Environmental Groups Lose Final Appeal to Force Amendment of Taiwan's 'Large Electricity User Clause'
Greenpeace Foundation and other environmental groups filed an administrative lawsuit arguing that the Ministry of Economic Affairs' 'Large Electricity User Clause' is insufficient to regulate corporations and aid carbon reduction. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the final appeal on June 4, 2024, ruling that citizens only have the right to propose, not demand, regulatory amendments.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: June 4, 2026 at 19:18
- 🔍 Collected: June 4, 2026 at 19:26 (8 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: June 6, 2026 at 15:35 (44h 8m after Collected)
(Central News Agency, reporter Liu Shiyi, Taipei, 4th) Greenpeace Foundation and others argued that the 'Large Electricity User Clause' does not effectively regulate corporations and does not contribute to carbon reduction. They filed a lawsuit asking the court to order the Ministry of Economic Affairs to amend the clause. The Taipei High Administrative Court's retrial rejected the claim. Upon appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the case today (4th), making the ruling final.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs announced the 'Regulations for the Installation of Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment by Electricity Users with a Certain Contract Capacity' on December 31, 2020, commonly known as the 'Large Electricity User Clause,' which took effect on January 1, 2021.
The 'Large Electricity User Clause' requires large users consuming over 5,000 kilowatts of electricity to install 10% green energy capacity within five years. It aims to establish a model for corporate green energy use, affecting approximately 300 companies and creating a renewable energy trading market of about 1 GW. The scope of applicable targets is reviewed every two years.
On February 3, 2021, Greenpeace Foundation, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four residents from Taipei City, New Taipei City, and Pingtung County jointly filed an administrative lawsuit with the Taipei High Administrative Court. They argued that the 'Large Electricity User Clause' covers too few companies and neglects carbon reduction, hindering Taiwan's energy transition and exposing the public to disaster risks from extreme climate.
The plaintiffs requested the court to order the Ministry of Economic Affairs to amend the 'Large Electricity User Clause' in accordance with the legislative intent of the Renewable Energy Development Act, including 'curbing greenhouse gas emissions,' 'meeting statutory carbon reduction targets,' 'responding to the climate environment,' and 'achieving the promotion goals of the Act.'
The first instance of the Taipei High Administrative Court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for filing a lawsuit. Greenpeace Foundation appealed. The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the original ruling and remanded the case for retrial.
In May 2023, the Taipei High Administrative Court's retrial determined that citizens or groups only have the right to propose regulatory amendments, not a public law right to demand that administrative agencies formulate them.
The retrial court held that the 'Large Electricity User Clause' is an abstract regulatory order issued by the Ministry of Economic Affairs based on legal authorization from the Renewable Energy Development Act. It was promulgated after multiple forums consolidating opinions from academia, government, and industry, reflecting social consensus. The court found it difficult to deem the formulation of the regulations as a discretionary flaw based solely on climate and environmental goals, and dismissed the case. Upon appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the case today (4th), making the ruling final. (Editor: Hsiao Po-wen) 1150604
The Ministry of Economic Affairs announced the 'Regulations for the Installation of Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment by Electricity Users with a Certain Contract Capacity' on December 31, 2020, commonly known as the 'Large Electricity User Clause,' which took effect on January 1, 2021.
The 'Large Electricity User Clause' requires large users consuming over 5,000 kilowatts of electricity to install 10% green energy capacity within five years. It aims to establish a model for corporate green energy use, affecting approximately 300 companies and creating a renewable energy trading market of about 1 GW. The scope of applicable targets is reviewed every two years.
On February 3, 2021, Greenpeace Foundation, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four residents from Taipei City, New Taipei City, and Pingtung County jointly filed an administrative lawsuit with the Taipei High Administrative Court. They argued that the 'Large Electricity User Clause' covers too few companies and neglects carbon reduction, hindering Taiwan's energy transition and exposing the public to disaster risks from extreme climate.
The plaintiffs requested the court to order the Ministry of Economic Affairs to amend the 'Large Electricity User Clause' in accordance with the legislative intent of the Renewable Energy Development Act, including 'curbing greenhouse gas emissions,' 'meeting statutory carbon reduction targets,' 'responding to the climate environment,' and 'achieving the promotion goals of the Act.'
The first instance of the Taipei High Administrative Court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for filing a lawsuit. Greenpeace Foundation appealed. The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the original ruling and remanded the case for retrial.
In May 2023, the Taipei High Administrative Court's retrial determined that citizens or groups only have the right to propose regulatory amendments, not a public law right to demand that administrative agencies formulate them.
The retrial court held that the 'Large Electricity User Clause' is an abstract regulatory order issued by the Ministry of Economic Affairs based on legal authorization from the Renewable Energy Development Act. It was promulgated after multiple forums consolidating opinions from academia, government, and industry, reflecting social consensus. The court found it difficult to deem the formulation of the regulations as a discretionary flaw based solely on climate and environmental goals, and dismissed the case. Upon appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the case today (4th), making the ruling final. (Editor: Hsiao Po-wen) 1150604