ela-nersa-objections-of-15-december-2016-a8148328f3a7f5d9.pdf

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (ELA) submitted formal objections to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) regarding a license application by Thabametsi Power Company (Pty) Limited to operate a 630MW coal-fired power plant near Lephalale, Limpopo. ELA argues that the project is financially risky, environmentally damaging, and inconsistent with South Africa's international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

• ELA objects to the Thabametsi license application on the grounds that it would contravene the National Energy Regulator Act, 2004 (NERA) and the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (ERA), specifically regarding environmental compliance, public interest, and the objects of the ERA.
• The project's Environmental Authorisation (EA) is under judicial review in the High Court in Pretoria due to Thabametsi's failure to conduct a climate change impact assessment and a palaeontological impact assessment.
• Thabametsi has failed to obtain necessary environmental licenses, including an atmospheric emission licence (AEL) and an integrated water use licence (IWUL). ELA notes that the AEL application was submitted as incomplete and the IWUL application was submitted by a different entity, Thabametsi Power Project (Pty) Limited, rather than the license applicant.
• The power station's water requirements (1,500,000m³ per year) rely on the Mokolo Crocodile Water Augmentation Project Phase 2 (MCWAP2), which ELA claims is unauthorized and facing technical delays, posing a risk to the project's sustainability in a water-scarce area.
• Licensing the plant would contradict South Africa's commitments under the Paris Agreement and its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which requires GHG emissions to peak by 2025 and decline thereafter.
• A CSIR study suggests that a renewable energy mix (70% by 2040) would be at least 40% cheaper than new baseload coal, making the Thabametsi project a financial burden on the state and consumers.
• The project is located within the Waterberg-Bojanala Air Quality Priority Area (WBPA), where air quality already fails to comply with national standards. ELA argues that the plant will exacerbate cumulative emissions of SO2, NOx, and particulate matter.
• ELA asserts that the power station is unnecessary due to an existing electricity oversupply from Eskom and the high potential for renewable energy in South Africa, which could provide 100% of electricity needs.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). ela-nersa-objections-of-15-december-2016-a8148328f3a7f5d9.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ELA-NERSA-Objections-of-15-December-2016.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. ela-nersa-objections-of-15-december-2016-a8148328f3a7f5d9.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ELA-NERSA-Objections-of-15-December-2016.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=ela-nersa-objections-of-15-december-2016-a8148328f3a7f5d9.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ELA-NERSA-Objections-of-15-December-2016.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrightsndelanersaobjectionsof15december2016a8148328f3a7f5d9pdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{ela-nersa-objections-of-15-december-2016-a8148328f3a7f5d9.pdf}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ELA-NERSA-Objections-of-15-December-2016.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }