decision

Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. Federal Union and others (Climate emergency in Rio Grande do Sul state) - decision

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

petition

Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. Federal Union and others (Climate emergency in Rio Grande do Sul state) - petition

reply

Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. Federal Union and others (Climate emergency in Rio Grande do Sul state) - reply

Filing Year For Action

On July 6, 2023, Instituto Preservar, Associação Gaúcha de Proteção ao Ambiente Natural - AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra - Brasil filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Union, Federal Environment Agency - IBAMA, National Electric Power Agency - ANEEL, Companhia de Geração e Transmissão de Energia Elétrica do Sul do Brasil - Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul (SE & UTE Cantiota III), the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul environmental agency - FEPAM and Companhia Riograndense de Mineração - CRM. The lawsuit seeks to order the defendants to adopt effective measures to comply with the guidelines, deadlines and targets set out in federal and Rio Grande do Sul 's climate laws. 

It is argued that in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Federal Government, and from 2010 to 2023, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, by action or omission, failed to comply with the legal guidelines and did not meet the deadlines and targets set out in the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the Paris Agreement and the Rio Grande do Sul ‘s Policy on Climate Change (PGMC), as there was no effective implementation of instruments such as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), equal and transparent composition of the Rio Grande do Sul Climate Change Forum (FGMC) and the Brazilian Climate Change Forum and no measures have been taken to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal-fired power plants in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, with a Just Energy Transition (TEJ) plan, which results in the ineffectiveness of these climate standards. It is pointed out that the climate crisis has led to water shortages in the municipality of Candiota, which has been recognized by municipal decree and that, in parallel to this situation, the various coal-fired thermoelectric plants in the region use local water for cooling, causing damage to the water system, the biome and the climate. It is alleged that the defendants have neglected climate policy when dealing with the licensing and renewal of licenses for these projects in the state. At the same time, the Federal Government has encouraged coal-fired thermoelectric projects through energy auctions authorized by ANEEL. CRM, responsible for the Candiota coal mine, and CGT Eletrosul, responsible for the Candiota III Thermoelectric Plant - the most polluting and least efficient plant in the country - have been operating in disregard of environmental climate laws. It is argued that it is up to the Judiciary, based on the principle of the prohibition of regression and duties of protection, to guarantee effective compliance with the rules in question and prevent the climate scenario from worsening. It is argued that the entire situation of alleged unlawfulness gives rise to a claim for compensation for collective moral damages. 

The plaintiffs make several requests for injunctive relief for the various defendants, so that the defendants' conduct is brought into line with the environmental climate standards. On the merits, it is requested that (i) the requests for preliminary injunctions be confirmed; (ii) it be declared that in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Federal Government, and from 2010 to 2023, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, by action or omission, failed to comply with climate standards and did not meet the deadlines and targets set out in the PNMC, the Paris Agreement and the PGMC, because they did not give effect to the regulations and did not act to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired thermoelectric plants in the state; (iii) to declare that Rio Grande do Sul has failed to meet the targets and deadlines set out in international, national and state regulations; (iv) the suspension of public incentives to exploit coal in the state, the implementation of a TEJ plan for the contested plants; the publication of public notices to finance educational projects and research projects with universities and federal institutes that encourage environmental awareness and the guidelines of the PNMC and PGM; the creation of a WG for the decommissioning and energy transition of coal-fired projects; the suspension and non-renewal of energy sales contracts for the contested plants; (v) ordering the defendants to pay compensation for climate damage; (vi) ordering the Federal Government and the state of Rio Grande do Sul to bear the costs of the requests made; (vii) ordering all the defendants to pay the sum of ten million reais as collective moral damage in environmental and climate matters.

The request for injunctive relief was rejected by the judge, which ruled that the analysis of the claims would require a more in-depth hearing. The judge argued that the plaintiffs' claims were too broad and had high economic, political and social impacts. In addition, he argued that the effects of climate change are recognized by the international community, that the process of adaptation by countries is slower than desirable, and could cause irreversible damage to the environment and future generations.

CRM defended that all its activities are in line with environmental legislation and that, in accordance with current regulations, it is already drawing up a mine closure plan.

In September 2023, the defendants filed their defenses, claiming that the activities were in line with environmental legislation. CRM claimed that it had already drawn up a mine closure plan. ANEEL pointed out that the participation of non-renewable sources in energy auctions is not the result of ANEEL's discretionary choice, but rather of compliance with the guidelines established by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and that the agency does not have a licensing function. It claimed that Rio Grande do Sul has 80% of its energy matrix made up of renewable energies and that the forecast for the expansion of energy supply in the state does not include an increase in fossil sources. 

The state of Rio Grande do Sul argued that it complies with current federal and state regulations, that the causes of climate change are global and that there is no causal link between the state's conduct and the damage alleged in the lawsuit. IBAMA argued that there is a lack of rules on the mitigation and reduction of GHG emissions; that decisions on the reduction of GHG emissions and the need to replace the national energy matrix are made by technical bodies and it is not up to the Judiciary to intervene; that the causes of air pollution are diffuse and that there is no proof of damage caused by IBAMA. The Union highlighted the lack of sectoral sub-national targets for reducing GHG emissions in Brazilian legislation and the absence of a causal link that could connect the Union to the environmental damage referred to in the initial petition, whether by action or omission. 

Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul claimed that the licensing of the Candiota III TPP regularly took place, that climate factors were taken into account in the procedure; that its operation complies with the GHG emission parameters established in the licensing; and that the plant is not the most polluting in the country. It argued that the Paris Agreement, the PNMC and the Gaucho Policy on Climate Change are general and programmatic norms, which do not generate obligations; and that there is no specific legal provision that substantiates climate environmental licensing. It also pointed out that the country has a scenario for reducing GHG emissions from thermoelectric power plants. It argued that the damage allegedly caused by the plant's operation had not been proven in the initial petition. 

On August 22, 2025, a ruling partially granted the requests, recognizing the lack of standing of ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) and classifying the claim as a structural climate case. The decision carried out a conventionality control based on Advisory Opinion OC 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), also using pronouncements from the Federal Justice Council (CJF) and Precedent 618 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to reverse the burden of proof. It highlighted scientific and legal bases for the decision, such as: reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, studies from the World Meteorological Organization, and reports from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 

In evaluating these sources, the court recognized that the IPCC considers coal to be the fossil fuel with the highest CO2 emissions. It analyzed the consequences of climate change in Rio Grande do Sul based on studies of the impacts of rainfall that hit the state. Regarding the licensing of the Candiota III Mine and Thermal Power Plant, the court understood that, at the time of the licenses (2011 and 2016), "there was a prevailing understanding that Brazilian emission reduction targets had a voluntary character," granting discretion to the licensing authority. Thus, it dismissed the initial illegality of the operations. However, it considered that currently, in a "third phase" of the climate legal regime, "substantial limitations are emerging and consolidating" that impose the assessment of climate impact in the licensing process. This understanding was based on the provisions of the PGMC (State Policy on Climate Change) and Decree 56.347/2022, foreign cases, and advisory opinions from international courts. Therefore, it ordered the immediate suspension of the licenses until these conditions are included, extending this to other similar projects in Rio Grande do Sul. 

The court also understood that IBAMA and FEPAM should take measures to deepen the climate impact analysis of other coal-fired projects in the state, recognizing that climate assessment during licensing is already mandatory for future coal-fired thermoelectric and coal-fired power plants. Regarding the Energy Transition Plan, the decision stated that "postponing the definition of the mitigation trajectory" for such a polluting sector "is unconstitutional and currently incompatible with advisory opinions," requiring the State to develop it. Concerning social participation in licensing, it decided that, under Brazilian environmental law, IBAMA must ensure due access to information on thermoelectric licensing procedures and that Rio Grande do Sul should increase the participation of members of civil society and the scientific community in the Rio Grande do Sul Forum on Climate Change (FGMC). 

Regarding requests for civil liability for damages, it considered that the occurrence of environmental damage had not been demonstrated. Concerning climate damage, it considered that emissions were formally authorized until the present decision. The court based its decision on the National Council of Justice's (CNJ) Protocol for Judgment on Environmental Actions, which requires the illegality of GHG emissions for damages be granted by the judiciary. Therefore, it found that neither the claim for civil liability for climate damage nor the claim for collective moral damages was admissible. However, it stated that, based on the sentence, there is no permission for the continued emissions by the enterprises. Furthermore, it considered that the declaration of a "State of Climate Emergency" does not fall within the purview of the Judiciary. 

The decision partially granted the requests, ordering IBAMA and FEPAM to (i) suspend the operating licenses of the Candiota III Plant and the Candiota Mine, respectively, for non-compliance with the guidelines of the PNMC, PGMC, and State Decree 56.347/2022; (ii) include climate conditions in the operating licenses of the plant and the mine, respectively, including scope 3 emissions; and (iii) to include in the Terms of Reference for licensing thermal power plants and coal mines in RS the assessment of the climate component, including scope 3 emissions. It ordered the Union and Rio Grande do Sul to present, by January 31, 2026, a Just Energy Transition Plan for the state's mineral sector; it ordered RS to promote the adjustment of the composition of the members of the FGMC, increasing the participation of civil society and the scientific community. It scheduled hearings to monitor the measures determined in the judgment and set fines in case of non-compliance.

Ambar Sul Energia SA, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, and FEPAM requested the Court to grant a stay of execution of the appeal. The TRF4, granting the request, suspended all orders for immediate or time-limited compliance with the judgment or the motions for clarification, as well as for compliance through inspection hearings and compliance with court orders and auxiliary judicial expertise.

Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. Federal Union and others (Climate emergency in Rio Grande do Sul state)

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

Any compulsory, unrequited payment to the government levied on corporations or individuals. This can be for environmental reasons, such as introducing a Carbon tax to set a price that emitters must pay for the greenhouse gases they emit.

Terrestrial means "of the earth" and relates to the risks to ecological system that includes all living organisms and their interactions within land-based environments, such as forests, grasslands, and deserts.

Heavy precipitation refers to any form of weather where substances fall from the sky, including rain, snow, sleet, or hail.

Actions or measures to adapt terrestrial systems to climate change.

This sector includes firms and individuals offering specialised expertise in fields such as law, accounting, consulting, science and engineering.

A ban is a legal action that prevents the sale or supply of a product or service, or that recalls a product from the market. Examples are bans on SF6, greenwashing, fossil fuel advertisement or single-use plastics.

A drought is an extended period of unusually dry weather marked by a significant and sustained lack of precipitation, falling below a specific threshold over a large area for more than a month

Energy derived from biological compounds that are renewable due to their short life cycle within the carbon dioxide cycle.

Financial actors and resources that are primarily directed towards climate change mitigation, adaptation and compensation.

Activities involving the catching, processing, and selling of fish for food, recreation, and industry.

This sector provides medical services, manufactures medical equipment, and develops pharmaceuticals to maintain and improve health.

Activities of businesses and institutions that provide financial services and products to individuals and organisations.

A tax advantage is an economic benefit applied to certain accounts or investments that are, by law, tax-reduced, tax-deferred, or tax-free. This can apply to investments in areas such as green energy projects or the agricultural sector, where tax advantages can help manage financial risks.

Actions to adapt human health, healthcare systems and well-being to climate change.

Air pollution involves harmful contaminants in the air, affecting both indoor and outdoor environments. It can lead to health issues like respiratory diseases and heart problems, and climate impacts such as global warming. Pollutants can damage plants, trees, habitats, and water bodies like rivers and lakes.

A commitment to balance GHG emissions with removal by a certain point in time, effectively reducing the net emissions to zero

Activities of industries that extract natural resources, such as mining, oil, and gas, for commercial use.

Work that is productive and delivers a fair income, security in the workplace and social protection for all, better prospects for personal development and social integration, freedom for people to express their concerns, organize and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and equality of opportunity.

Financial support to help individuals manage the effects of unexpected events, securing their livelihoods and increasing the resilience of people and businesses to the changing climate. It’s especially vital in developing regions where everyday risks, climate-related weather extremes, or crop failures can push people into poverty. Without insurance, people may have to resort to selling assets or cutting consumption to cope with losses.

Oil is a combustible liquid fossil fuel composed mainly of hydrocarbons, occurring as crude oil and refined into petroleum products such as petrol, diesel and kerosene.

Activities that relate to the production of goods and services from forests.

Actions or measures to adapt freshwater systems to climate change.

This sector involves managing waste treatment, sanitation, pollution control and environmental cleanup.

People who are less able to respond to the effects of climate change due to having limited financial or physical assets

Electrical energy generated from mechanical devices driven by flowing fresh water.

Activities that involve planning, designing and building infrastructure, residential, and commercial structures.

Production of electricity and heat from solar irradiation.

This sector involves the distribution, treatment, and conservation of water resources.

Conditions that enhance the feasibility of adaptation options. Enabling conditions include finance, technological innovation, strengthening policy instruments, institutional capacity, multi-level governance and changes in human behaviour and lifestyles.

Coastal zone and marine-related actions and measures to adapt and increase resilience to climate change

Climate change impacts our society by disrupting the natural, economic and social systems we depend on. Physical hazards and underlying vulnerabilities can lead to increased resource competition for food and water, which can heighten the risk of conflict.

Dedicated pool of financial resources for climate-related projects.

Hot temperature extremes are daily maximum temperatures  that were exceeded on average once in a decade or once in 50 years, and includes heatwaves.

Jobs that contribute to preserving or restoring the environment. We include jobs which require a high amount of green skills or which spend much of their time on green activities, as well as jobs transforming polluting industries.

People whose health, both mental and physical, makes them more vulnerable to the effects of climate change

woman and genders outside of the gender binary

Codes and standards are regulatory instruments that specify minimum standards to protect health and safety. This ranges from performance standards, which prescribe outcomes while allowing flexibility to achieve compliance, to the more prescriptive approach of technology-specific standards.

The cryosphere is the frozen part of the Earth—it includes sea ice, glaciers, snow, and ice sheets. It helps regulate the climate and weather by reflecting sunlight. Rising temperatures are causing melting, leading to sea ice loss, glacier collapse, and glacier landslides and avalanches. This threatens the livelihoods of around 700 million people who rely on the cryosphere for food, water security, and cultural practices.

This sector involves activities to move goods and people, alongside the storage of products.

Fossil gas, commonly known as natural gas, is a fossil fuel consisting chiefly of methane with smaller amounts of other hydrocarbons and trace gases, found in underground deposits.

A long-lived, colourless gas, chiefly emitted from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and cement production.

This sector involves the wholesale and retail selling of goods.

A subsidy is a direct or indirect payment to individuals or businesses, typically provided as a government cash payment or a specific tax reduction.

Social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced

People with different national or cultural traditions from the dominant population

Tradable permits are market-based tools that grant permission for specific activities, frequently used to regulate emissions. These permits can be issued within a trading system to manage environmental impacts.

Using laws and the legal system more broadly to protect vulnerable entities

Direct investments by the governments using public funds. This can be to support climate initiatives or integrate climate into other projects.

Activities involving the management, development, and sale of property assets.

The activities of industries involved in the production, distribution, and sale of energy, including electricity, gas, and renewables.

This sector creates and distributes information and entertainment through television, radio, print, and digital platforms.

The release of heat-trapping gases, primarily from human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and industry.

Any substance with chemical properties that can cause physical harm to people or damage the environment, including ammonia, carbon monoxide, phosphine, chlorine, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, pesticides, dioxins, microplastics, benzene, asbestos, aflatoxins, fluoride, methanol, and toxins from marine sources.

Climate change can have a range of impacts on technological system. Extreme weather events can cause infrastructure failures like power outages or damage to roads and bridges, as well as the impacts from waste following natural disasters. Human activities also cause technological impacts, such as the risks posed by oil spillage and leaks.

Risks to the ecosystem health of the marine environment, including ocean warming, ocean acidification, and ocean deoxygenation, harming biodiversity, species health, ecosystem services, and coastal community livelihoods.

Slow onset events evolve gradually from incremental changes over many years or from increased frequency or intensity of recurring events. As defined in the Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010), slow onset events include risks and impacts from rising temperatures, desertification, biodiversity loss, land and forest degradation, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and salinization.

A target to reduce the prevalence of a greenhouse gas over a specific time frame

People who have left their homes, whether through force, voluntarily, or a mixture of both

Activities that involve the cultivation of crops and raising of livestock for food, fibre, and other products essential for human life and industry.

Coal is a combustible sedimentary rock formed from carbonised plant matter, rich in carbon and hydrocarbons, and occurring in several main types including hard coal and brown coal.

Either money or something of monetary value is transferred between two or more organisations, people or countries.

Social protection systems consist of policies that help people manage social risks in order to prevent poverty and maintain decent incomes and living standards

Kinetic energy of airflow transformed into useful energy, mostly electrical energy.

A company that is owned wholly or partially by the state, typically operating in key sectors.

Actions or measures to adapt freshwater, coastal and marine systems to climate change.

Zoning and spatial planning are both methods for guiding the distribution of people and activities in a space, and are regulatory restriction.

A potent, short-lived greehouse gas, largely released from livestock, fossil fuel extraction and waste management.

Activities of government agencies and institutions that provide public services, enforce laws and manage public resources.

Extreme weather refers to events where a weather variable exceeds (or falls below) a threshold. Meaning it is significantly different from the average or usual weather pattern.

This sector involves activities that impart knowledge and skills to individuals, including formal schooling, vocational training and educational support.

Social inclusion is the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society—improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity.

The processes through which enterprises can identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their actual and potential adverse impacts. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable precautions should be taken to avoid causing harm to people, the environment, or society. It also involves identifying and mitigating risks before they occur.

Geohazards are adverse geological phenomenon's that are capable of causing widespread damage or loss to property, life and the environment, such as earthquakes, volcano eruptions and tsunamis. Climate change can increase the frequency and severity of some geohazards, such as landslides, and soil erosion.

On July 6, 2023, Instituto Preservar, Associação Gaúcha de Proteção ao Ambiente Natural - AGAPAN, and Núcleo Amigos da Terra - Brasil filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Union, the Federal Environment Agency - IBAMA, the National Electric Power Agency - ANEEL, Companhia de Geração e Transmissão de Energia Elétrica do Sul do Brasil - Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul (SE &amp; UTE Cantiota III), the State of Rio Grande do Sul, the Rio Grande do Sul environmental agency - FEPAM, and Companhia Riograndense de Mineração - CRM. The lawsuit seeks to order the defendants to adopt effective measures to comply with the guidelines, deadlines, and targets set out in federal and Rio Grande do Sul&#39;s climate laws. It is argued that in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Federal Government, and from 2010 to 2023, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, by action or omission, failed to comply with the legal guidelines and did not meet the deadlines and targets set out in the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the Paris Agreement and the Rio Grande do Sul&#39;s Policy on Climate Change (PGMC), as there was no effective implementation of instruments such as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), equal and transparent composition of the Rio Grande do Sul Climate Change Forum (FGMC) and the Brazilian Climate Change Forum and no measures have been taken to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal-fired power plants in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, with a Just Energy Transition (TEJ) plan, which results in the ineffectiveness of these climate standards. It is pointed out that the climate crisis has led to water shortages in the municipality of Candiota, which has been recognized by municipal decree and that, in parallel to this situation, the various coal-fired thermoelectric plants in the region use local water for cooling, causing damage to the water system, the biome and the climate. It is alleged that the defendants have neglected climate policy when dealing with the licensing and renewal of licenses for these projects in the state. At the same time, the Federal Government has encouraged coal-fired thermoelectric projects through energy auctions authorized by ANEEL. CRM, responsible for the Candiota coal mine, and CGT Eletrosul, responsible for the Candiota III Thermoelectric Plant - the most polluting and least efficient plant in the country - have been operating in disregard of environmental climate laws. It is argued that it is up to the Judiciary, based on the principle of the prohibition of regression and duties of protection, to guarantee effective compliance with the rules in question and prevent the climate scenario from worsening. It is argued that the entire situation of alleged unlawfulness gives rise to a claim for compensation for collective moral damages. The plaintiffs make several requests for injunctive relief for the various defendants, so that the defendants&#39; conduct is brought into line with the environmental climate standards. On the merits, it is requested that (i) the requests for preliminary injunctions be confirmed; (ii) it be declared that in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Federal Government, and from 2010 to 2023, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, by action or omission, failed to comply with climate standards and did not meet the deadlines and targets set out in the PNMC, the Paris Agreement and the PGMC, because they did not give effect to the regulations and did not act to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired thermoelectric plants in the state; (iii) to declare that Rio Grande do Sul has failed to meet the targets and deadlines set out in international, national and state regulations; (iv) the suspension of public incentives to explore coal in the state, the implementation of a TEJ plan for the contested plants; the publication of public notices to financial educational projects and research projects with universities and federal institutes that encourage environmental awareness and the guidelines of the PNMC and PGM; the creation of a WG for the decommissioning and energy transition of coal-fired projects; the suspension and non-renewal of energy sales contracts for the contested plants; (v) ordering the defendants to pay compensation for climate damage; (vi) ordering the Federal Government and the state of Rio Grande do Sul to bear the costs of the requests made; (vii) ordering all the defendants to pay the sum of ten million reais as collective moral damage in environmental and climate matters. The request for injunctive relief was rejected by the judge, which ruled that the analysis of the claims would require a more in-depth hearing. The judge argued that the plaintiffs&#39; claims were too broad and had high economic, political and social impacts. In addition, he argued that the effects of climate change are recognized by the international community, that the process of adaptation by countries is slower than desirable, and could cause irreversible damage to the environment and future generations. CRM defended that all its activities are in line with environmental legislation and that, in accordance with current regulations, it is already drawing up a mine closure plan. In September 2023, the defendants filed their defenses, claiming that the activities were in line with environmental legislation. CRM claimed that it had already drawn up a mine closure plan. ANEEL pointed out that the participation of non-renewable sources in energy auctions is not the result of ANEEL&#39;s discretionary choice, but rather of compliance with the guidelines established by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and that the agency does not have a licensing function. It claimed that Rio Grande do Sul has 80% of its energy matrix made up of renewable energies and that the forecast for the expansion of energy supply in the state does not include an increase in fossil sources. The state of Rio Grande do Sul argued that it complies with current federal and state regulations, that the causes of climate change are global and that there is no causal link between the state&#39;s conduct and the damage alleged in the lawsuit. IBAMA argued that there is a lack of rules on the mitigation and reduction of GHG emissions; that decisions on the reduction of GHG emissions and the need to replace the national energy matrix are made by technical bodies and it is not up to the Judiciary to intervene; that the causes of air pollution are diffuse and that there is no proof of damage caused by IBAMA. The Union highlighted the lack of sectoral sub-national targets for reducing GHG emissions in Brazilian legislation and the absence of a causal link that could connect the Union to the environmental damage referred to in the initial petition, whether by action or omission. Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul claimed that the licensing of the Candiota III TPP regularly took place, that climate factors were taken into account in the procedure; that its operation complies with the GHG emission parameters established in the licensing; and that the plant is not the most polluting in the country. It argued that the Paris Agreement, the PNMC and the Gaucho Policy on Climate Change are general and programmatic norms, which do not generate obligations; and that there is no specific legal provision that substantiates climate environmental licensing. It also pointed out that the country has a scenario for reducing GHG emissions from thermoelectric power plants. It argued that the damage apparently caused by the plant&#39;s operation had not been proven in the initial petition. On August 22, 2025, a ruling partially granted the requests, recognizing the lack of standing of ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) and classifying the claim as a structural climate case. The decision carried out a conventionality control based on Advisory Opinion OC 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), also using pronouncements from the Federal Justice Council (CJF) and Precedent 618 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to reverse the burden of proof. It highlighted scientific and legal bases for the decision, such as: reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, studies from the World Meteorological Organization, and reports from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). In evaluating these sources, the court recognized that the IPCC considers coal to be the fossil fuel with the highest CO2 emissions. It analyzed the consequences of climate change in Rio Grande do Sul based on studies of the impacts of rainfall that hit the state. Regarding the licensing of the Candiota III Mine and Thermal Power Plant, the court understood that, at the time of the licenses (2011 and 2016), &quot;there was a prevailing understanding that Brazilian emission reduction targets had a voluntary character,&quot; granting discretion to the licensing authority. Thus, it dismissed the initial illegality of the operations. However, it considered that currently, in a &quot;third phase&quot; of the climate legal regime, &quot;substantial limitations are emerging and consolidating&quot; that impose the assessment of climate impact in the licensing process. This understanding was based on the provisions of the PGMC (State Policy on Climate Change) and Decree 56.347/2022, foreign cases, and advisory opinions from international courts. Therefore, it ordered the immediate suspension of the licenses until these conditions are included, extending this to other similar projects in Rio Grande do Sul. The court also understood that IBAMA and FEPAM should take measures to deepen the climate impact analysis of other coal-fired projects in the state, recognizing that climate assessment during licensing is already mandatory for future coal-fired thermoelectric and coal-fired power plants. Regarding the Energy Transition Plan, the decision stated that &quot;postponing the definition of the mitigation trajectory&quot; for such a polluting sector &quot;is unconstitutional and currently incompatible with advisory opinions,&quot; requiring the State to develop it. Concerning social participation in licensing, it decided that, under Brazilian environmental law, IBAMA must ensure due access to information on thermoelectric licensing procedures and that Rio Grande do Sul should increase the participation of members of civil society and the scientific community in the Rio Grande do Sul Forum on Climate Change (FGMC). Regarding requests for civil liability for damages, it considered that the occurrence of environmental damage had not been demonstrated. Concerning climate damage, it considered that emissions were formally authorized until the present decision. The court based its decision on the National Council of Justice&#39;s (CNJ) Protocol for Judgment on Environmental Actions, which requires the illegality of GHG emissions for damages to be granted by the judiciary. Therefore, it found that neither the claim for civil liability for climate damage nor the claim for collective moral damages was admissible. However, it stated that, based on the sentence, there is no permission for the continued emissions by the enterprises. Furthermore, it considered that the declaration of a &quot;State of Climate Emergency&quot; does not fall within the purview of the Judiciary. The decision partially granted the requests, ordering IBAMA and FEPAM to (i) suspend the operating licenses of the Candiota III Plant and the Candiota Mine, respectively, for non-compliance with the guidelines of the PNMC, PGMC, and State Decree 56.347/2022; (ii) include climate conditions in the operating licenses of the plant and the mine, respectively, including scope 3 emissions; and (iii) to include in the Terms of Reference for licensing thermal power plants and coal mines in RS the assessment of the climate component, including scope 3 emissions. It ordered the Union and Rio Grande do Sul to present, by January 31, 2026, a Just Energy Transition Plan for the state&#39;s mineral sector; it ordered RS to promote the adjustment of the composition of the members of the FGMC, increasing the participation of civil society and the scientific community. It scheduled hearings to monitor the measures determined in the judgment and set fines in case of non-compliance. Ambar Sul Energia SA, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, and FEPAM requested the Court to grant a stay of execution of the appeal. The TRF4, granting the request, suspended all orders for immediate or time-limited compliance with the judgment or the motions for clarification, as well as for compliance through inspection hearings and compliance with court orders and auxiliary judicial expertise.

Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. Federal Union and others (Climate emergency in Rio Grande do Sul state) - decision

Target

Policy instrument

Risk

Impacted group

Just transition

Renewable energy

Fossil fuel

Greenhouse gas

Economic sector

Adaptation/resilience

Finance