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.
The court set aside permissions for a mining project in a protected area and remitted the application for permission for reconsideration in light of “all relevant consideration” and the following specific considerations: (1) compliance with the national administrative law statute; (2) the interests of local communities and the environmental principles of the national environmental management statute; (3) previously required authorizations must be final (i.e., after statutory appeals are resolved) before permissions may be granted; and, (4) a management plan for the protected area must be approved and the contents of said plan must be taken into consideration.
The Madras High Court determined that the operator of a coal-fired power plant isn't beneficially utilizing fly ash, among other regulatory violations. Thus, the court enjoined the operator from dumping material that would affect the marsh land in Vallur Village, Tamil Nadu.
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.
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 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.