Search Climate Insights Directory

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled on 11 April 2025 that poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area breaches constitutional rights and that the Minister of Environmental Affairs has a legal duty to prescribe regulations under section 20 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 (NEM:AQA). The court found that while the law uses the permissive word 'may', this constitutes a mandatory duty once the 'jurisdictional fact of necessity' is established. The SCA declared that the Minister unreasonably delayed these regulations and directed their prescription within 12 months. Notably, the court affirmed that environmental rights under section 24 of the Constitution are immediately realisable rather than subject to progressive realisation based on available resources.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of groundWork and Earthlife Africa, submits a formal objection to Eskom's application for exemptions from Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for eight coal-fired power stations under section 59 of the Air Quality Act (AQA). The submission argues that these exemptions violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment, particularly for residents in Priority Areas, and that Eskom has failed to justify its 14-year delay in achieving compliance.

The Centre for Environmental Rights contends that Eskom's request for MES exemptions is based on a flawed analysis that systematically underestimates the health benefits of pollution control. The document highlights the omission of morbidity impacts, the use of outdated population data, and a restricted geographical scope of 33 km around power plants. It further criticizes the ethical implications of Eskom's cost-benefit analysis, which prioritizes financial savings over public health and uses electricity tariff increases to deter compliance. Finally, the document notes that Eskom's analysis relies on South African legal limits rather than the stricter World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, thereby ignoring global scientific consensus on safe exposure levels.

This document is an appeal submitted by groundWork and the Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action against a decision by the National Air Quality Officer (NAQO) to grant Eskom a postponement of compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for the Kusile Power Station. The Appellants argue that the decision is unlawful, violates constitutional rights to a healthy environment, and was based on flawed health and atmospheric impact assessments and unfounded claims regarding the reduction of load shedding.

The document challenges the National Air Quality Officer's (NAQO) decisions to allow Eskom to delay compliance with emission standards. It argues that such postponements are unlawful under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA) and the 2017 National Framework, particularly for plants in the Highveld Priority Area (HPA). The submission provides evidence of Eskom's extensive history of emission exceedances and the resulting health costs, including thousands of projected premature deaths. It further asserts that the technology to abate sulphur dioxide (SO2) is feasible and economically beneficial, contradicting Eskom's claims of impracticality.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted recommendations to the South African government to strengthen draft regulations for air quality management plans. Following a High Court ruling that poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) violates constitutional rights, the CER advocates for stricter enforcement, including a moratorium on new coal infrastructure, biennial plan reviews, bi-annual public reporting, and the mandatory adoption of 2020 minimum emission standards by 2025.

The report evaluates the impact of SO2 emissions from large solid fuel combustion installations in South Africa, primarily those operated by Eskom and Sasol. It concludes that implementing stricter emission standards is technologically feasible and economically beneficial for society due to significant reductions in public health costs, despite the high capital costs for plant operators. The panel recommends a flexible regulatory approach where emission limits are tailored to the remaining lifetime of each plant, suggesting that plants operating beyond the mid-2030s should meet stricter limits of 250 mg/Nm3 or 500 mg/Nm3, while those retiring sooner may be granted more lenient limits of 1000 mg/Nm3. The report highlights that 'expedited retirement' of older coal capacity could reduce retrofit costs by approximately 25% and minimize electricity tariff increases.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting as part of the Life After Coal campaign and other environmental justice networks, submitted written objections on July 30, 2020, against Eskom's application for a once-off suspension of compliance with New Plant Minimum Emission Standards (MES) and a variation request for the Grootvlei Power Station. The CER argues that the application is procedurally invalid, lacks a detailed decommissioning schedule, and unlawfully seeks to extend polluting activities beyond the station's end-of-life, thereby violating constitutional rights to a healthy environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights submitted two expert reports to the South African government detailing severe particulate matter (PM) limit exceedances and associated health impacts at Eskom's Kendal power station. Dr. Ron Sahu's analysis found 2,712 PM exceedances between April 2016 and March 2020, noting that electrostatic precipitators are failing. Dr. Andrew Gray's report estimates that emissions caused between 61 and 144 premature deaths annually between 2018 and 2019 and severely exceeded WHO air quality guidelines for SO2, PM2.5, and NOx in the Highveld Priority Area, particularly affecting sensitive receptors like primary schools.

The Life After Coal Campaign, represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights, calls for the urgent promulgation of a robust Climate Change Act and the abandonment of new fossil fuel projects in South Africa. The document highlights the lack of transparency regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data from the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) and argues that non-compliant coal-fired power stations must be decommissioned as part of a just transition. It further asserts that South Africa's current commitments under the Paris Agreement are inadequate and must be revised to align with the 1.5 degree Celsius limit to avoid severe regional climate impacts.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is urging the South African government to penalize Eskom for chronic air pollution at the Kendal power station. Evidence from 2016-2019 shows frequent exceedances of particulate matter (PM) limits, with some units emitting 12 to 13 times the allowable limit. The CER argues that previous enforcement notices have been ineffective and that Eskom is violating both its AEL and the National Environmental Management Act's duty of care, impacting the health of communities in the Highveld Priority Area.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing the Life After Coal campaign and several environmental justice alliances, formally objects to a proposed amendment by the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries to double the Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Minimum Emission Standard (MES) for new plants in sub-category 1.1 from 500 mg/Nm3 to 1000 mg/Nm3. The CER argues that this weakening of standards is unlawful, violates the South African Constitution's right to a healthy environment, and would lead to significant premature deaths and exacerbated air pollution in priority areas.

The Life After Coal campaign argues that Eskom's applications to delay or suspend compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) are unlawful under the 2017 National Framework for Air Quality Management. The campaign asserts that the required condition for such applications—that the surrounding area be in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—is not met in the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) or Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area (VTAPA). Furthermore, the document highlights severe health impacts, claiming that excess emissions could result in approximately 23,000 premature deaths. It criticizes Eskom's decommissioning schedules as vague and its air quality offset programs as ineffective, while providing international benchmarks to refute Eskom's claims that retrofitting older plants is infeasible.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) has failed to improve air quality since its 2007 declaration, leaving residents in breach of their constitutional right to a healthy environment. The CER highlights that the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) remains a mere guideline due to a lack of implementing regulations and the granting of 'rolling postponements' for minimum emission standards to major polluters like Eskom and Sasol. The CER demands the publication of enforcement regulations, a final Mid-Term Review of the AQMP, and a cessation of emission standard postponements to meet the 2020 goal of reducing industrial emissions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), writing on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, calls on ABSA Group Limited to cease financing the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power stations. The CER argues that these projects are not 'procured' due to missing or challenged legal authorisations, including atmospheric emission and water use licences. The document asserts that the 2018 draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) incorrectly includes these projects despite a 'least cost' option consisting only of solar, wind, and gas. The CER highlights that the plants would be located in polluted air quality priority areas, causing severe health impacts and producing greenhouse gas emissions nearly 60% higher than the Medupi and Kusile stations. Financially, the CER claims the inclusion of new coal in the draft IRP would cost South Africa nearly R20 billion more than necessary, increasing costs for consumers.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), writing on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, calls on Nedbank to cease financing the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power stations. The CER argues that these projects, part of the Coal Baseload Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (CBIPPPP), are not 'procured' as claimed in the draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2018 because they lack essential legal authorisations, including atmospheric emission and water use licences. The document asserts that these plants are unnecessary for electricity supply, excessively expensive, and would cost South Africa nearly R20 billion more than required. Furthermore, it highlights severe health risks for residents in the Waterberg-Bojanala and Highveld Priority Areas and warns that the plants' high greenhouse gas emission intensities would undermine South Africa's Paris Agreement commitments. The CER criticizes Nedbank for excluding these 'existing commitments' from its 2018 policy against financing new coal-fired power plants.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), writing on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, has called on Standard Bank to cease financing the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power stations. The CER argues that these projects are not 'procured' due to missing atmospheric emission, water use, and generation licences, and are subject to High Court reviews. The document asserts that the 2018 draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) incorrectly includes these projects despite a 'least cost' option consisting only of solar, wind, and gas. The CER claims the projects would cost South Africa nearly R20 billion more than necessary, increase electricity prices for consumers, and exacerbate severe health issues in the Waterberg-Bojanala and Highveld Priority Areas. Furthermore, the CER highlights that these plants would have greenhouse gas emission intensities 'almost 60% higher than Eskom’s Medupi and Kusile power stations', undermining South Africa's Paris Agreement commitments.

The Life After Coal campaign, representing several environmental and community alliances, strongly objects to Eskom's request to postpone Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for 14 coal and liquid fuel-fired power stations. The submission argues that under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA) and the associated Framework, postponements are only permissible if ambient air quality standards in the area are in compliance, which is not the case for the Highveld Priority Area (HPA), Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area (VTAPA), and Waterberg-Bojanala Priority Area (WBPA). The document highlights severe health impacts, including thousands of premature deaths attributed to PM2.5 emissions, and criticizes Eskom's Background Information Document (BID) for being inaccurate and incomplete. The campaign demands the rejection of the applications, the cessation of 'rolling postponements', and a just transition toward renewable energy.

The CER argues that the DBSA's potential financing of the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power plants contradicts its mandate for sustainable development and violates constitutional environmental rights. The CER highlights that these projects face significant legal challenges regarding licenses and would result in greenhouse gas emission intensities nearly 60% higher than Eskom's Medupi and Kusile plants. Furthermore, the CER cites evidence that South Africa has surplus base supply capacity and that these plants would increase costs by R19.68 billion compared to a least-cost energy system.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing various community-based and non-governmental organisations, submits that the 2018 Draft Amendments to the National Dust Control Regulations fail to address critical weaknesses in dust emission management and monitoring in South Africa. The CER argues that the reliance on the ASTM D1739 test method is inappropriate as it masks short-term high-emission events and does not protect human health. They advocate for the inclusion of 'best practicable environmental measures' (BPEM), mandatory PM10 monitoring, and specific geochemical and radionuclide analysis for dust from tailings storage facilities. The submission also emphasizes the need for stronger local government enforcement, particularly in priority areas like the Highveld, and calls for the regulations to take effect immediately rather than on 1 November 2019.