RS Brazil
In 2023, a Public Civil Action was filed by the Preservar Institute, the Gaucho Association for the Protection of the Natural Environment (AGAPAN), and Friends of the Earth Center – Brazil against the Federal Union, IBAMA, ANEEL, Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul, the State of Rio Grande do Sul, FEPAM, and Companhia Riograndense de Mineração (CRM). It was annexed to case no. 5007143-39.2025.4.04.7110, filed by the Arayara International Institute. The court order also cites a direct action of unconstitutionality (ADI) also filed by Arayara, along with others, in the Supreme Federal Court (STF) against the provisions of the law that created the Just Energy Transition (TEJ) program (Federal Law No. 14.299/202).
The plaintiff organizations requested the adoption of effective measures to comply with the guidelines, timelines, and goals of the national (PNMC) and state (PGMC) climate policies, as well as the Paris Agreement. They alleged that between 2009 and 2023, the Federal Government and the State of Rio Grande failed to implement the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Climate Change Forums, and just energy transition plans, and also failed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Candiota coal-fired power plants, which exacerbate the local water, climate, and environmental crisis.
It is noted that the climate crisis has generated water scarcity for the municipality of Candiota, a fact recognized by municipal decree. Furthermore, the various coal-fired power 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 violated national and international climate standards by failing to consider the climate component in granting and renewing licenses for projects with high greenhouse gas emissions in the state. At the same time, the Federal Government has incentivized coal-fired power plant projects through energy auctions authorized by ANEEL (Brazil's National Electric Energy Agency). CRM, responsible for the Candiota coal mine, and CGT Eletrosul, responsible for the Candiota III power plant—the most polluting and least efficient plant in the country—have operated without respecting environmental and climate laws. It is argued that, based on the principle of non-regression and the duty to protect, it is the responsibility of the Judiciary to guarantee the effective application of the relevant regulations and to prevent the worsening of the climate scenario. It is alleged that the entire situation of illegality justifies a claim for compensation for collective moral damages. The plaintiffs file several requests for urgent interim measures against the various defendants to ensure that their conduct complies with the provisions of climate and environmental regulations.
The defendants denied the accusations. The Union, ANEEL, IBAMA, Eletrobras, FEPAM, CRM, and the State of Rio Grande do Sul presented defenses alleging regulatory compliance, procedural illegitimacy, or the absence of a causal link between their actions and the environmental damage. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), in its opinion, partially supported the plaintiffs, acknowledging the state and federal omissions in implementing mandatory climate policies.
The court denied the request for urgent interim measures, considering that the analysis of the petitions required a more thorough adversarial process. It argued that the claims were excessively broad and had a high economic, political, and social impact.
Furthermore, he argued that the international community recognizes the effects of climate change, that the adaptation process in countries is slower than desired, and that this could cause irreversible damage to the environment and future generations.
On August 22, 2025 The 9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre issued its ruling. The court recognized the climate negligence of public authorities and ordered the suspension of the operating license of the Candiota III Thermoelectric Plant for non-compliance with various directives.
This ruling is also relevant because it is one of the first to mention OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, not only in the reasoning of the ruling, but also in what the court decides.
In its ruling against IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), the Court established that the criteria of Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 regarding the climate risk assessment of activities must be incorporated, and specified what those minimum criteria are based on the guidelines of the advisory opinion. It also reinforced FEPAM's obligations.
This ruling also mentions the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Climate Change of July 23, 2025, in several sections.
Implementation
The federal court declared ANEEL's passive standing to be disqualified, but partially upheld the requests. It ordered IBAMA to suspend the operating license of the Candiota III thermoelectric plant until climate conditions are included and a technical evaluation is submitted regarding the inclusion of these requirements in the licensing of coal-fired power plants in the state. IBAMA must also guarantee public access to the information and meet the deadlines by January 2026, under penalty of a daily fine of R$ 10,000 for non-compliance.
FEPAM was also condemned to suspend the license of the Candiota Mine, incorporate climatic conditions in its licenses and present a similar technical evaluation, under identical sanctions.
The Federal Union and the State of Rio Grande do Sul must jointly develop, by January 2026, a Just Energy Transition Plan for the coal sector, in accordance with climate federalism. Furthermore, the State must restructure the composition of the Gaúcho Forum on Climate Change , ensuring parity between civil society and the scientific community.
The judge set follow-up hearings and exempted the parties from costs and fees, highlighting the state's obligation to effectively comply with climate policies and prevent the worsening of the environmental crisis.
The central climatic element of this case focuses on the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), especially those from the generation of energy by coal-fired power plants in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, in particular the Candiota III Power Plant and the Candiota Coal Mine.
This climatic element manifests itself in three main dimensions:
Mitigation of GHG emissions:
The core of the action is the omission of the Union and the State of Rio Grande do Sul in adopting effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as provided for in the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC), the Gaúcha Climate Change Policy (PGMC) and the Paris Agreement.Incorporation of the climate component into environmental licensing:
The Judiciary recognized that climate impact must be a mandatory component in environmental licenses for highly emitting activities (such as thermoelectric plants and coal mines), requiring that climate environmental licensing include the assessment of the complete emissions cycle and decommissioning plans.Just energy transition:
The ruling orders the development of a Just Energy Transition Plan (JET) for the coal sector, with the aim of progressively replacing the fossil fuel energy matrix with clean sources, in line with national and international climate commitments.
- Preserve Institute
- Gaucho Association for the Protection of the Natural Environment – AGAPAN
- Friends of Terra Nucleus - Brazil
- Federal Union
- Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources – IBAMA
- National Electric Energy Agency – ANEEL
- Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul (Se & UTE Candiota III)
- State of Rio Grande do Sul
- Henrique Luís Roessler State Foundation for Environmental Protection – FEPAM
- Rio Grande Mining Company - CRM
The territorial context of the case is the State of Rio Grande do Sul, with emphasis on the municipality of Candiota, located in the southern region of the state, recognized as the main coal hub of Brazil.
This territory is characterized by:
Concentration of activities related to the exploitation and use of coal:
In Candiota are located the Companhia Riograndense de Mineração (CRM) Coal Mine and the Candiota III Thermoelectric Power Plant, operated by Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul, both power plants that generate energy from coal and are identified in the demand as large emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG).
Local environmental and climate impacts:
The region faces water scarcity—officially recognized by municipal decree—degradation of the Pampa biome, and air pollution associated with coal burning. Furthermore, the intensive use of water resources by thermoelectric plants for cooling exacerbates the impacts on the local water system.
Regional and national relevance:
The case is not limited to a local conflict, as it involves shared jurisdictions between the federal government, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, and federal and state environmental agencies (such as IBAMA and FEPAM). Thus, the territory of Candiota becomes a symbol of the tension between energy development and climate responsibility, reflecting the national challenge of a just energy transition within the framework of Brazilian climate change policies.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
- Rio Declaration of 1992
- Escazú Agreement
- Mercosur Framework Agreement on the Environment
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- Advisory Opinion No. 23/2017 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on "Environment and Human Rights"
- Advisory Opinion 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
- Principle of prevention
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .