Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting for the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), submitted formal objections to ArcelorMittal South Africa's (AMSA) application for an alternative SO2 emission limit at its Vanderbijlpark Works. The objections argue that granting a limit of 1,500 mg/Nm³—three times the legal standard of 500 mg/Nm³—would violate constitutional rights to a healthy environment, ignore the conversion of SO2 into dangerous particulate matter (PM), and prioritize corporate cost-savings over public health in a known pollution hotspot.

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 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), 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 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 Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is calling for a meeting with the Department of Environmental Affairs to address evidence of widespread non-compliance by Eskom power stations with their atmospheric emission licences (AELs). Based on a report by Professor Eugene Cairncross analyzing data from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, the CER identifies multiple stations likely exceeding PM10, NOx, and SO2 limits. The CER argues that Eskom is the largest emitter in the Highveld Priority Area and recommends stricter reporting requirements, including the use of daily average concentrations rather than monthly aggregates, to accurately monitor compliance.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and groundWork are urging the South African Department of Health to join the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) Multi-Stakeholder Reference Group (MSRG). They argue that the Department of Health's involvement is critical given the severe health burden caused by air pollution in the HPA, particularly from Eskom's coal-fired power stations. The document cites data suggesting thousands of premature deaths and significant IQ loss due to mercury emissions, as well as the economic costs of these health impacts, to justify the need for health officials to collaborate on air quality solutions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on the 2016 Draft Strategy to Address Air Pollution in Dense Low Income Settlements. While welcoming the document, the CER argues that it lacks measurable plans, adequate baseline data, and a strategy for community consultation to effectively address the health impacts of domestic fuel burning in South Africa.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance, filed an appeal on May 28, 2015, against the atmospheric emission licence (AEL) FDDM-MET-2011-08-P1 issued to Eskom's Lethabo Power Station. The appeal argues that the Fezile Dabi District Municipality failed to consider critical health impacts and ambient air quality standards when varying the AEL to incorporate the National Air Quality Officer's (NAQO) decisions to postpone compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES).

This document is a formal appeal submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) on behalf of groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, and the Highveld Environmental Justice Network. The appeal challenges the variation of the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) for Eskom's Hendrina Power Station, issued by the Nkangala District Municipality on 31 March 2015. The appellants argue that the AEL improperly incorporates postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) granted by the National Air Quality Officer, thereby permitting pollution levels that exceed national standards in a declared priority area with already compromised air quality.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is calling on the South African Department of Environmental Affairs to formally publish the draft Strategy to Address Air Pollution in Dense Low-Income Settlements for public comment by 30 April 2015. The CER argues that residents in low-income settlements suffer disproportionate exposure to poor air quality from industrial sources and domestic fuel burning, leading to severe respiratory and cardio-vascular illnesses, particularly in children and the elderly. The document highlights that the strategy was a deliverable as far back as 2010 and is essential for local governments, such as the Nkangala District Municipality, to meet air quality compliance goals by 2020. The CER asserts that the state's failure to address these health risks violates constitutional rights to an environment not harmful to health and the progressive realisation of adequate housing.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a statement to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) opposing Eskom's applications to postpone compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES). The CER argues that Eskom failed to provide required health impact assessments and future compliance plans, while monitoring data indicates that Eskom's emissions cause frequent, year-round exceedances of air quality guidelines, contributing to significant regional health risks.

The letter argues that Sasol and Natref's court application to set aside air pollution regulations threatens public health and environmental rights, particularly in the Vaal Triangle and Highveld Priority Areas. The signatories contend that Sasol's high profitability makes its claims of prohibitive compliance costs immoral and that granting exemptions would set a dangerous precedent for other polluters, including Eskom.

A letter from the Centre for Environmental Rights to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs requesting urgent improvements to the management of Multi-Stakeholder Reference Group (MSRG) and Implementation Task Team (ITT) meetings for designated air quality priority areas.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that Eskom's requests to postpone compliance with the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA) should be denied due to flawed atmospheric modelling, exaggerated compliance costs, and significant risks to human health. The CER contends that Eskom fails to meet the legal requirements for postponement, particularly regarding the impact on declared Priority Areas. Furthermore, the document critiques Eskom's proposal for emission offsets as lacking a legal basis and sufficient data, while highlighting that granting these postponements would lead to substantial increases in SO2, NOx, and PM10 emissions through 2020.

The 'Air Quality Offset Policy' is a draft framework published by the Centre for Environmental Rights in January 2014. It proposes the use of environmental offsets—measures that counterbalance adverse atmospheric emissions—to balance South Africa's economic growth and industrial development with the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The policy outlines principles for offset design, specific application scenarios such as license variations or postponements, and the roles of applicants, licensing authorities, and communities in implementing these measures.

The document argues that Eskom's applications for emission standard postponements and exemptions are legally invalid because ambient air quality standards (AAQS) are already exceeded in the affected priority areas. It highlights significant health risks, particularly from SO2 and mercury, and criticizes Eskom for failing to consider feasible alternatives such as renewable energy or decommissioning worst-performing plants. The submission also references a World Bank Inspection Panel report on the Medupi Power Plant, which found inadequate consideration of environmental principles, water scarcity risks, and cumulative health impacts.

This document is an Atmospheric Emissions Licence (AEL) issued by the Fezile Dabi District Municipality to Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd for the Lethabo Power Station. Issued on 1 April 2015 and valid until 31 March 2020, the licence regulates emissions from solid fuel combustion and the storage of petroleum products, specifying minimum emission standards for pollutants and reporting requirements within the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area.

The Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) and groundWork have appealed a decision by the National Air Quality Officer (NAQO) to grant ArcelorMittal South Africa (AMSA) postponements and alternative emission limits for Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) at its Vanderbijlpark facility. The appellants argue that the granted limits are unlawfully weaker than existing plant standards and that AMSA's history of environmental non-compliance makes it unfit to receive such leniency.