Karpowership environmental impact assessments thrown out – Mail and Guardian

 Subscribe or Login
 Subscribe or Login
Get more Mail & Guardian
Subscribe or Login
The department of forestry, fisheries and the environment has refused to grant environmental authorisation to Karpowership SA for its three gas-to-power projects.
In March, Karpowership was selected as a preferred bidder under the department of mineral resources and energy’s emergency procurement programme to provide 1 220MW of electricity through its three floating power stations at the ports of Richards Bay, Ngqura and Saldanha Bay.
“The competent authority in the department has decided, after due consideration of all relevant information presented as part of the environmental impact assessment [EIA] process for all three applications in question, to refuse the applications for the environmental authorisations,” the department said in a statement on Thursday.
The competent authority had adjudicated on the three applications in terms of the National Environmental Management Act and specific sections of the EIA regulations. The final reports were submitted to the department for decision-making on 26 April.
The competent authority, according to the statement, had until 25 June to reach a decision, as the three projects were classified as strategic integrated projects, which meant the 57-day timeframe, as gazetted in the National Infrastructure Act, applied.
In a statement, Karpowership SA said the department had “allowed a misinformation campaign, funded by special interests” to derail the department’s strategic plan to end load-shedding and address South Africa’s economic and energy crisis.
“Karpowership SA, with its three projects, will provide 800 000 South African homes with cleaner, reliable, and affordable power, and South Africans should understand that the decision on behalf of the [department] threatens the delivery of this power and will extend load-shedding for years to come.”
The company said it had conducted a “robust public participation process”, met all of South Africa’s stringent environmental requirements, and “is confident that it will win the appeal against this decision”.
This is a developing story and will be updated. 
Thanks for enjoying the Mail & Guardian, we’re proud of our 36 year history, throughout which we have delivered to readers the most important, unbiased stories in South Africa. Good journalism costs, though, and right from our very first edition we’ve relied on reader subscriptions to protect our independence.
Digital subscribers get access to all of our award-winning journalism, including premium features, as well as exclusive events, newsletters, webinars and the cryptic crossword. Click here to find out how to join them.

If you haven’t already, you can subscribe to the Mail & Guardian for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a week, and get more great reads.
Already a subscriber? Sign in here
function loadDoc() {var xhttp = new XMLHttpRequest(); xhttp.onreadystatechange = function() { if (this.readyState == 4 && this.status == 200) { document.getElementById(“pressoffice”).innerHTML = this.responseText; }}; xhttp.open(“GET”, “https://mg.co.za/scripts/rss/pressofficeServer.php?menu=false&items=5&feed=http://pressoffice.mg.co.za/feed/rss2.php”, true); xhttp.send();} loadDoc();
For all the latest information and advice from the Department of Health relating to Covid-19, please visit sacoronavirus.co.za


IAB SAIAB SA Blow The WhistleBlow The Whistle
Contact Us
Story Tip-offs
Ethics & Social Media Policy
About Us
Corrections And Clarifications
Mail & Guardian Jobs
Find property for sale
We value your feedback
Subscriber login FAQ
All material © Mail & Guardian Online. Material may not be published or reproduced in any form without prior written permission.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *