Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice organizations, formally opposes the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) proposal to establish an expert panel to find solutions for sulphur dioxide (SO2) abatement. The CER argues that such a panel would unnecessarily delay compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES), duplicate previous multi-stakeholder processes, and potentially lead to an unlawful weakening of environmental standards for major polluters Eskom and Sasol.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of the Life After Coal campaign and the Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance Network (HEJN), submitted formal objections to Eskom's Background Information Document (BID) regarding a second postponement application for Minimum Emission Standards (MES) at the Tutuka Power Station. The submission argues that the application is legally impermissible because Tutuka is located in the Highveld Priority Area (HPA), where ambient air quality does not comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), a prerequisite for any postponement. The CER further contends that Eskom's request for a "rolling postponement" is equivalent to an illegal exemption and that the BID intentionally withholds critical information regarding pollutants, timeframes, and health impacts to mislead the public and decision-makers.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs on 12 June 2017, detailing the failure of the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) to meet national air quality standards. The CER argues that postponements of minimum emission standards (MES) granted to Eskom and Sasol have hindered progress, and that the national air quality monitoring network is severely dysfunctional.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) requested a meeting with the Department of Environmental Affairs to discuss Eskom's non-compliance with emission standards. Based on a report by Professor Eugene Cairncross analyzing data from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016, the CER highlights widespread violations of PM10, NOx, and SO2 limits across multiple power stations and calls for stricter monitoring and reporting guidelines.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting on behalf of several environmental organizations, issued a formal request to Eskom on 25 April 2016 for emission reduction plans, compliance roadmaps, and decommissioning schedules for all 15 of its coal-fired power stations. The CER asserts that existing compliance roadmaps provided by the National Air Quality Officer (NAQO) are insufficient to ensure Eskom meets the emission standards set in its atmospheric emission licences (AELs) and the minimum emission standards (MES).

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice alliances, submitted a formal objection to the Department of Environmental Affairs' draft Air Quality Offsets Guideline (January 2015). The CER argues that the proposed offsets are actually forms of compensation that lack a legislative framework and could be used by polluters to avoid legal compliance with emission standards.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides detailed legal submissions on a draft Air Quality Management By-law, advocating for stronger public participation, mandatory rather than discretionary emission standards, and the removal of 'rectification' provisions for unlawful activities.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) sent a letter to the National Air Quality Officer (NAQO) on 7 April 2015 requesting urgent clarification on decisions regarding Eskom's applications to postpone compliance with minimum air quality emission standards (MES). The CER identifies numerous discrepancies between Eskom's applications and the final decisions regarding postponement periods and emission limits for various pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a letter to the Department of Environmental Affairs on 24 June 2014, arguing that Eskom failed to conduct necessary health impact assessments for its applications to postpone Minimum Emission Standards (MES). The CER highlights expert estimates of significant premature deaths and economic costs resulting from Eskom's emissions and notes that Eskom previously withheld its own internal health risk reports from the public.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted a formal reply on 24 March 2014 challenging Eskom's applications for postponement from the Minimum Emission Standards (MES). The CER disputes Eskom's claims that its power stations have a marginal impact on air quality and health, arguing that Eskom's Atmospheric Impact Reports (AIRs) are anecdotal, use insufficient modeling domains, and fail to quantify the health risks associated with secondary PM2.5 formation and mercury emissions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) Draft Air Quality Offset Policy. The CER and its clients oppose the use of offsets in principle, arguing they serve as a "cheap option to avoid compliance" with emission standards and could undermine the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The submission highlights significant gaps in the draft policy, including a lack of clear criteria for determining offsets, poor institutional capacity for monitoring and enforcement, and failure to address equity and distributional effects.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted preliminary representations opposing Eskom's applications to postpone compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for its coal-fired power stations. The CER argues that Eskom's applications are based on flawed atmospheric modelling, exaggerated compliance costs, and a failure to meet the legal requirements of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA) and the 2012 National Framework for Air Quality Management. The submission highlights that granting these postponements would increase pollution in declared Priority Areas and cause significant detrimental impacts on human health.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted a letter to the South African Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and the National Air Quality Officer. The letter challenges Eskom's applications to postpone or be exempt from Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter across 17 power stations, arguing that the current application process lacks necessary health risk assessments and adequate public participation.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted comments on August 23, 2013, regarding uMoya-NILU Consulting's Plan of Study (PoS). The PoS was designed to support Eskom's applications for exemptions and postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for its power stations. The CER argues that the PoS is too narrow in scope, fails to include critical pollutants like PM2.5, uses inappropriate modelling software for near-field impacts, and lacks a mechanism to verify model outputs against real-world ambient measurements.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for groundWork and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), submitted a statement to the Department of Environmental Affairs on 31 January 2012. The document objects to proposed amendments to the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004’s list of activities resulting in atmospheric emissions, arguing that the changes generally relax emission limits, extend compliance time-frames, and were developed through a non-transparent process that favored industry representatives over affected communities.

This document is an internal appeal submitted by groundWork, represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), against the deemed refusal by Eskom Holdings SOC Limited to provide records regarding its compliance with emission standards and the decommissioning of its coal-fired power stations.

The Chemical and Allied Industries Association (CAIA) submitted a May 2007 proposal to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) regarding the implementation of Section 21 of the Air Quality Act. The submission critiques the proposed criteria for listing activities and emission standards, advocating for a risk-based approach, the avoidance of legislative duplication, and the use of national standards authorities for measurement methodologies.

This report, produced for the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), provides an international review of air emission standards to support the implementation of Section 21 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEM:AQA). It analyzes regulatory frameworks in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (specifically New South Wales), with additional references to India, Japan, Poland, and China. The document recommends a phased approach to listing industrial activities and setting minimum emission standards based on Best Available Technology (BAT), while suggesting the integration of command-and-control measures with market-based mechanisms like emissions trading.

Minutes from a sector meeting held on 3 December 2007 by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) regarding the 'Listed Activities and Minimum Emission Standards' project.

Minutes from a December 5, 2007, meeting between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and the Chemical Industries Association (CAIA) regarding the 'Listed Activities and Minimum Emission Standards' project.