Environmental justice organisations groundWork and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) have filed a review application in the North Gauteng High Court to challenge the environmental authorisation granted to floating power plants company Karpowership.

Karpowership – a joint venture between Karadeniz and the Powership Group – has proposed a gas-to-power project in the Port of Richards Bay, which involves the import and combustion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to generate 450 MW of electricity for the national grid.

The latest legal application by groundWork and the SDCEA seeks to overturn the decision to approve the long-term mooring and operation of powerships in Richards Bay for 20 years. They are represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER).

The legal challenge is based on serious concerns about the lawfulness, rationality and constitutionality of the authorisation process, they say.

The applicants argue that the environmental-impact assessment (EIA) and public participation process were fundamentally flawed, and that decision-makers failed to consider climate, air quality and socioeconomic impacts in line with constitutional and statutory obligations.

The applicants are calling for the environmental authorisation to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration, with proper public consultation, transparent decision-making and a full assessment of environmental and climate impacts.

Meanwhile, government has positioned powerships, which are ships fitted with power plants that are connected into the grid, as a quick-fix to loadshedding, despite deep concerns about the costs, carbon emissions and long-term environmental implications, the environmental organisations state.

The case comes on the back of a wave of opposition to the Karpowership projects across South Africa, with civil society organisations, including Green Connection, the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) and Natural Justice, having challenged aspects of the approvals.

In August, Outa succeeded in having the National Energy Regulator of South Africa licence for Karpowership set aside.

The collective outcry reflects widespread rejection of LNG as a solution to the energy crisis, with communities warning that gas-to-power projects are costly, polluting and lock the country into long-term fossil-fuel dependence when it needs to accelerate towards a just energy transition, groundWork and the SDCEA say.

“This project is a textbook example of how not to do environmental governance. The authorisation was granted despite glaring gaps in the EIA and a deeply flawed public participation process. Communities were sidelined and critical climate and air quality concerns were ignored, says groundWork Climate and Energy Justice campaign manager Yegeshni Moodley.

“We are taking this matter to court to defend the constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to health or wellbeing,” she says.

“The people of South Durban and Richards Bay have long borne the brunt of industrial pollution. Now, they are being asked to accept a 20-year fossil fuel project without proper consultation or consideration of its impacts,” says SDCEA coordinator Desmond D’Sa.

“Small-scale fishers, who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods, were excluded from the process. This is not just an environmental issue; it’s a human rights issue,” he adds.

The organisations allege that decision-making has also been inconsistent and irrational, as, during the same period, Karpowership's authorisation for its proposed Saldanha Bay powership project was refused on the basis that new gas-to-power was neither needed nor desirable, particularly given the recent sustained period without loadshedding.

Approving a 20-year LNG project in Richards Bay under the same conditions defies logic and undermines policy certainty, the organisations state.

Further, the applicants also argue that the project is incompatible with South Africa’s climate commitments, and will lock the country into expensive, high-emission infrastructure, when renewable-energy alternatives are cheaper, quicker to roll out and better aligned with a just energy transition.

Independent modelling by Meridian Economics and others has shown that renewable energy and storage solutions can meet South Africa’s energy needs at lower cost and with significantly lower emissions.

By contrast, the Karpowership project threatens the climate, marine ecosystems and the socioeconomic wellbeing of coastal communities, the environmental lobby organisations say.

“South Africa has committed to a just transition and to reducing emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. Approving a long-term LNG project that locks us into fossil fuel dependence is a step in the wrong direction. The law requires transparent, evidence-based decision-making that puts people and the environment first,” says CER attorney Dr Jonty Cogger.

“This review is about holding government accountable to those principles,” he says.