The proposed KiPower IPP
Trustees for the time being of the groundWork v Minister of Environmental Affairs and others
Challenge of the decision of the Department of Environmental Affairs to grant environmental authorisation
In this matter, groundWork applied to court for an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) to grant environmental authorisation to Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd (Kuyasa) for the proposed KiPower Coal-fired Power Station as well as the decision of the Minister of Environmental Affairs to dismiss its appeal against the decision of the DEA to grant environmental authorisation for that power station. groundWork is also asking the court to remit Kuyasa’s application for environmental authorisation to the DEA for reconsideration and for it specifically to consider the climate change impact of the application, the comment on a climate change impact assessment on interested and affected parties and any additional information the DEA may require to reach a decision.
Kuyasa initially opposed the application, but withdrew its notice of intention to oppose on 21 September 2017. On 19 October 2017, Kuyasa reinstated its opposition to groundWork’s application. On 1 November 2017, Kuyasa’s attorneys addressed a letter to the CER stating that Kuyasa now intends to amend its environmental authorisation and to conduct a climate change impact assessment in relation to its proposed coal-fired power station.
High Court application
- Notice of motion and founding affidavit
- Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd’s notice of intention to oppose (notice of withdrawal of withdrawal notice) (19 October 2017)
- Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd’s Answering Affidavit (4 April 2018)
- State Attorney notice in terms of rule 6(5) (d)(iii)(29 June 2018)
- Applicant’s notice of complaint in terms of Rule 30 and/or 30A (12 July 2018)
- State Attorney withdrawal of rule 6(5) (d)(iii) (31 July 2018)
- State Attorney notice in terms of rule 6(5) (d)(iii) (20 August 2018)
- State Attorney notice of opposition (3 August 2018)
- Applicant’s notice of complaint (3 September 2018)
- Applicant’s notice of motion and founding affidavit for application in terms of rules 30 and 30A
Internal appeal to the Minister of Environmental Affairs against the decision of the Department of Environmental Affairs to grant environmental authorisation for the proposed KiPower Coal-fired Power Station
- KiPower environmental authorisation (21 October 2015)
- Appeal of the environmental authorisation on behalf of groundWork and the Highveld Environmental Justice Network (10 December 2015)
- Responding statement (28 January 2016)
- Answering statement and annexures Q and R (see also the covering letter) (4 March 2016)
- Appeal decision (8 November 2016)
- Letter to the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Department of Environmental Affairs KiPower (Pty) Limited South Africa, and the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs regarding the environmental authorisation issued for the proposed KiPower Station IPP Power Station and associated infrastructure(3 April 2017)
Appeal to the Water Tribunal against the decision of the Department of Water and Sanitation to issue a water use licence
In February 2017, the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) issued a water use licence (WUL) for water uses relating to the construction and operation of KiPower’s proposed coal-fired power station near Delmas in Mpumalanga Province. On 7 September 2017, the Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of groundWork, lodged an appeal against the decision with the Water Tribunal in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (NWA). The following grounds of appeal have been raised in groundWork’s appeal:
- water pollution from KiPower would violate the Constitution, the NWA and the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA);
- the factors under section 27 of the NWA as applied to KiPower should have resulted in the DWS refusing to issue the WUL;
- the DWS has failed in its duty as public trustee of South Africa’s water resources;
- the decision to issue the WUL is not in line with the section 2 principles of NEMA, in particular the requirement for a risk averse and cautious approach and the polluter pays principle;
- KiPower does not have a WUL for several activities that fall under section 21 of the NWA;
- the WUL conditions are unreasonably vague and therefore unenforceable; and
- the decision to issue the WUL constitutes unlawful administrative action in contravention of PAJA