Evaluating Eskom’s latest MES exemption request: Implications for air quality and public health

The Centre for Environmental Rights contends that Eskom's request for MES exemptions is based on a flawed analysis that systematically underestimates the health benefits of pollution control. The document highlights the omission of morbidity impacts, the use of outdated population data, and a restricted geographical scope of 33 km around power plants. It further criticizes the ethical implications of Eskom's cost-benefit analysis, which prioritizes financial savings over public health and uses electricity tariff increases to deter compliance. Finally, the document notes that Eskom's analysis relies on South African legal limits rather than the stricter World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, thereby ignoring global scientific consensus on safe exposure levels.

• Eskom's analysis for MES exemptions underestimates health benefits by omitting critical morbidity impacts—such as chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and lung cancer—and failing to quantify averted deaths.
• The methodology used by Eskom is flawed due to the use of 2011 census data, which underestimates the 2024 population by approximately 15%, and a restricted geographical scope that only models impacts up to 33 km from coal power plants.
• The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) used by Eskom is ethically problematic because it prioritizes the utility's financial savings over the health of vulnerable communities and uses the threat of electricity tariff increases to manipulate public perception.
• Eskom's analysis fails to align with international health standards by using South Africa's legal air quality thresholds instead of the stricter World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines; for instance, South Africa's annual PM2.5 threshold is 20 µg/m³ compared to the WHO recommendation of 5 µg/m³.
• In November 2024, Eskom submitted additional exemption applications for several power stations, including Duvha, Kendal, Lethabo, Majuba, Matimba, Matla, Medupi, and Tutuka.

APA

Kelly, J., Uusivuori, E., & Tattari, V. (2024). Evaluating Eskom’s latest MES exemption request: Implications for air quality and public health. Centre for Environmental Rights. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Annexure-3.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Kelly, Jamie, Erika Uusivuori, and Vera Tattari. Evaluating Eskom’s latest MES exemption request: Implications for air quality and public health. Centre for Environmental Rights, 2024. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Annexure-3.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Kelly |first1=Jamie |last2=Uusivuori |first2=Erika |last3=Tattari |first3=Vera |title=Evaluating Eskom’s latest MES exemption request: Implications for air quality and public health |publisher=Centre for Environmental Rights |date=2 December 2024 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Annexure-3.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{kelly2024evaluating, author = {Kelly, Jamie and Uusivuori, Erika and Tattari, Vera}, title = {{Evaluating Eskom’s latest MES exemption request: Implications for air quality and public health}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2024}, month = dec, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Annexure-3.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }