From Energy Poverty to Energy Ownership in Mining Communities 

AUTHOR: Tswelopele Makgale

South Africa’s ongoing energy crisis remains a significant barrier to the country’s socio-economic growth. Persistent load shedding, caused by decades of governance failures, infrastructure decline, and delayed reforms, has cost the nation over R1.2 trillion since 2010.  The impact has been felt across key sectors, including mining, manufacturing, and retail. Despite recent efforts to stabilise the grid, structural issues, including limited transmission capacity and ageing coal infrastructure, continue to hinder economic growth and energy security. 

At its core, this crisis reflects a deeper structural issue: energy poverty. Despite an electrification rate of 87.7% in 2023, an estimated 43–47% of households, over 11 million, remain energy poor, with limited access to affordable, reliable energy. Mining affected communities, despite contributing significantly to the country’s electricity system, remain among those least able to access affordable power. 

This is the central paradox the energy transition must address. Empowering communities through cooperatives, shared-equity models, or social trusts shifts them from passive consumers to active participants in the energy system.  For this shift to work, ownership must be supported by enabling systems, clear policy frameworks, accessible financing, and strong local governance. Without these, community energy risks remaining conceptual rather than implementable. 

Reframing energy poverty as a question of ownership, not just access, opens a pathway for mining communities to move from dependency to resilience. 

As expectations around Environmental, Social and Governance performance increase, mines are under growing pressure to reduce emissions, manage operational risk, and demonstrate measurable social impact. Supporting community-owned renewable energy projects directly contributes to these objectives, lowering Scope 2 emissions, strengthening relationships with host communities, and improving long-term operational stability.  Community energy ownership aligns with the Minerals Council’s “Energise Sustainably” pillar, which calls for holistic decarbonisation and more resilient mining operations. 

Decarbonisation strategies that remain within the mine fence are inherently limited. Repurposing rehabilitated land, existing infrastructure, and post-closure sites for renewable energy generation introduces circular principles into the mining lifecycle.  This approach allows companies to reduce carbon intensity while creating long-term value beyond extraction.  When combined with community ownership, renewable energy shifts from a compliance requirement to a long-term infrastructure and risk management strategy. 

Drivers of Energy Poverty 

Energy poverty in South Africa is driven by a mix of structural, economic, and governance challenges. The country’s energy system remains heavily dependent on ageing coal infrastructure that struggles to meet demand, resulting in frequent outages and unreliable electricity supply. Limited transmission capacity also slows expansion and restricts new connections, making it harder to improve access 

The effects are especially visible in mining regions. As coal mines and power stations close, jobs disappear, and local economies weaken. For many households, this reduces the ability to afford alternative energy options, creating new vulnerabilities even as the country moves toward cleaner energy systems. 

Economic realities also shape who can access reliable energy. Low incomes, unemployment, and limited education levels often leave households with few affordable choices. In many cases, grid access exists, but the cost of electricity remains out of reach, showing that connection alone does not guarantee energy security. 

Policy is another part of the story. South Africa has frameworks aimed at supporting a just transition, but implementation has been uneven. Weak coordination, institutional constraints, and limited community involvement have slowed progress, leaving a gap between policy ambitions and outcomes on the ground. 

Energy access versus Energy ownership 

A just energy transition requires looking beyond energy access and asking who owns energy, and who benefits from it. Energy access focuses on whether households and communities can obtain reliable, affordable, and safe energy. It improves quality of life and supports economic participation, but often leaves people as passive consumers, dependent on the grid and vulnerable to outages or rising tariffs. 

Energy ownership shifts the focus from consumption to control. It concerns who has authority over energy infrastructure and who benefits from it. Through models such as cooperatives or community-led initiatives, communities can move from being consumers to active participants in decision-making, with opportunities to reinvest benefits locally. 

The distinction matters. Access alone does not guarantee agency or long-term energy security. Ownership creates space for communities to shape outcomes, share in economic benefits, and take a more active role in the transition. 

Case Study: Royal Bafokeng Nation (RBN) 

The Royal Bafokeng Nation (RBN) offers an example of what meaningful community ownership can look like in practice, and why it matters for energy systems. Over decades, the Bafokeng have built a model shaped by clear land rights, strategic resource management, and governance structures that give communities a meaningful stake in development. Unlike many mining-affected communities, the RBN has used resource sovereignty not only to generate wealth, but to shape how benefits are distributed and reinvested. 

 A key part of this success lies in governance. Institutions such as the Kgotha-Kgothe, the Nation’s highest decision-making forum, and the Supreme Council have helped align strategic priorities with community interests, while Royal Bafokeng Holdings (RBH) oversees investments through professional management and established governance standards. This combination of traditional leadership and corporate governance has provided the legitimacy and institutional stability needed to sustain long-term development. 

The importance of this structure becomes clearer when considering replication. The RBN experience suggests that community ownership works best where decision-making is trusted, accountability is visible, and communities have meaningful influence over how benefits are managed. These conditions do not guarantee success, but their absence often makes long-term ownership models harder to sustain. 

The Bafokeng experience also shows how ownership can shift communities from dependence to agency. By securing legal rights to platinum-rich land and reinvesting revenues into infrastructure, schools, clinics, and social programmes, the Nation has translated resource wealth into long-term community benefit. The lesson for energy systems is clear: ownership can move communities beyond simply accessing electricity toward shaping their own energy future. 

At the same time, the RBN case also highlights the constraints of replication. Community energy initiatives often operate in more restrictive environments. A project in Nelson Mandela Bay, for example, illustrates how regulatory barriers, unclear ownership arrangements, and reliance on external funding can limit long-term impact. Restrictions on selling excess power back to the grid reduce opportunities for income generation, while questions around affordability, participation, and control continue to shape uptake. 

What this shows is that energy ownership is not only about infrastructure. It depends on governance, incentives, and whether communities can meaningfully influence and benefit from the system. Without these foundations, community energy risks remaining small in scale and limited in impact. Yet where they exist, the shift from energy access to energy ownership becomes far more achievable. 

 Conclusion 

Community-owned solar energy offers a pathway to break cycles of energy poverty in South Africa’s rural mining regions. The shift from energy access to energy ownership has the potential to generate local economic value, strengthen resilience, and give communities greater influence over their own development. The barriers are real, from regulatory complexity and financing gaps to uneven institutional capacity, but they are not insurmountable. 

What becomes clear is that progress will not happen by default. Governments will need to create regulatory environments that make community energy viable, from easier grid access to clearer licensing pathways. Mining companies also have a role to play by treating community-owned energy as part of long-term development and closure planning rather than a peripheral intervention. At the same time, development finance institutions will need financing models that allow communities to participate as stakeholders rather than beneficiaries, while communities themselves require stronger governance and technical capacity to sustain ownership over time. 

At its core, energy sovereignty is not only about electricity supply. It is about who participates, who makes decisions, and who benefits over the long term. As the energy transition accelerates, the real question is this: will mining-affected communities simply power the transition, or will they own a meaningful share of it? 

Share On: