{"id":2463,"date":"2014-01-08T10:42:47","date_gmt":"2014-01-08T15:42:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=2463"},"modified":"2014-01-08T10:42:47","modified_gmt":"2014-01-08T15:42:47","slug":"january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Update #58 January 2014 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>\"gavel\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S.<\/a> and non-US<\/a> climate litigation charts. \u00a0 The January additions are listed below.\u00a0 (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.)<\/p>\n

FEATURED DECISION<\/b><\/p>\n

WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell<\/a><\/i><\/b> (D.C. Cir. Dec. 24, 2013): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide.\u00a0 Environmental groups achieved a standing victory but ultimately lost the battle when they appealed a district court ruling<\/a> that they did not have standing to pursue their claims that a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) inadequately addressed climate change.\u00a0 BLM had prepared the FEIS prior to its approval of tracts of federal land in Wyoming for leasing for coal mining.\u00a0 The groups also appealed the district court\u2019s determination that BLM\u2019s consideration of other types of environmental impacts had been adequate. The D.C. Circuit reversed the holding on standing, finding that the district court \u201csliced the salami too thin\u201d when it required that the specific type of pollution causing the environmental groups\u2019 injury be the same type that was considered inadequately in the FEIS.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit concluded that the harm to the groups\u2019 members\u2019 recreational and aesthetic interests caused by local pollution was a sufficient injury in fact to challenge all of the alleged deficiencies in the FEIS, including those related to global climate change.\u00a0 On the merits, however, the D.C.\u00a0 Circuit called the alleged climate change-related inadequacies \u201cof the flyspecking variety\u201d and concluded that BLM had satisfied its obligations to consider climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act.<\/p>\n

\u00a0DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS<\/b><\/p>\n

Sierra Club v. BNSF Railway Co.<\/a><\/i><\/b> (E.D. Wash. Jan. 2, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to Coal-Fired Power Plants\u201d slide.\u00a0 Seven environmental groups commenced a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Washington against BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) alleging that BNSF\u2019s operation of rail lines to carry coal violated the Clean Water Act (CWA).\u00a0 In the facts section of their complaint, the environmental groups alleged that BNSF\u2019s trains and rail cars discharged coal and coal dust \u201cto waters of the United States when traveling adjacent to, over, and in proximity to waters of the United States\u201d and that the trains and rail cars were point sources.\u00a0 The district court denied BNSF\u2019s motion to dismiss, which was grounded in BNSF\u2019s contention that coal from rail cars that falls on land and not directly into waters does not violate the CWA.\u00a0 The court found that since plaintiffs\u2019 claim alleged that coal pollutants were discharged \u201cinto\u201d waterways, it was necessary to permit plaintiffs to develop facts to support their claim.<\/p>\n

Fix the City v. City of Los Angeles<\/a><\/i><\/b>; La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles<\/a><\/i><\/b>; Save Hollywood.org v. City of Los Angeles<\/a><\/i> <\/b>(Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2013): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.\u00a0 A California Superior Court issued a tentative decision in three related cases challenging the Hollywood Community Plan Update (HCPU), which would, among other things, increase density near public transit stops. If issued as a final decision, the court\u2019s ruling would invalidate the HCPU.\u00a0 The court found that the environmental impact report prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act was flawed, including its outdated assumptions regarding population and its inadequate consideration of alternatives.\u00a0 The City issued a letter<\/a> on December 20 acknowledging the uncertainty created by the tentative decision and indicating that it remained committed to the principles of the HCPU.<\/p>\n

Thrun v. Cuomo<\/a><\/i><\/b> (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 5, 2013): added to the \u201cIndustry Lawsuits\/Challenges to State Action\u201d slide.\u00a0 The New York Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal<\/a> of a challenge<\/a> to New York\u2019s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a nine-state cap-and-trade program restricting carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector.\u00a0 The court below had dismissed<\/a> the challenge<\/a> on standing and laches grounds. The appellate court assumed without deciding that plaintiffs had standing, but ruled that the causes of action challenging the validity of RGGI regulations issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority were time barred because, as challenges to \u201cquasi-legislative\u201d acts, they could have been brought in an Article 78 proceeding despite their constitutional underpinnings, and were thus governed by the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings.\u00a0 The claims therefore were made two and a half years too late.\u00a0 The appellate court further ruled that the challenges to then-Governor George Pataki\u2019s signing of the RGGI memorandum of understanding (MOU) were moot because the MOU did not effectuate the RGGI program or New York\u2019s participation in it, and undoing the MOU would not redress the claimed injuries.<\/p>\n

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Brazell<\/a><\/i> <\/b>(D. Idaho, Nov. 27, 2013): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide.\u00a0 The federal district court for the District of Idaho granted federal defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss a challenge to the Little Slate Project, a set of actions including aquatic habitat restoration, timber harvest, fuel treatments, and changes to the roads and trails intended to improve conditions in the Little Slate Creek watershed in Idaho.\u00a0 Plaintiffs challenged federal decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Forest Management Act. The court found that the defendants had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously.\u00a0 Although climate change impacts were not central to the federal defendants\u2019 or the court\u2019s analysis, the court noted that a biological opinion for bull trout prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service identified global climate change as a cumulative effect and \u201cdetermined the \u2018quite certain\u2019 warming of the global climate would have negative effects on bull trout habitat.\u201d<\/p>\n

POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board<\/a><\/i><\/b> (Cal. Nov. 20, 2013): added to the \u201cIndustry Lawsuits\/Challenges to State Action\u201d slide.\u00a0 The California Supreme Court denied the California Air Resource Board\u2019s (CARB\u2019s) petition for review of the appellate court decision<\/a> requiring CARB to set aside its approval of California\u2019s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) and to take steps to rectify errors in its approval process, including the improper deferral of the formulation of mitigation measures for potential increases in nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel without committing to specific performance criteria for judging the efficacy of the future mitigation measures.\u00a0 The LCFS will remain in effect while CARB undertakes the required actions.\u00a0 The California Supreme Court also denied CARB\u2019s depublication request for the appellate court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

NEW CASES, MOTIONS, AND NOTICES<\/b><\/p>\n

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Notice of Denial of Petition for Reconsideration by Landmark Legal Foundation<\/a><\/b> (78 Fed. Reg. 79,643, Dec. 31, 2013): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\u201d slide.\u00a0 On December 31, 2013, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) denied an August 2013 petition<\/a> from the Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF) for reconsideration of the final rule<\/a> for Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens.\u00a0LLF had requested reconsideration because the final rule<\/a> used a different \u201csocial cost of carbon\u201d (SCC) than the supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking.\u00a0In denying the petition, DOE indicated that the SCC values used in the proposed rule and in the final rule had not affected DOE\u2019s decision because the estimated benefits of the proposed and final standard exceeded the standard\u2019s costs even without considering SCC values. In fact, the proposed and final standard were the same. DOE also said that the use of an updated SCC value in the final rule did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act\u2019s notice and comment requirements because, among other reasons, DOE had indicated in its notice of proposed rulemaking that the SCC values were subject to change based on improved scientific and economic understanding of climate change and because the change in the SCC values reflected refinements to underlying models, not to methodology or federal government inputs such as discount rates, population growth, climate sensitivity distribution, or socio-economic trajectories.<\/p>\n

In re La Paloma Energy Center, LLC<\/a><\/i><\/b> (EAB, filed Dec. 6, 2013): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/Project Challenges\u201d slide.\u00a0 On December 6, 2013, the Sierra Club petitioned the Environmental Appeals Board for review of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued by EPA Region VI for a natural gas-fired combined cycle electric generating plant in Harlingen, Texas.\u00a0 Sierra Club contended that Region VI erred by setting three different greenhouse gas best available control technology (BACT) limits and allowing the applicant to determine which limit would apply based on which of three turbine designs the applicant ultimately selected for the power plant.\u00a0 Sierra Club also argued that Region VI\u00a0 \u201cclearly erred by refusing to consider solar thermal hybrid addition to the proposed natural gas combined cycle power plant, despite being a demonstrated method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without changing the fundamental business purpose of producing electricity through a combined cycle power plant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<\/a><\/i><\/b> (9th Cir., filed Sept. 6, 2013): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/Project Challenges\u201d slide.\u00a0 Sierra Club and three other environmental organizations petitioned<\/a> the Ninth Circuit for review of EPA\u2019s decision<\/a> to extend the deadline for commencing construction of the 600-MW natural gas-fired Avenal Energy Project in the San Joaquin Valley in California pursuant to a PSD permit issued in 2011.\u00a0 A challenge<\/a> to the 2011 permit\u2014which did not require implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) controls because the permit application was submitted before GHG requirements became effective and because EPA failed to act in a timely manner on the application\u2014is also pending in the Ninth Circuit.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit held oral argument in that action on October 8, 2013.\u00a0 In announcing the challenge to the construction deadline extension, the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the environmental organizations bringing the lawsuit, said<\/a> that the exemption from the deadline was \u201ccontrary to decades of EPA precedent\u201d and was based on Avenal\u2019s \u201cspecious claim that it could not obtain financing for the project due to the existing litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here are recent additions to the Non-U.S. Climate Litigation Chart<\/a>.<\/b><\/p>\n

In the Matter of subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, P.13 as amended<\/b><\/a> <\/b>The City of Brampton filed a motion seeking partial approval of the amendment its 2006 Official Plan. The plan was amended to include climate change considerations with respect to transportation, sustainable development, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and energy efficiency and management. The partial approval was granted. —<\/b>Added to \u201cEnvironmental Assessment and Permitting: Other Projects\u201d slide.<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Update #58 January 2014 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. and non-US climate litigation charts. \u00a0 The January additions are listed below.\u00a0 (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":768,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5673],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-2463","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nJanuary Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Update #58 January 2014 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. and non-US climate litigation charts. \u00a0 The January additions are listed below.\u00a0 (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-01-08T15:42:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel-300x199.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Shelley Welton\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shelley Welton\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Shelley Welton\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be\"},\"headline\":\"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-01-08T15:42:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1768,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/gavel-300x199.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/\",\"name\":\"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/gavel-300x199.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-01-08T15:42:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/gavel.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/gavel.jpg\",\"width\":500,\"height\":332},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/01\\\/08\\\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be\",\"name\":\"Shelley Welton\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/swelto\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Update #58 January 2014 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. and non-US climate litigation charts. \u00a0 The January additions are listed below.\u00a0 (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2014-01-08T15:42:47+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel-300x199.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Shelley Welton","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shelley Welton","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/"},"author":{"name":"Shelley Welton","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be"},"headline":"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts","datePublished":"2014-01-08T15:42:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/"},"wordCount":1768,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel-300x199.jpg","articleSection":["Climate Litigation"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/","name":"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel-300x199.jpg","datePublished":"2014-01-08T15:42:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel.jpg","width":500,"height":332},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/01\/08\/january-updates-to-the-climate-ligitation-charts\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"January Updates to the Climate Ligitation Charts"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be","name":"Shelley Welton","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/swelto\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2463","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/768"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}