eskom-response-to-lacs-updated-comments-30-08-2020-ens-esk_bk-v2-8bac82a74bc02772.pdf

This document is a formal exchange between the Life After Coal (LAC) campaign—a joint effort by the Centre for Environmental Rights, groundWork, and Earthlife Africa—and Eskom. The LAC objects to Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits and exemptions from the Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for the Medupi and Matimba power stations. Eskom defends its use of legal mechanisms for postponement and exemptions, citing financial constraints, the need for energy security, and the principles of sustainable development.

• The Life After Coal (LAC) campaign objects to Eskom's requests for alternative emission limits at the Medupi and Matimba power stations, arguing that these requests are effectively unlawful exemptions from the Minimum Emission Standards (MES) and violate the Constitution and the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEMAQA).
• Eskom asserts that it is legally entitled to apply for postponements, suspensions, or alternative emission limits under the NEMAQA Listed Activities Regulations, and that it has used these mechanisms to plan upgrades and retrofit installations in a phased approach due to operational necessity.
• Eskom argues that it is legally permissible to apply for an exemption from the MES under section 59(1) of NEMAQA, as it is not seeking an exemption from the requirement to secure an Atmospheric Emission License (AEL), which is the only prohibited exemption under section 59(1)(b).
• The LAC claims that atmospheric impact reports (AIR) for Medupi and Matimba show that the requested alternative limits would cause significant exceedances of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for sulphur dioxide (SO2) at every sensitive receptor until 2030.
• Eskom disputes the LAC's interpretation of the AIR, stating that dispersion modelling often over-predicts high SO2 levels for short time periods (hourly and daily) and that annual SO2 concentrations remain below the NAAQS at all residential sensitive receptors.
• Eskom cites severe financial and budgetary constraints, as well as water constraints and environmental issues, as reasons why installing Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) technology is currently difficult or inappropriate for the Matimba and Medupi stations.
• Eskom argues that immediately decommissioning the Medupi and Matimba power stations is not a viable option because it would jeopardize the energy security of millions of South Africans and cripple the national economy.
• The LAC alleges that the public participation process for the alternative limit applications was flawed and inadequate, particularly for affected communities in Wards 3 and 4 who lack internet access and data to attend virtual meetings.
• Eskom defends its public participation process, noting that it held a Public Open Day in January 2020 and several virtual meetings in August 2020, and provided hard copies of reports to local ward councillors and at the power stations.
• Eskom contends that the principle of sustainable development requires an equitable balance between environmental protection and socio-economic development, and that the LAC's focus on health alone oversimplifies this constitutional balancing act.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). eskom-response-to-lacs-updated-comments-30-08-2020-ens-esk_bk-v2-8bac82a74bc02772.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Eskom-Response-to-LACs-Updated-Comments-30-08-2020-ENS-Esk_BK-V2.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. eskom-response-to-lacs-updated-comments-30-08-2020-ens-esk_bk-v2-8bac82a74bc02772.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Eskom-Response-to-LACs-Updated-Comments-30-08-2020-ENS-Esk_BK-V2.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=eskom-response-to-lacs-updated-comments-30-08-2020-ens-esk_bk-v2-8bac82a74bc02772.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Eskom-Response-to-LACs-Updated-Comments-30-08-2020-ENS-Esk_BK-V2.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndeskomresponsetolacsupdatedcomments30082020enseskbkv28bac82a74bc02772pdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{eskom-response-to-lacs-updated-comments-30-08-2020-ens-esk\_bk-v2-8bac82a74bc02772.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Eskom-Response-to-LACs-Updated-Comments-30-08-2020-ENS-Esk_BK-V2.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }