Case Name: Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN e Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. União Federal e outros (Climate emergency in the state of Rio Grande do Sul)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Instituto Preservar, Associação Gaúcha de Proteção ao Ambiente Natural - AGAPAN, and Núcleo Amigos da Terra - Brasil against the Federal Government, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources - IBAMA, the National Agency of Electric Energy - ANEEL, the Southern Brazil Electric Energy Generation and Transmission Company - Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul (SE & UTE Candiota III), the State of Rio Grande do Sul, the Henrique Luís Roessler State Environmental Protection Foundation - FEPAM, and the Rio Grande Mining Company - CRM. The action aims to compel the defendants to adopt effective measures to comply with the guidelines, deadlines, and targets set forth in Brazilian and Rio Grande do Sul national climate law. It is argued that, in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Union, and from 2010 to 2023, the State of Rio Grande do Sul, through action or omission, failed to comply with 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 Policy on Climate Change (PGMC). This is because there was no effective implementation of instruments such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), a balanced and transparent composition of the Rio Grande do Sul Forum on Climate Change (FGMC) and the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change, and no measures were 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 Plan (JET), resulting in the ineffectiveness of the aforementioned climate standards. It is pointed out 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 argued that the defendants have neglected national and international climate standards by failing to consider the climate component in the licensing and renewal of licenses for highly greenhouse gas-emitting projects in the state. At the same time, the Federal Government has encouraged coal-fired power plant projects through energy auctions authorized by ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency). CRM, responsible for the Candiota coal mine, and CGT Eletrosul, responsible for the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant – the most polluting and least efficient plant in the country – have operated in disregard of environmental and climate laws. It is argued that it is the responsibility of the Judiciary, based on the principle of non-regression and duties of protection, to guarantee the effective enforcement of the norms in question and to prevent the worsening of the climate scenario. It is argued that the entire alleged situation of illegality warrants a claim for compensation for collective moral damages. The plaintiffs make several requests for urgent relief against the different defendants, so that the defendants' conduct complies with the provisions of the environmental and climate regulations. On the merits, it is requested that (i) the requests made in the preliminary injunction be confirmed; (ii) that it be declared that, in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Union, and from 2010 to 2023, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, through 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, by not having given effect to the regulations and not having acted to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired thermal power plants in the state, with special attention to the environmental licensing process; (iii) that it be declared that Rio Grande do Sul failed to meet targets and deadlines set out in international, national and state standards; (iv) the determination of the suspension of public incentives for coal mining in the state, the implementation of a TEJ plan for the challenged plants; the publication of calls for proposals for funding educational and research projects with universities and federal institutes that encourage environmental awareness and the guidelines of the PNMC and the PGMC; the creation of a Working Group for the decommissioning and energy transition of coal-fired plants; the suspension and non-renewal of energy trading contracts for the challenged plants; (v) the condemnation of the defendants to pay compensation for climate damages; (vi) the condemnation of the Federal Union and the state of Rio Grande do Sul to bear the costs of the requested claims; (vii) the condemnation of all defendants to pay the amount of ten million reais as collective moral damages in environmental and climate matters.

The request for urgent relief was denied by the court, which understood that the analysis of the requests would require a more in-depth adversarial process. It argued that the plaintiffs' claims were excessively broad and had significant economic, political, and social impacts. Furthermore, it argued that the effects of climate change are recognized by the international community, that the adaptation process in countries is slower than desirable, and that this could cause irreversible damage to the environment and future generations.

CRM filed a response, arguing that the claims against the defendant should be dismissed, claiming they are incompatible with each other. It maintained that all its activities comply with environmental legislation and that, according to current regulations, it already has a mine closure plan in place. It requests that the action be dismissed.

In a partial decision, the court dismissed the requests related to guaranteeing job stability and the socioeconomic rights of workers, understanding that this was a labor matter, which would not be within its jurisdiction.

In its defense, ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) alleged its lack of standing to be sued. It highlighted the agency's internal initiatives on innovation and energy transition. It emphasized that the participation of non-renewable sources in energy auctions is not a discretionary choice by ANEEL, but rather a compliance with guidelines established by the Ministry of Mines and Energy, and that the agency does not act as a licensing body. It argued that 80% of Rio Grande do Sul's energy matrix is composed of renewable energies and that the projected expansion of energy supply in the state does not include an increase in fossil fuel sources. It requested that the claims be dismissed.

