Questions and Replies

Reply:

The Regulations seek to ensure a captured market for locally manufactured biofuels and will therefore assist in promoting the blending of biofuels with mineral fuels in the country, thereby supporting the achievement of the objectives of the Biofuels Industrial Strategy of 2007.

Reply:

Yes. The relevant information is published in The Report on Renewable Energy in South Africa.

Reply:

The information is in the Annual Report of the Department.

Reply:

The specified EU agreement will be tabled in Parliament as time permits.

Reply:

The Minister of Energy and the Deputy Minister travel to Gauteng and Cape Town as per official government responsibilities.



END

Reply:

The Department of Energy’s processes are subject to due diligence that is informed by the Public Financial Management Act of 2000, The Treasury Regulations and the National Treasury instruction notes. These are to ensure transparency, accountability and compliance and cannot be regarded as bureaucratic processes.


END

Reply:

Yes, as soon as the policy adjustment process is completed and Cabinet approval is obtained.

Reply:

The matter is being dealt with.

Reply:

The matter has been reported to the NPA under Case Number 65/3/2012.  The matter is under investigation. CEF is not in the position to avail and/or request the content of the docket, such request should be directed to the NPA accordingly and a determination by the NPA in terms of their rules shall be made as to whether or not to avail such information on pending matters.

Reply:

Yes, the Department of Energy fully complies with the set employment target. 2.48% was reached as at 31 July 2015.

Reply:

The question was responded to as Parliamentary question number 2454.The resolution of these outstanding matters coincided with the need to resolve Eskom’s funding model.

.

Reply:

(a) Yes.

(b) Cabinet approved the new model for Solar Water Heaters on 24 June 2015. An Inter-Ministerial Committee on Energy will finalise the model.

Reply:

1. During the first half of 2015, PetroSA representatives had exploratory discussions with James Street Capital Partners (JSCP). In these exploratory discussions JSCP expressed an interest in partnering with PetroSA in the trading function of the business. In the three meetings held with JSCP representatives, PetroSA outlined the workings of its procurement policy and procedures, and the requirement to always adhere to these. The discussions with JSCP never materialised into any agreements.
2. No agreements were concluded with JSCP.
3. There are no ongoing discussions with JSCP.
4. PetroSA policies require the National Oil Company to perform a due-diligence probe on the company that is presenting a proposal. The policies also stipulate that such potential partners need to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement. In the case of JSCP, their proposal could not be progressed as the process of verification was never finalised.

Reply:

1. (a) and (b) Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape

Dunefontein in the Western Cape

Bantamsklip in the Western Cape

Brazil in Northern Cape

Schulpfontein in the Western Cape

KwaZulu-Natal the names of sites and locations yet to be identified investigated in detail

2. (a) The Environmental Impact Assessment has been done for Thyspunt, Dunefontein and Batamsklip

(b) The detailed findings of the assessments of these sites are public available on Eskom Nuclear's 1 EIA website.

The Brazil and Schulpfontein sites were scoped out during scoping phase

The EIA has not started in potential sites in KwaZulu-Natal as these still have to be confirmed

3. The transmission to the grid is contained in the EIA report.

Reply:

Reply:

1. Yes.
2. The CEF Management reported the matter to the National Prosecuting Authority, case number: CAS 65/3/2012. CEF made several follow-ups and the NPA assured CEF that the matter was under investigation and had also been referred to the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit. All the necessary project documents were made available to the (i) AG for the full audit. No documents were sent to (ii) DPSA and the (iii) Public Service Commission as the staff members implicated for possible wrong-doing had left the employ of CEF.
3. This has been done. The CEF Management reported the matter to the National Prosecuting Authority, case number: CAS 65/3/2012. CEF made several follow-ups and the NPA assured CEF that the matter was under investigation and had also been referred to the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit.
4. No. The implicated executive had resigned from their employment with CEF. This was a voluntary resignation and was not related to this matter. At the time when the matter was investigated by our Auditors, the implicated employees had already resigned. As indicated above, charges were laid, the matter was referred to the Special Crimes Unit/ National Prosecuting Authority.

Reply:

1. (a) the undertaking was to further development the project,

(b) the amount spent was R2.2million.

2. (a) No, funding was stopped because the project did not achieve certain required conditions.

(b) funding ceased during May 2009.

3. The matter was reported to the Commercial Crimes Unit for Investigation.

4. The CEF internal investigation commenced towards end of 2010 and was finalized in 2011. The matter was immediately reported to the National Prosecuting Authority after being considered internally.

Reply:

The Minister, Deputy Minister and officials have travelled to China. The details will be specified as soon as the information is available.

Reply:

The Department spent the following on (i) Sowetan (aa) 2012 – 2013 R43 299.77

(bb) 2013 - 2014 R433 319.35 (cc) 2014 – 2015 R145 230.82. The Department spent the following on (ii) Daily Sun in (aa) 2012 – 2013 R61 221. 42, bb) 2013 - 2014 No advert made, (cc) 2014 – 2015 R163 257.12)

Reply:

1. Eskom did not have the financial capacity to conclude the transaction and hence the project negotiations were aborted. However, the IPP office has revived the project.
2. Yes, IPP’s play an important role, side by side with Eskom, in bringing more MW into the grid. The current RSA IPP programme has been acknowledged as one of the best IPP programmes globally.

Reply:

(a)  The Department of Energy has carefully factored in the relevant government policies in preparation for rollout of the nuclear new build including the requirements of the National Development Plan(NDP) and Integrated Resource Plan 2010-2030 (IRP 2010-2030).

(b) The IRP2010-2030 provides a schedule to start commission the nuclear power plants from 2023 to 2030. The Department of Energy has identified a government State Owned Entity as an Implementing Agent for the nuclear new build programme. The Implementing Agent will work out specific detailed implementation plans to rollout the programme.

(c) South Africa has signed the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) with Nuclear Vendor countries (USA, South Korea, China, France and Russia). The Department of Energy has tabled these IGAs to Parliament for deliberations and ratification. The Department awaits feedback from the Portfolio Energy Committee on this matter.

Reply:

The studies will be used to inform government’s decision process for procurement of the Nuclear New Build Programme.

Reply:

The policy adjustment process is not yet completed.

Reply:

The IPP Office is funded by fees collected from prospective bidders.

Reply:

The Nuclear New Build Programme Funding requirement is being discussed within National Treasury.

Reply:

No.

Reply:

Yes, we have issued a Request for Information in relation to any initiative to relieve the grid constraints, including through power barges. The Request for Information results have been collated and the procurement process will follow within the next 2 months.

Reply:

1. PetroSA will declare a substantial loss of approximately R15 billion for the financial year ending 31 March 2015.

In discharging its fiduciary duty, the Board of Directors of PetroSA resolved to conduct an investigation into the causes of the substantial loss and PetroSA's poor performance as well as the role played by PetroSA's executive team including the Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO), the Group Chief Financial Officer (GCFO) and the Vice President – Upstream in relation thereto. The Board of Directors formed the prima facie view that PetroSA's poor financial performance was, at least in part, attributable to the three executives given their role, duties and responsibilities as employees of PetroSA.

2. The investigation is currently still in progress. It was envisaged that the investigation would be completed within a period of approximately two months. At this stage, it is anticipated that the investigation will be completed towards the end of August. In light of the fact that the investigation is still underway, no results are available.

Reply:

Attached find here: A detailed response is provided in a table below: