Search Climate Insights Directory

This document contains written submissions by the First to Third Respondents (representatives of the South African Department of Environmental Affairs) in a High Court case brought by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg. The respondents argue that the grant of an environmental authorisation to the Thabametsi power project was lawful and rational, despite the absence of a comprehensive climate change impact assessment (IA) at the time of approval.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, submitted comments to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) regarding the Final Scope of Work Report (FSR) for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station. The CER argues that the FSR is inadequate, particularly concerning the Climate Change Impact Assessment (CCIA), and requests that the DEA either reject the report or require significant amendments to align it with the South African Constitution and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

A letter from the Centre for Environmental Rights to the Minister of Environmental Affairs seeking legal clarification on the potential amendment or revocation of the environmental authorisation for the Thabametsi Power Station following required impact assessments.

A letter from the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, to Gunn Attorneys regarding the appeal decision for the Thabametsi power station. The CER seeks clarification on the implementation of new conditions for climate change and paleontological assessments and disputes the lawfulness of the decision.

This affidavit, submitted by Earthlife Africa (ELA) to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), objects to the licensing of the proposed Thabametsi coal-fired power plant. ELA argues that the project is environmentally unsustainable, financially risky, and inconsistent with South Africa's legal obligations and international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

The Minister of Environmental Affairs of South Africa issued a decision on 30 January 2018 to confirm the Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the construction of the 1200MW Thabametsi coal-fired power station. This decision followed a North Gauteng High Court order remitting the matter for reconsideration specifically regarding climate change and paleontological impact assessments.

This document is an appeal decision issued by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment of South Africa regarding the amendment of an Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the 400 MW Richards Bay Gas to Power Facility. The Minister partially upheld an appeal by GroundWork, ruling that certain increases in fuel storage capacity and unloading stations required a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) rather than a simple amendment. The Minister also ordered the correction of the EA's validity period extension.

This Appeal Response Report, submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of MEJCON-SA and MACUA, argues that the Environmental Authorisation (EA) for Tetra4's Cluster 2 gas production expansion should be set aside. The appellants contend that the project's Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report (FEIAR) contains fatal flaws regarding groundwater impact analysis, climate change assessments, and public participation processes. Furthermore, they argue the project is neither necessary nor desirable due to the risk of stranded assets and the availability of cheaper renewable energy alternatives, and that South Africa lacks the regulatory capacity to monitor and enforce compliance in the gas sector.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (ELA), wrote to the Department of Energy on 18 October 2016 to question the appointment of Thabametsi Power Company (Pty) Limited as a preferred bidder for a coal-fired power station. The CER highlights a pending High Court review application regarding the project's environmental authorisation, specifically the failure to conduct a climate change impact assessment, and requests clarity on whether Thabametsi disclosed this legal challenge to the Department as required by the procurement criteria.

The Minister of Environmental Affairs of South Africa has decided to set aside an Environmental Authorisation (EA) previously granted for the construction of the 1050MW Colenso coal-fired power station and associated infrastructure in the KwaZulu-Natal Province. The decision refers the matter back to the Department for reconsideration due to specific inaccuracies and deficiencies in the EA, including premature conditions and missing technical documentation.

A letter from the South African Department of Environmental Affairs to the Centre for Environmental Rights regarding the Minister's decision on an appeal against the environmental authorisation for a 1200MW coal-fired power station proposed by Newshelf 1282 (Pty) Ltd.

This document contains the First Respondent's (the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment) heads of argument in a judicial review application brought by Earthlife Africa. The Minister argues that the application is fatally flawed because it relies on new evidence not presented during the original administrative decision-making process and seeks to treat the court as an appeal tribunal rather than a review court. The Minister contends that the environmental authorisation (EA) granted to Lephalale Coal Mines (Pty) Ltd was rational, reasonable, and compliant with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), specifically regarding need and desirability, climate change impacts, and public participation.

This statement, submitted by Earthlife Africa, argues that the environmental authorisation for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station was granted unlawfully because it lacked a necessary climate change impact assessment. The document outlines the specific requirements for such an assessment and presents four legal grounds for reviewing and setting aside the decisions made by the Chief Director and the Minister, citing breaches of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the 2010 EIA Regulations.

This document contains replying submissions filed by groundWork (the Appellant) on 24 May 2019 in an appeal before the Nkangala District Municipality Appeal Authority. The appeal challenges the transfer of a 2015 Provisional Atmospheric Emission Licence (PAEL) to ACWA Power Khanyisa Thermal Power Station (RF) (Pty) Limited (ACWA). groundWork argues that the transfer was unlawful due to procedural defects, a failure to consider relevant environmental and health evidence, the unauthorized material variation of the licence's physical scope, and the provision of misleading information regarding the project's capacity.

This document is an affidavit submitted by groundWork, a non-profit environmental justice organisation, to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA). It presents supplementary objections to the license application by ACWA Power Khanyisa Thermal Power Station (RF) (Pty) Limited to operate the Khanyisa coal-fired power plant. groundWork argues that the project is unnecessary due to excess energy capacity, would violate constitutional rights to a healthy environment, and poses severe risks to the air quality of the Highveld Priority Area and the water resources of the Olifants River catchment.

The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment of South Africa has set aside a Provisional Atmospheric Emission Licence (PAEL) issued to Thabametsi Power Company (Pty) Ltd on 14 February 2019. The decision was based on the fact that the PAEL was linked to an Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the Thabametsi Coal-Fired Power Plant, which had been set aside and declared null and void by a court agreement on 19 November 2020.

This document is an appeal decision by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment of South Africa regarding the refusal of an Environmental Authorisation (EA) for Karpowership SA (Pty) Ltd's proposed Gas-to-Power via Powership Project at the Port of Richards Bay. The Minister remits the matter back to the Competent Authority (CA) to address material gaps in information and procedural defects in the public participation process.

This document is an appeal decision by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment of South Africa regarding the refusal of an Environmental Authorisation (EA) for Karpowership SA (Pty) Ltd's proposed Gas-to-Power via Powership Project at the Port of Saldanha Bay. The Minister dismissed eight grounds of appeal raised by Karpowership and nine other appellants, upholding the finding that the application was deficient due to material gaps in environmental impact data—specifically regarding underwater noise—and procedural failures in public participation. However, rather than confirming the final refusal, the Minister remitted the matter to the Competent Authority for reconsideration, provided the identified gaps and procedural defects are addressed.