There is no question that President Ramaphosa’s endorsement of the Phase I report of the Eskom Restructuring Task Team (ERTT) is a key milestone in the ongoing reform of South Africa’s electricity sector.

The report focused on developing a high-level proposal to establish an independent Transmission System Operator (TSO). It was guided by both the amended Electricity Regulation Act, which includes a five-year timeframe from 2025 for the creation of the TSO, and the ERTT’s terms of reference.

Crucially, the terms of reference included the following: developing a detailed proposal and implementation plan for establishing an independent, State-owned TSO separate from Eskom that will assume ownership and control of transmission assets, operate the electricity market, enable transmission investment at scale, and provide non-discriminatory access to the grid.

The clause took its lead from Ramaphosa’s February State of the Nation Address, when he insisted that the TSO should have ownership and control of transmission assets; a rebuke of an earlier Eskom plan that envisaged the retention of the assets by an Eskom Holdings subsidiary.

Amid Eskom’s ongoing misgivings about the transfer, Ramaphosa’s endorsement of the Phase I report is significant.

It reinforces his determination to follow through with reforms that have their genesis in a protracted and extreme loadshedding crisis.

It’s doubly significant, as Eskom is in a far stronger position currently than it was when the National Energy Crisis Committee was established, owing to its impressive operational recovery.

Triply so, as there are strong political forces resisting a restructuring agenda that will result in Eskom having to compete with private generators and where the TSO, rather than Eskom, will beat the heart of the system and the market surrounding it.

During a recent address at the opening of a new wind farm in Mpumalanga, Ramaphosa deviated from his script to provide a telecommunications analogy to illustrate his resolve to drive electricity competition.

He reminded his audience of the monopoly once enjoyed by Telkom, despite its inability to extend services to all communities. He reflected on how the opening of the market had derisked the sector, extended services, and provided choice in an atmosphere of competition that was supportive of affordability. Left unsaid was the difficulty that a once dominant incumbent can have in competing, despite the “managed liberalisation” guardrails.

It was a tangible reminder of the potential of the market to deliver reliable and affordable services – one that will be insufficient on its own, however, to convince those currently resisting the reforms that aim to reshape Phase II, a phase that involves crafting the detailed implementation plan, with timeframes, for completing Eskom’s restructuring.

Doubt has already been cast over the timing of the asset transfer, alongside what feels to be an overemphasis on fiduciary duties and the idea that Eskom, which is trading with the support of taxpayers, should not be financially worse off.

In other words, there is still some way to go and the outcome is not yet certain.