14 hours ago
Will SA bear the cost of Eskom's R257bn air quality compliance?
Cooling towers at an Eskom coal-based power station in Duhva.
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.
