritising applications where grid connection is actually feasible.
The way forward
None of this should be read as criticism of the DFFE, which has done precisely what was asked of it and done it well. The difficulty is that environmental, energy, and grid regulation operate as parallel systems with no binding spatial integration. The IRP does not reference the REDZs, and the national web-based environmental screening tool does not flag grid availability. The result is a regulatory architecture that is internally coherent but collectively dysfunctional.
If there is a way forward, it lies not in accelerating the EIA process further but in connecting it to grid planning. Until the question “can this project be authorised?” is asked alongside, “can this project be connected?”, South Africa will continue to produce environmental authorisations at impressive speed for projects that exist only on paper. DM
Authors: Carlyn Frittelli Davies, Consultant, Natural Resources and Environment, and Fortune Shanduka, Natural Resources and Environment Law Specialist, Natural Resources and Environment