Coal and gas power plants

Montana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

In Montana Environmental, Bull Mountain Development Company proposed to build a coal-fired power plant near a Class I area, which included parks, wilderness areas, and an Indian reservation. Id. at 512. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the federal land manager (FLM), which is directly responsible for managing a Class I area, determined that the proposed coal-fired plant would adversely impact the visibility of a Class I area.

Sindicato de Trabajadores Independientes Procesadoras de Productos del Mar del Borde Costero Caleta Lo Rojas y otros c/ Central Termoeléctrica Bocamina I y II de ENDESA Chile S.A

Sindicato de Trabajadores Independientes Procesadoras de Productos del Mar del Borde Costero Caleta Lo Rojas y otros c/ Central Termoeléctrica Bocamina I y II de ENDESA Chile S. A., Rol No. 9852-2013, Supreme Court of Chile (2014) (decided on 9 January 2014, revised 6 November 2014): 

https://microjuriscl.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/mjch_mjj36617.pdf

 

Karabiga Cenal Power Station

[ELAW seeks a copy of this court decision.]

News articles report a company proposing to construct a coal-fired power plant near Karabiga, Turkey, attempted to disguise the severe environmental and cumulative impacts of the proposed project by preparing four separate EIAs, rather than a single EIA.  Each of these EIAs was approved by environmental officials; however, a Turkish administrative court rejected this approach and declared that the project proponent must prepare one EIA disclosing all of the impacts of the coal-fired power plant in its entirety. 

Pages

Subscribe to Coal and gas power plants