The exemptions apply to eight of Eskom’s coal-fired power stations: Duvha, Kendal, Lethabo, Majuba, Matimba, Matla, Medupi, and Tutuka.
The decision followed Eskom’s formal application under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (NEMAQA), seeking an exemption from sulphur dioxide emission limits and requesting an extension to meet MES limits for particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.
The Minister’s approval comes with strict conditions specific to each of Eskom’s eight coal-fired power stations, intended to strike a balance between environmental obligations and South Africa’s current energy needs.
The Minister cited several legal and policy obligations that informed the decision:
The MES were introduced in 2013 through a government notice listing industrial activities that significantly affect air quality.
Each listed activity, including coal-fired electricity generation, has specific pollution limits that must be complied with.
These include limits on the concentration or volume of harmful substances that may be emitted.
Power stations may not operate without an air emission licence (AEL), and any exemption or delay in compliance must be formally applied for and granted by the relevant authority.
Because meeting MES often requires expensive infrastructure upgrades or new abatement technologies, the law allows for extensions or exemptions in certain circumstances.
Once-off postponements with the compliance timeframes with MES for new plants are not valid beyond 31 March 2025.
The exemptions granted to Eskom do not give the utility a free pass.
Instead, they come with a detailed list of conditions to be incorporated into Eskom’s AELs.
These include:
- Establishment of air quality monitoring stations in affected areas.
- Expansion of community health screening programmes.
These are intended to improve understanding of air quality impacts on public health, particularly in areas like the Highveld Priority Area, where pollution is already a concern.
Implementation of offset projects designed to counterbalance the environmental impact of continued emissions.
Offset projects may include measures aimed at delivering a net ambient air quality benefit within the affected airsheds.
Publication of real-time emissions data: This is intended to promote public awareness and regulatory oversight of Eskom’s emissions.
A revised cost-benefit analysis for the installation of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology at the Medupi power station.
FGD can be a highly expensive intervention. Importantly, implementation could divert resources and delay critical maintenance activities at Medupi, posing risks to operational reliability.
Submission of annual reports by March each year outlining:
- Progress in connecting renewable energy sources to the grid.
- Efforts to streamline approvals for new renewable projects.
- Plans to ensure sufficient renewable capacity to replace coal-fired generation as it is phased out.
While Eskom faces a complex compliance path, not all the conditions imposed are equally resource intensive. A phased approach, prioritising what is feasible in the short term, can help demonstrate commitment and progress while managing operational realities.
These are relatively low-cost interventions that can be implemented in the short term. Air quality monitoring stations and health screening programmes offer immediate community-facing benefits, while renewable integration reports draw on internal data and planning.
These require more substantial investment in infrastructure, monitoring technology, and systems capable of managing and publishing large volumes of data. Implementation will need careful planning and resource allocation.
After various abatement technology evaluations, wet FGD was the most suitable for Medupi for the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions. Eskom had therefore projected the installation of the wet FGD to be completed by 1 April 2032.
Considering the commissioning timeframes of the wet FGD, exemption from the new plant MES for sulphur dioxide was requested for Medupi until the completion of the installation.
However, the Minister only granted a five-year exemption until 1 April 2030. Eskom should consider the feasibility of installing the wet FGD by 1 April 2030 from a technical, economic and project- implementation perspective, especially since it is understood that an EPC contractor was to be contracted to execute the installation of the FGD by the first quarter of 2025 (i.e. 31 March 2025), which has since passed.
Regarding the cost-benefit study, any decision to install FGD technology is likely to require significant capital investment. It may also result in delays to essential maintenance and affect Medupi’s contribution to grid stability.
This condition should be assessed against broader operational and financial priorities.
The installation of the wet FGD will be considered in more-detail in an upcoming article.For stakeholders in the energy and infrastructure sectors, the decision sets a precedent for how compliance flexibility may be granted, subject to firm conditions and growing public accountability.
For Eskom, the path forward lies in strategic prioritisation: implementing what is possible now, while planning transparently for more resource-intensive obligations.
As environmental compliance continues to be an area of legal and regulatory focus, this approach can enable both operational continuity and long-term transition.
Karabo Ledwaba 2 days
