ENERGY GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL TRUST

1. INTRODUCTION

Energy governance refers to the legal, institutional and political arrangements through which electricity and other energy resources are generated, regulated, priced, distributed and supplied to society. Social trust, in this context, means public confidence that energy institutions will act lawfully, competently, transparently, fairly and predictably.

The relationship between the two is fundamental. Citizens are more likely to trust energy institutions when electricity is supplied reliably, tariffs are understandable, regulatory decisions are transparent and interruptions are imposed according to lawful procedures. Conversely, prolonged outages, discriminatory disconnections, corruption, unexplained tariff increases and institutional failure can undermine confidence not only in an electricity supplier but also in government and constitutional institutions generally.

Thus, energy governance can be understood as a form of trust-based public governance.

2. ENERGY AS A FOUNDATION OF THE STATE–CITIZEN RELATIONSHIP

Modern citizens interact with government partly through public infrastructure. Electricity enables homes, hospitals, schools, businesses, communications, water systems and many other essential activities.

The Constitutional Court's reasoning in Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC) is particularly important. The Court characterised electricity as one of the most important basic municipal services and recognised that it has become virtually indispensable in modern urban society. This transforms electricity administration from a purely commercial relationship into an important aspect of public governance.

Consequently, when public authorities administer electricity, they must recognise the dignity and legitimate interests of the people dependent upon the system.

This creates an important governance equation:

Reliable Service + Lawfulness + Procedural Fairness + Accountability = Greater Social Trust.

3. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND TRUST – JOSEPH CASE

Joseph v City of Johannesburg provides one of the clearest judicial illustrations of the connection between energy governance and social trust.

Residents of an apartment building lost electricity after the municipal supplier disconnected the building because the owner had accumulated substantial arrears. The residents themselves were not the direct contractual customers.

The Constitutional Court nevertheless recognised that the residents had an important interest in receiving electricity and held, in the circumstances, that they were entitled to procedural fairness before termination.

The significance extends beyond administrative procedure. Trust in an energy system requires citizens to know that government will not exercise infrastructure power arbitrarily.

Notice allows affected persons to understand the decision, challenge errors and make alternative arrangements. Procedural fairness therefore operates as a mechanism for maintaining institutional legitimacy.

4. SOCIAL TRUST ALSO REQUIRES RECIPROCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Trust cannot operate only in one direction. Citizens expect effective services, but sustainable energy governance also requires consumers to comply with legitimate payment obligations.

This principle appears strongly in Rademan v Moqhaka Local Municipality and Others 2013 (4) SA 225 (CC).

Ms Rademan withheld municipal rates because she was dissatisfied with service delivery, although she continued paying for electricity. The municipality ultimately disconnected her electricity. The Constitutional Court dismissed her appeal and considered the statutory framework governing municipal services and debt collection.

The case demonstrates an important feature of social trust: reciprocity.

Municipalities must provide services sustainably and lawfully, while residents have corresponding responsibilities concerning legitimate municipal charges. Indeed, the constitutional objects of local government include both democratic and accountable government and sustainable service provision.

5. INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE AND THE EROSION OF TRUST

Social trust becomes particularly fragile when institutional disputes threaten electricity continuity.

In Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Resilient Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others 2021 (3) SA 47 (SCA), Eskom proposed interruptions of bulk electricity supply to municipalities experiencing severe financial difficulties and substantial electricity debts.

The Supreme Court of Appeal stressed that municipalities have constitutional and statutory responsibilities concerning basic services and that electricity is an indispensable municipal service. Importantly, the Court emphasised the constitutional principles of co-operative government. Organs of state must make reasonable efforts in good faith to resolve intergovernmental disputes rather than allowing institutional conflict to produce serious consequences for communities.

This is crucial for social trust. Residents who have paid their electricity accounts may suffer because of financial and administrative conflict between Eskom and their municipality. From the citizen's perspective, institutional boundaries matter much less than whether the state can maintain essential infrastructure.

6. ENERGY GOVERNANCE, HUMAN CONSEQUENCES AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The same broader problem appeared in Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Lekwa Ratepayers Association; Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development Association 2022 (4) SA 78 (SCA).

The litigation arose against the background of electricity-supply restrictions and dysfunctional municipal arrangements. Related judicial reasoning recognised that electricity interruptions can generate profound socioeconomic and humanitarian consequences and that exercises of public electricity powers remain subject to public-law constraints.

This demonstrates why energy governance cannot be evaluated exclusively through financial accounting.

A technically lawful tariff, debt-collection mechanism or electricity restriction may affect:

healthcare, water supply, sanitation, businesses, employment, education, personal security and human dignity.

Governance institutions must therefore consider the broader social consequences of energy decisions.

7. TRANSPARENCY AS A SOURCE OF ENERGY TRUST

Public confidence increases where regulators, municipalities and utilities explain:

how tariffs are calculated;

why electricity restrictions are necessary;

how revenue is spent;

how infrastructure investments are prioritised;

how consumers can challenge incorrect decisions; and

who is accountable when service standards deteriorate.

Transparency reduces the informational distance between energy institutions and citizens.

In constitutional terms, this corresponds with principles of accountability, responsiveness, openness, lawful administration and procedural fairness.

8. TRUST AS AN ENERGY-GOVERNANCE RESOURCE

Social trust should itself be regarded as an important governance resource.

Where consumers trust institutions, they may be more willing to pay legitimate tariffs, comply with conservation measures, accept necessary infrastructure projects and cooperate during genuine energy emergencies.

Where trust collapses, the opposite dynamic may emerge:

Governance Failure → Poor Energy Services → Public Distrust → Reduced Compliance → Revenue Problems → Infrastructure Deterioration → Further Governance Failure.

This creates a negative feedback loop in which institutional weakness and social distrust reinforce one another.

Effective governance seeks to reverse that cycle:

Accountability → Better Services → Greater Trust → Greater Compliance → Institutional Capacity → More Reliable Energy Services.

9. CONCLUSION

Energy governance and social trust are therefore deeply interconnected. Electricity institutions exercise power over infrastructure upon which everyday social and economic life depends. Consequently, their legitimacy depends not simply upon producing electricity but upon exercising energy authority lawfully, transparently, fairly, sustainably and accountably.

Joseph v City of Johannesburg illustrates the importance of procedural fairness; Rademan v Moqhaka demonstrates the reciprocal relationship between sustainable municipal services and citizen payment obligations; while Eskom v Resilient Properties and the Lekwa Ratepayers litigation demonstrate the constitutional consequences of institutional and intergovernmental failures affecting electricity supply.

Ultimately, social trust is part of the invisible infrastructure of the energy system. Power stations, grids and distribution networks constitute its physical infrastructure, while legality, fairness, accountability and public confidence constitute its institutional infrastructure. A sustainable energy system requires both.