Minister Challenges Court Ruling on Coal Power Approval; Environmental Rights Case Resumes

SOUTH AFRICA’S ENERGY REGULATOR AND MINISTER FACE COURT CHALLENGE OVER COAL APPROVAL PROCESS

On 19 August 2026, the High Court will hear arguments in a case that tests how government officials must weigh children’s rights and environmental harm when making energy decisions. Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, the Minister of Electricity and Energy, has appealed a judgment that set aside the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan’s approval of 1 500 MW of new coal capacity, equivalent to three to four large coal-fired power plants.

The original ruling found that neither the Minister nor the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) had adequately considered harms to health, air quality, the environment or children’s rights before endorsing the plan. The three respondent organisations, the African Climate Alliance, Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action and groundWork, are represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights.

The appeal carries weight well beyond the immediate question of the 2019 plan. Although the 2025 Integrated Resource Plan contains no new coal, legal observers say the court’s decision will establish how decision-makers must approach children’s rights and environmental impacts in future energy and environmental policy. The judgment will clarify the depth of constitutional analysis required before officials approve projects with significant public health consequences.

The respondents contend that the Minister and NERSA violated constitutional obligations by failing to assess the impact of new coal on children’s rights, as required by sections 24 and 28(2) of the Constitution. They point to an absence of any children’s rights impact assessment and no mention of children or youth in the decision records. The organisations argue that the Minister’s assertion that energy policy does not concern children contradicts both domestic and international legal standards requiring explicit consideration of children’s interests in environmental decisions.

The case also raises questions about whether the approval unjustifiably limited constitutional rights to a healthy environment, life, dignity, equality, food, water and healthcare. The respondents argue these rights fall especially hard on children and on communities already living with pollution, and that the Minister and NERSA provided no sufficient justification for these limitations or evidence that new coal was necessary for energy security or more cost-effective than alternatives.

By contrast, the scale of harm attributed to existing coal infrastructure is already documented. Coal-fired power stations in South Africa kill more than 2 200 people annually through air pollution and cause thousands of cases of bronchitis and asthma in adults and children. Coal is the single largest contributor to South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions and among the largest historical contributors to global warming, placing the country among the world’s top 15 emitters. The World Health Organisation has declared air pollution one of the world’s greatest public health threats. The cost of air pollution in South Africa is estimated at over R980 billion a year, equivalent to 14 percent of gross domestic product.

A study by Greenpeace Africa and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air quantifies what delaying the coal phase-out would mean. The research projects that postponing the phase-out will result in 32 000 additional premature deaths between 2026 and 2050. Gauteng would be the most affected region, with an estimated 15 200 additional deaths, almost half the total, despite having no Eskom coal-fired power plants. Mpumalanga, which hosts most coal capacity at 31.3 gigawatts, is projected to see an additional 4 800 deaths, demonstrating the transboundary nature of pollution.

Children bear a disproportionate burden in these projections. The delayed phase-out would lead to an estimated 41 000 additional preterm births, 17 000 new childhood asthma cases and 370 deaths in children under five. The estimated economic cost of these health impacts is approximately US$ 38 billion, equivalent to ZAR 721 billion. The study concludes that delaying the coal phase-out is a policy choice with severe public health and economic consequences, disproportionately affecting young children and Gauteng residents while diverting resources from cleaner energy alternatives.

Promise Mabilo, coordinator and founder of the Vukani Environmental Movement, said communities in the Highveld already live with toxic air and that new coal means more illness, more funerals and more injustice. The 2019 plan would have committed South Africa to a further 30 years of new coal-fired power, potentially undermining efforts to limit the country’s contribution to climate change.

What the August hearing will ultimately determine is whether the constitutional framework already on the books was sufficient to block that commitment, and whether future ministers and regulators will face a higher, more explicit standard of proof before signing off on projects with generational health consequences.