Press Release Back Number(2007)

Causes of Procedural Inadequacies in Hydroelectric Facility Approval Application under River Law and Electricity Enterprises Law, and Measures to Prevent Recurrence

January 24, 2007
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.

Following a directive (dated November 21, 2006) of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Chubu Electric has recently conducted an investigation into the possibility of falsified data in its scheduled reports and inspection documents and also looked into inadequacies in its applications for hydroelectric facilities under the Electricity Enterprises Law and River Law. Results of our investigation were reported to MLIT's Kinki Regional Development Bureau on December 19, 2006. On the following day, we reported the results to MLIT's Chubu, Hokuriku and Kanto bureaus and to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of METI.

< Inspection results overview >

  • • Falsified data in scheduled reports and inspection documents: none
  • • Application procedural inadequacies under River Law: 68 power stations
  • • Inadequate filing under Electricity Enterprises Law (approval application): 7 power stations

(This was previously reported on December 20, 2006)


Today, Chubu Electric filed its report outlining the causes (and measures for preventing recurrence) of the procedural inadequacies in its applications for approval of hydroelectric facilities under the Electricity Enterprises Law and River Law as reviewed during this inspection. This report is in keeping with a directive, dated December 21, 2006, from the MLIT Regional Development Bureaus in the Chubu, Hokuriku and Kanto areas and from METI.

Chubu Electric will perform thorough follow-through to prevent recurrence of this situation and will make every effort to practice legal compliance.


1. Causes of situation

  1. (1) Chubu Electric's criteria for determining the need to file an application were vague and the company did not have adequate systems in place to check whether applications were needed.
  2. (2) We did not have sufficient advance consultation with the authorities in charge on cases where we could not reach a decision on the need for an application.
  3. (3) Our department overseeing applications was not sufficiently aware of the situation.

2. Recurrence prevention measures

  1. (1) Chubu Electric will prepare internal rules for application procedures.
  2. (2) We will consistently consult in advance with the authorities in charge.
  3. (3) We will provide internal training on application procedures.