COMMENTS ON THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT FOR ESKOM’S APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE LIMITS TO THE MINIMUM EMISSION STANDARDS (MES) FOR THE MEDUPI AND MATIMBA POWER STATIONS

The Life After Coal campaign, comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), groundWork, and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, submitted formal objections on 29 January 2020 to Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits at the Medupi and Matimba power stations. The campaign argues that the applications are procedurally and substantively unlawful, violate the South African Constitution and environmental laws, and rely on a flawed air quality modelling approach in a priority area already suffering from poor air quality.

• The Life After Coal campaign argues that Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits at Medupi and Matimba are procedurally invalid because they were submitted after the statutory deadline of 31 March 2019. While Eskom claims a condonation from the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries extended the deadline to November 2019, the campaign asserts that Eskom failed to submit complete applications by that date, employing a "piecemeal and arbitrary application approach".
• The document asserts that alternative emission limits cannot be lawfully granted because the Waterberg-Bojanala Priority Area (WBPA), where Medupi and Matimba are located, is not in "material compliance" with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Monitoring data from December 2018 to December 2019 showed multiple exceedances for PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 in locations such as Marikana, Xanadu, Boitekong, and Damonsville.
• The campaign objects to Eskom's request for alternative limits that would apply until the decommissioning of the power stations, arguing this constitutes an impermissible indefinite exemption from the new plant Minimum Emission Standards (MES). For Medupi, Eskom requested a monthly SO2 limit of 4,000 mg/Nm3 from 2020 to 2030 and 1,000 mg/Nm3 from 2030 until decommissioning.
• The submission claims that Eskom's requested alternative monthly limits are unlawful because they are weaker than the existing plant MES daily limits. The campaign argues that monthly averaging masks dangerous short-term spikes in pollutants like SO2 and PM2.5, which can cause acute respiratory harm regardless of the monthly average.
• The campaign criticizes the Background Information Document (BID) for providing vague and insufficient justifications for Eskom's failure to meet the MES. Specifically, it notes that Eskom failed to explain the "significant delays" in installing Flue-gas Desulphurisation (FGD) technology at Medupi or provide quantified evidence for the "high cost" and "limited impact" claims regarding FGD at Matimba.
• The proposed air quality modelling approach in the BID is rejected as inappropriate because it only includes Eskom power stations and ignores other major emission sources within a 100km radius, such as the Grootegeluk coal mine and the proposed Thabametsi coal-fired power station.
• The document identifies several deficiencies in the BID's information, including the failure to mention that the plants are in the WBPA, the misstatement of legal requirements (using "assurance" instead of "material compliance" with NAAQS), and the omission of the specific air quality models to be used.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2020). COMMENTS ON THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT FOR ESKOM’S APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE LIMITS TO THE MINIMUM EMISSION STANDARDS (MES) FOR THE MEDUPI AND MATIMBA POWER STATIONS. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LAC-Objections-to-Eskom-Alternative-Limit-Applications-for-Matimba-and-Medupi-29-January-2020.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. COMMENTS ON THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT FOR ESKOM’S APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE LIMITS TO THE MINIMUM EMISSION STANDARDS (MES) FOR THE MEDUPI AND MATIMBA POWER STATIONS. 2020. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LAC-Objections-to-Eskom-Alternative-Limit-Applications-for-Matimba-and-Medupi-29-January-2020.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=COMMENTS ON THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT FOR ESKOM’S APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE LIMITS TO THE MINIMUM EMISSION STANDARDS (MES) FOR THE MEDUPI AND MATIMBA POWER STATIONS |date=29 January 2020 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LAC-Objections-to-Eskom-Alternative-Limit-Applications-for-Matimba-and-Medupi-29-January-2020.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2020comments, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{COMMENTS ON THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT FOR ESKOM’S APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE LIMITS TO THE MINIMUM EMISSION STANDARDS (MES) FOR THE MEDUPI AND MATIMBA POWER STATIONS}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2020}, month = jan, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LAC-Objections-to-Eskom-Alternative-Limit-Applications-for-Matimba-and-Medupi-29-January-2020.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }