Chile's Supreme Court decided that the impacts of a coastal coal-fired power plant threatened the plaintiffs' and the larger fishing community's constitutional right to live in an environment free from contamination and ordered Endesa and government authorities to take measures necessary to protect marine species.
The Land and Environment Court of NSW decided that the proposed mine expansion project would cause unacceptable environmental and social impacts, which were not adequately evaluated in the economic assessments, and that the approval conditions would not satisfactorily offset such impacts, so it decided to refuse Warkworth’s expansion project proposal and replace the administrative decision with its refusal.
The Chilean Supreme Court revoked the environmental permits for the construction of Central Castilla, which would have been the largest proposed coal-fired power plant in South America. Project proponents submitted three separate EIAs for the power plant, a transmission line, and a port for coal imports. Applying the precautionary principle, the Supreme Court declared that the projects should be assessed together to determine the actual area of influence and cumulative impacts.
The Court determined the decision of the Minister for Planning's to approve a coal mine extension project should be granted, but imposed extensive additional conditions on the approval based upon a precautionary approach. These additional conditions provide for more certain conservation of threatened species and biological diversity, protection of water quality, control of particulate emissions, mitigation of noise generated by the mine and noise and dust generated by the transportation of coal by train.
In the Matter of Application of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Cliffside), Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with Conditions, NC PUC, Docket No. E-7, Sub 790
The North Carolina Utilities Commission denied Duke Energy's request to build twin 800 MW coal-fired power plants, saying that the utility had failed to prove that both plants were needed to meet demand. (Duke Energy had planned to sell power from one of the plants). Instead, the state commission gave approval for one plant. The Commission also conditioned its approval on the utility’s commitment to retire older coal-fired generating facilities and to invest a small percentage of its annual retail electricity revenues on energy efficiency. Order E-70, Sub.790, p. 9.
The Oregon Public Utilities Commission (PUC) denied a request by Pacificorp to build two coal-fired electricity facilities to meet a projected increase in demand of 1,109 MW. The PUC determined in part that Pacificorp overestimated its resource needs and that the company failed to establish that constructing new electricity generating plants would best meet increased demand.
The Supreme Court of Montana found that the agency improperly relied on the federal land manager's findings about the impact of a proposed coal-fired power plant. The law required the agency to make an independent inquiry.
The failure of the Minister of International Trade and Industry to exercise the authority to implement safety regulations immediately after the enactment of the Pneumoconiosis Law is illegal for the purpose of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation. The period of extinctive prescription shall start from the time when all or part of damage has arisen from an unlawful act if the damage, due to its nature, arises after a considerable period of time has passed since the termination of the act of causing the damage.
A local environmental association (“Save the Vaal Environment”) petitioned South Africa’s mining authority to comment on an application by Sasol Mining for a license to mine coal near the Vaal River, but the mining authority refused to provide such an opportunity and issued the mining license to Sasol Mining, so Save the Vaal Environment sought judicial review of the mining authority's decision. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed with Save the Vaal Environment that the mining authority should have applied the audi alteram partem rule (or “audi-rule”) to provide an opportunity for comment.