Department of Energy on its 2015/16 Annual Report

NCOP Economic and Business Development

14 March 2017
Chairperson: Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Annual Reports 2015/16 

The Committee was given insight into the income statement and balance sheet of the Department of Energy’s (DoE) for 2015/16. By the 31March 2016 the Department had utilised R7.14bn or 98.27% of its 2015/16 adjusted budget. There was a budget balance of R125.5m or 1.73% of the adjusted allocation.  The DoE had received an unqualified audit opinion for 2015/16 as it had for the past five years. Amongst the key audit findings for 2015/16 was that there was understatements of commitments, on transfer payments there was non-compliance with the Division of Revenue Act as quarterly reports were not submitted within the required 45 days and on procurement deviations were not reported to National Treasury and the Auditor General of SA within required timelines.

Committee was provided a comprehensive overview of the performance highlights for the 2015/16 financial year. These included that the 20-year Liquid Fuels Master Plan was incorporated as part of the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) tabled at the Director Generals’ Cluster in February 2016. In addition 75% of licence applications approved had at least 50% Black Economic Empowerment ownership. The National Electrification Master Plan was developed in six provinces. Municipalities had electrified 72 399 additional households whilst Eskom had managed 158 613 including rollovers. Two new bulk substations were built and six additional substations were upgraded. A total of 1 956 site compliance inspections were conducted for the year against an annual target of 1 500, exceeding the target by 456. Eight nuclear safeguard inspections were done, four nuclear audits were conducted and four nuclear security inspections were conducted. Additionally eight nuclear awareness events were held due to interest from stakeholders on nuclear matters. The Draft National Biogas Strategy had been completed but the scope was expanded to cover biomass. During 2015/16 municipalities only managed to achieve verified savings of 0.6 terawatt per hour. On Integrated National Electrification Programme (INEP) consolidated information 2015/16 members were provided with a breakdown of figures per province on municipal and non grid connections as well as on Eskom connections. Some challenges attached to the INEP were that current bulk infrastructure was constrained and hence it was a challenge to connect additional households ie Kwa-Zulu Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces. On the non-grid programme there was a slow rollout of non–grid connections due to internal practical shortcomings. Non-grid service providers struggled financially due to small customer bases and rural locations. Another challenge was that the INEP budget for 2016/17 had been reduced by R240m. The problem was that most of the projects were to be implemented in deep rural areas which increased connection costs and also meant that subsidy levels had to increase accordingly. On addressing the challenges the DoE had focused its oversight and monitoring over key municipalities and in areas where Eskom was not performing. Quarterly performance meetings were held with Eskom where issues like progress and challenges were discussed. On resources the DoE was actively focussing on cost cutting measures but at the same time tried to ensure that oversight and support were optimised. The briefing also spoke to strategies to overcome areas of non performance. For example the DoE was required to maintain a vacancy rate below 10%. The DoE felt the target to be partially achieved. Actual performance was that the vacancy rate was 1.21% over 10%. The DoE embarked on a turnaround strategy to prioritise the filling of vacant positions in various branches. The strategy would be monitored on a quarterly basis by the DoE’s Executive Committee. 

Some challenges encountered were key vacancies, excessive study leave taken by staff, Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA) liability, verification of project activities, slow moving projects, payment of suppliers within 30 days and targets not being achieved.

Members expressed huge disappointment by the absence of the Minister and Deputy Minister of Energy as well the Director General of the DoE from the meeting. Members felt that the political leadership of the DoE did not take the work of the Committee seriously as priority was always given to attending meetings of the National Assembly Portfolio Committees. The absence affected members directly as they could not ask officials questions of a political nature as officials were not mandated to answer political questions. The Committee took a decision to write a letter to the political heads of the DoE clearly expressing their disappointment over the matter. The Committee instructed officials in the meantime to convey the unhappiness of the Committee to their political heads. On the briefing itself members felt that the briefing was not clear enough on the challenges faced by the DoE and the strategies that it had put in place to deal with underperformance. Strategies were too open ended and no timelines were stipulated. Strategies needed timelines. The DoE was after all accountable to the Committee. The DoE was asked how it quantified its targets as being partially achieved. One example was coal energy that had targets that were partially achieved. The Committee on areas of underperformance asked the DoE to rework its slides on partially achieved targets. The reworked slides should be provided to the Committee within seven days. Timeframes had to be included in the reworked slides. Members observed that the remuneration packages of Eskom Executive Directors increased from R8.1m in 2014/15 to R30m in 2015/16. This was shocking. Unfortunately no political heads were present to shed light on the matter. The DoE was asked what actions it took where there were instances of fraud. Were criminal cases opened up against these individuals? The DoE was asked to enlighten members on what the current situation on nuclear energy was. Members were also disappointed by the underperformance of the DoE on connecting up additional households with electricity in the Eastern Cape and the Kwa-Zulu Natal Provinces as well as not meeting targets on electrification in rural areas. What corrective measures had been instituted by the DoE and what was the current status? Members asked the DoE what agreements had been entered into between Eskom and municipalities in the Free State Province on the repayments of debts by municipalities.

Members asked who footed the bill on the portion of free electricity that was provided to the public. Given problems of intersectoral contestation members did ask why Eskom had not been transferred to the DoE so that the DoE could monitor Eskom’s performance. Members were insistent that the Committee needed to be provided with detail on matters of irregular expenditure. One such irregular expenditure in 2015/16 amounted to R678 000. The DoE had condoned the irregular expenditure as no fraud was found. The problem that members had was that the official involved had not followed due process. Members were concerned that a precedent would be set that it was acceptable for officials not to follow prescripts.  

Meeting report

The Department of Energy (DoE) apologised for the absence of the Minister of Energy, Ms Tina Joemat-Petterson, Deputy Minister of Energy, Ms Thembi Majola, and Director General of the Department of Energy (DoE), Mr Thabane Zulu, from the meeting. They were attending a meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Energy which was happening at the same time as the present meeting.

Mr M Khawula (IFP, Kwa-Zulu Natal) asked why the Minister and Deputy Minister were attending the same meeting. One of them could have attended the Committee’s meeting.

Mr W Faber (DA, Northern Cape) shared the sentiments of Mr Khawula. He had a problem with the fact that there were no political heads from the DoE present in the meeting.  The DoE officials could not answer questions of a political nature as they were not mandated to do so. It thus meant that he could not ask political questions which rightly he was entitled to. The absence of political heads from meetings of the Committee was a phenomenon that had been going on for a while. During the 4th Parliament the Committee had sent back delegations from departments where political heads were not part of delegations. The Minister had not yet attended a meeting of the Committee. It was totally unacceptable. The apology was not good enough. It made the Committee feel like a second-hand committee. Cabinet meetings were usually on Wednesdays when it was expected that political heads of departments would be absent from meetings. It seemed as if the Minister did not care about attending the Committee’s meetings. He recommended that the Committee write a letter to the Minister and Deputy Minister about them not attending meetings of the Committee. The problem was that members could not pose political questions to DoE officials.

Mr M Chabangu (EFF, Free State) agreed that the political heads of the DoE were accountable to the Committee and should be present in meetings. He supported the recommendation about a letter being written to the Minister and Deputy Minister.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would write a letter to the Minister and Deputy Minister expressing its disappointment on the matter.

Opening remarks by Mr Tseliso Maqubela Deputy Director General: Petroleum Regulation

Mr Maqubela led the delegation from the DoE. One of the challenges faced by the DoE was on its State Owned Entities (SOEs). Not making excuses for the DoE’s political heads he said that they had to attend the Portfolio Committee on Energy meeting as PetroSA was in a dire situation at present. The PetroSA matter was serious hence the political heads were required to be present. He reiterated that he was not making excuses for the political heads. Coming back to the issue at hand, he explained that the briefing by the DoE had two legs. The first leg was on the financial performance of the DoE and the second was on its service delivery programmes. Through its interventions, the DoE had in 2015/16, managed to stabilise the energy situation in SA. During that period the situation with liquid fuels had also stabilised. However Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) had still been a challenge as there were a number of issues relating to it. On the DoE’s legislative framework the DoE had in the year under review not managed to table all the amendments that it had hoped to table. The issue of resources was still a challenge for the DoE. The DoE tried to do more with less and as a result put itself under strain and found it difficult to contribute optimally. Governance of SOEs was also a challenge that the DoE had to contend with. The DoE had to assist in this regard. It however remained a challenge. During the 2015/16 financial year one of the DoE’s SOE’s had wished to rotate the sale of SA’s crude oil. An investigation had ensued.

Briefing by the Department of Energy on its Annual Report 2015/16

The delegation comprised of amongst others Mr Maqubela as introduced earlier, Ms Yvonne Chetty Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mr Ompi Aphane Deputy Director General: Policy and Planning, Mr Zizamele Mbambo Deputy Director General: Nuclear, Mr Lucas Mulaudzi Deputy Director General: Corporate Services and Mr Jacob Mbele Acting Deputy Director General: Projects and Programmes.

Ms Yvonne Chetty Chief Financial Officer (CFO explained some challenges encountered were key vacancies, excessive study leave taken by staff, Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA) liability, verification of project activities, slow moving projects, payment of suppliers within 30 days and targets not being achieved. The Committee was given insight into the income statement and balance sheet of the DoE for 2015/16. By the 31 March 2016 the DoE had utilised R7.14bn or 98.27% of its 2015/16 adjusted budget. There was a budget balance of R125.5m or 1.73% of the adjusted allocation. The DoE had received an unqualified audit opinion for 2015/16 as it had for the past five years. Amongst the key audit findings for 2015/16 was that there was understatements of commitments, on transfer payments there was non-compliance with the Division of Revenue Act (DoRA) as quarterly reports were not submitted within the required 45 days and on procurement deviations were not reported to National Treasury and the Auditor General of SA (AGSA) within required timelines.

Mr Lucas Mulaudzi Deputy Director General: Corporate Services, DoE, provided a comprehensive overview of the performance highlights for the 2015/16 financial year. These included that the 20-year Liquid Fuels Master Plan was incorporated as part of the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) tabled at the Director Generals’ Cluster in February 2016. In addition 75% of licence applications approved had at least 50% Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) ownership. The National Electrification Master Plan was developed in six provinces. Municipalities had electrified 72 399 additional households whilst Eskom had managed 158 613 including rollovers. Two new bulk substations were built and six additional substations were upgraded. A total of 1 956 site compliance inspections were conducted for the year against an annual target of 1 500, exceeding the target by 456. Eight nuclear safeguard inspections were done, four nuclear audits were conducted and four nuclear security inspections were conducted. Additionally eight nuclear awareness events were held due to interest from stakeholders on nuclear matters. The Draft National Biogas Strategy had been completed but the scope was expanded to cover biomass. During 2015/16 municipalities only managed to achieve verified savings of 0.6 terawatt per hour. On Integrated National Electrification Programme (INEP) consolidated information 2015/16 members were provided with a breakdown of figures per province on municipal and non grid connections as well as on Eskom connections. Some challenges attached to the INEP were that current bulk infrastructure was constrained and hence it was a challenge to connect additional households ie Kwa-Zulu Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces. On the non-grid programme there was a slow rollout of non–grid connections due to internal practical shortcomings. Non-grid service providers struggled financially due to small customer bases and rural locations. Another challenge was that the INEP budget for 2016/17 had been reduced by R240m. The problem was that most of the projects were to be implemented in deep rural areas which increased connection costs and also meant that subsidy levels had to increase accordingly. On addressing the challenges the DoE had focused its oversight and monitoring over key municipalities and in areas where Eskom was not performing. Quarterly performance meetings were held with Eskom where issues like progress and challenges were discussed. On resources the DoE was actively focussing on cost cutting measures but at the same time tried to ensure that oversight and support were optimised. The briefing also spoke to strategies to overcome areas of non performance. For example the DoE was required to maintain a vacancy rate below 10%. The DoE felt the target to be partially achieved. Actual performance was that the vacancy rate was 1.21% over 10%. The DoE embarked on a turnaround strategy to prioritise the filling of vacant positions in various branches. The strategy would be monitored on a quarterly basis by the DoE’s Executive Committee. 

Mr Maqubela said that the DoE having a stable and focussed leadership was critical to enable it to achieve what it had to. Filling the post of Director General had provided that stability. The DoE however needed to be honest about the skills gaps that it had. There was no honest appraisal of skills. Fiscal challenges also made it difficult to close gaps. He hoped that the Committee could assist the DoE with the issue of sectoral contestation in energy. The DoE did oversight over Eskom and at times had to do the work that highly paid persons in Eskom was supposed to do. The end result was that the work of the DoE lagged behind. Another issue that the DoE had to contend with was interest group management ie managing nuclear and gas lobbyists etc.          

