{"id":2554,"date":"2014-04-01T10:08:28","date_gmt":"2014-04-01T15:08:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=2554"},"modified":"2014-04-01T10:08:28","modified_gmt":"2014-04-01T15:08:28","slug":"april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"April Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Update #61 April 2014\"gavel\"<\/a><\/strong><\/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\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0non-US\u00a0<\/a>climate litigation charts. The April additions are listed below. (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.)<\/p>\n

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

In re La Paloma Energy Center, LLC<\/a><\/i><\/b>, PSD Appeal No. 13-10 (EAB Mar. 14, 2014): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/Project Challenges\u201d slide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) rejected Sierra Club\u2019s\u00a0challenge<\/a>\u00a0to a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit issued by EPA Region 6 for a natural gas-fired power plant in Texas. EAB was not persuaded by Sierra Club\u2019s argument that Region 6 was required to consider each of three combined cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbine models as a separate technology in its BACT analysis. EAB deferred to Region 6\u2019s determination that the differences in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from each of the three proposed turbine models were \u201cmarginal,\u201d and concluded that Region 6 \u201cdid not clearly err or abuse its discretion in determining that the GHG emission limits for all three turbine models represent BACT for highly efficient combined cycle combustion turbines.\u201d EAB also ruled that Region 6 had not abused its discretion in determining that\u00a0 a solar thermal energy component would \u201credefine the source\u201d and therefore could be excluded as a potential emissions control alternative.<\/p>\n

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

In re Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. A-4878-11T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 25, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to State Action\u201d slide. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, agreed with Environment New Jersey and the Natural Resources Defense Council that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) should have followed formal rulemaking procedures to repeal or amend regulations implementing the State\u2019s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). After Governor Chris Christie announced in 2011 that the State would withdraw from RGGI\u2019s carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program, NJDEP did not initiate formal repeal procedures for its RGGI regulations but instead posted a notice on its website that power plants would no longer be required to comply with the regulations\u2019 requirements as of January 2012. The appellate court rejected NJDEP\u2019s contention that it was not necessary to repeal the regulations because their only purpose was to implement New Jersey\u2019s participation in RGGI. The court determined that formal rulemaking was required because the regulations \u201care worded quite broadly\u00a0 and can be read to require action by [NJDEP] absent participation in a regional greenhouse program.\u201d<\/p>\n

Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. B245131 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2014): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide. The California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment that had overturned California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) actions in connection with a 12,000-acre commercial-residential development known as Newhall Ranch in northwestern Los Angeles County. The trial court had held that the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) used a baseline for assessing cumulative impacts of the project\u2019s GHG emissions that was inappropriate as a matter of law. In an unpublished portion of the appellate court\u2019s decision, the court ruled that a substantial evidence standard applied to judicial review of the selection of a baseline, and that substantial evidence supported DFW\u2019s baseline determination as well as its determination regarding the significance of the impacts of the project\u2019s GHG emissions.<\/p>\n

Citizens Actions Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 93A02-1301-EX-76 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to Coal-Fired Power Plants\u201d slide. The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected challenges to a regulatory settlement involving the construction of an integrated coal gasification combined cycle generating facility in Edwardsport, Indiana. The settlement agreement was adopted in 2012 by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, which had issued the Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) for the facility in 2007. Intervenors had requested that the CPCNs be modified to require mitigation of carbon emissions, citing concerns about the risk of future costs to ratepayers. On appeal, the intervenors accused the Commission of adopting an \u201c\u2018ostrich approach\u2019 to global climate change and the role of carbon emissions, leaving ratepayers at financial risk in the future.\u201d In its nonprecedential decision, the court noted that there currently was \u00a0no federal mandate requiring carbon mitigation, and said that it was not persuaded \u201cthat the Commission was derelict in its statutory duties when it declined to revisit the issue of potential future costs of carbon emissions at the Edwardsport plant. Nor can the settlement be considered contrary to law because it does not incorporate anticipated changes in the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Monroe Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 13-1265 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\/Other Rules\u201d slide. In this challenge to the 2013 renewable fuel standard, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an unopposed motion by EPA to sever and hold in abeyance issues pertaining to the cellulosic biofuel standard, which EPA agreed to reconsider after learning that producers had lowered their production estimates. The D.C. Circuit established a new case (No. 14-1033) and required status reports on EPA\u2019s reconsideration of the cellulosic biofuel standard every 60 days, starting on March 28. Oral argument on the challenge to other aspects of the 2013 renewable fuel standard will be heard on\u00a0April 7, 2014.<\/p>\n

California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. C072033 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2014): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide. In an unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the City of Woodland had not complied with CEQA in approving the development of a regional shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land. In doing so, the appellate court reversed a trial court decision in favor of the City. Among the inadequacies in the CEQA review was the City\u2019s failure to assess the project\u2019s transportation, construction, and operation energy impacts. The appellate court said that the City was required to investigate renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project.<\/p>\n

Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corp.<\/i><\/b>, No. 12-cv-108 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to Coal-Fired Power Plants\u201d slide. After a three-day bench trial in this citizen suit\u00a0alleging<\/a>\u00a0that the Big Brown Steam Electric Station in Freestone County, Texas violated the Clean Air Act, the judge ruled from the bench for the defendants on February 26, 2014. The court found that plaintiff had not established that a penalty should apply and denied all requested relief. Defendants submitted\u00a0proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law<\/a>\u00a0on March 10, 2014.<\/p>\n

In re Consolidated Environmental Management, Inc. \u2013 Nucor Steel, Saint James Parish, Louisiana<\/a><\/i><\/b>, Pet. Nos. VI-2010-05, VI-2011-06, and VI-2012-07 (EPA Jan. 30, 2014): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/Project Challenges\u201d slide. The EPA administrator issued an order rejecting requests by the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) and Sierra Club that EPA object to GHG provisions in a Title V permit issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for a facility that produced feedstock for steelmaking. LEAN and Sierra Club had contended that the permit was not in compliance with Clean Air Act requirements because it did not require best available control technology (BACT) for GHG emissions and did not specify procedures for estimating GHG emissions. The order was signed on January 30, 2014, and notice was\u00a0published<\/a>\u00a0in the Federal Register on March 21, 2014.<\/p>\n

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

Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No.\u00a05:14-cv-39 (N.D. W. Va., filed Mar. 24, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\/Other Rules\u201d slide. Coal companies commenced a federal lawsuit seeking to compel EPA to undertake an evaluation pursuant to\u00a0section 321<\/a>\u00a0of the Clean Air Act of the effects of administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act on employment. Plaintiffs contend that EPA \u201chas continued to administer and enforce the Clean Air Act in a manner that is causing coal mines to close, costing hard-working Americans their jobs, and shifting employment away from areas rich in coal resources to areas with energy resources preferred by [EPA].\u201d Plaintiffs seek an injunction barring EPA from promulgating new Clean Air Act regulations that affect the coal industry until the employment evaluation is completed.<\/p>\n

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 13-1148 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2014);\u00a0American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Association v. Corey<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 13-1149 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to State Actions\u201d slide. Two petitions for writs of certiorari were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit decision that revived California\u2019s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) after a district court had ruled that it violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The petition filed by the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union and other parties associated with the ethanol industry presents two questions: (1) whether the Ninth Circuit erred \u201cin concluding that the [LCFS] does not facially discriminate against interstate commerce\u201d and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred \u201cin concluding that the [LCFS] is not an extraterritorial regulation.\u201d The petition filed by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, American Trucking Associations, and Consumer Energy Alliance presents one question: \u201cWhether [the LCFS] is unconstitutional because it discriminates against out-of-state fuels and regulates interstate and foreign commerce that occurs wholly outside of California.\u201d<\/p>\n

United States v. Miami-Dade County, Florida<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No.\u00a01:12-cv-24400-FAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2014): added to the \u201cAdaptation\u201d slide. The federal district court for the Southern District of Florida declined to approve the consent decree proposed by the United States, Florida, and Miami-Dade County to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act by the County in connection with its ownership and operation of a publicly owned treatment works. The court suggested that the parties submit further pleadings and further suggested that the appointment of a special master to oversee and monitor the County\u2019s progress in implementing the repairs required by the consent decree, as well as increased penalties for failures to make the repairs, might assuage the court\u2019s concerns regarding implementation. The court indicated, however, that \u201cremaining objections\u201d\u2014presumably including objections raised by intervenors as to the consent decree\u2019s failure to take climate change-related sea level rise into consideration\u2014were not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of approval of the consent decree. On March 21, 2014, the federal and state plaintiffs submitted\u00a0supplemental comments<\/a>\u00a0on the consent decree in which they reported that they had reached agreement with the County to double the penalties that would apply for sanitary sewer overflows and failures to meet deadlines and \u201csubmit timely deliverables.\u201d The parties urged the court to accept the option of \u201cheightened reporting requirements\u201d in lieu of the appointment of a special master, which they said would cause unnecessary expense and delay.<\/p>\n

Office of Management and Budget,\u00a0Response to Petition for Correction of the \u201cSocial Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866\u201d Technical Support Documents<\/a><\/b>\u00a0(Jan. 24, 2014);Request for Reconsideration<\/a><\/b>\u00a0(Feb. 24, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\/Other Rules\u201d slide. On February 24, 2014, a coalition of organizations representing various industry and business sectors submitted a Request for Reconsideration (RFR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding OMB\u2019s January 2014\u00a0response<\/a>to the organizations\u2019 September 2013\u00a0Petition for Correction<\/a>\u00a0(PFC) of Technical Support Documents (TSDs) prepared as the basis for Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates used by federal agencies in their decision making. In the January 2014 response, OMB addressed the five concerns enumerated in the PFC but concluded that the SCC estimates \u201cprovide valuable and critical insight\u201d for regulatory decision making. The January 2014 response also referred the organizations to the ongoing\u00a0public comment process<\/a>\u00a0on the SCC TSDs, which sought comments \u201con topics that are consistent with those raised\u201d in the PFC. The RFR called OMB\u2019s January 2014 response \u201cunsatisfactory,\u201d contending that OMB \u201csupported its terse conclusion with little more than a \u2018cut-and-paste\u2019 reiteration of the precise TSD language that concerned the [organizations].\u201d The RFR catalogs the January 2014 response\u2019s alleged shortcomings, including that it had not remedied the \u201copacity\u201d that characterized the development of the SCC estimates. The organizations also contend that OMB did not comply with its own Information Quality Act guidelines in the development of either the TSDs or the 2014 response.<\/p>\n

Here are recent additions to the\u00a0Non-U.S. Climate Litigation Chart<\/a>.<\/b><\/p>\n

Castletown Estates Ltd, Carmarthenshire County Council v. Welsh Ministers<\/a>\u00a0<\/i><\/b>(United Kingdom, High Court of Justice Queen\u2019s Bench Division [2013] EWHC 3293 (Admin)): Claimants challenged the decisions of the Welsh Ministers to refuse a planning permit for a mixed-use redevelopment project. At issue was the precautionary approach employed by the Minister to assess future flood risks taking into account climate change. The claimants alleged that the Minister had used inaccurate flood and development advice maps to assess the risk of flooding. The court found that the Minister\u2019s determination was fair and reasonable and dismissed the application for appeal.\u00a0—<\/b>Added to \u201cClimate Adaptation\u201d slide.<\/i><\/p>\n

Ioane Teitiota v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment<\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00a0<\/i><\/b>(United Kingdom, High Court of Justice Queen\u2019s Bench Division [2013] NZHC 3125 (Admin)): A Kiribati citizen appealed after he was denied refugee status by the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The appellant argued that he was a climate change refugee because rising ocean levels and environmental degradation have caused economic hardship that is forcing citizens to leave the island. The court found that the impacts of climate change on Kiribati did not qualify the appellant for refugee status because the applicant was not subjected to persecution required under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In addition to finding a lack of serious harm or serious violation of human rights, the court also expressed concern about expanding the scope of the Refugee Convention and opening the door to millions of people who face hardship due to climate change.\u00a0—<\/b>Added to \u201cHuman Rights\u201d slide.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Update #61 April 2014 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\u00a0U.S.\u00a0and\u00a0non-US\u00a0climate litigation charts. The April additions are listed below. (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.) FEATURED […]<\/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-2554","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nApril Updates to the Climate Litigation 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\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"April Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Update #61 April 2014 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\u00a0U.S.\u00a0and\u00a0non-US\u00a0climate litigation charts. The April additions are listed below. (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.) FEATURED […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-04-01T15:08:28+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=\"12 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\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Shelley Welton\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be\"},\"headline\":\"April Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-04-01T15:08:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2323,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-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\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\",\"name\":\"April Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/gavel-300x199.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-04-01T15:08:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-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\\\/04\\\/01\\\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"April Updates to the Climate Litigation 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":"April Updates to the Climate Litigation 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\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"April Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Update #61 April 2014 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\u00a0U.S.\u00a0and\u00a0non-US\u00a0climate litigation charts. The April additions are listed below. (If you know of any cases we’ve missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.) FEATURED […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2014-04-01T15:08:28+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"},"author":{"name":"Shelley Welton","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be"},"headline":"April Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts","datePublished":"2014-04-01T15:08:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"},"wordCount":2323,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-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\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","name":"April Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel-300x199.jpg","datePublished":"2014-04-01T15:08:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-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\/04\/01\/april-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"April Updates to the Climate Litigation 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\/2554","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=2554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2554\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}