Skip to content
Sign in
Politics · Asia Pacific

Shizuoka court rejects bid to block three Hamaoka reactors

The Shizuoka District Court rejected a lawsuit seeking to stop operation of three reactors at Chubu Electric Power’s Hamaoka plant. The court said the case had effectively lost its meaning after data manipulation made regulatory approval of a restart unlikely, while leaving reactor safety undecided.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 2 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 1 of 2 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 13 entries
2 outletsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Too few ratedL 0 · C 2 · R 0
Updat3 graphic: Asia Pacific
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • The Shizuoka District Court rejected a lawsuit seeking an injunction against operating Hamaoka’s No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 reactors (per The Japan Times).
  • The court said Chubu Electric Power’s data manipulation cast doubt on the company’s technical capability and made regulatory approval of a restart unlikely (per The Japan Times).
  • The court said the plant’s safety measures had not been finalized and it could not make a judgment on safety (per The Japan Times).
  • In January this year, Chubu Electric was found to have cherry-picked seismic ground-motion data in restart applications for the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors (per The Japan Times).
  • Chubu Electric withdrew the restart applications for the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors last month (per The Japan Times).
  • The court ordered the plaintiffs and Chubu Electric to divide litigation costs equally, citing the company’s misconduct (per The Japan Times).

The brief

The Shizuoka District Court rejected a lawsuit seeking to block operation of three reactors at Chubu Electric Power’s Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture. The Japan Times reported that the case concerned the No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 reactors and had been brought by 31 people, including local residents, in 2011. The court did not rule on whether the reactors were safe.

The court said the lawsuit had effectively lost its meaning because the Nuclear Regulation Authority was unlikely to approve a restart after Chubu Electric’s handling of seismic data. In its account of the ruling, The Japan Times said presiding Judge Kaoru Hirayama considered the company’s malpractice a reason to doubt its technical capability.

The data issue concerned the assumed level of earthquake shaking, known as seismic ground motion. In January this year, Chubu Electric was found to have cherry-picked seismic ground-motion data in applications seeking restart approval for the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors. The plant’s No.

5 reactor was also covered by the lawsuit, but the data issue described in the ruling concerned applications for Nos. 3 and 4. Chubu Electric withdrew the two restart applications last month. The court treated that regulatory situation as central to why it rejected the case, rather than resolving the plaintiffs’ safety challenge on its merits.

The judge said the plant’s safety measures had not been finalized, leaving the court unable to make a safety judgment. The ruling therefore closed this lawsuit without deciding whether the Hamaoka reactors’ safety measures were adequate. Its stated basis was that restart approval was unlikely after the data manipulation and that the safety measures remained incomplete.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs and Chubu Electric to share litigation costs equally, citing the company’s misconduct. A lawyer for the plaintiffs’ legal team said they planned to appeal. The Japan Times described the team gathering in Shizuoka after the decision.

The account identifies an intended next legal step, but does not say when an appeal would be filed or whether the court’s ruling changes the status of any restart application beyond the withdrawals already described.

Why it matters

  • The 31 plaintiffs, including local residents, sought to prevent operation of three Hamaoka reactors through an injunction lawsuit; the court rejected that route without deciding reactor safety.
  • Chubu Electric’s cherry-picking of seismic ground-motion data in applications for two reactors led the court to question the company’s technical capability and to view restart approval as unlikely.
  • The court said safety measures were unfinished, so the lawsuit’s rejection did not settle whether those measures were adequate.
  • The equal division of litigation costs between the plaintiffs and Chubu Electric is a concrete consequence of the ruling; the court cited the company’s misconduct.

What to watch next

  • Whether the plaintiffs’ legal team files the appeal its lawyer said it planned.
  • Whether the Nuclear Regulation Authority considers restart approval for the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors after Chubu Electric withdrew their applications.
  • Whether the Hamaoka plant’s safety measures are finalized, an issue the court said prevented a safety judgment.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
2 source articles · 2 unique outlets
Outlet political mix: Too few rated· 2 Center
Where the outlets are based: Asia 50% · Unknown 50%
Outlet political mix
Too few rated
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
2 outlets
0 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
2 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
Limited coverage
  • Coverage is currently limited to 2 outlets.
How we measure coverage

One source is from a wire service (AP, Reuters, AFP or Bloomberg), whose reporting other outlets often republish.

How outlets' accounts compare

Updat3 does not yet have enough full reports to compare how outlets framed this story.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. The legal framework for nuclear power in Japan began with the Atomic Energy Basic Act, enacted on December 19, 1955, which set out the principles governing the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
    Background · from our historical context
  2. Hamaoka began commercial operation.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  3. In 2009, Chubu Electric had already permanently shut down Hamaoka Units 1 and 2.
    Background · from our historical context
  4. The request came less than two months after the March 11, 2011, Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and the resulting accident at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi plant.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. Prime Minister Naoto Kan asked Chubu Electric Power to suspend Hamaoka operations until stronger earthquake and tsunami measures were in place.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  6. Chubu Electric Power shut down Hamaoka’s operating reactors.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  7. Japan established the Nuclear Regulation Authority.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  8. Japan’s new nuclear regulatory standards took effect.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  9. Chubu Electric Power applied to restart Hamaoka’s No. 4 reactor.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  10. Chubu Electric Power applied to restart Hamaoka’s No. 3 reactor.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  11. In January 2026, Chubu Electric Power was found to have selected seismic ground-motion data for its restart applications for Hamaoka Units 3 and 4 in a way that did not fairly represent the data available.
    Background · from our historical context
  12. In September 2026, the company withdrew those applications.
    Background · from our historical context
  13. Chubu Electric Power withdrew its restart applications for Hamaoka’s No. 3 and No. 4 reactors.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3

How we got here

In January 2026, Chubu Electric Power was found to have selected seismic ground-motion data for its restart applications for Hamaoka Units 3 and 4 in a way that did not fairly represent the data available. In September 2026, the company withdrew those applications.

Those developments followed a long-running dispute over whether the plant could meet Japan’s post-Fukushima safety requirements. Hamaoka’s operating history was shaped by the risk of a major earthquake near Japan’s Pacific coast.

Original sources

1 of 2 articles · Asia · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.