By: Lindelwa Nonjaduka - graduate of the MPhil in Development Finance at Stellenbosch Business School and Founding Director of The Equilibrium Institute

South Africa’s Just Energy Transition (JET) is one of the most ambitious policy frameworks currently shaping the country’s economic and energy future. Anchored in the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) 2023–2027, it sets out a pathway to decarbonise the economy while safeguarding livelihoods, particularly in coal-dependent regions.

But three years into implementation, a more difficult question is emerging: is the transition meaningfully delivering on its promise of “justice”, or are familiar patterns of exclusion and extractive development re-emerging under a green agenda?

At its core, the JET-IP is built on four investment pillars: electricity, the Mpumalanga just transition, new energy vehicles (NEVs) and green hydrogen, supported by cross-cutting priorities such as skills development and municipal capacity. The policy framework explicitly commits to distributive, restorative and procedural justice.

The challenge lies not in the ambition of these commitments, but in how they are being realised in practice.

The success of the JET hinges on more than financing commitments and technical partnerships. It requires clear accountability to affected communities, particularly in regions where the economic restructuring will be most acute.

International partnerships including support from institutions such as the German Development Agency (GIZ) have played an important role in mobilising finance and technical expertise. 

However, without strong local agency and decision-making power, these partnerships risk translating into top-down interventions that are disconnected from local economic realities.

A transition that is not anchored in community participation and ownership risks becoming procedurally unjust, regardless of its environmental or economic intent.

Recent developments have also exposed a structural vulnerability in South Africa’s transition model: its reliance on geopolitically contingent funding.

The withdrawal of approximately US$1 billion in pledged support by the United States in March 2025, reducing total commitments from US$13.8 billion to US$12.8 billion,  illustrates how quickly external financing landscapes can shift. These decisions are often driven by geopolitical priorities rather than domestic development needs.

For implementation, this has real consequences: delayed projects, disrupted planning cycles and uncertainty for communities already navigating economic transition.

This raises a critical engineering and policy question: how resilient is the JET-IP to funding volatility and what mechanisms exist to mitigate these risks?

To address this, South Africa will need to diversify both its financing base and its partnerships.

Greater emphasis on South–South cooperation, regional collaboration, and domestic capital mobilisation will be essential. Equally important is creating a regulatory and investment environment that enables private sector participation at scale.

Over-reliance on a narrow set of international funders introduces systemic risk, not only to project delivery, but to the broader goal of achieving a just transition.

The transition to new energy systems including NEVs, green hydrogen, and renewable energy infrastructure, is fundamentally a technical and skills-intensive shift.

While skills development is recognised within the JET-IP, it is still largely approached as a social support function rather than a core economic investment.

This distinction matters. Without sustained investment in technical training, particularly through TVET institutions, South Africa risks importing skills for the very industries meant to drive inclusive growth.

In practical terms, this undermines both the economic and social objectives of the transition.

Ultimately, the success of the Just Energy Transition will depend on whether it can reconcile two imperatives: economic competitiveness and social justice.

These are often framed as competing priorities, but in the context of the JET, they are fundamentally interdependent. A transition that fails to generate inclusive economic opportunities will not be socially sustainable. Conversely, a transition that prioritises speed over equity risks entrenching the very inequalities it seeks to address.

The question, then, is not whether South Africa can achieve a just transition in principle but whether its current implementation model is structured to deliver one in practice.