Discussion

Mr L Magwebu (DA, Eastern Cape) said that the DoE was not clear enough in its Report to the Committee. Members were unable to understand the challenges of the DoE and the strategies that it had put in place to deal with under performance. He asked how the DoE quantiified its targets being partially achieved. The briefing was far too vague. The DoE was not allowing the Committee to assist them. On strategies to deal with underperformance he felt they were too open ended. No timelines were stipulated. Timelines were needed for targets and projections. The Committee needed to hold the DoE accountable. Strategies need to be tied to timelines. 

Mr Ompi Aphane Deputy Director General: Policy and Planning, DoE, on the issue of “partially achieved” stated that it was in relation to targets.

Mr Faber agreed with Mr Magwebu about partially achieved targets. Coal for energy targets was also partially achieved. What was the DoE saying? It was shocking to see the overspending by Eskom where remuneration packages for Executive Directors totalled R8.1m in 2014/15 and was increased to R30m in 2015/16. The amounts were exorbitant. It was a huge problem but there were no political heads present to provide answers. He observed from the 2015/16 Annual Report that there were individuals that had been dismissed for fraud. What action had been taken against these individuals? Were criminal cases opened against them? The Committee needed details. There were many political questions that needed answering. He also asked why the Dentons Report that spoke about the state of Eskom had been hush hush. Why had the DoE not taken action? He would appreciate answers but if the officials could not provide them he would understand. He further asked what the situation at present was on nuclear energy. There were so many programmes in place. The Committee needed to know what was happening.

Mr Maqubela said that on Eskom there was reporting by the Department of Public Enterprises. On the issue of coal there were divided mandates. The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) was also involved. The DoE was of the view that the DMR should lead the process. There needed to be a coal policy in place. The DoE might have its own views on Eskom but the facts were that Eskom sat with the Department of Public Enterprises. There was a need for coordination. Where there were instances of fraud the DoE dealt with it. The names of persons involved were perhaps not disclosed in the DoE’s Annual Report. He assured members that there was consequence management. He said that in the current financial year there were two service managers who were to suffer consequences of their actions. 

Mr Aphane said that the DoE had a target of drafting a policy position on coal. The DoE could go back and reword its actual achievement on it in relation to the target. There was a new standard on determining partially achieved. 50% achievement could be regarded as partially achieved. He noted that the DoE did perform oversight. The Department of Public Enterprises was responsible for the Eskom Conversion Act. Eskom reported to the Department of Public Enterprises on governance and operational matters. The DoE was responsible for reporting under the Electricity Regulation Act. He did not wish to speak to the Dentons Report. He had not even seen the Report officially. 

Mr Zizamele Mbambo Deputy Director General: Nuclear, DoE, noted that over the last six years the Nuclear Build Programme had been led by the DoE to develop policies and to deal with procurement. However in November 2016 cabinet had decided to designate Eskom as the owner, operator and procurer of nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA) was also designated as owner and operator and procurer of nuclear fuel and nuclear reactors. The DoE would still be responsible for the policy setting on the Nuclear Build Programme. In December 2016, Eskom and the NECSA had asked for information from the market as a precursor to the procurement process. 28 April 2017 was the closing date for responses from the market. Prospective bidders needed to respond for the request for information. Various components of the Nuclear Build Programme had been designated to State Owned Entities (SOEs). There was a governance framework which set out various roles. A draft document had been produced and was being consulted on. SOEs had issued the response for information and responses were expected. 

Mr Khawula observed that Mr Maqubela in his opening statement said that the DoE had financial constraints. However during the financial performance briefing it came to light that the DoE had a surplus of R1.1bn. He referred to pages 31 and 38 and noted the DoE was not able to meet its targets on connecting up additional households in the Eastern Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal as well as not meeting targets on electrification in rural areas. Has this shortcoming been addressed by August 2016 as it was supposed to have been? What was the current status? The underperformance in connections in rural areas was unacceptable.

Mr Jacob Mbele Acting Deputy Director General: Projects and Programmes, DoE, observed that there had been challenges on electrification but improvements had been made. For the 2016/17 financial year the target was to electrify 245 000 households the end result would be 250 000 by the end of March 2017. Actual implementation would be done by municipalities and Eskom. The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (DCOGTA) assisted municipalities who had challenges. The DCOGTA provided engineers to assist, especially in the KwaZulu-Natal Province. Municipalities also lacked the capacity to monitor programmes. The cost per connection in rural areas was much higher. The budget was fixed so it made a dent in the budget. The DoE worked with municipalities and was aware of challenges in the KwaZulu-Natal Province.

Ms Chetty, on the R1.1bn that had been surrendered, said that the budget was R7.2bn and 90% of it went towards implementing agencies and SOEs. Funds had to be used for a specific purpose and if not used had to be sent back. Of the R1bn there was R125m that was not spent on solar heating. It was earmarked funding. The DoE had also received funds back from Eskom. The entire amount of the R291m on aid assistance had also not been spent. Funds therefore had to go back to National Treasury. Funds had to be spent according to conditions attached to it.

Mr Chabangu asked what the agreements between Eskom and municipalities in the Free State were on the repayment of outstanding debts were. He asked where municipalities got the free electricity from that they freely provided to customers. Who footed the bill? Municipalities bought electricity from Eskom which they sold. There were middlemen in place that also made a profit before the electricity reached the public. The supply of electricity to the public in some areas of the Free State was done by Eskom and in other areas by municipalities. The problem was that some areas lost its supply when there were wind and lightning storms. How did the DoE assist in this regard?

Mr Aphane explained that electricity reticulation was a concurrent function of local government and national government. However historically there was already electricity provision in the areas referred to by members. The mandate of electricity provision was given to Eskom where municipalities lacked capacity. It was a very confusing situation. There were some instances where municipalities wished to have a licence to provide electricity whereas in other instances they wished Eskom to take it over. There were also instances where national government asked Eskom to take over electricity reticulation. On the agreements between Eskom and municipalities for municipalities to pay their outstanding accounts he said that it was a matter which affected government and the fiscal viability of Eskom. The Department of Public Enterprises led the matter. Most municipalities had reached a settlement agreement with Eskom for payment to be made within certain timeframes. The deficit now at present was less than R2bn. Eskom had threatened municipalities with disconnecting electricity supplies if payments were not made. The provision of free basic energy was a decision taken by cabinet. The costs were to the national budget. Every municipality received a provision from the fiscus. The problem was how to distribute the free electricity as infrastructure was needed. Prepaid meters made it easier to distribute free electricity. The tariff on the prepaid meter was simply adjusted. Eskom rolled it out on behalf of municipalities. With conventional electricity meters it was trickier to provide the free electricity. Service providers had been appointed to assist with it. Municipalities had to work on revenue management. There was a pilot programme in place and the middlemen would be done away with.

The Chairperson noted that on page 6 under surplus for the year, aid assistance figures sat at just over 105m in 2015/16 and in 2014/15 it was just overR4m. He pointed out that Mr Maqubela in his opening remarks had spoken about a lack of a legislative framework. There was around five pieces of legislation that was supposed to be approved by cabinet. He instructed the DoE on areas of underperformance to rework its slides on partially achieved targets. These should be provided to the Committee within seven days. Timeframes should also be included in the reworked slides. On the issue of Eskom intersectoral contestation he was aware that it fell under the Department of Public Enterprises but still felt that the DoE had a role to play. He asked why Eskom was not transferred to the DoE in order for the DoE to monitor its performance.

Mr Maqubela said that the reason why he had brought up the issue of intersectoral contestation was that the Committee could assist with resolving it. He noted that intersectoral contestation was not only present in the energy sector. The issue was about industrial policy and energy policy and what each sector saw the role of DoE to be. There was a great deal of contestation and the DoE was preparing pieces of legislation. There was at times also contestation with other departments. The energy sector should not necessarily be used to solve industrial policy issues. The DoE encountered hurdles day in and day out. There were times when consensus could not be reached. The DoE had developed the procedure on what was partially achieved after the Auditor General of SA (AGSA) had brought it up. The DoE had developed minimum guidelines. He said that the DoE would rework the slides as the Committee had asked it to do. There was a procedure that the AGSA would be satisfied with.

Mr Aphane said that the DoE had introduced numerous pieces of legislation. Amongst them were the Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill and the National Energy Regulation Bill. These bills were at various stages of completion. On hydrocarbons legislation, the Gas Amendment Bill was approved by cabinet and certified by the State Law Advisers Office. The Bill had been put on hold and would be brought back to cabinet. Minister Joemat-Petterson had instructed the DoE not to over promise and to under deliver.  Progress had been made on the Integrated Energy Plan and the Integrated Resource Plan. Public consultations had been done. There were many questions on the energy sphere. The DoE on going forward would speak to SA about its energy mix.

The Chairperson asked about the fruitless expenditure to the value of R12 000 during 2915/16. He asked what corrective measures had been taken on the under spending in the Clean Energy Programme.

Ms Chetty responded that the matter had been referred to labour relations and had been condoned by the Director General of the DoE. Officials of the DoE had been found not to be negligent. She said that the under spending had related to solar energy. Great progress had been made since then.

Mr Magwebu was not satisfied with the answer to Mr Faber’s question on fraud. He referred to page 16 which spoke about irregular expenditure of R678 000 in 2015/16 and R55 000 in 2014/15. What was the outcome of the matters? Had the matters been referred to the South African Police Services (SAPS)? He asked whether the matters could be regarded as procurement fraud. The DoE needed to take action. Firstly the DoE had to check whether there was misconduct and secondly the matters should have been referred to the SAPS. Referring the matters to labour relations was simply not good enough. Page 20 also made reference to deviations on procurement that had not been reported within timelines. What corrective action had been taken by the DoE?

Ms Chetty on the irregular expenditure amount of R678 000 said that due process had not been followed. A supplier was engaged without due process being followed. The matter had been investigated. If fraud was discovered then due process would be followed.

Mr Magwebu felt that the answer did not suffice. The Committee needed specifics on what was done.

Ms Chetty reiterated that the matter was investigated. No due process had been followed. Three quotations should have been obtained instead of the two. It was found that there was no criminal act and the matter was condoned.

The Chairperson asked whether the responsible official had been disciplined. Did the official receive a final warning? He asked whether the only action taken was the condonation. He was concerned that such occurrences would set a precedent.

Mr Mulaudzi said that the official had not adhered to the prescript. The matter had been referred to labour relations to perform a preliminary scan. It followed the category of misconduct. If criminal elements were to be found then there would be a referral to the SAPS. No criminal elements had been found. There was only an omission by the official and hence it was condoned. Control measures had been put in place to prevent recurrences. It became a corrective measure to the official involved.

The Chairperson reacted that only when a person was not aware of a policy could a person be given a warning not to do it again. If the person knew what the policy was giving them a warning not to do it again was not good enough.

Mr Maqubela said perhaps it was best to provide the Committee with specifics on the case.

Mr Khawula asked why funds had been referred back to National Treasury. Why had funds not been spent? The DoE needed to monitor the spending of funds that it had transferred to entities etc. No spending translated into no service delivery. 

Mr Chabangu pointed out that a service station had been opened up in the Eastern Free State under the auspices of the DoE. Who owned the service station? Was it owned by the community? He asked how shares in the service station were allocated to the community.

Mr Maqubela answered that the service station being referred to was an Integrated Energy Centre. There were such Centres all over SA. They were opened up in areas where oil companies refused to go. They were owned by the community. The DoE partnered with oil companies on Integrated Energy Centres. A cooperative was registered to run the Centre. There were challenges but there were Centres that did benefit their communities. The benefit was not however of a monetary nature or in shares.

The Chairperson said that there was a general feeling that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) was not taken seriously by Ministers and Deputy Ministers. There was a tendency to prioritise the National Assembly (NA). He asked the DoE to convey to its political principles the unhappiness of the Committee. Political principles of the DoE had to be present when the Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan (APP) were presented to the Committee.

Mr Maqubela stated that the DoE appreciated the interaction with the Committee as it made them perform better. The DoE would report back on gaps that the Committee had identified. He would convey the sentiments of the Committee to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Energy as well as to the Director General of the DoE.  

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: