The deadline has arrived for the Eskom Restructuring Task Team (ERTT) to deliver its detailed proposal and implementation plan for establishing a new State-owned Transmission System Operator (TSO).

The contents will be heavily scrutinised, given the importance of the TSO to the transition to a competitive market where the playing field is level for all participants.

Thankfully, a clear yardstick is in place against which this progress can be measured after the Presidency published the ERTT’s terms of reference earlier this month.

The statement reaffirmed that the goal is still the creation of a TSO that is fully independent of Eskom and that will own and control the transmission assets and operate the electricity system and market.

While this objective was stated unequivocally by President Cyril Ramaphosa in his February State of the Nation Address, contradicting both Eskom and his Electricity and Energy Minister, this further reaffirmation is nevertheless important, owing to ongoing opposition to the move.

Indeed, there are coordinated, albeit subtle, efforts to overstate the risks and downplay the importance of the unbundling.

While meeting bondholder obligations and avoiding a default that would further burden taxpayers are legitimate concerns that deserve careful consideration, there is also little question that they are risks that can be managed if there is unity of purpose.

Likewise with the difficult issue of compensating Eskom for the loss of its transmission assets in a way that does not breach the fiduciary duties and obligations of Eskom’s directors.

The terms of reference explicitly state that Eskom should not be worse off financially following the restructuring. But not being worse off should not translate to looking the same, or any other suboptimal outcome.

These risks are, thus, not reasons to delay or dilute a reform that is designed to lay the foundations for the large-scale investment needed not only for security of supply, but to reduce the market-structure risks that led to years of loadshedding.

An independent TSO could, for instance, introduce the independence and credibility to electricity planning that is currently being distorted in favour of planning decisions that are poised to raise system costs unnecessarily, despite affordability being the overwhelming issue of the moment.

Finding a workable solution is challenging but not impossible.

If the protagonists are guided primarily by what is in the long-term interests of a sustainable electricity supply industry, while also acknowledging that these will not always converge with Eskom’s corporate interests, an implementable solution can be found.

Such solutions have been found elsewhere and there is no shortage of case studies from which to learn.

What is also now required, however, is a commitment to a firm timetable, with clear milestones.

Here, the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act’s December 2029 deadline should offer more than a guide.

While arguably the legal outer limit, such a deadline could represent a good blend of ambition and pragmatism, given the far-reaching nature of the reform and the reality that processes invariably take time to unfold.