Search Climate Insights Directory

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.

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.

This document is an appeal filed by groundWork and Earthlife Africa against decisions made by the National Air Quality Officer (NAQO) on 30 October 2021. The appeal disputes the granting of compliance postponements and suspensions regarding Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for several Eskom coal-fired power stations, arguing that these decisions violate the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA), the 2017 National Framework for Air Quality Management, and the Constitution of South Africa.

The Life After Coal campaign, comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), groundWork (gW), and Earthlife Africa (ELA), submitted formal objections on 28 August 2020 against Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits at the Medupi and Matimba power stations. The campaign argues that these requests are an unlawful attempt to circumvent South Africa's Minimum Emission Standards (MES) and violate constitutional rights to a healthy environment.

The Life After Coal campaign, comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), groundWork, and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, submitted formal objections on 29 January 2020 to Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits at the Medupi and Matimba power stations. The campaign argues that the applications are procedurally and substantively unlawful, violate the South African Constitution and environmental laws, and rely on a flawed air quality modelling approach in a priority area already suffering from poor air quality.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork and Earthlife Africa, has formally alerted the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) to critical flaws in the EIA process for the Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (EMSEZ) in Limpopo. The CER argues that the project's potential for 'astronomical' environmental, health, and climate impacts—including the proposed 3,300 MW thermal power plant—makes it a matter of national importance. They contend that the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) is an inappropriate competent authority and that the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries should instead oversee the process. The CER specifically highlights risks to water-stressed regions, air quality in priority areas, and South Africa's international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, requesting that the scoping process be restarted and preceded by a strategic environmental assessment (SEA).

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), 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), representing the Life After Coal Campaign, argues that financing the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power plants is unjustifiable. The document asserts that these projects are not 'least-cost' options, face significant legal challenges regarding environmental and water licenses, and would cause severe health and climate damage. It specifically calls on FirstRand Bank to cease support for Thabametsi to avoid reputational risk and align with its own commitments to a lower-carbon economy.

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.

An appeal by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and groundWork to set aside the environmental authorisation for the 660 MW Namane coal-fired power station in Limpopo, South Africa. The appellants argue the decision is unlawful due to failures to assess climate change impacts, air quality risks, and water scarcity in the Waterberg region, while ignoring renewable energy alternatives and violating national and international environmental commitments.

This document is an appeal submitted by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg on 11 May 2015 to the Minister of Environmental Affairs. The appeal challenges the environmental authorisation granted on 25 February 2015 to Newshelf 1282 (Pty) Limited for the construction of the 1200 megawatt (MW) coal-fired Thabametsi power station near Lephalale in the Limpopo Province. The appellant argues that the decision was unlawful, failed to consider critical air quality and water scarcity issues, ignored climate change obligations, and violated the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

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.

A letter from the South African Department of Environmental Affairs granting Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd a postponement for compliance with minimum emission standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2) at the Matimba Power Station.

This document is a formal exchange between the Life After Coal (LAC) campaign—a joint effort by the Centre for Environmental Rights, groundWork, and Earthlife Africa—and Eskom. The LAC objects to Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits and exemptions from the Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for the Medupi and Matimba power stations. Eskom defends its use of legal mechanisms for postponement and exemptions, citing financial constraints, the need for energy security, and the principles of sustainable development.