South Africa’s electricity debate often swings between optimism and frustration. One month brings fewer outages. The next brings renewed load shedding. The real question is simpler and more useful. Is Eskom’s power system actually better than it was five years ago?
How to Measure Improvement in a Power System
What “better” actually means
A power system improves when three things happen. Plants run more often. Breakdowns occur less frequently. Maintenance becomes planned instead of reactive.
Why one metric is misleading
Many people focus only on load shedding stages. That’s a mistake.
Load shedding reflects the balance between supply and demand on a given day. A healthier system can still shed load if demand spikes or multiple units trip at once. What matters more is whether the underlying machines are failing less often.
Comparing Eskom’s System Then and Now
Availability and breakdown trends
Five years ago, Eskom’s Energy Availability Factor regularly sank below 60 percent. Some months dipped into the mid-50s. Too many units were offline or breaking unexpectedly.
Today, EAF has moved closer to the mid-60s and occasionally above 70 percent during stable periods. That is material improvement. Each percentage point equals roughly 450 MW, enough to power a mid-sized city.
Breakdowns have also eased. The frequency of sudden unit trips has declined compared to the crisis years of 2022 and 2023, when plants failed daily and emergency diesel turbines carried the grid.
The system still breaks. It just breaks less often.
Maintenance patterns over time
Earlier in the decade, Eskom deferred maintenance to keep lights on. Units that should have been serviced kept running until they failed. That created a cycle of collapse.
The recent shift shows more planned outages. More units go offline deliberately for repairs rather than unexpectedly for emergencies. That is how recovery begins. Short-term pain for longer-term stability.
The data suggests a system trying to heal instead of firefight.
Read Also: Solar Now Supplies a Tenth of Electricity in Thirteen African Power Systems
What Has Improved — And What Hasn’t
Areas of stabilisation
Emergency interventions have reduced. Diesel spending has moderated compared to peak crisis years. Operators can predict weekly capacity with more confidence.
This predictability matters. Industry can plan. Municipalities can schedule. Investors regain some trust. Stability, not perfection, is the first milestone.
Ongoing structural weaknesses
But the fleet is still old. Most coal stations are over 30 years old. Age brings fatigue, corrosion, and higher failure rates. Costs also continue to rise. Maintenance is expensive. Fuel logistics remain fragile. Debt limits how quickly new capacity can be added.
The foundation remains fragile even if daily operations look better.
Why Improvement Doesn’t Always Mean No Load Shedding
The margin between supply and demand is thin. A few large units tripping during winter evenings can erase months of progress in hours.
A slightly better system does not mean a comfortable buffer. It means fewer crises, not zero crises.
FAQs
Is Eskom performing better than five years ago
Yes. Availability, breakdown frequency, and planned maintenance trends show measurable improvement.
Why does load shedding return after improvements
Because the reserve margin is small. A handful of failures can still overwhelm supply.
What indicators show real progress
Higher EAF, fewer emergency outages, more scheduled maintenance, and lower diesel use.
Can Eskom fully recover with its current fleet
Not completely. Stability is possible, but long-term reliability requires new generation capacity alongside repairs.
By Thuita Gatero, Managing Editor, Africa Digest News. He specializes in conversations around data centers, AI, cloud infrastructure, and energy.
