In 2016, an Administrative Law Judge recommended the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) adopt the Federal Social Cost of Carbon (FSCC) established by the EPA should to determine the environmental cost values of burning coal in Minnesota. NOTE: This decision is only a recommendation that the PUC is not obligated to follow.
An association representing fisher people who would be impacted by a 4,150 MW coal-fired power plant planned for an Indian coast town filed a complaint with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) raising concerns about IFC policy violations in the implementation of the project.
In its 2013 Audit and 2015 monitoring report, the CAO found several violations of IFC safeguard policies.
Among other findings, the CAO found that the IFC failed to ensure that consultation carried out as part of the environmental and social analysis constituted “effective consultation.” The CAO explained “[t]his lack of effective consultation with fishing communities early in the project cycle resulted in missed opportunities to assess, avoid and reduce potential adverse impacts of the project and to examine technically and financially feasible alternatives to the sources of adverse impacts[.]” In addition, the inadequate consultation and disclosure “hindered efforts to build and maintain over time a constructive relationship with project affected communities.”
In addition, the CAO found that the IFC’s environmental and social assessments “were not commensurate to risk,” failed to adequately review marine impact, and failed to adequately determine cumulative impacts.
The CAO also found the “IFC did not take the steps necessary to ensure that the application of [Performance Standard] 5 (Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement) in relation to the complainants was properly assessed.”
Finally, the CAO determined that the IFC also failed to ensure World Bank Thermal Power Guidelines were applied properly.
The 2015 Report notes that the IFC has taken some steps to rectify problems raised in the Audit, but the CAO concludes that these steps are not “sufficient to address the findings of the audit at this stage.” Due to the continued violation of IFC policies, the CAO has kept the audit open for continued monitoring.
Tribunal quashed the environmental clearance issued for a coal-fired power plant for failure to prepare an adequate cumulative impact assessment. “Rapid” assessment submitted by power company did not provide a comprehensive view of the impacts.
National Green Tribunal overturned an environmental clearance issued for a coal-fired power plant proposed by India’s largest thermal power producer. The Tribunal found that environmental information had been concealed and misrepresented, and the EIA and public participation processes were faulty.
Environment minister improperly rejected advice from an expert committee recommending that large-scale coal mining proposal in a forest area not proceed. Although the committee’s advice is not binding on the Minister, it nevertheless cannot be ignored without credible scientific basis.
Upholding Land and Environment Court decision declaring that an open-cut coal mine should not be allowed to expand because the economic benefits of continued mining do not outweigh the impacts to nearby residents and loss of biodiversity.
The district court determined it was unreasonable for agencies to quantify the benefits of lease modifications for coal mining and then explain that a similar analysis of the costs of GHG emissions and climate impacts was impossible when such an analysis was in fact possible due to the availability of the Social Cost of Carbon Protocol, even if the cost-benefit analysis was not required by law. Thus, the court set aside the government authorizations of the proposed expansion of coal mining operations and ordered the intervening mining companies to stop exploration activities.
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.