Search Climate Insights Directory

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 Life after Coal Campaign and the Fair Finance Coalition Southern Africa argue that the JET-IP is heavily skewed toward private sector interests and large-scale infrastructure, specifically green hydrogen, at the expense of community-led renewable energy and social investment. They highlight critical gaps in policy alignment, the lack of transparency regarding debt and loan agreements, and the failure to adequately address the health impacts of air pollution at the Medupi and Kusile power stations. The authors call for a reprioritization of funding toward transmission grid strengthening and socially owned energy models, while warning that the current approach to decommissioning coal plants, as seen at Komati, lacks the necessary community participation to be considered 'just'.

This briefing is a response from Eskom to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) regarding an application to postpone compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) at the Kriel Power Station. The document provides specific stack emission limits, a planned compliance timeline involving retrofits and decommissioning, and ambient air quality monitoring data from three stations.

This document is a Task Order (No. 598) issued by Eskom for engineering and project management services to conduct a pre-feasibility study on a 'fleet renewal strategy' for four specific coal-fired power stations. The study aims to evaluate alternatives to the current decommissioning strategy, which is based on a 60-year technical life for coal stations.

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.

Eskom responded to a PAIA request from the Centre for Environmental Rights by granting access to the 2015/2016 annual emission reports for 16 of its coal power stations, as required by the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004.

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.

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 argues that Eskom's reliance on coal-fired power is economically unsustainable and causes severe health and environmental damage. The campaign advocates for the accelerated decommissioning of ageing stations and a just transition to renewable energy, citing studies that suggest this would reduce costs and save lives.

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.

This internal Eskom memorandum from November 21, 2016, provides legal advice on whether the utility can redact (sever) specific information from records requested by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). The request concerns a pre-feasibility study into extending the lifespans of several power stations.

This document is an excerpt from the Eskom Air Quality Strategy, detailing a phased emission abatement retrofit plan to achieve compliance with Minimum Emission Standards. It outlines specific technical upgrades for various power stations, the implementation of air quality offsets, the associated financial costs, and the organizational risks and capabilities required to execute the strategy.

The Life After Coal Campaign advocates for the urgent phase-out of coal-fired power in South Africa to mitigate climate change and economic risks. The campaign calls for the cancellation of several coal projects, including the Coal IPP Programme and remaining units of the Kusile power station, while urging the government to remove barriers to renewable energy procurement and finalise the Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (IRP). The document argues that continuing investment in coal infrastructure risks stranding assets and workers, noting that a low-carbon transition is necessary to avoid an estimated $120 billion in transition risk by 2035.

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 report examines the role of state-owned power companies (SPCs) in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), noting they control approximately 50% of global power station capacity. Through four case studies, it explores specific transition elements: Eskom (South Africa) on just energy transition (JET), NTPC (India) on renewable energy deployment, EVN (Viet Nam) on grid integration, and PLN (Indonesia) on early coal retirement. Key findings highlight that while SPCs can lead low-carbon action due to declining technology costs, they are often hindered by high debt, fossil fuel subsidies, and a lack of comprehensive legal frameworks. The report recommends that governments mandate specific emission targets for SPCs, shift public finance from fossil fuels to clean energy, and that SPCs establish dedicated JET offices and improve data transparency to build stakeholder trust.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has identified significant discrepancies in the National Air Quality Officer's (NAQO) decisions regarding Eskom's applications for postponement of minimum emission standards (MES). The CER highlights inconsistencies between the postponement periods and emission limits sought by Eskom and those actually granted, as well as a lack of clear commencement dates for certain standards. Specifically, the CER notes that for several power stations, the NAQO appears to have granted open-ended postponements for SO2 emissions 'until decommissioning' or implicitly granted 2020 MES postponements that were not explicitly requested. The document seeks formal clarification on these administrative inconsistencies to advise environmental justice organisations and impacted community groups.

The IRP 2019 identifies an immediate risk of power shortages in South Africa due to the declining energy availability factor (EAF) of Eskom's fleet and the decommissioning of old coal plants. To mitigate this, the plan recommends a medium-term power purchase programme, the life extension of the Koeberg nuclear plant to 2044, and the continued operation of plants despite minimum emission standard non-compliance. Long-term, the plan envisions a diversified energy mix shifting from coal toward renewables, gas, and nuclear, while emphasizing a 'just transition' to protect jobs and local economies. It specifically proposes 2,500 MW of new nuclear capacity and the integration of the Grand Inga Hydropower Project from the DRC.

The Life After Coal Campaign, comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights, groundWork, and Earthlife Africa, urges the South African government to abandon new coal and nuclear power projects in favor of a least-cost, renewable energy trajectory. The campaign argues that current energy planning must adhere to constitutional rights, international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, and scientific evidence showing that new fossil fuel infrastructure is no longer competitive. Citing studies from Meridian Economics, the CSIR, and other international bodies, the document asserts that accelerating the decommissioning of older coal plants and curtailing certain new units could save Eskom up to R17 billion while improving public health and environmental outcomes.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has written to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs to express concern over the lack of transparency and coordination regarding several climate change policy documents. The CER highlights a proliferation of reports and drafts—including the 'Pathways documents' and the 'National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy'—without a clear overall strategy or alignment between government departments. The CER specifically argues that climate mitigation modelling must reflect current research showing that new coal-fired power capacity is unnecessary and financially uncompetitive compared to renewables, urging the abandonment of remaining Kusile units and the exclusion of new coal plants from future scenarios.