Why environmentalists are battling the Karpowership project in court
Several environmental groups have taken to the North Gauteng High Court to challenge the environmental authorisation granted to the Karpowership Project in the Port of Richards Bay. Represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), groundWork and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) have filed a review application, 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.
Image credit: Eelco Böhtlingk on Unsplash
The Karpowership Project is a joint venture between Karadeniz and the Powership Group for its proposed gas-to-power project in the Port of Richards Bay.
The project involves the import and combustion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to generate 450 megawatts of electricity for the national grid.
Karpowership was first announced as a preferred bidder on 18 March 2021 under the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s (DMRE) Risk Mitigation Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (RMIPPPP).
At the time, South Africa was in the depths of the energy crisis, with rolling blackouts crippling businesses, hospitals and schools.
The government positioned powerships, essentially ships fitted with power plants that plug into the grid, as a quick fix to load shedding, despite deep concerns about their costs, carbon emissions, and long-term environmental implications.
The latest legal application by groundWork and SDCEA seeks to overturn the decision to approve the long-term mooring and operation of powerships in Richards Bay for 20 years.
Climate Change
African leaders unite to fund $50bn yearly climate initiative despite global setbacks
11 Sep 2025
According to the organisations, this legal challenge is grounded in serious concerns about the lawfulness, rationality, and constitutionality of the authorisation process.
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 socio-economic impacts in line with constitutional and statutory obligations.
This case comes on the back of a wave of opposition to the Karpowership projects across South Africa.
Civil society organisations, including Green Connection, OUTA, and Natural Justice, have all challenged aspects of the approvals.
Shell Appeal
South African environmental groups push to block Shell’s new wells – how world court opinion might help
Angela van der Berg 10 Sep 2025
Just last month, OUTA succeeded in having the Nersa licence for Karpowership set aside.
The collective outcry is believed to reflect 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 at the very moment it needs to accelerate towards a just energy transition.
The applicants further 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 socio-economic well-being of coastal communities.