Reversal in Third LNG Terminal Development Case! Supreme Administrative Court Rules Interior Ministry's Approval Illegal, Finalizing Cancellation of Original Decision

Residents of Taoyuan City filed a lawsuit to revoke the Interior Ministry’s approval of the 95.4-hectare coastal development for the third liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal, aiming to protect coral reefs. On the 20th, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the Interior Ministry had not reviewed whether all licensing conditions were met, finding clear legal violations, and thus finalized the revocation of the original decision.

The case originated in March 2017 when CPC Corporation, Taiwan submitted the 'Coastal Use Management Statement for Guantang Industrial Zone, Taoyuan' to the Taoyuan City Government. Under its investment plan for the third LNG receiving station, CPC proposed a large-scale project—'Phase One Development: Third Natural Gas Receiving Station (95.4 hectares)'—within a designated coastal area outside a Class I protected zone, applying for permission under the Coastal Management Act.

In March 2018, the Interior Ministry issued its original decision, approving CPC’s application after determining that required corrections based on the Coastal Management Review Committee’s resolution had been completed. CPC proceeded with development under the approved statement.

Environmental groups and some residents argued that the development site is less than 5 kilometers from the 'Guanxin Algal Reef Ecosystem Wildlife Refuge,' and that land reclamation is illegal. They claimed the Interior Ministry’s approval was clearly unlawful and that insufficient consideration was given to climate change impacts, violating the Coastal Management Act, and requested the revocation of the decision.

In the first instance, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that only residents within a 5–8 kilometer radius of the project site had standing to sue, while the two environmental groups lacked legal standing. The court found no error in the original decision and ruled against the plaintiffs.

On appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court found the lower court’s reasoning inadequate, vacating the judgment for Ye Sgui and others and remanding it to the Taipei High Administrative Court. However, it dismissed the appeals of the two environmental groups for lack of standing.

Following the death of one plaintiff, their children inherited the lawsuit, increasing the number of plaintiffs to seven. In the renewed first-instance ruling, the Taipei High Administrative Court noted that the seven plaintiffs focused their concerns on coral reef damage, but raised no significant issues regarding gas leakage risks or CPC’s prevention plans, indicating their primary motive was reef conservation.

The court stated that even if the development could harm the reef, it could not be said to directly threaten the lives, safety, or property of two plaintiffs living about 20 kilometers away, thus denying them legal standing.

The court recognized five plaintiffs, including Ye Sgui, as having standing but found no error in the Interior Ministry’s original decision, ruling against them.

One of the qualified plaintiffs waived appeal, while Ye Sgui and three others (qualified) and two unqualified plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Administrative Court heard the second instance.

On the 20th, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the appeals of the two unqualified plaintiffs had no merit and dismissed them. For the four qualified plaintiffs, including Ye Sgui, the court found that the Interior Ministry failed to review key conditions independently, relying solely on the Coastal Review Committee’s outcome without verifying full compliance with licensing requirements. This constituted factual misjudgment and improper application of law. The court vacated the lower ruling and issued its own judgment, revoking the Interior Ministry’s original decision. The ruling is now final.

Related reports from Storm Media: · Luo Chih-chiang: 'What is the prosecutor dragging on about?' Over half a year after whistleblowing, search conducted on winning contractor · CPC’s third LNG terminal budget inflated by NT$10 billion! Suspicious financial flows involving former chairman’s family of Sinotech and Huang-Chang; 14 questioned and released · CPC’s third LNG terminal construction cost inflated by over NT$15 billion; Luo exposes prosecutors burying case twice: negligence covering up collusion between officials and businesses