Municipality of Cerrillos (Google Data Center) v/ Evaluation Commission of the Metropolitan Region

On December 11 and 14, 2020, the petitioners filed an administrative claim against Exempt Resolution No. 524/2020, of October 28, 2020, issued by the Evaluation Commission of the Metropolitan Region (Coeva RM), in accordance with Article 17 No. 8 of Law No. 20.600. The claim is against the approval of the “Cerrillos Data Center,” a Google Chile megaproject involving the establishment of a technological data storage center, which requires a powerful cooling system due to a large number of servers in operation. The claim is based on the project's potential adverse effects on the residents of the Cerrillos commune, particularly regarding the potential impacts on water resource availability and air quality. Two claims were filed against the project's approval before the Second Environmental Court: the first by a group of 14 residents of the Cerrillos commune, and the second by the Cerrillos Municipality. During the process, the Municipality of Cerrillos withdrew its legal action, as did 13 residents. The withdrawal was due to the project's public declaration that it would no longer use water to cool the servers. In February 2022, the company presented a “Modification of the ‘Cerrillos Data Center’ Project” to the Environmental Assessment Service (SEA), which involves replacing the water-based cooling towers with air-cooled condensers, thereby eliminating the use of groundwater from the three wells of the Santiago Central Aquifer over which the company has water rights. The action was continued only by one resident. The ruling of September 26, 2024, by the Second Environmental Court, partially upheld the claim and ordered the Environmental Assessment Service (SEA) to revert the evaluation process of the initiative to incorporate consideration of the effects of climate change in the assessment of the water component. It explains that although the SEA determined that the change in the server cooling system did not necessarily require entry into the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA) before its execution, this determination is not binding for the environmental evaluation of the original project. For this reason, the Tribunal's analysis focused on the effects of water use for cooling and its impact on the water resource. The Tribunal concluded that this evaluation did not adequately exclude significant impacts of the project on the water resource, which, it deemed, goes against the preventive principle and the very purpose of an Environmental Impact Declaration. It also added that the measures established by the General Directorate of Water (DGA) do not replace a proper evaluation of the project in terms of ruling out the absence of adverse effects. The court decision emphasized that, in light of the uncertainties raised by the General Directorate of Water (DGA) in its most recent report, the Environmental Assessment Service (SEA) failed to apply adequate precautionary measures. The court highlighted the need to assess the vulnerability of the aquifer and consider the potential impact of climate change under the most adverse conditions. This evaluation should have considered the extensive scientific literature demonstrating Chile’s significant susceptibility to climate change, particularly in the context of the ongoing mega-drought, which directly impacts water resource availability. The court noted that these factors could significantly affect the outcomes of environmental modeling, influencing both the evaluation of adverse effects on water resources and the appropriateness of the conditions and requirements imposed, as well as the voluntary environmental commitments made by the project. Consequently, the court mandated a reevaluation of the project, incorporating the potential effects of climate change in its environmental assessment.