Discursive Control of Electricity Narratives

Introduction

Discursive control of electricity narratives refers to the ability of governments, electricity utilities, regulators, political institutions, businesses, experts, media organisations and civil-society groups to influence how electricity problems are described, understood and debated.

Electricity governance is not determined only by engineering facts or legislation. The language used to describe an electricity crisis can influence which causes receive attention, who is considered responsible and which solutions appear legitimate. For example, an electricity shortage may be framed as a problem of consumer non-payment, municipal failure, insufficient generation, ageing infrastructure, regulatory weakness, corruption, environmental constraints or failures of long-term planning. Each narrative directs attention toward different institutions and remedies.

Discursive control therefore concerns power over the interpretation of the electricity system. It becomes legally important when a dominant narrative obscures constitutional duties, limits public participation, disguises administrative decisions as purely technical matters, or shifts responsibility from powerful institutions to consumers.

South African electricity jurisprudence provides particularly useful examples because courts have repeatedly had to examine competing accounts presented by Eskom, municipalities, regulators and electricity users.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Discursive control is not normally a separate legal doctrine. Instead, it can be analysed through constitutional law, administrative law, energy regulation, access-to-information principles and public participation requirements.

Under South Africa's constitutional framework, public electricity institutions exercise powers within a system of accountable government. Sections 152 and 153 of the Constitution impose important developmental and service-delivery responsibilities on municipalities. Electricity is recognised in the case law as an important municipal service.

The Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006 (ERA) establishes the regulatory structure governing electricity generation, transmission, distribution and related activities. NERSA performs important regulatory functions within that framework.

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) is also significant. Where electricity decisions constitute administrative action, legality, rationality, procedural fairness and judicial review can prevent institutions from presenting legally consequential choices as merely technical decisions.

Thus, legal accountability can operate as a counterweight to discursive control.

Key Issues and Principles

1. Framing Electricity Problems

The first form of discursive power involves deciding what the problem actually is.

Suppose a municipality experiences repeated electricity interruptions. One narrative might describe the problem as excessive electricity consumption. Another might blame municipal debt. A third might identify inadequate maintenance and infrastructure investment. A fourth might emphasise failures of national energy planning.

These descriptions matter because each supports different solutions.

If the problem is framed primarily as excessive demand, load reduction becomes attractive. If it is framed as infrastructure failure, investment becomes central. If it is characterised as administrative dysfunction, institutional reform becomes necessary.

Discursive control therefore affects policy agendas and allocation of responsibility.

2. Technical Language as a Form of Power

Electricity regulation uses specialised concepts such as load shedding, load reduction, grid stability, system adequacy, notified maximum demand and cost-reflective tariffs.

Technical terminology is necessary, but it can also distance ordinary citizens from decisions directly affecting them.

A decision described technically as "demand management" may mean that particular communities lose electricity for significant periods. Legal analysis therefore asks courts and regulators to examine the real consequences of technical decisions, rather than simply accepting institutional terminology.

3. Controlling the Narrative of Responsibility

Electricity failures frequently involve multiple institutions:

Eskom → municipalities → regulators → government departments → private generators → distributors → consumers.

Each institution may construct a different account of responsibility.

Utilities may emphasise unpaid municipal debts. Municipalities may emphasise inadequate national supply. Regulators may emphasise statutory limits on their powers. Governments may emphasise inherited infrastructure or external economic conditions.

Discursive control becomes problematic when responsibility is continually shifted until no institution appears legally accountable.

4. Electricity as Commodity or Public Service

One of the most important competing narratives concerns the nature of electricity itself.

A predominantly commercial narrative treats electricity as something supplied according to contractual and payment relationships.

A public-law narrative emphasises electricity's importance to water, healthcare, education, sanitation, economic activity and human dignity.

Neither perspective automatically resolves every legal dispute. Courts must identify the actual statutory and constitutional duties involved.

This conflict is particularly visible in Joseph and Eskom v Vaal River Development Association.

5. Crisis Narratives

Governments sometimes govern infrastructure through narratives of emergency or scarcity.

Terms such as "energy crisis", "grid emergency" and "system instability" may justify exceptional interventions. Genuine emergencies obviously require rapid action, but legal scrutiny remains important.

A crisis narrative should not automatically eliminate requirements of legality, rationality, transparency and procedural fairness.

6. Counter-Narratives and Public Participation

Residents, environmental organisations, businesses and community organisations can challenge official electricity narratives.

Litigation itself can become a mechanism of counter-discourse. Evidence presented before courts may reveal consequences that are missing from official descriptions of electricity policy.

Judicial reasoning can consequently transform a dispute described as a contractual or technical problem into a broader question about public power and constitutional governance.

Important Case Laws

1. Joseph v City of Johannesburg (2009)

Joseph is foundational for understanding competing electricity narratives.

Residents of an apartment building had their electricity disconnected because of difficulties involving the account holder. The dispute could have been framed narrowly as a contractual relationship between the electricity supplier and its customer.

The Constitutional Court instead recognised the broader public-law relationship created by municipal service delivery. It held that electricity constitutes an important municipal service and that affected residents were entitled to procedural fairness.

The case demonstrates that an institution's preferred contractual narrative cannot necessarily determine the legal character of electricity governance.

2. Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development Association (Pty) Ltd (2022)

This case provides an especially strong example of competing narratives.

Eskom reduced bulk electricity supplied to municipalities to their contractual Notified Maximum Demand levels. Eskom pointed to municipal non-payment, illegal connections, infrastructure limitations and protection of grid integrity. Residents, however, emphasised the severe consequences of reduced electricity for water, sanitation and other essential services.

The Constitutional Court therefore confronted fundamentally different descriptions of the same electricity dispute: contractual compliance and grid stability on one side, and the consequences for residents and constitutional rights on the other. The judgments also debated which public body bore the relevant legal duties.

This demonstrates why courts must look beyond the narrative chosen by a powerful infrastructure institution.

3. Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Lekwa Ratepayers Association (2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal considered Eskom's reduction of electricity supply and the wider constitutional and statutory framework.

The Court emphasised that electricity forms part of the basic services municipalities are constitutionally and statutorily obliged to provide. It also recognised Eskom's statutory power under ERA to interrupt supply while stressing the constitutional context within which an organ of state exercises such power.

The case illustrates the conflict between a debt-management narrative and a public-service accountability narrative.

4. Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (2005)

Mkontwana dealt with municipal service charges and the legal responsibilities associated with property ownership.

Its broader relevance lies in showing that electricity and other municipal services exist within a complex network of property rights, consumer obligations and governmental responsibilities.

Discursive approaches that attribute service-delivery problems entirely to either consumers or municipalities may therefore overlook the legal complexity of these relationships.

5. Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs (2017)

This important environmental and energy-related case concerned environmental authorisation for a proposed coal-fired power station.

The High Court held that climate-change impacts had to be properly considered within environmental decision-making.

From the perspective of discursive control, the case is significant because energy projects cannot be framed solely through narratives of generation capacity, economic development or energy security. Environmental and climate consequences also form legally relevant parts of the decision-making process.

The case therefore demonstrates how litigation can introduce a counter-narrative into energy governance.

6. Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General: Environmental Management, Mpumalanga (2007)

The Constitutional Court stressed the importance of sustainable development and the integration of environmental and socioeconomic considerations in governmental decision-making.

Its relevance to electricity narratives is substantial. Energy infrastructure may be presented as economically necessary, while opponents may frame it as environmentally damaging. Constitutional environmental governance requires decision-makers to consider these dimensions together rather than allowing one narrative automatically to dominate.

Discursive Power and Electricity Justice

Discursive control is closely connected with energy justice.

Distributional justice asks who receives electricity benefits and who bears costs.

Procedural justice asks who participates in electricity decisions.

Recognition justice asks whether vulnerable communities and their experiences are adequately acknowledged.

Discursive justice adds another question: who gets to define the problem?

For example, describing electricity losses only as "consumer theft" may obscure infrastructure defects, poverty or administrative failures. Conversely, describing all payment enforcement as unjust may ignore the financial sustainability required to maintain an electricity network.

A legally responsible approach therefore requires evidence rather than simplistic narratives.

The Vaal River litigation demonstrates this complexity particularly well. Electricity reductions were connected to municipal financial and administrative dysfunction, yet the resulting interruptions also affected water and sanitation and produced serious consequences for residents.

Role of Courts in Controlling Electricity Narratives

Courts do not determine electricity policy merely by choosing the most persuasive political story. Their role is to test institutional narratives against law and evidence.

Judicial review can ask:

whether the institution actually possessed the claimed power;

whether relevant considerations were examined;

whether affected persons received procedural fairness;

whether the decision was rational;

whether statutory procedures were followed; and

whether constitutional rights and governmental duties were properly considered.

This transforms narrative accountability into legal accountability.

Importantly, courts must also avoid constructing rights simply because one narrative produces sympathetic facts. In Vaal River, the judgments differed significantly over the precise legal source of duties relating to electricity supply. The litigation therefore demonstrates that compelling social consequences do not remove the need to identify the correct constitutional, statutory and institutional basis of responsibility.

Conclusion

Discursive control of electricity narratives describes the power to influence how electricity problems are defined, whose explanations become authoritative, who is blamed and which solutions are considered legitimate.

In modern electricity governance, control over language can be nearly as important as control over infrastructure. Governments may emphasise energy security, utilities financial sustainability, municipalities service-delivery obligations, businesses affordability, environmental organisations sustainability, and communities access to essential services.

Cases such as Joseph, Mkontwana, Fuel Retailers, Earthlife Africa, Lekwa Ratepayers Association and Eskom v Vaal River Development Association demonstrate that courts can prevent a single institutional narrative from automatically determining legal responsibility.

The central principle is therefore:

Electricity governance must be assessed not merely by how institutions describe their decisions, but by the actual legal powers, duties, procedures and consequences involved.

Discursive accountability consequently forms an important part of democratic energy governance because it ensures that technical expertise and institutional authority do not become mechanisms for excluding citizens, concealing responsibility or avoiding constitutional and administrative-law scrutiny.