Ministério Público Federal vs Energisa Mato Grosso – Distribuidora de Energia S.A (Fire at the Serra das Araras Ecological Station)

In June 2026, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against Energisa Mato Grosso—Distribuidora de Energia SA, due to a large-scale fire that occurred in August 2024 in the Serra das Araras Ecological Station (ESEC), a fully protected conservation unit located in the state of Mato Grosso. Plaintiff alleges that the origin of one of the three ignition points of the fire was identified in the right-of-way of the medium-voltage power grid under Defendant's responsibility and that there is, in the records, technical, expert, and testimonial evidence that clearly points to a failure in preventive maintenance and the absence of firebreaks and vegetation pruning near the support poles and conductor cables. The MPF alleges that Defendant allowed dry branches to come into contact with the wiring, causing sparks and establishing a fire ignition point on a day of low humidity and strong winds, which generated a considerable part of the forest fire that affected the ESEC. The MPF further argues that forest fires in protected areas produce serious socio-environmental and ecological effects, soil erosion, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The MPF points out that the Protected Area Management Plan highlights the unit's vulnerability to forest fires caused by external interference and that the Plan recommends the adoption of permanent preventive measures and surveillance within the right-of-way of power lines.

It is estimated that the large-scale fire caused the devastation of approximately 4,500 hectares, which, added to other fires resulting from ignition points in the vicinity, totals approximately 104,592.00 hectares devastated. The MPF alleges that Defendant was negligent, resulting in damage to neighboring rural properties and also to the Serra das Araras Ecological Station, justifying civil liability for the environmental damage caused to the community. It is noteworthy that the MPF offered a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC) to Defendant but that the company declined, arguing that there are no grounds for liability.

Plaintiff argues, based on Article 225 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, the duty of the public authorities and the community to preserve the environment for present and future generations. Plaintiff also cites Advisory Opinion 23/2017 (PC-23/2017) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in which States Parties must adopt the precautionary principle and develop contingency plans to mitigate major environmental accidents; Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which recognized that the obligation to ensure due diligence imposes enhanced due diligence in the context of the climate crisis, by the State and private individuals, adopting preventive measures. It is argued that, in addition to the local damage caused to fauna, flora, and human health, the situation caused diffuse climate damage due to the release of GHG and the elimination of natural carbon sinks. It is argued that climate damage should be measured based on the carbon stock affected by the destruction of vegetation, and the pricing of this stock should be carried out using the calculator available in the CNJ's (National Council of Justice) Protocol for Judging Environmental Actions.

The expert report from the Federal Police confirmed the occurrence of an electrical origin consistent with an electric arc and estimated the value of the direct environmental damage at R$ 11,917.76 per hectare. To arrive at this value, it was considered that 4,500 hectares were degraded, and it is argued that the value of the material environmental damage should be recognized as R$ 53,629,920.00. According to the carbon calculator, the monetary value of CO2 emissions is R$ 29,472,329.76, considering that the dollar exchange rate on that day was R$ 4.89. It is argued that this amount should be donated in the following proportions: 40% to ICMBio, 20% to IBAMA, 20% to the Mato Grosso Military Fire Department, and 20% to projects developed by the State University of Mato Grosso (UNEMAT) and the Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT) related to the study of fire and its impacts on the Cerrado and Pantanal biomes.


It is alleged that, given the increased risk of fires due to high temperatures and the abrupt arrival of El Niño, preventive measures are necessary, and therefore, Defendant must present and implement an emergency plan within 30 days. In an urgent injunction, the presentation and implementation of an emergency plan is requested, with the objective of preventive maintenance of the electrical grid in the easement strip that crosses and borders the Serra das Araras Ecological Station Conservation Unit and neighboring properties. On the merits, it is requested: that Defendant be ordered to (i) pay damages for material losses corresponding to 4,500 hectares of degraded land, in the amount of R$ 53,629,920.00; (ii) compensate for diffuse moral damages, in the amount of R$ 26,814,960, equivalent to 50% of the proven material damages; (iii) compensate for the climatic damages caused, corresponding to R$ 29,472,329.76; and (iv) implement a continuous preventive maintenance plan for the electrical grid, which will include the cleaning and pruning of native vegetation to prevent contact with the distribution network, in the easement strip of the Conservation Unit.