Annual Report 2010 - Enel.com

41. Contingent liabilities and assets
Environmental litigation
Litigation regarding environmental issues primarily concerns
the installation and operation of power lines and
equipment of Enel Distribuzione, which succeeded Enel
SpA in the related relationships. Enel Distribuzione has
been involved in a number of civil and administrative suits
relating to requests, often using urgent procedures, for
the precautionary transfer or modification of operations
on power lines by persons living near them on the basis
of their alleged potential to cause harm, despite the fact
that the company believes that they have been installed in
compliance with current regulations. In a number of proceedings
claims for damages for harm caused by electromagnetic
fields have been lodged. The outcome of litigation
on these issues is normally favorable to the company.
In this regard, in a decision in February 2008, the court
ruled that compliance with the statutory limits on exposure
to electrical and magnetic fields ensure, as supported
by the most authoritative studies in the field and evidence
arising at the European level, that health will not be jeopardized.
There have been sporadic adverse precautionary
rulings, which have all been appealed. At present there
are no final adverse rulings, and no damages for physical
harm have ever been granted, although a ruling in February
2008 (appealed) found that harm had been caused
by the “stress” associated with living near power lines and
the fear of possible health problems. The next hearing has
been scheduled for July 9, 2014.
There have also been a number of proceedings concerning
electromagnetic fields generated by medium- and
low-voltage transformer substations within buildings, in
which the equipment, according to the company’s technical
staff, has always been in compliance with induction
limits set by current regulations. Recent rulings have confirmed
that compliance with the applicable regulations is
sufficient guarantee of protection from harm.
In August 2008, the Court of Cassation (the supreme court
of appeal) issued a ruling concerning a 380 kW power line
(Forlì-Fano) no longer owned by Enel that, in conflict with
current scientific knowledge in this area, accepted the existence
of a causal relationship between the headaches
suffered by a number of parties and exposure to electromagnetic
fields. The situation concerning litigation has
evolved thanks to the clarification of the legislative frame-
work following the entry into force of the framework
law on electromagnetic emissions (Law 36 of February
22, 2001) and the related implementing regulations for
power lines (Prime Minister’s Order of July 8, 2003). The
new regulations seek to harmonize regulation of the field
at the national level. The new rules also introduce a tenyear
program as from the entry into force of Law 36/2001
for the upgrading of power lines. They also envisage the
possibility of recovering, in part or in full, costs incurred by
the owners of power lines and substations through electricity
rates, in accordance with criteria to be set by the
Authority for Electricity and Gas, pursuant to Law 481/95,
as they represent costs incurred in the public interest. At
present, the Prime Minister has not issued the Order setting
the criteria for the upgrading of power lines (Article
4, paragraph 4, of Law 36/2001), which is necessary for
distribution companies to submit the associated plans to
the regional governments (Article 9, paragraph 2, of Law
36/2001).
An Order of the Director General for environmental protection
of May 29, 2008 of the Ministry for the Environment
approved the procedures for measuring and assessing
magnetic induction, pursuant to Article 5, paragraph
2, of the Prime Minister’s Order of July 8, 2003, and another
Order issued by the same Ministry on May 29, 2008
approved the calculation methods for determining the
distance restrictions for power lines, pursuant to Article 4,
paragraph 1(h), of Law 36/2001.
A number of urban planning and environmental disputes
regarding the construction and operation of certain power
plants and distribution lines are pending. Based on an
analysis of individual cases, Enel believes the possibility of
adverse rulings is remote. For a limited number of cases,
an unfavorable outcome cannot be ruled out completely,
however. The consequences of unfavorable judgments
could, in addition to the possible payment of damages,
also include the costs related to work required to modify
electrical equipment and the temporary unavailability of
the plant.
229