{"id":2586,"date":"2014-05-07T09:33:46","date_gmt":"2014-05-07T14:33:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=2586"},"modified":"2014-05-07T09:33:46","modified_gmt":"2014-05-07T14:33:46","slug":"may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"May Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Update #62 May 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 May 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

American Tradition Institute v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia<\/a><\/i><\/b>, Record No. 130934 (Va. Apr. 17, 2014): added to the \u201cClimate Change Protestors and Scientists\u201d slide. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed a lower court ruling that shielded certain documents produced or received by climate scientist Michael Mann while he was a professor at the University of Virginia (UVA) from disclosure under Virginia\u2019s Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA). The case turned on the meaning of \u201cproprietary\u201d in VFOIA\u2019s exemption for \u201c[d]ata, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher education \u2026 in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues.\u201d The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the American Tradition Institute\u2019s (ATI\u2019s) \u201cnarrow construction\u201d of \u201cproprietary,\u201d which ATI said required financial competitive advantage. The court said this interpretation was not consistent with legislative intent to protect public educational institutions from being placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to private universities and colleges. The court concluded that the legislative concern was motivated by a \u201cbroader notion\u201d of competitive disadvantage that extended beyond financial injury to \u201charm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality, and impairment of free thought and expression.\u201d The court cited at length the affidavit of a UVA administrator who had also served as an administrator at a private university, who said that \u201c[i]f U.S. scientists at public institutions lose the ability to protect their communications with faculty at other institutions, their ability to collaborate will be gravely harmed.\u201d<\/p>\n

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

North Dakota v. Heydinger<\/a><\/i><\/b>, Case No. No. 11-cv-3232 (SRN\/SER) (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to State Action\u201d slide. The federal district court for the District of Minnesota enjoined the State of Minnesota from enforcing provisions of the Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) that barred both importing energy from a \u201cnew large energy facility\u201d outside Minnesota and entering into new long-term power purchase agreements, where such activities would contribute to statewide carbon dioxide emissions. The court ruled that these prohibitions were a \u201cclassic example\u201d of extraterritorial regulation in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The court said that due to how the electricity industry operates, the law could require out-of-state entities to comply with Minnesota requirements and even seek regulatory approval from Minnesota before engaging in power transactions outside Minnesota. The court noted that \u201c[u]nlike \u2026 tangible products, electricity cannot be shipped directly from Point A to Point B. MISO [the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the regional transmission organization of which Minnesota is a member] does not match buyers to sellers, and once electricity enters the grid, it is indistinguishable from the rest of the electricity in the grid. Therefore, a North Dakota generation-and-transmission cooperative cannot ensure that the coal-generated electricity that it injects into the MISO grid is used only to serve its North Dakota members and not its Minnesota members. Consequentially, in order to ensure compliance with [the NGEA provisions], out-of-state parties must conduct their out-of-state business according to Minnesota\u2019s terms\u2014i.e., engaging in no transactions involving power or capacity that would contribute to or increase Minnesota\u2019s statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions.\u201d.<\/p>\n

Communities for a Better Environment v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 11-1423 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 11, 2014): added to the \u201cForce Government to Act\/Clean Air Act\u201d slide. The D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA\u2019s)\u00a0determination<\/a>\u00a0not to establish a secondary standard for carbon monoxide, finding that petitioners did not have standing to challenge the determination because they had not presented sufficient evidence of a link between carbon monoxide at the levels permitted by EPA and a worsening of global warming. In its review of the standards for carbon monoxide, EPA had conducted an evaluation of the causal connection between carbon monoxide and climate change and\u00a0concluded<\/a>\u00a0that it could not determine whether a secondary standard for carbon monoxide would affect climate.<\/p>\n

Mississippi Power Co. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 2013-CC-00682-SCT (Miss. Apr. 10, 2014): added to the \u201cForce Government to Act\/Other Statutes\u201d slide. The Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that certain documents concerning \u201cthe long term natural gas price forecast and a forecast of the economic impact of pending federal legislation of greenhouse gas emissions\u201d that Mississippi Power Co. (Mississippi Power) had filed in January 2009 with the Mississippi Public Service Commission (MPSC) should be disclosed. Mississippi Power had filed the documents in connection with a certificate of public convenience and necessity proceeding for a proposed power plant in Kemper County, Mississippi. Bigger Pie Forum, a media outlet covering (and opposed to) the project, had sought the documents pursuant to the Mississippi Public Records Act. Mississippi Power had marked the documents at issue as confidential, but it came to light that it had shared information responsive to the records request with the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/i>. Mississippi Power, however, continued to assert that since the information provided to the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/i>\u00a0was from a December 2009 filing with MPSC, an earlier filing in January 2009 that contained similar information remained confidential. The Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed, stating that \u201cMississippi Power\u2019s revelation of natural gas price forecasts and CO2 cost assumptions provided to the Commission in December 2009 militates against the argument that a similar forecast submitted in January 2009 would be entitled to confidential, secret status.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thrun v. Cuomo<\/a><\/i><\/b>, Mo. No. 2014-138 (N.Y. Apr. 3, 2014): added to the \u201cChallenges to State Action\u201d slide. The New York Court of Appeals denied a motion for leave to appeal an Appellate Division decision dismissing a challenge to New York\u2019s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The Appellate Division ruled in December 2013 that challenges to the validity of New York\u2019s RGGI regulations were time-barred and that the challenge to then-Governor Pataki\u2019s signing of the RGGI memorandum of understanding was moot.<\/p>\n

WildEarth Guardians v. Bureau of Land Management<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No.\u00a01:11-cv-01481-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2014): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide. The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted the U.S. Bureau of Land Management\u2019s (BLM\u2019s) motion for summary judgment in this challenge to BLM\u2019s decision to authorize competitive lease sales in two coal tracts in the Wyoming Powder River Basin. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that plaintiffs had standing to bring all of their claims, including those related to climate change. After concluding that plaintiffs had standing stemming from injuries to aesthetic and recreational interests from local pollution to challenge BLM\u2019s consideration of local pollution impacts, the court expressed relief that it \u201cneed not navigate the troubled waters of the \u2018derivative\u2019 standing issue, nor \u2026 decide whether plaintiffs have established a separate injury in fact caused by climate change\u201d because the D.C. Circuit had made clear in a similar case\u2014WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell<\/a><\/i>, No. 12-5300\u2014that plaintiffs had standing to challenge BLM\u2019s consideration of climate change impacts on a procedural injury theory. On the merits, however, the court rejected plaintiffs\u2019 claims under both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy Management Act. Under NEPA, the court was not persuaded that BLM had not sufficiently considered the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from mining operations and from the subsequent combustion of the coal. The court concluded that \u201cthe level of specificity plaintiffs would prefer\u00a0 in BLM\u2019s analysis is neither possible based on current science, nor required by law.\u201d The court said that BLM\u2019s evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with its actions as a percentage of statewide and nationwide emissions was \u201ca permissible and adequate approach,\u201d given that current climate science did not allow for \u201cspecific linkage between particular [greenhouse gas] emissions and particular climate change impacts.\u201d The court also rejected plaintiffs\u2019 contention that BLM was obligated to consider alternatives that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as emissions capture and sequestration, more efficient mine hauling trucks, and carbon offsets.<\/p>\n

Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Jewell<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No.\u00a03:13-cv-00575-JLS-JMA (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide. The federal district court for the Southern District of California rejected a challenge to BLM actions authorizing the Tule Wind Project, a utility-scale wind energy facility on public lands in San Diego County. The court was not persuaded that BLM violated NEPA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act. Among other things, the court rejected plaintiffs\u2019 claims that BLM had failed to take a hard look at climate change impacts, finding that BLM did not have to indicate the number of megawatt-hours of energy the project would generate each year to support its conclusion that the project would \u201cpotentially\u201d decrease overall emissions associated with electrical generation in California. Nor did BLM have to assess the project\u2019s \u201clife-cycle\u201d emissions impacts by taking into account emissions from off-site equipment manufacture and transportation\u2014the court deemed such an assessment \u201clargely speculative.\u201d The court also agreed with the defendants that BLM had sufficiently addressed a distributed generation alternative favored by plaintiffs that would have relied on widespread development of \u201crooftop solar\u201d systems on residential and commercial structures in San Diego County, as well as development of other small-scale renewable energy sources.<\/p>\n

In re Energy Answers Arecibo LLC<\/a><\/i><\/b>\u00a0(EAB Mar. 25, 2014): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/Project Challenges\u201d slide. In response to EPA Region 2\u2019s Motion for Limited Voluntary Remand, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) remanded a Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued for a resource recovery facility in Puerto Rico. EAB indicated that Region 2 should incorporate regulation of biogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the permit in a manner consistent with the revisions proposed in Region 2\u2019s motion. Region 2 had issued the permit prior to the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision in\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA<\/i>, No. 11-1101 (July 12, 2013), which vacated EPA\u2019s rule deferring regulation of biogenic greenhouse gases under the PSD program. EAB concluded that the amendments to the permit would not result in any change to the control technology or the total carbon dioxide emissions. EAB also concluded that the permit need not be reopened for public comment on remand, noting, among other factors, that EPA Region 2 already had taken biogenic carbon dioxide emissions into account in its best available control technology analysis.<\/p>\n

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

San Diego Coastkeeper v. San Diego County Water Authority<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 37-2014-00013216-CU-JR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Apr. 25, 2014): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide. An environmental organization filed a lawsuit alleging that the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it approved updates to its long-term plan for water development and conservation. The two elements of the plan, which SDCWA called \u201ca road map through 2035 for future capital projects,\u201d were an update to the 2003 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan and a Climate Action Plan (CAP). Petitioner alleged a number of shortcomings related to climate change, including that the CAP \u201cdid not accurately account for current or projected future emissions\u201d or \u201cadequately provide for emission reduction goals and energy conservation opportunities.\u201d Petitioner also alleged that the Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report (SPEIR) did not comply with AB 32 (California\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions reductions law) and that it failed to ensure consistency with Executive Order S-3-05 (a precursor to AB 32 that set greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets). Petitioner also asserted that the SPEIR did not use proper criteria to assess climate change impacts, that it failed to consider health impacts related to climate change, and that the CAP was not a qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan under CEQA guidelines.<\/p>\n

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. 2014CH06608 (Ill. Cir. Ct., filed Apr. 16, 2014): added to the \u201cAdaptation\u201d slide. Insurance companies sued the water reclamation district for greater Chicago, Cook County, the City of Chicago and numerous other cities, towns, and villages in Illinois in a class action alleging that the municipalities\u2019 failures to implement reasonable stormwater management practices and increase stormwater capacity resulted in increased payouts to the plaintiffs\u2019 insureds after heavy rains in April 2013. The rains resulted in sewer water flooding the insureds\u2019 properties. Plaintiffs alleged that the rainfall was within the anticipated 100-year rainfall return frequency\u2014or, alternatively, that it was within the climate change-adjusted 100-year rainfall return frequency predicted by the 2008 Chicago Climate Action Plan. They asserted claims of negligent maintenance liability, failure to remedy known dangerous conditions, and takings without just compensation.<\/p>\n

Mississippi Insurance Department v. United States Department of Homeland Security<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No.\u00a01:13-cv-379-LG-JMR (S.D. Miss. Apr. 14, 2014): added to the \u201cAdaptation\u201d slide. After President Obama signed legislation\u2014The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014,\u00a0Pub. L. No. 113-89<\/a>\u2014in March 2014 rolling back flood insurance reform measures enacted in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2012, the Mississippi Insurance Department filed a notice of voluntary dismissal to withdraw its lawsuit challenging flood insurance rate increases. The dismissal is without prejudice, and the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner said that the agency would refile the lawsuit if implementation of the new legislation does not address affordability concerns.<\/p>\n

Communities for a Better Environment v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No. CPF-14-513557 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Mar. 27, 2014): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide. Environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court challenging the granting by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) of a permit to Kinder Morgan to conduct crude-by-rail operations. The organizations allege that the Kinder Morgan operations will bring North Dakotan Bakken crude oil to Bay Area refineries in the same types of rail cars that were involved in the explosive train derailment in Qu\u00e9bec in July 2013. They allege that the BAAQMD permit was issued in a \u201cclandestine\u201d manner \u201cwithout any notice or public process whatsoever.\u201d They claim that BAAQMD \u201ceschewed\u201d its CEQA obligations by designating the project as \u201cministerial\u201d and thereby failed to consider a number of impacts, including significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n

International Center for Technology Assessment v. Council on Environmental Quality<\/a><\/i><\/b>, No.\u00a01:14-cv-00549 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 2, 2014): added to the \u201cForce Government to Act\/Other Statutes\u201d slide. Two non-profit organizations filed an action in the federal district court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to respond to a 2008\u00a0petition<\/a>\u00a0in which plaintiff International Center for Technology Assessment asked CEQ to require consideration of climate change impacts in environmental review documents prepared to comply with NEPA. The complaint alleged that while CEQ published\u00a0draft guidance<\/a>\u00a0in 2010 that would affirm that agencies must consider climate change impacts in their NEPA reviews, CEQ never finalized the guidance or otherwise \u201cformally responded\u201d or took \u201cmeaningful action\u201d in response to the 2008 petition. Plaintiffs claim that this lack of response violated the Administrative Procedure Act.<\/p>\n

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

Sustainable Shetland v. Scottish Minister<\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00a0(<\/b>Outer House, Court of Session [2013] CSOH 158 (United Kingdom))<\/b>Sustainable Shetland challenged the Scottish Minister\u2019s approval of an application by Viking Energy for the construction and operation of a 457 megawatt Wind Farm on a number of grounds. In granting the application, the Scottish Ministers had determined that the advantages of meeting renewable energy and climate change goals and economic impacts outweighed negative consequences. The court accepted Sustainable Shetland\u2019s argument that the Scottish Ministers had no power under the Energy Power Act 1989 to grant the consent because Viking Energy did not yet hold an electricity generation license. In addition, the court found that the Ministers had failed to take proper account of their obligations under the Wild Birds Directive 2009.—<\/b>Added to \u201cRenewable Projects\u201d slide.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Update #62 May 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 May 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-2586","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nMay 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\/05\/07\/may-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=\"May Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Update #62 May 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 May 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\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-05-07T14:33:46+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=\"13 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\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Shelley Welton\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be\"},\"headline\":\"May Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-05-07T14:33:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2696,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-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\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\",\"name\":\"May 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\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/gavel-300x199.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-05-07T14:33:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2014\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-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\\\/05\\\/07\\\/may-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\":\"May 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":"May 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\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"May Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Update #62 May 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 May 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\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2014-05-07T14:33:46+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"},"author":{"name":"Shelley Welton","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/d96b7333fc81bff00148b58154d8d9be"},"headline":"May Updates to the Climate Litigation Charts","datePublished":"2014-05-07T14:33:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"},"wordCount":2696,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-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\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","name":"May 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\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2013\/12\/gavel-300x199.jpg","datePublished":"2014-05-07T14:33:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-updates-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2014\/05\/07\/may-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\/05\/07\/may-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":"May 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\/2586","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=2586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}