Re Buller Coal Ltd

JurisdictionNew Zealand
JudgeJudge LJ Newhook
Judgment Date27 March 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] NZEnvC 80
CourtEnvironment Court
Docket Number(ENV-2012-AKL-00045)
Date27 March 2012

In the Matter of two Applications for Declaration under s 311 of the Resource Management Act 1991

Between
Buller Coal Limited and Solid Energy New Zealand Limited
Joint First Applicants

and

West Coast Ent Incorporated
Second Applicant

Decision No. [2012] NZEnvC 80

Court:

Acting Principal Environment Judge LJ Newhook sitting alone pursuant to s279 of the Act

(ENV-2012-AKL-00045)

(ENV-2012-AKL-00047)

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

Applications by first applicant coal mining companies for declaration under s311 Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) (application for declaration) that while granting consent for coal mining activities and land use, councils need not have regard to climate changes caused by greenhouse gas discharges arising from combustion of coal extracted under the consent — application by second applicant environmental group for converse declaration that greenhouse gas emissions be considered — effect of Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 — whether regard to be had to the effects on climate change caused by discharges of greenhouse gases — whether s7(i) RMA (regard to the effects of climate change) and s104(1)(a) RMA (regard to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity) could be interpreted so as to require the local authorities to consider applications concerning extraction of coal by reference to effects on climate change.

Counsel:

JE Hodder SC and B Williams for Buller Coal Limited

MRG Christensen for Solid Energy NZ Limited

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer for West Coast ENT

T Bennion and PD Anderson for Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc

JM van der Wal for Buller District Council and West Coast Regional Council

DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ON APPLICATIONS FOR DECLARATION

A. Declaration sought by the joint first applicants, granted.

B. Declaration sought by the second applicant refused.

C. Costs reserved.

Introduction
1

The joint first applicants have, at various stages in the system, applications in train seeking Regional and District consents in connection with coal mines they propose on the West Coast of the South Island.

2

Consent was granted to Buller Coal Limited in August 2011 by independent hearing commissioners appointed by the Councils. West Coast ENT and Forest & Bird appealed that decision, and a hearing before the Court seems in prospect.

3

Solid Energy currently has its application before the councils.

4

Buller Coal and Solid Energy applied on 12 March 2012 for the following declaration:

In considering BCL's applications for consents for coal mining activities at the Escarpment Mine, including applications for land use, and Solid Energy's applications for consents for coal mining activities at the Mt William North mining area, including applications for land use, but neither including any applications to discharge contaminants to air from the combustion of coal to be mined, the decision maker cannot have regard to the effects on climate change of discharges into the air of greenhouse gases arising from the subsequent combustion of the coal extracted in reliance of those consents, either where:

  • a. any discharge of greenhouse gases associated with the end use of the coal occurs outside New Zealand territorial boundaries;

    or

  • b. any discharge of greenhouse gases associated with the end use of coal occurs in New Zealand.

5

Contemporaneously, West Coast ENT applied for the following:

In considering Buller Coal Limited's application for consents for coal mining activities at the Escarpment Mine including applications for land use, the decision maker must:

  • a. Under section 104(1), consider the contribution that these subsequent discharges into air from the combustion of the coal will have towards climate change;

  • b. Under section 7(i), have particular regards to the effects of climate change, including the contribution that the subsequent discharges into air from the combustion of the coal will have towards the effects of climate change.

6

The application for Declaration by the second applicant is almost the converse of that made by the joint first applicants.

7

The second applicant recorded brief grounds in support of its application. The joint first applicants did not.

8

The issue to be considered was essentially quite confined, albeit that the submissions presented by all parties were extensive. It is essentially as to whether a decision maker under the Act can have regard to effects on climate change of discharges into the air of greenhouse gases arising from the subsequent combustion of the coal extracted in reliance on those consents, whether such discharges occur within New Zealand or elsewhere in the world, it essentially being the proposal of each of the joint first applicants to export the coal to other countries for burning in the manufacture of steel.

9

The joint first applicants relied strongly on certain findings in a decision of the Supreme Court in 2008, Greenpeace New Zealand Incorporated v Genesis Power Ltd. 1 That decision followed a line of decisions of the Environment Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, commencing with a decision of my own Greenpeace New Zealand Inc v Northland Regional Council 2 and in which the decisions of the Environment Court and the Court of Appeal were largely upheld by the decision of the majority in the Supreme Court.

10

The second applicant and Forest & Bird submitted strongly that the present circumstances must be distinguished from the findings in the Greenpeace line of decisions.

11

In mid-February I conducted a conference of the parties, and obtained their agreement that they would file a statement of agreed facts and assumptions concerning the declaration applications. They lodged one on 7 March. It is commendably succinct, and I set it out as follows:

  • 1. Buller Coal Limited (“BCL”), Solid Energy New Zealand Limited (“Solid Energy”), Buller District Council, West Coast Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Incorporated (Forest and Bird) and West Coast ENT Incorporated (“West Coast ENT”) agree to the following statement of fact and assumptions.

    Escarpment Mine

  • 2. On 26 August 2011, independent commissioners appointed by the West Coast Regional Council and the Buller District Council granted consents to BCL associated with the construction and operation of an open cast mine on the Denniston Plateau (“the Escarpment Mine”). The consents granted included a land use consent to mine coal and associated land disturbance activities.

  • 3. West Coast ENT and Forest and Bird appealed 1 that decision on grounds including that the Commissioners erred in not having regard to the effects of the Escarpment Mine applications on climate change.

  • 4. The resource consents, if upheld on appeal, will authorise BCL to remove up to 6.1 million tonnes of coal on the Denniston Plateau over a period of 5–12 years. The coal is intended to be exported to customers in India and China for use in the steel manufacturing industry.

  • 5. BCL's applications are set out in Schedule A and include applications for land use consents for coal mining and associated activities. BCL was not required to and did not apply for a discharge permit relating to the discharge of greenhouse gases.

    Mt William North Mine

  • 6. On 12 December 2011, Solid Energy lodged with the West Coast Regional Council and Buller District Council applications for resource consents to carry out mining activities at the Mt William North mining area.

  • 7. The resource consents, if granted, will authorise Solid Energy to mine approximately 5 million tonnes of coal in the Mt William North mine over a period of approximately 12 years. This will provide approximately 4.1 million tonnes of marketable coal, all of which will be exported. This coal is intended to be exported to customers in India, China, Japan, Brazil and South Africa for use in the steel manufacturing industry.

  • 8. Solid Energy's applications are set out in Schedule B and include an application for land use consent for coal mining and associated activities.

  • 9. Solid Energy was not required and did not apply for any discharge permit relating to the discharge of greenhouse gases.

  • 10. Solid Energy's application to the consent authorities was publicly notified on 10 February 2012. Submissions on the applications close on 19 March 2012.

  • 11. BCL, West Coast ENT and Forest and Bird all intend to lodge submissions in relation to the Mt William North applications.

    Climate Change

  • 12. The appellants to the Escarpment Mine consents consider that both the Escarpment Mine and Mt William North Mine applications raise the issue of whether the effects on climate change of the subsequent combustion of coal mined at the sites are able to be given regard to by decision makers under the RMA.

  • 13. The parties are all in agreement that the Court can assume, for the purposes of these proceedings:

    • a. Climate change is a serious global issue.

    • b. The coal mined at the sites will probably result in the subsequent discharge of carbon dioxide from the combustion of that coal.

    • c. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas. The Mt William North and Escarpment Mine

  • 14. The parties agree that:

    • a. Mt William North is expected to produce approximately 4.1 million tonnes of marketable coal;

    • b. Of that coal, 100% is expected to be burnt overseas, producing approximately 11.5Mt of CO 2 in total.

    • c. The Escarpment Mine is expected to produce approximately 4.3 million tonnes of marketable coal;

    • d. Of that coal, 100% is expected to be burnt overseas. Treatment of greenhouse gas emissions

  • 15. Both Solid Energy (and BCL if the Escarpment Mine is consented) are mandatory participants in the stationary energy sector of the Emissions Tracing Scheme (“ETS”) (enacted under the Climate Change Response Act 2002) because they carry out the activity of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • West Coast Ent Incorporated v Buller Coal Ltd
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • September 19, 2013
    ...was delivered. The remaining Judges have decided under s 30(1) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to continue the proceeding to judgment. 1 Re Buller Coal Ltd [2012] NZEnvC 80, [2012] NZRMA 2 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Buller Coal Ltd [2012] NZHC 2156, [2012]......
  • Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Buller Coal Ltd
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • August 24, 2012
    ...Environment Court was correct and the appeals are dismissed. 1 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated. 2 Re Buller Coal Ltd [2012] NZEnvC 80 at 3 Application for declaration, at [1]. 4 (5 August 2003) 610 NZPD 7596. 5 Genesis Power Ltd v Greenpeace New Zealand......
  • Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Buller Coal Limited HC
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • August 24, 2012
    ...have towards the effects of climate change. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated. Re Buller Coal Ltd [2012] NZEnvC 80 at BCL and Solid Energy seek confirmation of the following declaration: 3 [4] In considering BCL’s applications for consents for coal mining ......
  • West Coast Ent Incorporated v Buller Coal
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • November 28, 2012
    ...of disruption to its 1 2 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Buller Coal Ltd [2012] NZHC 2156. Buller Coal Ltd [2012] NZEnvC 80. decision-making if the regular appellate course is followed, we have decided that circumstances are exceptional and that the course prop......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT