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.
Complex litigation seeking remediation of environmental damages from large-scale coal mining in which Brazil's Superior Court of Justice held the mining companies strictly liable and the federal government jointly liable with a duty to make the companies pay for remediation while concluding that the owners and managers of the companies have supplemental liability if the companies can't fulfill duty to remedy environmental damages and concluding that collective actions for environmental remediation are not subject to statutes of limitations.
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.
Reviewing question of whether an EIA for a coal mine, should have considered the impact to the climate of burning the coal, the judge declared, “I consider there is a sufficiently proximate link between the mining of a very substantial reserve of thermal coal in NSW . . . and the emission of GHG which contribute to climate change/global warming . . . to require assessment of that GHG contribution of the coal when burnt in an environmental assessment….”