ADI 7617 (RenovaBio)

In April 2024, the Partido Democrático Trabalhista (PDT), a political party, filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) challenging the constitutionality of Articles 4, item I; 5, items V, VII, XI, and XIII; 6; 7, caput and § 2; and 13, caput and § 1 of Federal Law 13.576/2017 – the National Biofuels Policy Act (RenovaBio). The aim of the action is to deregulate the carbon market established by this policy. The party alleges a formal defect in the legislative process, claiming that the legislative process was diverted to serve private interests at the expense of environmental protection. On substantive grounds, it is argued that the law infringes constitutional provisions related to an ecologically balanced environment, the social function of property, the prohibition of insufficient protection, and free enterprise. The party contends that the law’s actual purpose is to provide financial support to the biofuels sector rather than to protect the environment. This assertion is based on RenovaBio’s alleged failure to contribute effectively to GHG emission reductions due to the lack of additionality in Decarbonization Credits (CBIOs), meaning no measurable and effective reduction in GHG emissions or CO₂ removal occurs, as required by the law, to genuinely mitigate climate change. The party further argues that RenovaBio represents state intervention in the economic domain, selectively benefiting producers and importers without delivering corresponding environmental protection and concealing environmentally harmful practices under the guise of meeting international commitments under the Paris Agreement. Additionally, the law places the responsibility for decarbonizing the entire fossil fuel supply chain on distributors, despite their accounting for only a portion of the agents involved, thereby creating an inequitable regulatory burden. The action seeks a declaration of formal and substantive unconstitutionality of Federal Law 13.576/2017, with partial nullity without textual reduction, and interpretation aligned with the Constitution for Articles 4, item I; 5, items XXIII, V, VII, XI, and XIII; 6; 7, caput and § 2; and 13, caput and § 1. The claimant party subsequently requested to withdraw the action, but it was not dismissed due to the principle of indisposability, which governs concentrated constitutional control actions.