Will SA bear the cost of Eskom's R257bn air quality compliance?
Image: Mike Hutchings/Reuters
SOUTH Africa's electricity crisis is about to get worse, not just because of load shedding, but because of the staggering cost of cleaning up Eskom's toxic air pollution.
In a tense engagement with the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) Select Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Mineral Resources, Eskom executives dropped a bombshell: full compliance with stricter air quality laws would cost R257 billion in capital expenditure and R6.3bn per year in operational costs — potentially hiking electricity tariffs by 10%.
Even more alarming? Without compliance, 22 gigawatts of Eskom's coal fleet — nearly half its capacity — could be forcibly shut down after 2030 due to sulphur dioxide violations.
The revelations came as Eskom's chief executive, Dan Marokane, and Deputy Minister of Electricity and Energy, Samantha Graham-Mare, faced tough questions from MPs over the utility's financial constraints, its slow transition to cleaner energy, and the devastating health impacts of coal pollution on communities.
Eskom has already spent R3bn on emission reduction projects, with another R15.6bn allocated over the next five years. But this is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
Marokane admitted that while Eskom currently met SO² and nitrogen oxide limits, post-2030 regulations present an existential threat. The utility's proposed 'compromise' solution — focusing on SO² reductions at Kusile and Medupi, along with particulate matter upgrades at six other stations — would still require R77bn in capital and R2.1bn per year in operational costs.
But even this plan is in jeopardy. Only R15.6bn has been budgeted for emissions projects over the next five years — far short of what's needed.
Perhaps the most damning admission came from Deidre Herbst, Eskom's Senior Manager for Environment, who revealed that retrofitting the aging coal fleet for full compliance could take up to 14 years and more than R257bn — only for many of these plants to be decommissioned shortly afterward.
'Given the time frames, refitting most plants would be imprudent, constituting fruitless and wasteful expenditure,' Herbst said.
Several power stations — Matla, Duvha, and Kriel — will shut down before flue-gas desulfurisation (FGD) plants can even be installed. Others, such as Lethabo, Tutuka, Matimba, and Kendal, will close shortly after FGD completion. 'Majuba and Matimba are in sparsely populated areas, limiting the health impact and cost benefit,' Herbst said — an utterance that drew sharp criticism from MPs who accused Eskom of downplaying the health risks to rural communities.
MPs did not hold back in their criticism. DA MP Nico Pienaar demanded answers on why R40bn was being spent on diesel generation — money that could instead fund FGD plants. 'What happens if the new FGD plant isn't built and diesel turbines aren't closed, as per the World Bank agreement?' he asked.
The DA's Sune Boshoff was even more scathing: 'Gauteng looks terrible when the wind blows. Is Eskom not wasting money on upgrading structures that won't exist much longer?' She slammed the projected 10% tariff hike to fund compliance, asking why alternative technologies and international funding were not being aggressively pursued.
The EFF's Moses Kennedy pressed Eskom on whether independent health impact assessments had been conducted near Kendal, Matla, and Duvha stations, where residents suffer from chronic respiratory illnesses. Herbst admitted that while health benefits from cleaner stoves had been studied, power station health assessments were still lacking.
Eskom's much-touted Just Energy Transition (JET) also came under fire. The state-owned utility's air quality offset programme — meant to provide cleaner energy alternatives to 96 000 households in Mpumalanga — has reached only 5 500 homes so far. Herbst claimed the rollout would accelerate, but MPs remained sceptical.
Meanwhile, Northern Cape representatives Henri van den Berg (FF+) and Patricia Mabilo (ANC) pushed for green hydrogen and ammonia projects, arguing that they could create jobs. Deputy Minister Graham-Mare revealed that the EU had pledged €7bn for energy transition projects, including aviation sector decarbonisation.
But with coal-dependent regions such as Mpumalanga facing massive job losses, MPs questioned whether the transition was truly 'just'.
Marokane hinted at a controversial solution: nuclear energy. 'Most countries are building nuclear,' he said, suggesting that South Africa's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) should reconsider its stance. 'Nuclear stimulates economies and industrialisation.'
Yet, with Eskom's finances in shambles and R50bn earmarked for new technologies — including a Medupi FGD plant — the feasibility of nuclear expansion remained doubtful.
Eskom's dilemma is clear: Spend R257 billion to comply with air quality laws, raising tariffs by 10%.
Risk 22 GW of shutdowns if they don't comply, plunging SA into darkness.
Face public outrage over health impacts and job losses in coal regions.
As Deputy Minister Graham-Mare admitted, 'This is about balancing interests with limited resources.'
But for millions of South Africans choking on coal pollution and struggling with soaring electricity costs, that balance feels dangerously skewed. The question remains: Will Eskom clean up its act—or will South Africans pay the price for its failure? Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
DA unveils reforms to transform policies aimed at strengthening SOEs
JOHANNESBURG - The Democratic Alliance (DA) has unveiled a series of reforms to transformation policies, most of which are aimed at strengthening state-owned entities (SOEs). During a media briefing in Johannesburg on Monday, the party presented its alternatives to the (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment) BBBEE, the Employment Equity Act, and the Expropriation Act. While stressing that it's not against redress and transformation, the DA argues that these three laws are counterproductive. Party leader John Steenhuisen said fixing the public sector is key to an alternative to these policies. "The fifth reform of the sixth is one that is close to I'm sure everybody's feelings, and that is fixing local government. Coalition chaos, corruption and collapse of service delivery cannot continue, and we are championing a new law to stabilise local councils. This bill will set a minimum threshold for political parties to get a seat in the council." Steenhuisen said another reform and alternative to transformative policies is getting the basics right. "Secondly, no economy can grow without access to cheap, reliable electricity. We need to fix this energy crisis in South Africa once and for all by breaking Eskom's monopoly of electricity generation by creating a truly competitive energy market."
Mail & Guardian
7 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Dion George gives go ahead for new 4 000MW nuclear plant
Green groups warn of risks, including soaring upfront costs, the history of construction delays and budget overruns Forestry, Fisheries and Environment Minister The minister's decision, announced on Friday, came after he resolved under section 43(6) of the National Environmental Management Act (Nema), to dismiss the appeals from various environmental organisations, and confirm the environmental authorisation to Eskom for the planned 4 000 megawatt power station in Duynefontein. The proposed project is adjacent to the existing George said that he had carefully reviewed the environmental impact assessment report, as well as the 'In the end, my decision was made in respect of the principles of [the Act] … and with full appreciation of the environmental, social and economic considerations involved,' the minister said. The original decision to grant the environmental authorisation was made in October 2017. Various appellants challenged the decision, submitting appeals that ranged from comprehensive and detailed submissions to shorter, individual objections. George's decision does not automatically grant Eskom permission to begin with the construction or operation of the nuclear power station. The state-owned power utility is still required to obtain several additional statutory authorisations before proceeding in accordance with section 24(7) of Nema. 'As per section 24(7) of [the Act], the granting of an environmental authorisation does not exempt an applicant from complying with any other applicable legal requirements or obtaining permits from other competent authorities,' noted George. These authorisations include a nuclear installation licence from the National Nuclear Regulator; approval from the National Energy Regulator of South Africa; water use licences from the department of water and sanitation; as well as other relevant approvals such as those from the minister of mineral and petroleum resources. George emphasised that the protection and preservation of the country's environment is non-negotiable. He said his department supports the country's transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future 'where inclusive growth, job creation and poverty reduction are central'. Earthlife Africa is considering George's decision, as well as its next steps, said Lekalakala, the director of the non-profit environmental organisation. 'Our concerns include the length of time taken to conduct the environmental impact assessment and to make the appeal decision,' she said. 'We are also deeply concerned about the In addition, there has been no assessment of the socio-economic impacts of a major beyond-design-basis nuclear incident, nor of the generation of long-lived high-level McDaid, the strategic lead of the Green Connection, another non-profit, agreed. 'In recent months, we've seen a 'We are in the middle of a climate crisis, and we should be using our abundant natural resources, such as solar and wind, which can be built quickly and deliver affordable power to homes. Nuclear is expensive, and, like other large projects, is plagued by long delays.' Nuclear power also carries significant risks, requiring costly additional regulation, 'and there is always the possibility of an accident'. 'Even after 40 years of operation, South Africa still has no proper plan for managing toxic nuclear waste — a huge problem that is often ignored in discussions about this dangerous technology … Right now, in the absence of an inclusive, people-centred energy plan, it appears that vested interests are driving individual projects without public consensus.'
TimesLIVE
7 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Nepal waives climbing fees for some peaks to lure mountaineers
Nepal will waive climbing fees for nearly 100 peaks in the remote northwestern Himalayas for the next two years to try to lure more mountaineers to the less developed region bordering China, an official said on Monday. The country has opened 491 of its peaks but climbers typically focus on about 25 in the northeast and central parts of Nepal, including the world's highest peak Mount Everest, which hundreds scale every year. Tourism department official Himal Gautam said the decision to waive permit fees to 97 peaks, ranging from 5,870m to 7,132m in Nepal's Karnali and Far Western provinces, was aimed at promoting mountaineering on smaller mountains in remote areas. 'The idea is to encourage climbers to go to unexplored yet scenic areas and mountain peaks,' Gautam told Reuters. Nepal has just increased the fees it will charge from September for permits to $350 (R4,400) for a smaller mountain, from a previous $250 (R6,200), to $15,000 (R266,000) for Everest from $11,000 (R195,000). Gautam said the permit fee waiver would help promote tourism and improve economic conditions for people in the least developed areas of Nepal. Mountain climbing and trekking are the main attractions for tourists and a key source of income and employment in the cash-strapped nation.
