Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) presents findings from a Meridian Economics study arguing that Eskom can save up to R17 billion and improve public health without compromising energy security by decommissioning the Hendrina, Grootvlei, and Komati power stations and curtailing the completion of Kusile units 5 and 6. The letter highlights that new coal and nuclear plants are no longer cost-competitive compared to solar PV and wind, and notes that Eskom's failure to comply with minimum emission standards (MES) should necessitate decommissioning.

Eskom's formal response to an appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) regarding the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) of the Hendrina Power Station. Eskom argues that the requested variations to the AEL would make the station unable to operate from 2020 and maintains that the current postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) are lawful and necessary due to the station's age and resource constraints.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing various community and environmental groups, submitted formal objections to Eskom's application to vary the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) for the Kriel Power Station. The CER argues that the requested increase in particulate matter (PM) emissions would exacerbate poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area, cause significant health impacts, and result from Eskom's own poor planning rather than a genuine emergency.

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 report analyzes a 3.75 billion dollar World Bank loan to Eskom Holding Limited for the Eskom Investment Support Project in South Africa, which included a 4,800 MW coal-fired power plant. It asserts that the World Bank violated its own Operational Policy 10.04 (OP 10.04) by failing to fully consider environmental and social externalities in the project's Economic Evaluation. The authors argue that this failure renders the evaluation inaccurate and suggests a broader pattern where the World Bank over-invests in large-scale centralized energy projects—including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and large hydro—by overstating benefits and ignoring negative costs.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) calls for the 2023/2024 Budget to abandon regressive macroeconomic policies and prioritize public investment in infrastructure, the green economy, and social services. The statement emphasizes the need for the state to absorb Eskom's debt, renegotiate power purchase agreements, and increase the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to the Food Poverty Line to combat extreme poverty and energy instability.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a formal request to Eskom on 12 October 2018 for documentation regarding the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power station projects under the Coal Baseload Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme.

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 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.

The review concludes that the Eskom report significantly underestimates the health impacts and economic benefits of pollution abatement due to flawed modelling, incorrect response function selection, and an inappropriately high discount rate. The reviewers estimate that the benefits of action would exceed costs by a factor of 5 or more, which would reverse the original conclusions of the Eskom CBA.

The Life After Coal campaign opposes Eskom's application to postpone sulphur dioxide emission standards at the Medupi and Matimba power stations, citing a history of non-compliance, failure to install required abatement technology, and a lack of comprehensive health risk assessments for affected communities in the Waterberg District Municipality.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted a response to the Nkangala District Municipality opposing Eskom's application to vary the atmospheric emission licence for the Kriel Power Station. The CER argues that the variation would permit increased emissions of particulate matter (PM10) and mercury, leading to significant public health risks and economic costs, while challenging Eskom's dispersion modelling and cost calculations for abatement technology.

This document is a formal response from Eskom to an appeal filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) regarding the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) of the Komati Power Station. Eskom argues that the requested variations to the AEL would make the station's operation untenable from 2020 onwards and maintains that its application for a postponement of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) was lawful and technically justified.

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) is challenging Eskom's application to postpone or be exempt from minimum emission standards (MES) for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter across 17 power stations. CER argues that Eskom's current process lacks necessary health and environmental risk assessments and provides insufficient time for public consultation, which could make any resulting government decision subject to judicial review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

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 report argues that Eskom is facing a liquidity and financial crisis driven by stagnant electricity demand and the high costs of its coal-fired power construction programme. Through system-level modelling and station-specific analysis, the study finds that the levelised costs of operating older coal stations (Arnot, Camden, Grootvlei, Hendrina, and Komati) exceed their system alternative value, meaning they can be replaced by cheaper alternatives without compromising security of supply. Specifically, decommissioning Grootvlei, Hendrina, and Komati early could save Eskom R12.5bn in present value terms. Additionally, the report finds that cancelling Kusile units 5 and 6 is economically viable if capital cost savings exceed a threshold of approximately R4.7bn. The authors conclude that South Africa no longer requires new nuclear, coal, or gas procurement, as solar PV and wind have become the most competitive new-build options.

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.

This fact sheet provides a detailed table and analysis of current pollutant emission rates (SO2, NOx, and PM10), estimated stack concentrations, and the emission limits requested by Eskom for 13 power stations. The document highlights inconsistencies in Eskom's reported data and argues that Eskom is effectively seeking exemptions from future Minimum Emission Standards (MES).

A letter from Eskom to the Centre for Environmental Rights clarifying the distinction between the shutdown and decommissioning of its coal-fired power stations, noting that while shutdown dates are based on a 50-year plant life, firm decommissioning dates and detailed plans do not yet exist.