What’s stopping sunny South Africa’s solar industry? Court case sheds light on the wider problem Wikus Kruger, University of Cape Town A South African solar manufacturerWhat’s stopping sunny South Africa’s solar industry? Court case sheds light on the wider problem Wikus Kruger, University of Cape Town A South African solar manufacturer

What’s Stopping Sunny South Africa’s Solar Industry?

What’s stopping sunny South Africa’s solar industry? Court case sheds light on the wider problem

Wikus Kruger, University of Cape Town

A South African solar manufacturer, ARTsolar, is taking the government and several renewable energy developers to court. The case focuses on local content rules for renewable energy projects. ARTsolar says it invested in new manufacturing capacity because it expected these rules to lead to orders for locally assembled solar panels. That did not happen.

Wikus Kruger has researched renewable energy financing and procurement in Africa for 15 years. He argues that the ARTsolar court case points to a deeper policy problem. Local manufacturing requirements were added to South Africa’s renewable energy programme without a clear industrial strategy. The government created obligations, but not the conditions needed for local production to succeed. The result has been conflict between manufacturers, developers and the state – and localisation efforts that have delivered far less than expected.

The dispute highlights a common policy mistake. Government treated local content rules as if they were an industrial strategy.

Under South Africa’s renewable energy procurement programmes, projects must meet local content thresholds. This usually means spending at least 35% of total project value on locally made goods and services. The rules also allow formal exemptions when local suppliers cannot produce enough equipment, deliver fast enough, or meet technical standards. The ARTsolar dispute seems to centre on how these exemptions were granted, and whether they were justified.

But the deeper issue sits behind the legal arguments. Local content rules were introduced on their own, without a wider plan for building an industry.

Because there was no such plan, many practical questions were left unanswered. Would factories receive steady orders? Would projects become more expensive or be delayed? What would this mean for electricity prices? Once these questions were ignored, problems were inevitable. Exemptions became common, and disputes followed.

This pattern is not limited to solar. In South Africa’s wind energy sector, manufacturers also invested in local factories in response to procurement signals. While wind and solar are different industries, they faced similar risks. Several wind component manufacturers closed as a result of delayed or cancelled bidding rounds.

Seen this way, the ARTsolar case is not just about whether rules were followed. It shows what happens when procurement tools are used on their own, without a clear industrial plan to support them.

What does this say about South Africa’s renewable energy industrial strategy?

South Africa’s renewable energy policies list many goals, but few clear priorities. There is no single government body in charge of green industrial development. Different departments deal with energy, trade, skills and finance, but they often work in silos.

This matters because building manufacturing industries is difficult. Global experience shows how demanding localisation can be. China, for example, leads the world in making solar panels. Its success came from decades of careful planning across the economy.

China did not rely on local content rules alone. The government ensured steady demand for solar power. It supported exports. It provided cheap and reliable energy for factories. It offered long-term funding that allowed firms to grow over time.

The state also protected key industries in other ways. It invested in skills and research. It used trade measures to protect local manufacturers. It coordinated closely across national and local government. It linked panel production to chemicals, machinery, logistics and export markets. This helped firms scale up quickly and stay competitive.

The lesson for South Africa is not to copy China. It is to recognise that competing in global manufacturing markets requires coordination, scale and strong institutions. This goes far beyond adding local content rules to procurement.

Why is cost effective, reliable electricity so important for South Africa’s development?

There is strong evidence that reliable and affordable electricity underpins growth, investment and job creation. This is especially true in energy-intensive sectors.

South Africa’s development plans still rely heavily on mining, minerals processing, basic manufacturing and agro-processing. These sectors depend on stable and reasonably priced power.

When electricity becomes unreliable or expensive, firms cut back. They delay investment or shut down entirely.

Some wealthy countries can cope with high electricity prices because they built their industrial base when energy was cheap. Today they can rely more on services and high-productivity manufacturing. South Africa is not yet in that position.

For the foreseeable future, affordable electricity remains a key condition for growth. This is why localisation efforts need to be designed carefully: raising electricity costs before the economy can absorb them risks undermining the very development they are meant to support.

What’s needed to boost localisation?

International experience shows that renewable energy manufacturing succeeds only where governments create the right conditions. Firms need predictable demand, affordable power, skilled workers and access to finance. Policy also needs to be coordinated across energy, trade and industry.

These choices cannot be made without understanding their wider economic effects. Localisation does not only affect factories. It also affects electricity prices and investment decisions across the economy.

A recent example is the 10% import duty on solar panels introduced in 2024. Like local content rules, a tariff can be a useful industrial policy tool. But only if it is part of a broader strategy.

Introduced on its own, the tariff could not create a competitive solar manufacturing industry. What it could do was raise the cost of power.

This is another example of policy being applied in pieces. Individual tools were used without a clear plan for how they fit together or how they would affect the electricity system as a whole.

South Africa would likely see greater benefits by focusing on areas where it already has strengths. These include construction, engineering and balance-of-plant components such as cables, mounting structures, inverters and transformers.

The country is also strong in grid equipment, operations and maintenance, and project development. These activities create many jobs, build useful skills and support faster expansion of affordable power.

Finally, industrial strategy should consider the whole electricity system. South Africa’s grid expansion through the Transmission Development Plan and Independent Transmission Projects offers opportunities to involve local firms in steel, electrical equipment, construction and maintenance. But current procurement and contracting structures often favour larger, international players. This leaves local technical firms stuck with small, secondary roles instead of giving them meaningful work and growth opportunities.

The ARTsolar dispute should not be reduced to a story of heroes and villains. It should be treated as a warning: without a coherent industrial strategy, localisation efforts will continue to disappoint.The Conversation

Wikus Kruger, Researcher in Renewable Energy, University of Cape Town

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Era of Great Rotation: What Does the Historic Gold Crash Mean for Bitcoin?

The Era of Great Rotation: What Does the Historic Gold Crash Mean for Bitcoin?

Article by: Axel Bitblaze Article compiled by : Block unicorn brief Gold just experienced its worst day since the 1980s. Silver plummeted more than 30% in a few
Share
PANews2026/02/02 20:04
Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

BitcoinWorld Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders The dynamic world of decentralized finance (DeFi) is constantly evolving, bringing forth new opportunities and innovations. A significant development is currently unfolding at Curve Finance, a leading decentralized exchange (DEX). Its founder, Michael Egorov, has put forth an exciting proposal designed to offer a more direct path for token holders to earn revenue. This initiative, centered around a new Curve Finance revenue sharing model, aims to bolster the value for those actively participating in the protocol’s governance. What is the “Yield Basis” Proposal and How Does it Work? At the core of this forward-thinking initiative is a new protocol dubbed Yield Basis. Michael Egorov introduced this concept on the CurveDAO governance forum, outlining a mechanism to distribute sustainable profits directly to CRV holders. Specifically, it targets those who stake their CRV tokens to gain veCRV, which are essential for governance participation within the Curve ecosystem. Let’s break down the initial steps of this innovative proposal: crvUSD Issuance: Before the Yield Basis protocol goes live, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued. Strategic Fund Allocation: The funds generated from the sale of these crvUSD tokens will be strategically deployed into three distinct Bitcoin-based liquidity pools: WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC. Pool Capping: To ensure balanced risk and diversified exposure, each of these pools will be capped at $10 million. This carefully designed structure aims to establish a robust and consistent income stream, forming the bedrock of a sustainable Curve Finance revenue sharing mechanism. Why is This Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Significant for CRV Holders? This proposal marks a pivotal moment for CRV holders, particularly those dedicated to the long-term health and governance of Curve Finance. Historically, generating revenue for token holders in the DeFi space can often be complex. The Yield Basis proposal simplifies this by offering a more direct and transparent pathway to earnings. By staking CRV for veCRV, holders are not merely engaging in governance; they are now directly positioned to benefit from the protocol’s overall success. The significance of this development is multifaceted: Direct Profit Distribution: veCRV holders are set to receive a substantial share of the profits generated by the Yield Basis protocol. Incentivized Governance: This direct financial incentive encourages more users to stake their CRV, which in turn strengthens the protocol’s decentralized governance structure. Enhanced Value Proposition: The promise of sustainable revenue sharing could significantly boost the inherent value of holding and staking CRV tokens. Ultimately, this move underscores Curve Finance’s dedication to rewarding its committed community and ensuring the long-term vitality of its ecosystem through effective Curve Finance revenue sharing. Understanding the Mechanics: Profit Distribution and Ecosystem Support The distribution model for Yield Basis has been thoughtfully crafted to strike a balance between rewarding veCRV holders and supporting the wider Curve ecosystem. Under the terms of the proposal, a substantial portion of the value generated by Yield Basis will flow back to those who contribute to the protocol’s governance. Returns for veCRV Holders: A significant share, specifically between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis, will be distributed to veCRV holders. This flexible range allows for dynamic adjustments based on market conditions and the protocol’s performance. Ecosystem Reserve: Crucially, 25% of the Yield Basis tokens will be reserved exclusively for the Curve ecosystem. This allocation can be utilized for various strategic purposes, such as funding ongoing development, issuing grants, or further incentivizing liquidity providers. This ensures the continuous growth and innovation of the platform. The proposal is currently undergoing a democratic vote on the CurveDAO governance forum, giving the community a direct voice in shaping the future of Curve Finance revenue sharing. The voting period is scheduled to conclude on September 24th. What’s Next for Curve Finance and CRV Holders? The proposed Yield Basis protocol represents a pioneering approach to sustainable revenue generation and community incentivization within the DeFi landscape. If approved by the community, this Curve Finance revenue sharing model has the potential to establish a new benchmark for how decentralized exchanges reward their most dedicated participants. It aims to foster a more robust and engaged community by directly linking governance participation with tangible financial benefits. This strategic move by Michael Egorov and the Curve Finance team highlights a strong commitment to innovation and strengthening the decentralized nature of the protocol. For CRV holders, a thorough understanding of this proposal is crucial for making informed decisions regarding their staking strategies and overall engagement with one of DeFi’s foundational platforms. FAQs about Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Q1: What is the main goal of the Yield Basis proposal? A1: The primary goal is to establish a more direct and sustainable way for CRV token holders who stake their tokens (receiving veCRV) to earn revenue from the Curve Finance protocol. Q2: How will funds be generated for the Yield Basis protocol? A2: Initially, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued and sold. The funds from this sale will then be allocated to three Bitcoin-based pools (WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC), with each pool capped at $10 million, to generate profits. Q3: Who benefits from the Yield Basis revenue sharing? A3: The proposal states that between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis will be returned to veCRV holders, who are CRV stakers participating in governance. Q4: What is the purpose of the 25% reserve for the Curve ecosystem? A4: This 25% reserve of Yield Basis tokens is intended to support the broader Curve ecosystem, potentially funding development, grants, or other initiatives that contribute to the platform’s growth and sustainability. Q5: When is the vote on the Yield Basis proposal? A5: A vote on the proposal is currently underway on the CurveDAO governance forum and is scheduled to run until September 24th. If you found this article insightful and valuable, please consider sharing it with your friends, colleagues, and followers on social media! Your support helps us continue to deliver important DeFi insights and analysis to a wider audience. To learn more about the latest DeFi market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping decentralized finance institutional adoption. This post Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 00:35
Versapay Releases 2026 Cash Flow Clarity Report: CFOs Face Rising Cash Flow Uncertainty Amid Persistent Payment Delays

Versapay Releases 2026 Cash Flow Clarity Report: CFOs Face Rising Cash Flow Uncertainty Amid Persistent Payment Delays

Survey of 400 senior finance leaders reveals the growing impact of late payments and cash flow uncertainty on strategic decision-making SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 2, 2026
Share
AI Journal2026/02/02 20:46