Eskom granted air quality exemptions under ‘strict’ conditions

South Africa’s Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George has granted Eskom limited exemptions from Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for eight of Eskom’s coal-fired power stations. The exemptions, granted on Monday, 31 March 2025, come with “strict” conditions, including emission reduction measures and health interventions.

Two power stations, Duvha and Matla, were granted nine-year MES exemptions until their planned decommissioning dates in 2034. Six other power stations were granted five-year MES exemptions until 1 April 2030. These are Kendal, Lethabo, Majuba, Matimba, Medupi and Tutuka.

From left: Millicent Solomons from the DFFE‘s environmental authorisation directorate, Heloise van Schalkwyk from the DFFE‘s appeals directorate, Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George and DFFE national air quality officer Patience Gwaze in Parliament on Monday, 31 March 2025. (Photo: Kristin Engel)

These are some of the dirtiest coal power plants anywhere in the world, responsible for thousands of deaths from air pollution each year, but have essentially been exempt from complying with South African law for years.

Eskom has been granted multiple exemptions and postponements from MES over the years, notably in 2019 when the power utility applied for exemptions for several power stations. This was granted in 2021 and set for expiry in 2025, leading to Eskom’s current exemption applications.

Eskom submitted its exemption application in terms of Section 59 of the National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (Nemaqa).

According to civic organisations advocating for coal-affected communities in these areas, the minister’s announcement on Monday effectively extends Eskom’s licence to continue operating under the exemption for another five to nine years.

 

But upon announcing his decision on Monday, George said that “these exemptions are not a blanket reprieve, but are tailored to each facility, with stringent conditions to mitigate the impacts of non-compliance with the MES”.

Lauri Myllyvirta, co-founder of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), told Daily Maverick that Eskom should have begun work on installing SO2 pollution controls in all its power stations a decade ago to comply with the 2020 deadline for South African emission standards. 

However, he said the government had failed to enforce this requirement on a single operating coal power plant, instead granting delay after delay.

“Today’s decision is not as bad as it could have been in that most plants were not given blanket exemptions until end of life. However, this only makes a difference if the government moves quickly to require Eskom to begin the planning and installation of pollution controls,” said Myllyvirta.

The minister was adamant that he intended to put Eskom under pressure with the conditions and timelines attached to granting their exemptions.

“It certainly puts them under pressure. And that is actually my intention, because more of the same is not going to work. That is the point. The game has changed, and now let’s proceed on that basis,” said George.

Conditions to mitigate impacts of non-compliance 

“These exemptions are not a blanket reprieve, but are tailored to each facility, with stringent conditions to mitigate the impacts of non-compliance with the MES,” said George.

He listed a series of “rigorous conditions” attached to granting the exemptions, which he said Eskom had to implement at both fleet and plant levels. These included:

• Health interventions: Eskom must deploy air quality monitoring stations and a data-free alert app within eight months, appoint an environmental health specialist within three months and extend community health screening programmes within six months. Mobile clinics and greenspace initiatives will further support affected communities;


• Socioeconomic measures: Eskom is directed to expedite its offset programmes, expand interventions to 96,000 households within 12 months, and address waste and ash dumps near power stations;


• Air quality transparency: Real-time emissions data must be published immediately, with additional monitoring stations installed within 12 months;


• Emission reduction: A revised cost-benefit analysis for Medupi’s flue gas desulphurisation is required within six months, alongside studies to establish flexibility at coal plants and prioritise renewable dispatch; and


• Renewable energy acceleration: Eskom is encouraged to submit an annual report, due by the end of March each year, detailing progress on facilitating the integration of renewable energy into the grid; supporting the acceleration of licensing processes for new renewable projects; and ensuring sufficient renewable capacity is available to replace coal-fired plants as they are phased out.

Should Eskom fail to comply with George’s conditions, the minister warned that “there will be consequences. And I’m not going to say what those consequences are, but… I do have a significant amount of power, but remember if you’re going to exercise power, you must do it responsibly. I’ve always got my eye on what is in the best interest of South Africans.”

George told Daily Maverick in an interview that in Eskom’s application, it requested exemptions for some plants for a decade and others for even more.

“The reason why I [granted] the five years is because it was substantially less than what they had asked for, and I thought it was reasonable,” said George.

George acknowledged that in the past, Eskom had been granted multiple exemptions and postponements from South Africa’s MES over the years.

“Frankly, it is true that Eskom has been misbehaving for a long time and then there have been no consequences because they’re too big to fail and because well, you know, what are you going to do? So I have now drawn that line,” said George.

Following the minister’s announcement, Eskom is now set to review the decision and noted that it would now legally be allowed to continue operating Medupi, Majuba, Matimba, Kendal, Lethabo, Tutuka, Matla and Duvha power stations beyond the 31 March 2025 deadline.

This, the power utility noted, contributed a total of 29,000MW to South Africa’s electricity grid.

“Eskom is committed to working with the DFFE and all stakeholders, and it will make further announcements in due course. The company remains dedicated to aligning with regulatory requirements and implementing sustainable solutions to ensure long-term operational efficiency, reducing any negative impacts on health and environmental stewardship,” Eskom’s media release said.

‘A regression of air quality laws’

The continued exemption and non-compliance have been described as a regression of South Africa’s air quality laws, by JustShare, groundWork and the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER).

Robyn Hugo, director of climate change engagement at shareholder activism organisation JustShare, told Daily Maverick that even though there were some important conditions attached to these decisions, granting exemptions from minimum standards was “an extremely regressive approach”.

This, she said, was especially given that all the facilities were in air pollution priority areas and that the high court had found that air pollution in the Mpumalanga Highveld (where five of these facilities are) violated the constitutional environmental right. 

Read more: State of South Africa’s air quality under the spotlight in Parliament

“In response to what is framed as a ‘decision [that] reflects a pragmatic yet principled approach’, it is important to recall the original legitimate government purpose behind the MES; namely, to reduce atmospheric pollution from activities that have or may have a significant detrimental effect not only on the environment, but also public health, social conditions, economic conditions, ecological conditions and cultural heritage,” said Hugo.

The “health interventions” identified in George’s decision, according to Hugo and GroundWork, failed to address the devastating health impacts of air pollution in the Highveld Priority Area, and the significant deaths attributed to Eskom emissions. 

“The effect of this toxic pollution will continue to fall most heavily on poor people – who have not only been (and will continue to be) worst affected by SA’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels, but who remain desperately underserved by the current system,” said Hugo.

Along with other groups like CER and groundWork, Hugo said it was also unclear how effective monitoring and implementation of these conditions would be and how non-compliance would be enforced.

Director of groundWork Bobby Peek told Daily Maverick that by kicking the can down the road, the minister was delaying the urgency of a just decommissioning of these power stations.

“He has delayed the urgency of what is inevitable, and what is inevitable is the closure of these coal-fired power stations,” said Peek.

The minister used strong language in his decision announcement, but essentially, Peek said, “he has allowed Eskom to get away with murder again, in terms of them circumventing the already weak air pollution laws that we have… He talks left, but he actually walks right.”

Peek said that Mpumalanga was a “sacrifice zone” by the government and big industry to reap profits and kill people. 

“It’s a sacrifice zone, not only in health, but in poor working conditions for people. What we need for Mpumalanga is that we need industry and Eskom to reduce their emissions urgently, considering the issue of people’s immediate health and death at stake, and we need government to implement an urgent and practical health delivery plan that speaks to the urgency of this area,” said Peek.

By not taking health seriously, according to Peek, government was saying to the world that it was prepared to run these power stations “at the expense of people’s lives”.

Ntombi Maphosa, an attorney at the CER, also expressed disappointment in the minister’s decision to grant Eskom a five- to nine-year exemption.

“At the end of the day, we still see this as a regression of air quality laws as a whole. And [it’s] quite disappointing,” said Maphosa. 

The minister said that if he had not granted the exemptions to Eskom, it would be operating illegally from 1 April 2025, which would mean that it needed to shut down.

This, the minister said, would not have been sensible. He later told Daily Maverick that there would always be a compromise in this decision. 

“That’s why I’ve put very strict conditions in terms of health and environment. We will carry on because the lights must stay on, but at the same time, we are now activating the just energy transition,” said George. DM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeWvTRUpMk