purpose: expert reference group (erg) meeting for the ... · pdf fileannmarie buck...

National SEA for the rollout of EGI in South Africa,

ERG Meeting Meeting Notes

of 12

Purpose:

Expert Reference Group (ERG) Meeting for the National Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Electricity Grid Infrastructure (EGI) in support of Strategic Integrated Project (SIP) 10.

Project website: https://egi.csir.co.za/

Date of the meeting: 11 February 2015

Location: Ulwazi Auditorium, Knowledge Commons, CSIR Campus, Pretoria

List of attendees:

Organisation Name Email Telephone

Air Traffic Navigational Services (ATNS)

Ettienne Pienaar [email protected] 011-928-6588

Johan van Schalkwyk [email protected] 011-607-1437

Birdlife South Africa (Birdlife SA)

Samantha Ralston [email protected] 003-673-3948

Simon Gear [email protected] 011-789-1122

Cape Nature Rhett Smart [email protected] 021-866-8000

Council for Geoscience (CGS)

Dr Stewart Foya [email protected] 012-841-1101

Chameney Engelbrecht

[email protected] 012-841-1037

Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)

Paul Lochner [email protected] 021-888-2486

Cornelius van der Westhuizen


Lydia Cape-DuCleazeau


Marshall Mabin [email protected] 021-888-2490

Wisaal Osman [email protected] 021-888-2482

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)

Anneliza Collett [email protected] 012-319-7508

Department of Energy (DoE) Nomawethu Qase [email protected] 012-406-7687

Pheladi Masipa [email protected] 012-406-7650

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)

Surprise Zwane [email protected] 012-399-9278

Nicolene Fourie [email protected] 082-335-5689

Marlanie Moodley [email protected] 012-399-8916

https://egi.csir.co.za/



of 12

Department of Water Affairs & Sanitation (DWS)

Namisha Muthraparsad


Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAET)

Alistair McMaster [email protected] 043-605-7262

Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT)

Constant Hoogstad [email protected] 011-372-3600

Lourens Leeuwner [email protected] 011-372-3600

Energy Intensive User Group (EIUG) of southern Africa

Jarredine Morris [email protected] 010-060-5438

Dave Krumm [email protected] 072-270-4873

Eskom

Kevin Leask [email protected] 083-287-0333

John Geeringh [email protected] 083-632-7663

Ernest Grunewald [email protected] 011-800-5732

Tobile Bokwe [email protected] 011-800-2303

Gift Matsabatsa [email protected] 011-800-8562

Fiona Havenga [email protected] 011-800-4579

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD)

Basani Ndindani [email protected] 011-240-2570

Marc Leroy [email protected] 011-240-3396

Independent Power Producer (IPP) Office

Gary Lloyd [email protected] 082-211-2263

Dr Clinton Carter-Brown

[email protected]

087-351-3027

IPP Technical Advisor (Aurecon)

Rabagolo Melesi [email protected] 012-427-3379

Industrial Development Corporation (IDC)

Annmarie Buck [email protected] 011-269-3893

KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Department of Transport (DoT) Strategic Integrated Project 2 (SIP 2)

Gideon Treurnich [email protected] 033-328-1181

National Heritage Council (NHC) South Africa

Khwezi Mpumlwana [email protected] 012-348-1663

North West Department of Rural, Environment and Agriculture Development (NW READ)

Tharina Boshoff [email protected] 018-389-5656



of 12

North West Department of Economy & Enterprise Development (NW EED)

Kgomotso Gaobepe [email protected] 018-387-7763

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

Koos Pretorius [email protected] 011-545-1066

Harry Roberts [email protected] 011-545-1071

South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA)

Ms Kathryn Smuts [email protected] 021-462-4502

South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)

Jeff Manuel [email protected] 021-799-8804

Fahiema Daniels [email protected] 021-799-8854

Budu Manaka [email protected] 082-548-5563

South African National Defence Force (SANDF)

Adri Liebenberg a3live.co.za 083-299-7295

South African National Energy Development Institute (SANEDI)

Dr Karen Surridge-Talbot


Andre Otto [email protected] 010-201-8154

South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL)

Victoria Bota [email protected] 012-844-8031

South African Photovoltaic Industry Association (SAPVIA)

