Friends of the Earth meaning

In this issue: Key developments and materials Electricity and gas market regulation and licensing Networks and network connections Conventional power, waste to energy, biomass, and CHP projects Nuclear energy Air emissions, efficiency, and climate change International energy Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Key developments and materials Friends of the Earth has won a pivotal High Court judgment against the government, with the court ruling that the climate strategy advanced by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is unlawful. The court determined that adopting the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan contravened the Climate Change Act 2008. See: LNB News 03/05/2024 70. Electricity and gas market regulation and licensing Ofgem has released its conclusions on the consultation regarding updates to the licence fee cost recovery principles (LFCRP) and issued the LFCRP for May 2024. After reviewing consultees’ submissions, Ofgem confirmed it...

Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 259 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment will interest practitioners dealing with prior approval applications for electronic communication developments, and, more generally, those pursuing public law challenges about material considerations and appeals against High Court decisions. It reviews the Supreme Court's guidance in Friends of the Earth v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] UKSC 52 on three types of information that can amount to a material consideration. These include: information that legislation or policy, either expressly or by necessary implication, obliges the decision-maker to take into account or to ignore; and information that the decision-maker is entitled to consider where, in their own judgement and discretion, they regard it as appropriate. The judgment underlines that, within this third class, a decision-maker may choose not to refer to something others might regard as pertinent; yet, unless it was so plainly relevant that no rational decision-maker could have left it out of account, the omission to have regard...

Shell persuaded the Hague Court of Appeal that it need not cut its emissions by 45%—or by any figure—by 2030, despite judges accepting campaigners’ argument that the firm owes a duty to the public to curb emissions to confront the climate emergency. There can be no doubt that shielding people from dangerous climate change is a human right, the appeals court stated. It is chiefly for legislators and governments to implement measures that reduce dangerous climate change. The 2021 ruling on appeal from the Hague District Court had directed Shell to lower carbon dioxide output and to bring corporate policy into line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Activists hailed the judgment as a landmark first. The action was initiated by Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, along with more than 17,000 co-claimants in total supporting the case overall...