The state of Rio Grande do Sul also filed a response. Initially, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice due to the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. On the merits, it argued for the dismissal of the action, since the state observes current federal and state regulations, that the causes of climate change are global, and that there is no causal link between the conduct of the state entity and the damage alleged in the initial complaint.

In its defense, IBAMA argued for the dismissal of the lawsuit. It alleged that its actions comply with all legal norms; that there is a lack of regulations addressing the mitigation and reduction of GHG emissions; that decisions regarding the reduction of GHG emissions and the need to replace the national energy matrix are made by technical bodies, and that the Judiciary should not intervene; that the causes of air pollution are diffuse; and that there is no evidence of damage caused by IBAMA.

In its defense, the Union requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice due to lack of standing and inadequacy of the initial pleading. On the merits, it argued that it lacks jurisdiction to oversee mining activities and activities related to the production, transmission, distribution, and commercialization of electricity. Among other arguments, it defended the inadmissibility of judicial review of administrative merit, the absence in Brazilian legislation of subnational sectoral targets for reducing GHG emissions, and the lack of a causal link connecting the Union to the environmental damages mentioned in the initial pleading, whether through action or omission.

In its defense, Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul argued that the licensing of the Candiota III thermoelectric plant was carried out regularly, with climatic factors being considered in the procedure; that its operation observes 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 National Climate Change Policy (PNMC), and the Rio Grande do Sul State Policy on Climate Change are general and programmatic norms that do not generate obligations; and that there is no specific legal provision that substantiates climate-related environmental licensing. It pointed out that the country has a scenario of reduced GHG emissions originating from thermoelectric plants. It argued that the damages allegedly caused by the plant's operation were not proven in the initial complaint. As a preliminary matter, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice. On the merits, it requested that the denial of the preliminary injunctions be upheld and that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

In August 2025, the ruling partially granted the requests, recognizing the lack of standing of ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) and classifying the claim as a structural climate dispute. The decision carried out a conventionality control based on Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), 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 decision-making, such as: reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate, studies by the World Meteorological Organization, and reports from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In evaluating these sources, it recognized that the IPCC considers coal to be the fossil fuel with the highest CO2 emissions. The court 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 (National 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 judicial convictions to occur. 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. It 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.

IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling, specifically regarding the deadlines established for fulfilling the obligations imposed upon it. Its objective is to be allowed to present its own schedule for implementing the measures, in accordance with the technical methodology already underway and the parameters established by the Supreme Federal Court in Case 698. It argues that maintaining the rigid deadlines set in the ruling for incorporating the climate component into the licensing process is impossible, and that, although the decision recognizes IBAMA's competence to define the appropriate methodology, it imposed a schedule that makes its elaboration in a well-founded and effective manner impossible. It asserts that the conditions require complex prior diagnoses to ensure effective results in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation, and not merely declaratory ones. IBAMA emphasizes that it does not oppose the determinations of the decision and that, on the contrary, it has already taken steps to incorporate the climate variable into the licensing process, considering its importance. However, it states that meeting the deadlines as defined, without the necessary technical support, would generate legal uncertainty and a loss of environmental effectiveness, frustrating the very objective of the decision.

The Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN, and Núcleo Amigos da Terra - Brasil filed an appeal requesting the reversal of the sentence so that it be declared that, during the period of validity of the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change) and the PGMC (General Policy on Climate Change), the Union and the state of Rio Grande do Sul, through action or omission, failed to comply with legal guidelines and did not meet the deadlines and targets foreseen in the respective policies and in the Paris Agreement, since they did not give effect to the aforementioned climate standards and did not take measures to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired thermal power plants in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The organizations contested the definition of the "time frame" adopted by the sentence, arguing that, since the enactment of the PNMC and the PGMC, there has been a legal obligation to consider and mitigate emissions in the energy sector, thus eliminating the existence of state discretion on the subject and reinforcing the duty to transition to less polluting energy sources. They further argued that there was climate damage resulting from the historical absence of assessment and control of emissions, which should give rise to liability for the defendants, including for collective moral damages, seeking to overturn the judgment on this point as well.

J&F; SA, the current owner of UTE Candiota III and procedural successor to Âmbar Sul Energia SA, filed an appeal requesting that the claims made in the Public Civil Action be dismissed in their entirety and that all determinations imposed by the judgment be overturned. It argued that legitimate and individualized administrative acts should not be suspended or invalidated by national and international commitments of a political-programmatic nature. It argued that the determinations stemmed from a broad and inadequate interpretation of climate obligations, confusing programmatic guidelines with immediately enforceable legal duties within the scope of environmental licensing. In this sense, it argued that regulations such as the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change), the PGMC (General Policy on Climate Change), and international commitments, while relevant, do not in themselves establish specific technical obligations that would authorize the determination of measures considered extreme, such as the suspension of licenses or the judicial imposition of broad and generic climate conditions. Thus, it requested the reversal of the immediate suspension of the operating licenses for the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant and the Candiota Mine, and the recognition that there is no original or subsequent illegality capable of paralyzing regularly licensed activities. It pleaded that it be clarified that any integration of a climate component in the licensing process will occur exclusively within the administrative sphere, through technical criteria, specific regulations, a feasible schedule, consideration of viability, and sector-wide equitable application, as well as the recognition of the need for a transitional regime with realistic deadlines and clear conditions, and that judicial intervention in the matter be dismissed, with full recourse to the competent body.

CRM appealed the ruling, seeking recognition of the regularity and compliance of the Candiota Mine's operations with the environmental licenses and administrative instruments in force during each period of their issuance and renewal, as well as the impossibility of ordering the suspension of the operating licenses. It argued for the need to disregard the presumption of illegality related to the absence of ex post facto climate conditions, reaffirming the programmatic nature of international climate goals until their proper internal sectoral regulation. It argued that the ruling erred in transforming general guidelines – such as those derived from the Paris Agreement and advisory opinions of international tribunals – into immediate commands applicable to past administrative acts. In this sense, it argued that the internalization of the climate issue in environmental licensing should occur gradually, within the framework of structured public policies, and that the judicial imposition of climate conditions, without prior technical diagnoses, constitutes undue intervention in public discretion and disrupts state planning for the energy transition. Among other points, it alleged harm to concurrent environmental recovery, violation of the precautionary principle, the risk of economic damage to energy security, and the jeopardizing of essential jobs for the local community.

Subsequently, Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul filed an appeal seeking to have the judgment reformed to recognize the absence of the authorizing requirements (danger of damage and risk of loss of the useful result of the process) for granting urgent relief, expressly stated in a judgment altered after analysis of Declaratory Appeals. The company argued that there is no immediate danger of climate damage, highlighting that the project operates regularly, with a valid license and continuous emissions monitoring, in addition to already adopting mitigation measures and improving energy efficiency. It argued that the judgment was based on a mistaken premise of climate urgency, and presupposed that the suspension of activities or the immediate imposition of structural measures would solve the problem of climate change, disregarding the gradual nature of the energy transition and the existence of ongoing public policies. It sought to dismiss the notion of omission in the case, arguing that the incorporation of climate obligations should occur in a planned and technically sound manner, and not by immediate judicial imposition.

The State of Rio Grande do Sul and FEPAM (State Foundation for Environmental Protection) filed an appeal requesting the complete reversal of the judgment. Preliminarily, they argued the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue and the legal impossibility of the requests, arguing that the Public Civil Action was being used to impose or reformulate climate and energy public policies, in violation of the principle of separation of powers. On the merits, they argued that the judgment disregarded the social, economic, and energy impacts resulting from the imposed determinations, especially regarding the suspension of the licenses for the Candiota Mine and the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant. They alleged that the State had already been developing a Just Energy Transition Plan for coal-mining regions and that the judicial order to develop a new joint plan with the Federal Government ignored ongoing public policies and investments already made. They also argued that it was impossible to immediately apply climate conditions to existing licenses without prior specific regulations, that judicial intervention in the composition of the Rio Grande do Sul Forum on Climate Change was inappropriate, and that the fines imposed for compliance with the obligations were disproportionate.

The Federal Union also filed an appeal requesting the reversal of the judgment as far as it is concerned. It argued that the elaboration of a Just Energy Transition Plan for the coal sector in Rio Grande do Sul requires coordination between various federal and state bodies and social actors, making the deadline set by the court unfeasible. It maintained that there is no state omission regarding the energy transition agenda, highlighting the creation of the National Energy Transition Policy (PNTE), the National Energy Transition Plan (PLANTE), and the National Energy Transition Forum (FONTE). It argued that the formulation of climate and energy policies should occur in a coordinated manner at the national level, and not by judicial imposition aimed at a single state of the federation. It also alleged a violation of the right to a fair hearing due to the reversal of the burden of proof only in the judgment, as well as the need to observe the mandatory review. Finally, it requested the reversal of the judgment and the removal of the obligations imposed on the Union.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• IBAMA's Normative Instruction 12/2010
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)
• State Policy on Climate Change - PEMC

Case timeline

Case documents