Davin Chown [email protected] 083-460-3898

Mike Levington [email protected] 082-770-1036

Moeketsi Thobela [email protected] 083-262-0196

South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA)

Tatenda Ziso [email protected] 079-893-8288

Katherine Persson [email protected] 021-701-1292

Southern Africa Solar Thermal and Electricity Association (SASTELA)

Saheed Okuboyejo [email protected] 083-764-4415

Square Kilometre Array (SKA) Africa

Tshegofatso Monama [email protected] 011-442-2434

Craig Smith [email protected] 011-442-2434

Strategic Integrated Project (SIP) 10

Kelisha Panday [email protected] 083-336-6344

Saba Derakhshani [email protected] 079-341-6706

Trisha Daya [email protected] 076-892-2250

Transnet Jogikaya George [email protected] 012-319-7508

Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (WC

Paul Hardcastle [email protected] 021- 483-5126

Zaahir Toefy [email protected] 021-483-2700



of 12

DEADP)

World Bank Kisas Mfalila [email protected] 012-742-3137



of 12

Meeting Notes:

PART I: Welcome and Introductions Attendee introductions.

PART II: EGI SEA - Phase Ib: Positive Mapping Approach/Outputs Presentation by Marshall Mabin (CSIR) entitled “Phase Ib: Positive Mapping”

Presentation available on the project website:

Mike Levington (SAPVIA): There is the potential that Richards Bay will be developed as a gas terminal. Would it not be sensible to

expand the length of the proposed corridor so that it reaches Richards Bay and does not stop at

Durban?

Kevin Leask (Eskom):

Any generation from gas will be used locally to offset the large load that exists at Richards Bay. Any

excess generation will be sent down the coast to Durban. There is no need for a specific corridor to link Richards Bay. New servitudes are being investigated to

build new 400kv lines. Thus, there will be enough capacity to export excess generation that might occur

at Richards Bay. There is no proposed corridor from Mpumalanga to KwaZulu-Natal. There are already a number of

transmission lines that exist and those existing transmission lines will be recycled. In the long-term

(2030-2040), that power pool will die down. There will not be power that will need to be exported.

Namisha Muthraparsad (DWS):

There is CSIR data called “water generating towers”. Has that data been taken into account? In future,

those areas will essentially be considered as protected areas. Those areas, which comprise 2% of land in South Africa, actually produce 50% of the water supply for South Africa. Those areas would therefore

be regarded as no-go areas.

The impacts caused by current transmission lines on water and the environment should be recorded.

The data could then be used to guide future transmission lines as the potential impacts would have been recorded.

There are many roads and transmission lines that traverse wetlands. It can be expected that those

areas will deteriorate.

Jeff Manuel (SANBI): The strategic water sources areas have been included in the environmental constraints layer. The water

source areas cover large catchments. Their sensitivity has not been listed in the ‘Very High’ sensitivity

category. However, wetlands have been listed in the ‘Very High’ sensitivity area.

The national wetlands map does not have spatial accuracy. Existing wetlands have been highlighted,

but substantial verification still needs to happen. The verification will happen at a micro-site level which will dealt with in the next phase of the SEA, compiling the Development Protocols.

Marshall Mabin (CSIR):

Specialist studies will be undertaken. Through the relevant specialist studies, the outputs of the

environmental constraints map will be further refined and improved.

Paul Hardcastle (WC DEADP):



of 12

Are the corridors 100km wide? Will the information gathered during the specialist studies be used to

refine the corridors? Will changes to the corridors occur? Information gathered by the specialists may identify pinch points within the corridors.

Marshall Mabin (CSIR): The wall-to-wall environment constraints map together with the wall-to-wall engineering constraints

map was used in the corridor refinement process. A pinch point analysis was conducted within the

utilised corridors to identify whether any pinch points existed. Where there was immediate or reasonable relief (i.e. less sensitive areas outside of the corridor

envelope, the corridor was shifted. The final corridor output will go to specialists for further revision.

The specialists would be able to refine the ‘Very High’ sensitivity areas that were identified, i.e.

Important Bird Areas (IBAs), biosphere reserves, etc. Specialist will be investigating the area inside of the corridor only. Therefore the final corridor position is

set based on the outputs of the pinch point analsyis.

Although not always possible, the intention will be for Eskom to avoid ‘Very High’ sensitive areas when

planning for new transmission infrastructure development within the corridors. The purpose of the pinch point analysis is to try and minimise/reduce the extent of ‘Very High’ sensitive areas within the

corridor.


Will the aim of streamlining regulatory protocols apply only to environmental authorisation? Or will the

scope be expanded to other licences as well, e.g. water use licence, land use application, etc.?

Surprise Zwane (DEA): The project is undertaken in support of SIP8. This will require the affected departments to negotiate

with each other, e.g. DEA and DWS, to identify areas where streamlining can occur.

The gazetting process is not only from DEA, but also in terms of the Infrastructure Development Act.

Paul Lochner (CSIR): The SEA must integrate across the various pieces of legislation.

Clinton Carter-Brown (IPP): It must be borne in mind that the study is biased towards areas where there is existing grid capacity.

Independent Power Producers (IPPs) are applying for Environmental Authorisation (EA) in areas where

there is available grid capacity or available capacity can be expected in the near future. There are rules regarding the procurement process, i.e. tariffs and tariff caps in the bidding process. At the moment,

the dominant scenario is that the lowest cost energy must feed into the grid which means that projects

are being proposed in certain areas. If the rules of the game change, IPPs will begin to propose projects elsewhere. Development is

happening where there is a competitive advantage to get projects completed and not necessarily

because it is the best place to have the development. The present coal fields are reaching the end of their lifespan. The Waterberg area is expected to be an

area which has new coal fields. A number of IPPs have expressed interest in that area. However, the

grid is severely constrained. Botswana also has extensive coal fields. There is no proposed corridor to

evacuate power from Botswana to Gauteng for the future. There is a power corridor that extends to Zimbabwe, but what about Botswana?


Comment noted. The bias was mitigated as best as possible through the bulk energy generator exercise

which provided developers with the opportunity to identify preferred development areas across a 0-30

year horizon i.e. up to 2040. Therefore, although the EIA applications will show a preference to areas where there is available grid capacity, this was, to an extent, offset by giving developers the



of 12

opportunity to select desirable development areas in a future state where the current grid

conditions/configurations will inevitably be very different. Kevin Leask (Eskom):

Although, the corridors look biased towards the existing network, the existing network was actually

ignored during the exercise. The aim was to look to the future (2040) and identify where the corridors should be placed to enable future energy generation scenarios. The proposed corridors are the

backbone of the network which will enable power to be moved to the main load centres, which are located at the end of the corridors.

With regard to Waterberg, a number of servitudes exist within the area and the objective is to maximise

the use of those servitudes and recycle the old lines to a higher capacity. Therefore no specific corridor

would be needed. Discussions are being held with Botswana to create a western corridor (eastern for Bostwana) through which power can be imported.

Davin Chown (SAPVIA):

There needs to be better alignment between the current study’s mapping process and the IPP

procurement process. They need to be alignment otherwise something needs to be changed in either of

the two processes. There is a concern that future forecasting is based on a small data set (16 respondents). There are 52

developer members within SAPVIA alone. The data therefore needs to be enriched to guide the future

forecasting process and enable better planning.

Marshall Mabin (CSIR): It is true that we did not receive as much data from IPP association memebers as we would have liked.

However, the response rate was unfortunately outside of the project team’s control. Given the lack of

response received from association members, the CSIR make use of the renewable energy EIA

database to boost the overall sample size. Within the corridors alone, 410 separate active renewable energy applications were considered, which is singnificant. A further approximately 160 applications

were considered outside of the corridors in the Eskom validation step.

PART III: EGI SEA - Phase II: Corridor Refinement Process & Presentation of Final Corridors

Presentation by Marshall Mabin (CSIR) entitled “Phase II: Corridor Refinement”



A pinch point was identified when there was no relief immediately outside of corridor. How far from the

corridor did the assessment extend? I will comment on the analysis when I am able to examine the specialists’ study and examine what

solution has been proposed. How far from the corridor are we able to look for a solution to avoid

conflict? Can the conflicts be resolved through the specialist study?


