Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of advocates argues that the EPA's disparate impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are essential for protecting marginalized communities from disproportionate environmental harms. The document details systemic environmental racism, provides case studies of both successful and failed civil rights enforcement, and urges the EPA to strengthen rather than roll back these protections.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and a coalition of eight civil society organisations defend their legal opposition to a proposed coal mine by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd. CER argues that the mine would threaten a Strategic Water Source Area and a protected environment, while asserting that coal mining in Mpumalanga has historically failed to alleviate poverty or provide sustainable local employment. The document clarifies that CER does not represent local farmers or WWF-SA and disputes claims that its actions are 'anti-development', citing the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) defends its 'Zero Hour' report against criticisms from the Chamber of Mines, asserting that the report's findings on environmental violations in Mpumalanga are based on extensive evidence. The CER rejects the Chamber's claim that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) has a proven track record of regulation, instead citing a 'consistent failure' in compliance monitoring and enforcement. The CER calls for increased transparency, better protection of strategic water source areas, and improved DMR capacity to prevent further environmental degradation.

This document is a responding statement submitted by Jones & Wagener (on behalf of Kuyasa Mining and KiPower) to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). It addresses an appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) against the granting of an integrated environmental authorisation for a 600MW coal-fired independent power plant near Delmas, Mpumalanga. The statement denies allegations that the project violates NEMA principles or environmental laws, arguing that the project aligns with the Department of Energy's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and employs Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) technology to mitigate pollutants.

This document is a responding statement submitted by Newshelf 1282 (Pty) Ltd (the Second Respondent) on behalf of the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg (the Appellant). It addresses an appeal against the environmental authorisation (EA) granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) for the construction of the 1200MW coal-fired Thabametsi power station.

This document is a legal response submitted by NN Attorneys on behalf of Newshelf (the Second Respondent) on 10 June 2015, addressing an appeal against the Environmental Authorisation (EA) granted for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station project in South Africa. The response defends the project's compliance with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and other regulations, arguing that the project is essential for national base-load energy security and that its environmental and health impacts have been sufficiently assessed and mitigated.

This responding statement, submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of BirdLife South Africa, argues that a mining right granted to William Patrick Bower Pty Ltd (WPB) should be set aside. The document contends that WPB's replying submission was filed late and introduced new, unauthorized mine layout plans and hydrogeochemical data that were not available to the decision-maker at the time of the grant. BirdLife South Africa further asserts that the mining area contains endangered ecosystems and irreplaceable biodiversity, contradicting claims made by WPB.

This document is a formal response from Eskom to a request for information submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). The request, identified as PAIA QUERY 10637, concerns generation atmospheric emissions license compliance and decommissioning. Eskom agrees to provide access to several identified records but denies access to others or severs specific parts of records based on the Promotion of Information Act (Act 2 of 2000).

Eskom's formal response to an appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) regarding the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) of the Hendrina Power Station. Eskom argues that the requested variations to the AEL would make the station unable to operate from 2020 and maintains that the current postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) are lawful and necessary due to the station's age and resource constraints.

This document is a formal response from Eskom to an appeal filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) regarding the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) of the Komati Power Station. Eskom argues that the requested variations to the AEL would make the station's operation untenable from 2020 onwards and maintains that its application for a postponement of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) was lawful and technically justified.

This responding statement, submitted by groundWork, argues against an appeal by Karpowership SA (PTY) Ltd regarding the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment's (DFFE) June 23, 2021, decision to refuse Environmental Authorisation (EA) for a gas-to-power project at the Port of Ngqura. groundWork contends that the project is neither necessary nor desirable, citing significant environmental risks, inadequate public participation, and the existence of more sustainable energy alternatives.

This document is a legal response submitted by ACWA Power Khanyisa Thermal Power Station (RF) (Pty) Ltd (ACWA) to the Minister of Environmental Affairs. ACWA objects to a condonation application by the NGO Groundwork, which seeks to appeal the integrated environmental authorisation for the Khanyisa Thermal Power Station. ACWA argues that Groundwork's notice of intention to appeal was filed excessively late and that the legal justifications provided—specifically the reliance on the Thabametsi judgment regarding climate change assessments—are legally unsound.

This document is a response filed by UX Inc. on behalf of William Patrick Bower (Pty) Ltd (WPB) to an appeal lodged by Birdlife South Africa against the granting of a mining right. WPB argues that the appeal is out of time, that Birdlife South Africa lacks standing, and that the environmental concerns raised are based on outdated data and ignore the fragmented state of the land due to historical farming.

A coalition of twenty-five environmental and justice organizations argues that the IPPNY petition would improperly subsidize fossil fuel-based technologies that are not truly zero-emissions. The commenters contend that the proposed definition of "zero emissions" contradicts the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), threatens disadvantaged communities with continued pollution, and ignores the recommendations of the Power Generation Advisory Panel. They urge the Commission to focus instead on energy storage and the phase-down of fossil fuel generation.