Whether you’re facing challenges or looking for tailored solutions, our team is here to help. Get in touch with us today and take the next step towards securing your business’s future.
Here’s something most renewable energy developers won’t admit until they’re knee‑deep in trouble: you can build the most efficient solar farm in the Northern Cape, secure your R2 billion in financing, complete construction on schedule and still lose everything because the grid connection you were promised doesn’t materialise.
We have seen this scenario play out before. Smart people, solid projects, catastrophic losses.
With South Africa hosting Africa’s first‑ever G20 Summit on 22–23 November 2025 in Johannesburg, renewable energy is front and centre of the global conversation. Under South Africa’s G20 presidency, President Ramaphosa’s stated theme of “Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability” puts energy transition at the heart of the agenda. The Just Energy Transition Partnership initially pledged $8.5 billion and has since grown to roughly $9.3 billion in climate finance commitments, supporting a Just Energy Transition Investment Plan that estimates around $98 billion will be required over five years for electricity, green hydrogen and new energy vehicles.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: while politicians shake hands and sign declarations, the project pipeline has ballooned faster than the country’s ability to connect it. A recent national grid survey found that South Africa now has more than 220 GW of renewable projects in the development pipeline, including over 70 GW at advanced stages, with the bulk clustered in the best‑resource provinces – the Northern Cape, Western Cape and Eastern Cape – where the grid is already effectively saturated for large‑scale projects. At the same time, Operation Vulindlela reports more than 22,500 MW of private‑sector projects representing around R390–R400 billion in investment at advanced stages of development.
The result: zero or near‑zero available grid capacity on key transmission corridors in those provinces until major reinforcements are built; an Eskom that has required a multi‑year debt‑relief package of up to R254 billion from National Treasury; and a more hostile global trading environment as US–South Africa tensions spill over into tariff threats and the expiry of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) on 30 September 2025, which removed duty‑free access to the US for many South African exports in sectors like agriculture, autos and textiles.
If you’re developing, financing or investing in renewable energy in South Africa right now, you’re navigating one of the most complex political risk environments the sector has ever faced – precisely when the international spotlight is brightest.
Let me show you what’s actually happening, what it means for your projects, and how specialised insurance can protect the investments you’ve worked years to secure.
Why This G20 Summit Changes Everything for Renewable Energy Risk
The November 2025 G20 Summit is not just a photo opportunity. It is the first time an African nation holds the G20 presidency, and South Africa has allocated around R691 million for hosting costs, including security, energy resilience and operational support for the summit precincts, according to parliamentary and media briefings on the G20 budget. Heads of state and government from the world’s largest economies are in Johannesburg, and the political pressure on South Africa to showcase a credible renewable energy transition is intense.
On the surface, there is some good news to highlight. From late March 2024, Eskom suspended load shedding, and by 21 January 2025 South Africa had recorded 300 consecutive days without load shedding – the longest uninterrupted stretch since the crisis began – before rotational outages later resumed as demand, planned maintenance and unplanned breakdowns shifted. Meanwhile, the Presidency’s National Energy Crisis Committee / Operation Vulindlela updates cite more than 22,500 MW of private‑sector renewable projects in development, representing roughly R400 billion in committed or advanced‑stage investment.
But the geopolitical context is deteriorating.
US–South Africa tensions have created immediate political risk exposure. Coverage of the 2025 G20 meetings in Johannesburg notes that the US repeatedly sent lower‑level delegations instead of Secretary of State Marco Rubio or Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to key ministerial meetings, widely interpreted as a diplomatic downgrade in response to South Africa’s positions on Russia, Gaza and BRICS expansion. At the same time, President Trump has publicly threatened 100% tariffs on BRICS nations over discussions about alternative reserve currencies and de‑dollarisation.
Most critically, AGOA’s expiry on 30 September 2025 removed duty‑free access to the US market for many South African exports. And in a widely reported 6 February 2025 speech addressing US pressure over South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel and domestic legislation including the Expropriation Act, President Ramaphosa insisted that “we will not be bullied” – a stance that plays well domestically but signals continued friction with Washington.
For renewable energy developers, this matters because cross‑border investment from US firms, European partners with US exposure, and international lenders all face heightened political risk. Power Purchase Agreements denominated in foreign currencies become more volatile. Equipment supply chains from US or US‑exposed manufacturers face potential disruption. Project financing with US‑linked institutions increasingly requires explicit political risk coverage.
The Grid Constraint Crisis: A R390 Billion Problem With Zero Visibility
Here’s where theory meets brutal reality.
In December 2024, government named preferred bidders under REIPPPP Bid Window 7 for 1,760 MW of utility‑scale solar PV across eight projects, representing tens of billions of rand in new generation capacity and several thousand construction‑phase jobs. For the communities involved and the developers who finally secured preferred bidder status, this is a major milestone.
Sounds fantastic – until you look at the grid capacity data.
Both Eskom’s Generation Connection Capacity Assessment and recent industry surveys show that the Northern Cape, Western Cape and Eastern Cape are effectively out of grid capacity at transmission level for new large‑scale renewables, despite having some of the country’s best solar and wind resources. An updated 2025 Renewable Energy Grid Survey found a pipeline of over 220 GW in these provinces alone, with more than 72 GW classified as “advanced” – chasing limited grid access.
At the same time, Eskom and National Treasury estimate that expanding and strengthening the transmission grid will require roughly R390 billion in investment over the next decade, as outlined in public discussions around the Transmission Development Plan and related budget documents. That scale of capex cannot be deployed overnight, forcing many projects either into weaker‑resource areas with available grid capacity or into accepting curtailment risk that can quietly destroy project economics.
Compounding this, Eskom’s May 2024 application to reserve grid capacity for its own generation projects was rejected by NERSA, which chose instead to maintain a “first‑ready, first‑served” allocation framework – a decision reported in detail by Engineering News. In practice, this means you can spend two years developing a project, complete environmental approvals, secure financing, break ground on construction – and still discover there’s no grid connection available when you’re ready to energise.
Developers must also post substantial grid‑connection guarantees per megawatt, tying up working capital long before a single rand of revenue is earned. If the connection is delayed after construction, you’re left servicing debt on a stranded asset with no clear timeline for when – or if – you’ll be allowed to feed power into the grid.
This isn’t hypothetical. We are aware of developers who completed construction in late 2024 and are still waiting for grid connection in late 2025 – 10 to 12 months of dead capital, strained lender relationships and mounting pressure to declare force majeure under construction contracts.
Political Risk Insurance can be structured to address exactly these issues: grid access disputes, regulatory allocation changes and contract frustration when government or state‑owned entities fail to deliver promised infrastructure. But most developers first hear about these products after they have a stranded plant, not before.
Eskom’s Debt Relief and Municipal Backlogs: What It Means for Your 20‑Year PPA
Let’s talk about off‑taker creditworthiness, because this is where most renewable energy insurance conversations should start (but rarely do).
When you sign a 15–20 year Power Purchase Agreement with Eskom, you are contracting with a utility that has required a debt‑relief arrangement of up to R254 billion over 2023/24–2025/26, formalised through the Eskom Debt Relief Act and related measures. Subsequent budget updates suggest the actual amount drawn may be closer to R230 billion, but the underlying message is unchanged: Eskom’s balance sheet remains fragile.
On the distribution side, studies on municipal infrastructure estimate an electricity distribution maintenance backlog of around R250 billion, much of it sitting with municipalities, alongside a similar‑scale backlog in water and sanitation infrastructure, as highlighted in research cited by the Public Affairs Research Institute. At the same time, analysis of South Africa’s wheeling landscape by GreenCape and others suggests that only a handful of municipalities – roughly six out of 257 – have fully developed wheeling frameworks for large‑scale projects, as noted in the 2025 Large‑Scale Renewable Energy Market Intelligence Report.
So the question is not “Will Eskom pay you reliably for 20 years?” The question is: “What happens to your project when Eskom doesn’t pay you for three to six months in Year 8 because it is in another financial squeeze – or when a key municipal off‑taker’s network fails and cannot wheel your power?”
This is contract frustration risk. This is political risk. This is exactly the type of scenario Renewable Energy Insurance and Trade Credit Insurance products are designed to cover – but only if you structure the policies correctly at financial close, not after payment defaults begin.
Developers routinely lose 15–20% (or more) of a project’s equity value because they did not anticipate off‑taker payment risk. Lenders get nervous, cash sweeps are imposed, financial covenants are breached and the capital structure begins to unravel.
Meanwhile, foreign‑denominated financing introduces additional complexity. In September 2024, the European Investment Bank and FirstRand announced a €400 million (approximately R7.9 billion) initiative to finance solar PV and wind projects in South Africa, matched euro‑for‑euro by local partners. That’s positive for capital access – but it also means currency and transfer risks for projects with euro or dollar debt: a weakening rand, the potential for future exchange controls, and the ever‑present risk of delays in cross‑border payments.
REIPPPP Policy Reversals: The 2015–2019 Precedent Nobody Wants to Remember
Here’s a history lesson most people in the renewable energy sector would prefer to forget.
Between roughly 2015 and 2019, the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) was effectively stalled. Eskom’s refusal to sign outstanding PPAs and broader policy uncertainty meant that projects which had been awarded preferred bidder status sat in limbo. The South African Renewable Energy Masterplan (SAREM) explicitly notes that the REIPPPP “was stalled between 2015 and 2019 due to institutional issues,” undermining market confidence and local manufacturing capability (SAREM, 2025).
If it happened once, it can happen again.
The Electricity Regulation Amendment Act, 38 of 2024, came into force on 1 January 2025, formally paving the way for a competitive wholesale market and an independent Transmission System Operator, as confirmed in the Government Gazette and subsequent legal analyses. On 2 April 2025, the South African Renewable Energy Masterplan (SAREM) was finalised, targeting annual additions of at least 3 GW of renewables and storage, rising to 5 GW by 2030, alongside ambitious industrial and localisation objectives.
At the same time, an updated Integrated Resource Plan – often referred to as IRP 2023/24 – was released in November 2024 for public comment, with parliamentary approval still pending well into 2025.
That’s a significant amount of regulatory flux for projects that require 20‑year revenue certainty to satisfy lenders and equity investors.
Add to this Section 53 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), which requires ministerial consent when renewable energy projects affect land with existing or potential mineral rights. In practice, this can create complex conflicts between the energy and mining portfolios, resulting in project delays of six to twelve months – long enough to breach construction financing deadlines and trigger default or penalty clauses.
Political Risk Insurance products can be tailored to cover many of these risks: policy reversals, regulatory changes that materially impact project economics, creeping expropriation or de facto confiscation, and government‑driven delays that make timely completion impossible. But you need to know what to ask for. “Generic political risk coverage” is not enough. You need policy wording that explicitly addresses:
Licence revocation or non‑renewal by government entities
Tariff methodology shifts that reduce PPA revenues below viability thresholds
Grid allocation disputes and connection delays caused by regulatory failures
Section 53 MPRDA approval delays that breach construction financing deadlines
Currency inconvertibility and transfer restrictions affecting foreign lenders
If your insurance broker is not walking through these specific scenarios with you during policy structuring, you are working with the wrong broker.
What the G20 Summit Actually Means for Your Project (Beyond the Headlines)
The summit creates both opportunity and pressure.
South Africa’s G20 agenda places strong emphasis on critical minerals and responsible supply chains, reflecting the fact that Africa holds roughly 30% of the world’s mineral reserves, including many of the cobalt, lithium, manganese, graphite and rare earth deposits essential for the energy transition, as highlighted by institutions like the OECD and African Development Bank. South Africa has pushed for frameworks on responsible business conduct, fair contract negotiation and combating illicit trade in these minerals.
If you’re developing battery energy storage systems (BESS) or sourcing components that depend on critical minerals, expect:
Greater scrutiny of supply chains and mineral origin
Stronger beneficiation and local‑content expectations
Increased civil‑society and community activism around mining practices
All of that is regulatory and political risk. All of it is insurable – if captured correctly in your policies.
On the sovereign side, the first‑ever G20 Ministerial Declaration on Debt Sustainability was adopted in mid‑2025, acknowledging that external debt interest payments in many African countries have roughly doubled over the past decade and calling for more systematic restructuring mechanisms. For businesses operating in South Africa or across the continent, rising sovereign debt burdens translate into:
Higher payment‑default risk for state‑owned off‑takers
Currency volatility and potential ratings downgrades
Contract frustration and renegotiation pressure on long‑term PPAs
Tighter capital controls or delays in cross‑border transfers in worst‑case scenarios
These are not abstract macro risks. They are contractual triggers that can activate force majeure clauses, terminate off‑take agreements and freeze cross‑border capital flows.
Post‑summit, insurers will be watching several things closely:
The final G20 Leaders’ Declaration for any policy shifts affecting business risk
US‑South Africa bilateral developments under the Trump presidency, especially around tariffs and sanctions
Prospects for AGOA replacement or renewal, and any sector‑specific trade preferences
The stability of South Africa’s Government of National Unity (GNU) coalition and its ability to implement energy reform legislation
But here is the critical insight: the G20 provides a reputational boost and may support policy improvements over time, yet none of that replaces contractual protection. Trade disruptions, infrastructure failures and regulatory changes remain very real threats to project cash flows, irrespective of how positive the communiqués sound.
Hope is not a risk‑management strategy. Insurance is.
How to Actually Protect R400 Billion in Renewable Energy Investment
If you’re a renewable energy developer, project financier, equity investor or EPC contractor working on South African projects right now, here is what you can do:
Conduct a political risk assessment before financial close (not after). Map every regulatory approval required. Identify which government entities control critical‑path decisions. Review their track record using public information – from NERSA determinations to court cases – and structure insurance coverage around the most vulnerable points.
Structure combined Political Risk + Renewable Energy Insurance from the outset. Do not treat them as entirely separate policies. Grid‑constraint risk is political risk. Off‑taker creditworthiness is political risk. Policy reversal is political risk. Section 53 delays are political risk. Your insurance programme should reflect this integrated risk reality, rather than siloing coverage in ways that leave gaps.
Insist on explicit policy wording for the scenarios that actually keep you up at night. That means cover for grid‑allocation disputes, construction completion without the ability to connect, curtailment‑driven revenue losses, project abandonment scenarios, Eskom or municipal payment reliability, wheeling‑framework failures and Section 53 MPRDA approval delays.
Address currency and transfer risks if you have foreign‑denominated financing or foreign equity. The rand is volatile at the best of times. Add sovereign debt concerns and shifting geopolitics, and you have genuine convertibility and transfer risks. These are not always captured in standard policies – you have to ask for them explicitly.
Align insurance with lender requirements. Most project‑finance lenders now require political risk coverage as a condition precedent to financial close, especially where foreign capital or development finance institutions are involved. Do not negotiate insurance in a vacuum; it should be integrated into your term sheets, cash‑sweep triggers and covenant structures from day one.
At Berkley Risk, we’ve arranged Political Risk Insurance and Renewable Energy Insurance for projects across Sub‑Saharan Africa facing exactly these scenarios. We understand the intersection of regulatory risk, off‑taker creditworthiness, grid constraints and geopolitical tensions because we are structuring coverage for clients navigating all of them simultaneously.
We are not here to sell you generic insurance policies. We are here to build contractual protections that actually respond when things go wrong – because in South Africa’s renewable energy sector right now, things are going wrong with increasing frequency.
If you’re developing a solar, wind or BESS project worth R50 million or more – particularly if you’re in one of the grid‑constrained provinces or dealing with Eskom as off‑taker – we should talk before you reach financial close, not after the problems materialise.
The G20 Summit puts a spotlight on renewable energy. Spotlights do not protect investments. Insurance does.
You’ve already invested years and millions into developing your project. Do not risk it all on the assumption that government entities will deliver exactly what they’ve promised, or that political winds will stay calm for the next 20 years of your PPA.
We’ve seen what happens when developers get this wrong. We’d rather help you get it right.
Hello 👋 How can we assist you with your insurance needs today?
By opting in, you agree to receive messages from Berkley Risk regarding our specialised insurance services. We respect your privacy and will use your contact information solely for communication related to your inquiries and our services. You can opt out at any time. For more details, please review our Privacy Policy.
