Greenpeace East Asia and others v. Ministry of Economic Affairs

On February 3, 2021, Greenpeace East Asia, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four individual plaintiffs filed a citizen suit against Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA). The plaintiffs contend that the agency’s Regulation for Large Power Consumers fails to meet the statutory mandates of Taiwan’s Renewable Energy Development Act (REDA) and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act (GHG Reduction and Management Act). Although Taiwan is not a party to the Paris Agreement, it enacted the REDA in 2009 to promote renewable energy development. In 2019, the Legislative Yuan amended the REDA. Under the Article 12 of the 2019 REDA, large energy consumers must either install specified amounts of renewable power generation and storage capacity or purchase a defined quantity of renewable electricity. The MOEA, authorized to implement this provision, promulgated the Regulations for the Management of Setting Up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users Above a Certain Contract Capacity (hereinafter, the Regulation for Large Power Consumers) on January 1, 2021. The contested regulation applies only to power users with a contracted capacity exceeding 5,000 kWh and requires merely 10% of that capacity to transition to renewable energy. Plaintiffs argue that this threshold effectively exempts roughly 90% of large corporate consumers and is inconsistent with Taiwan’s national target of achieving 20% renewable energy by 2025. They seek a judicial order compelling the MOEA to amend the regulation to impose more ambitious renewable energy obligations on major power consumers, thereby accelerating greenhouse gas reductions and combating climate change. According to the plaintiffs, this is Taiwan’s first citizen suit specifically seeking a court-ordered reduction in carbon emissions. On May 8, 2025, the Taipei High Administrative Court dismissed the complaint on two principal grounds. First, the Court held that neither the REDA nor the Climate Change Response Act grants private parties a legally enforceable right to compel the enactment of specific administrative regulations. Second, emphasizing the principle of “judicial self-restraint,” the Court deferred to the administrative agency’s discretion, reasoning that overturning the regulation could undermine the separation of powers. Greenpeace has appealed this decision and continue to challenge the ruling on both legal and factual grounds.