The situation can be reassessed based on the specialists’ outputs and if necessary, shift the corridors in

the recommended direction.

Jeff Manuel (SANBI): The question being pondered is why have an environmental constraints map when specialists will be re-

examining the environmental sensitivities within the corridor again? There are areas which have been

highlighted as complete pinch points, e.g. eastern corridor. The reason for it being identified as a pinch

point is Eskom’s construction method in that biome and so describes it as a high sensitivity. In many instances, specialists will be asked to identify alternative construction and maintenance options to lower

the impact on the biome.



of 12

The current sensitivities ascribed to the different areas could only be done based on the current mode

of maintenance and construction, and its associated impacts on the environment. Through the specialist studies, and the development protocols, a particular sensitivity could potentially be lowered. This would

allow for easier routing options to be identified. In other cases, the conflict could be only be resolved by

fundamentally shifting the corridors because there would be no option to mitigate the impacts.

PART IV: EGI SEA - Phase III: Specialist Studies Presentation by Marshall Mabin (CSIR) entitled “Specialists Requests for Proposals”


Davin Chown (SAPVIA):

It would be useful for us to examine in more detail the list of questions that specialists are meant to

answer. Feedback from members is that there is a shift in landowners’ approach to IPPs and developers which

ultimately affects the negotiations.


The project team would appreciate input from the associations and to evolve the study questions

further so that relevant issues are addressed.


It has been suggested that no ground-truthing will be done. Surely there is value in ground-truthing the

pinch points that have been identified? A deeper analysis needs to take place than the specialists just examining existing information.

The pinch point may be sensitive depending on the point of view. That may provide some flexibility

when examining the pinch points. I support the specialists providing input into the site protocol. There are still questions surrounding the

site protocol and what it will constitute. Hopefully the specialist studies will result in a presence/absence

confirmation rather than the call for additional studies for the site protocol. The specialist studies should

indicate whether additional specialists will still be needed to do on-the-ground studies or whether a presence/absence confirmation is sufficient for the site protocol phase.

The timing of the specialist studies, as well as the 2 – 3 month time frame for the specialists to conduct

the work; will it not be the wrong time of the year for some of the specialist studies?

Marshall Mabin (CSIR): Ground-truthing the pinch point area is a good idea and can be discussed in more detail at the kick off

workshop with the specialists. However, given budget constraints we cannot expect specialists to

undertake site visits to all pinch point areas however, if a specialist is based in close proximity to a

particular pinch point the opportunity of a site visit should not be discounted. The Wind and Solar PV SEA will be able to provide some detail on what the protocol will potentially look

like. The specialists will definitely be contributing to the site protocol.

The project team will interpret the specialists’ results and make recommendations to DEA. The project

team’s interpretation will undergo review by external reviewers. Budget has been set aside for external specialists to conduct an independent review of the project team’s interpretation of the specialists’

results.

Jeff Manuel (SANBI):

Due to the multi-scale nature of the assessment that was conducted, the information collected is not

equally good across the country. The receiving environment is also not the same across the country. I anticipate that the specialists will conduct their studies and identify their own pinch points, e.g. in

certain landscapes within the corridors, additional studies will have to be conducted should development occur there.



of 12

Seasonality is an issue and ideally summer and winter rainfall studies would need to be included.

However, the SEA deals with the entire country. There may be areas in the landscape where it is not the appropriate season to conduct a specialist study. The specialist will raise this issue and it will be

addressed later.

It would be preferable to have a higher degree of certainty incorporated in the development protocol.

Namisha Muthraparsad (DWS):

Studies that do not include the relevant seasons do not constitute proper science. This is especially true

when studies are conducted in winter and the conclusion is that a rare species is not present. A species has been classified as ‘rare’ because it is a rare species, so it will not always be found. This must be

noted for when the specialists conduct their studies.

There is an aquatic study, but there is no water study. Those are two different things. Aquatic studies

refer only to aquatic biodiversity, whereas water studies examine the surface and groundwater characteristics and how the two interact with each other.

DWS will assess the development on a site specific basis and ask for specialists’ reports.


Comments noted. The freshwater study will address water and aquatic fauna characteristics.

Paul Lochner (CSIR):

The SEA has not identified project level construction impact on groundwater as a significant impact that

would need to be addressed in the process. Surface water in terms of freshwater biodiversity and

systems has been identified as an issue that should be addressed in the specialist study.

Namisha Muthraparsad (DWS): DWS examines water as the hydrological driver within the system. Biodiversity is the response. DWS is

mandated to protect the driver, e.g. confluence of rivers is very important.

If an area has been classified as a ‘high sensitivity’, it must be clarified whether that sensitivity is

biodiversity-related or water-related. It seems that the specialist study will be examining the responses

and not the drivers. DWS will be very specific when examining the impacts on the drivers and may ask for additional specialist studies.

100% of time when construction occurs, the impacts on groundwater has not been considered. The

result is that de-watering of an aquifer occurs and it is unclear whether it is a drinking water aquifer or connected to the base flow of a river.

Water use licence applications should take into account the potential impacts on groundwater. Most

applications do not take groundwater impacts into consideration and that causes delays because the application is rejected as additional studies needs to be conducted.

John Geeringh (Eskom): Eskom and DWS are in a process of dealing with water use licence applications, i.e. what are the

requirements, developing a risk based matrix and possibly a new General Authorisation (GA) that will be

promulgated soon. The aim is to prescribe the process for powerline construction. The main issue is that the physical impact of a powerline is higher on biodiversity than on groundwater.

There has been a recent interaction with DWS which has provided a good breakdown of what

information will be required, and so will be considered in the future applications.

Rhett Smart (Cape Nature):

CapeNature’s main concerns when it comes to powerlines relate to the operational phase, i.e. the

maintenance of the servitudes. If those impacts can managed in terms of following the proper protocol, many of CapeNature’s concerns would be addressed.

The precedence is that the vegetation is mowed flat and thus there is a larger impact than in instances

where the biodiversity is allowed to persist.



of 12

Is there scope to examine vegetation management plans at a strategic level? The new EIA regulations

focus on maintenance management plans. The current management of the vegetation under powerlines varies between the different habitats and biomes. Perhaps habitat-specific vegetation management

plans can be included at the strategic level rather than at a project-specific level.

John Geeringh (Eskom):

Eskom has vegetation management specifications that are informed by its in-house biodiversity

specialists that examine vegetation. The vegetation management specifications are based on the biomes in which the powerlines occur.

The biggest challenge is that in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as well as other pieces

of legislation, the powerline must have certain safety clearances. If too much vegetation is left behind

and a flashover occurs which starts a fire, there may be claims from farmers whose lands have been burnt.

In some instances it may look bad because the vegetation is being removed, but in the long term it

assists with protecting other biodiversity from secondary problems that may arise from vegetation management. Cognizance of the biome is taken. There is a lot on interaction between the various role

players, i.e. landowners, fire protection agencies, etc. to ensure that the necessary steps are taken and

to not go overboard.

Adri Liebenberg (DoD): Will the socio-economic study address the potential impact of powerlines (within the corridors) on the

military to carry out its operations?


The project team has been communicating with Colonel Williams. The project team has identified the

sensitive areas from a Defence perspective and are included within the environmental constraints map.

Those areas have been classified as ‘Very High’ sensitivity areas and it would therefore be a priority to

avoid these areas.

Ernest Groeneweld (Eskom): Once the new SEA has been gazetted, will it allow the servitude to be valid for 40 years? Perhaps it

should be one of the ToRs for the specialists to investigate.

Surprise Zwane (DEA): The acquisition of servitude is not within the mandate of DEA. However, it might not be possible to

have a servitude that is valid for such a long period, but it can be explored.


The SEA is meant to be an iterative process that will be updated with new information as and when it

becomes available. Biodiversity areas may not remain the same for the next 40 years and will change and evolve. Some thought will be given to the questions around servitude in the future.

Paul Hardcastle (DEADP): In the short to medium term, the legislation allows for certainty with regard to forward planning. But a

time frame of 40 years does not allow for the certainty that the issues currently under investigation

would still hold true in 40 years’ time. The legislative context, socio-economic context, all can change that can result in a new way in which planning is done in 40 years.

Kevin Leask (Eskom): The objective of the proposed corridors is not to give Eskom free reign to build millions of powerlines.

The country needs new transmission lines. The proposed corridors are there to facilitate the potential



of 12

energy generation scenarios that may occur in the future and so reduce the response time to build the

necessary infrastructure. Currently Eskom has a time lag of a minimum of five years before new infrastructure can be built. To

reduce the time delay, as much of the sensitivity work should be done upfront. Eskom would still follow

the rules and requirements regarding powerline construction, but the infrastructure would become available much faster. Where pinch points exist, whether it is due to environmental or engineering

constraints, alternatives will need to be investigated to ensure that there are potential routes for the powerlines that need to be constructed. The objective is not to get as much servitude as we can now.

Jeff Manuel (SANBI): One of the benefits that the the SEA provides Eskom, is that for certain segments within the corridors

where options might be constrained, Eskom would be able to go out and test where a servitude may be

established before planning process takes place. Through the consultation process in this SEA, municipalities are being made aware of the corridors and

can thus incorporate them in the local planning documents, i.e. the IDPs and SDFs. Through better

integrated planning and co-ordination, instances where servitudes are not being utilised because of

conflict situations can be avoided.

PART V: EGI SEA - Birds & Bats Database Presentation by Jeff Manuel (SANBI) entitled “Progress with Development of a Data Publishing Tool for

monitoring impacts on Birds & Bats”


Samantha Ralston (Birdlife SA):

How will it be ensured that the database is used and the data is uploaded?

Jeff Manuel (SANBI): Developers cannot be compelled to upload the data. It would be up to DEA to find ways to ensure that

the database is used.

Nicolene Fourie (DEA):

The database mock up includes a reference number for EIAs. Caution should be applied when including

a reference number as competent authorities use different reference numbers and there should be

consistency regarding the reference numbers. What technology platform will be used, i.e. proprietary or open source?

Will users be able to download the data? Will reports include a spatial reference and so will users also

be able to upload spatial information?


SANBI is in the process of migrating all systems to open source platforms. The tool is being developed

on an open source platform. The system is being designed to be a data archive, i.e. reports can be loaded in their raw format, and

ultimately there will be an interactive map that is based on Google maps. Users would be able to

delineate the transect and link information specific to that transect.

At the coarsest level, the locations of the developments within the country will be available as point

data. The finest level of information might be the footprint of the turbines themselves. At the moment, all information is meant to be downloaded. However, specific data sets can be limited

depending on the sensitivity of the data sets. We would consult with the stakeholders and agree which

data would be for viewing purposes only. It also depends on the data licence agreement between SANBI and the relevant department/data provider.

As far as possible data and information will be downloadable and exportable.



of 12

Katherine Persson (SAWEA):

Since the database will be open to the public, will there be some form of control over who can register as a user? Members of the public might not have the right qualifications to interpret the information

that has been provided properly. Even non-sensitive data that is made available can be interpreted

incorrectly by people.

Jeff Manuel (SANBI): Users will have to register with a proper ID (e.g. LinkedIn) in order to use the database. There will not

be bot profiles. All interactions will be linked to a user so that it is known who is doing what. Rights for

uploaders will be different to the rights for general users. The issues will need to be resolved through

consultation with the various stakeholders, i.e. industry, associations, etc.

Nicolene Fourie (DEA): What mechanism will be used to decide where the tool will be hosted and maintained? The

responsibilities of the custodian must be clarified.

Will it be an external entity, i.e. not SANBI or DEA?

Surprise Zwane (DEA): The statutory responsibility that SANBI has to manage and provide advice on biodiversity matters. Our

interpretation was that if DEA was to maintain the database, additional resources and capacity needs to

be made available. However, SANBI has an annual internship programme which could link to this project as a form of skills development.

The issue of custodianship still needs to be resolved internally and final decisions still need to be taken

regarding the funding and custodianship of the tool.


DEA viewed SANBI as the mechanism to deliver the tool; however that has not been firmly decided

upon yet. For that reason, the tool has been developed on an open source platform to cater for the final decisions that still need to be made regarding the custodianship of the tool.

End of Meeting

purpose: expert reference group (erg) meeting for the ... · pdf fileannmarie buck...

Documents