- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Brazil
- /
- Instituto Arayara vs. Copel, Instituto Água e Terra and others (UTE Figueira)
Instituto Arayara vs. Copel, Instituto Água e Terra and others (UTE Figueira)
About this case
Filing year
2024
Status
Pending
Geography
Court/admin entity
Brazil → Paraná (PR) → Paraná Federal Court
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals (Global) → Corporations (Global)Suits against governments (Global) → Energy and power (Global)Suits against governments (Global) → Environmental assessment and permitting (Global) → Utilities (Global)
Principal law
Brazil → Federal Constitution of 1988Brazil → National Environmental Policy Act (Law No. 6.938 of 1981)Brazil → National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law No. 12.187 of 2009)International Law → Kyoto Protocol Compliance Tribunals → Kyoto ProtocolInternational Law → UNFCCC → Paris Agreement
At issue
Whether there are irregularities in the operation and in the environmental assessment of the Figueira Thermoelectric Plant (UTE-FRA) that caused climate damage.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
09/01/2024
Preliminary Decision (Portuguese)
Decision
08/20/2024
Complaint
Summary
On August 20, 2024, the Instituto Internacional Arayara de Educação e Cultura - Instituto Arayara de Educação para a Sustentabilidade filed a Civil Public Action (CPA), with a request for urgent injunction, against Copel Geração e Transmissão S.A., the Instituto Água e Terra do Paraná (IAT), the State of Paraná, the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL), and the Federal Union on the grounds of alleged irregularities in the operation of the Figueira Thermoelectric Plant (UTE-FRA). Copel owns the plant, and it is alleged that there are unlawful practices in its environmental licensing and operations, resulting in environmental and climate damage. It is claimed that the coal used by the power plant contains a high concentration of radioactive elements, causing the atmosphere, climate, water, and soil degradation. The environmental agency reportedly denied access to documents regarding the environmental licensing of the activity, and the UTE allegedly operated for 18 years without the required Operating Licence, emitting pollutants above the limits allowed by law. Additionally, the plant's expansion reportedly proceeded without a licensing process and operated for 35 years without mechanisms to control particulate emissions.
The plaintiff argued that the climate damage caused by illegal GHG emissions should be quantified based on the social cost of carbon, with carbon pricing estimates provided by the World Bank and OECD. The plaintiff requests that the defendant provide documents and for an expert examination to accurately quantify the emissions, as the emissions presented by the UTE’s operation were estimated by the plaintiffs without access to the necessary documents. The plaintiff asks for an injunction, including document and report disclosure, the production of advance evidence to assess environmental damage, and the suspension of environmental and regulatory licensing procedures. Ultimately, it is requested that: (i) the environmental licensing process and authorizations permitting the plant's expansion be annulled; (ii) the defendants be ordered to cease operations until a proper licensing process is conducted, accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/RIMA) and necessary technical studies; (iii) the cancellation of the environmental compensation agreement; (iv) the defendants be ordered to restore environmental damage caused by the UTE's irregular operations and pay compensation for irreversible damage; (v) the defendants be ordered to pay compensation for climate damage due to the UTE's irregular operation; and (vi) the payment of collective environmental moral damages.
On September 1, 2024, the Court denied the request for an injunction. It was argued that the evidence requested could be produced at an appropriate stage in the proceedings, and there was no need for early production. It was also noted that UTE Figueira has been in operation for a long time and contributes to the electricity supply in the state of Paraná; therefore, granting the injunction measures could pose a risk to consumers.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance