- within Strategy, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences and Transport topic(s)
Decision by a Federal Court in Porto Alegre regarding the plant highlights the Judiciary's role in implementing climate policies and represents an unprecedented precedent in environmental licensing
The energy transition in Brazil has gained increasing prominence amid the worsening global climate crisis. In 2024, for the first time, the planet recorded a temperature increase exceeding 1.5°C, surpassing the limits set by the Paris Agreement. The impacts are evident, with an intensification of extreme events such as floods, inundations, and heat waves, particularly in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.
In this context, the role of the Judiciary has proven important in ensuring the effectiveness of climate and environmental policies, especially in the face of inertia or insufficient action by public and private entities. In other words, the judicialization of climate policy has emerged as an instrument of oversight and promotion of environmental accountability, with direct implications for the licensing of high-impact projects.
One example is the recent decision by the 9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre (issued in August), which suspended the operating licenses of the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant and the Candiota Coal Mine, in the context of Public Civil Action No. 5050920-75.2023.4.04.7100.
The action was brought by civil society organizations against ANEEL, Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul, CRM, Ibama, Fepam, the Federal Government, and the State of Rio Grande do Sul. The plaintiffs allege that the activities of the plant and the mine fail to comply with current environmental regulations and disregard the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Reports, contributing to increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and delaying the decarbonization of the energy sector.
The judgment, issued by Judge Rafaela Santos Martins da Rosa, ordered the inclusion of climate-related conditions in the environmental licensing of activities with a high pollution potential, such as the burning of coal. Accordingly, Ibama and Fepam were ordered to suspend the licenses until they are duly adapted, under penalty of a daily fine of BRL 10,000.
In addition, the Federal Government and the State of Rio Grande do Sul were required to present, by January 31, 2026, a just energy transition plan for the coal sector, also subject to fines in the event of non-compliance. The defendants filed motions for clarification, which are still pending judgment.
Judicialization of climate policy
The judicial decision is part of a growing movement toward the judicialization of climate policy in Brazil, a phenomenon that raises important debates about the constitutional limits of judicial intervention in public policymaking. The Federal Constitution, in Article 225, establishes the right to an ecologically balanced environment as a fundamental right, imposing on both the Government and society the duty to defend and preserve it for present and future generations.
In this sense, the Judiciary has been called upon to act as a guarantor of the environmental and climate commitments assumed by the Brazilian State, including at the international level, such as those arising from the Paris Agreement (Decree No. 9,073/2017).
Furthermore, the use of IPCC reports as a technical and normative benchmark in environmental licensing represents an innovation. Although they are not legally binding, these documents are internationally recognized as scientific references for assessing climate impacts and have been used as technical support in judicial and administrative decisions.
Therefore, the Federal Court's decision in Porto Alegre represents an unprecedented precedent in the field of environmental licensing, with the potential to guide new interpretations, influence the actions of environmental agencies, and foster debate on incorporating energy transition and climate aspects into licensing regulations.
The entry into force of the new General Environmental Licensing Law (Lei Geral do Licenciamento Ambiental – LGLA) No. 15,190/2025 reinforces this trend by providing for the inclusion of conditions aimed at mitigating environmental impacts and for the possibility of suspending licenses by reasoned decision. The regulation of the LGLA will be decisive in consolidating this new paradigm.
We conclude that, although necessary in contexts of state omission, the judicialization of climate policy must observe the constitutional limits of judicial action, avoiding undue substitution of the administrative function. On the other hand, it constitutes a legitimate mechanism of oversight and of promoting the effectiveness of the climate commitments undertaken by Brazil.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
