Browse all documents

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

A letter from the South African Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to the Centre for Environmental Rights explaining the decision to amend the Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for sulphur dioxide emissions from existing subcategory 1.1 facilities.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The amendment changes the sulphur dioxide emission limit for plants authorised before 01 April 2010 from 3500mg/Nm3 to 1000mg/Nm3, instead of the 500mg/Nm3 limit that was scheduled to take effect on 01 April 2020. The 500mg/Nm3 limit remains in place for plants authorised after 01 April 2010.
  • The revised limit of 1000mg/Nm3 is expected to result in a 58% reduction in total emissions and improve compliance with national ambient air quality standards compared to the current state where power generation sector emissions are at or above 3500/Nm.
  • Major emitters Eskom and Sasol currently do not meet the minimum standards for plants built before 2010. A Technical and Cost Benefit Analysis indicated that achieving the 500mg/Nm3 standard would require significant investment due to the size of boilers and the complexity of synfuel production systems, which is deemed unlikely given the current financial status of both companies.
  • The decision to adopt a compromise limit was based on balancing the progressive realization of environmental and socio-economic rights with the viability of key industries. Sasol has committed to meeting the revised standards by 2025, while a submission from Eskom is still pending.
  • The amendment process included a consultative process under section 56 and a public participation process under section 57 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004, resulting in 13 submissions. While some industries argued for maintaining the 3500 level and environmental organisations opposed the amendment due to health concerns, the department rejected the use of international comparisons as a basis for the decision.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). 00206BB9DB98200721123703. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Letter-from-Minister-Creecy-to-CER-re-request-for-reasons-for-SO2-MES-doubling-21-July-2020.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. 00206BB9DB98200721123703. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Letter-from-Minister-Creecy-to-CER-re-request-for-reasons-for-SO2-MES-doubling-21-July-2020.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=00206BB9DB98200721123703 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Letter-from-Minister-Creecy-to-CER-re-request-for-reasons-for-SO2-MES-doubling-21-July-2020.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{centreforenvironmentalrightsnd00206bb9db98200721123703, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{00206BB9DB98200721123703}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Letter-from-Minister-Creecy-to-CER-re-request-for-reasons-for-SO2-MES-doubling-21-July-2020.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated