{"id":3666,"date":"2015-10-09T09:09:42","date_gmt":"2015-10-09T14:09:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=3666"},"modified":"2015-10-09T09:09:42","modified_gmt":"2015-10-09T14:09:42","slug":"october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/","title":{"rendered":"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0non-U.S.<\/a>\u00a0climate litigation charts. \u00a0If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.<\/p>\n

Here are the additions to the\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>Climate Case Chart<\/strong><\/a>, Update #79 (October 5, 2015) <\/strong><\/p>\n

FEATURED DECISION<\/p>\n

D.C. Circuit Denied Stay of Clean Power Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied emergency petitions for extraordinary writ in which 15 states and Peabody Energy Corporation sought to prevent the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from moving forward with its Clean Power Plan. In early August, EPA released the prepublication version of the final Clean Power Plan rule, which regulates carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. EPA has submitted the final rule for publication in the\u00a0Federal Register<\/em>and believes that it will be published by the end of October. In denying the petitions, the D.C. Circuit said that the petitioners had not satisfied the \u201cstringent standards\u201d for staying agency action.\u00a0In re West Virginia<\/a><\/em>, No. 15-1277 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 9, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

D.C. Circuit Denied Rehearing of Challenge to Non-Final Clean Power Plan<\/p>\n

<\/strong>The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions in which states and other parties opposed to the Clean Power Plan sought rehearing of the court\u2019s June 2015 decision dismissing a challenge to the proposed plan on the ground that it was a non-final agency action. The court also denied the alternative relief sought by the petitioners, a stay of the mandate, which the parties argued would allow the court to vacate the June 2015 decision as \u201cacademic\u201d after EPA issues the final Clean Power Plan rule. The petitioners said a stay would be consistent with Judge Henderson\u2019s opinion concurring with the June 2015 decision, in which she said she believed the court could exercise jurisdiction but that the arguments were \u201call but academic,\u201d given that EPA would soon issue its final rule.\u00a0In re Murray Energy Corp.<\/em>, No. 14-1112 (D.C. Cir. petitions forrehearing<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0rehearing en banc<\/a>\u00a0denied Sept. 30, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Oregon Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to Oregon Low Carbon Fuel Mandate<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Oregon dismissed a challenge to an Oregon law and its implementing regulations that establish a low carbon transportation fuel mandate. The law requires a 10% decrease over 10 years in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels produced in or imported to Oregon. The court noted that the plaintiffs\u2019 dormant Commerce Clause discrimination claims were \u201clargely barred by on-point precedent\u201d\u2014the 2013 decision\u00a0Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey<\/em>, in which the Ninth Circuit rejected dormant Commerce Clause claims against California\u2019s low carbon fuel standard. The Oregon district court nonetheless addressed the discrimination claims and found that the plaintiffs had not stated claims that the Oregon low carbon fuel mandate would facially discriminate or that it would discriminate in purpose or effect against out-of-state fuels. The court also dismissed the claim that the Oregon law was extraterritorial regulation, rejecting plaintiffs\u2019 argument that their claim was different from the unsuccessful extraterritoriality claim in\u00a0Rocky Mountain Farmers Union\u00a0<\/em>because it was independently based on principles of interstate federalism, not just on the dormant Commerce Clause. The court also said that neither the Clean Air Act nor EPA\u2019s Reformulated Gasoline Rule expressly preempted the Oregon law. The court dismissed a conflict preemption claim as well, finding both that plaintiffs did not have prudential standing since they did not intend to produce or sell the type of fuel they alleged the Oregon law would bar and also that the allegations of conflicts with federal programs were implausible.\u00a0American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O\u2019Keeffe<\/em><\/a>, No.\u00a03:15<\/span>-cv-00467 (D. Or. Sept. 23, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to State Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Parties Agreed to Remedy for NEPA Violations in Approval of Mining Plan Modification<\/strong><\/p>\n

On September 14, 2015, the federal district court for the District of Colorado approved a joint proposed remedy submitted by the parties in a case in which WildEarth Guardians successfully alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with approvals of mining plan modifications. The remedy allowed Trapper Mining Inc. to continue mining activities subject to certain restrictions while the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) conducted a new NEPA analysis. The analysis \u201cwill be prospective and will analyze the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of currently proposed and future mining activities \u2026, as well as the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable impacts of any other actions or activities as may be appropriate or required by NEPA.\u201d In its May 2015 decision finding that OSMRE had violated NEPA, the court said that the agency was required to consider the impacts of coal combustion.\u00a0WildEarth Guardians v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement<\/a><\/em>, No.\u00a01:13<\/span>-cv-00518 (D. Colo. joint proposed remedy Sept. 10, 2015): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Federal Court Required NMFS to Explain Conclusion of No Short-Term Climate Impacts on Sea Turtles<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Columbia declined to vacate a biological opinion in which the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that the operation of seven fisheries would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment of loggerhead sea turtles. The court did, however, remand the matter to NMFS to address various concerns, including the short-term impacts of climate change on the loggerheads. The court said the biological opinion had described \u201cclear evidence that climate change is exerting significant environmental impacts right now,\u201d but had nevertheless concluded that climate change impacts on sea turtles in the short-term future would be negligible. The court required NMFS to provide an explanation of this conclusion. The court rejected most of plaintiff Oceana, Inc.\u2019s other arguments, including the argument that NMFS had failed to consider the long-term effects of climate change on the loggerheads.\u00a0Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker<\/a><\/em>, No. 12-cv-0041 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2015): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/Other Statutes\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

California Supreme Court to Consider CEQA Claims in Challenge to Los Angeles County Development; Court of Appeal Issued Third Decision Accepting Use of Business-as-Usual Emissions Baseline<\/strong><\/p>\n

In August, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the environmental review and land use approvals for a portion of Newhall Ranch, a major commercial and residential development in Los Angeles County. The court deferred briefing until after it renders a decision in\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife<\/em>, another case concerning Newhall Ranch in which the court is taking up the question of whether an agency conducting a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review may deviate from the existing conditions baseline and instead determine the significance of a project\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions by reference to a hypothetical higher \u201cbusiness-as-usual\u201d baseline. In the instant case, the California Court of Appeal upheld Los Angeles County\u2019s use of the business-as-usual baseline as well as other aspects of the environmental impact report and approvals in April 2015. In late September, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court\u2019s dismissal of claims in connection with environmental approvals for another section of Newhall Ranch known as Mission Village. As in\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Friends of the Santa Clara River v. County of Los Angeles<\/em>, the court was not persuaded by claims that it was legally impermissible for the environmental review to compare the project\u2019s emissions with emissions under a business-as-usual scenario. The petitioners\u00a0indicated<\/a>\u00a0that they would ask the California Supreme Court to hear this case.\u00a0California Native Plant Society v. County of Los Angeles<\/a><\/em>, No. B258090 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015);\u00a0Friends of the Santa Clara River v. County of Los Angeles<\/em><\/a>, No. S226749 (Cal. Aug. 19, 2015): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

California Appellate Court Upheld San Diego County\u2019s Determination That Wind Energy Program\u2019s Benefits Outweighed Its Impacts<\/strong><\/p>\n

The California Court of Appeal upheld a final environmental impact report and amendments to a general plan and zoning ordinance related to wind turbines in San Diego County. One claim rejected by the court was that the County\u2019s Board of Supervisors\u00a0 had not provided sufficient support for the conclusion that the wind energy project\u2019s benefits would outweigh its significant environmental impacts. The Board identified four categories of benefits in its \u201cstatement of overriding considerations,\u201d one of which was energy and greenhouse gas reductions. The petitioners\u2019 claims were primarily focused on other purported benefits; the court found that petitioners\u2019 had failed to show that substantial evidence did not support the Board\u2019s findings regarding the benefits.Backcountry Against Dumps v. San Diego County Board of Supervisors<\/a><\/em>, No. D066135 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2015): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

EPA Denied Petition for TSCA Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

EPA denied a rulemaking petition seeking regulation of carbon dioxide emissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Center for Biological Diversity and a retired EPA scientist had sought action by EPA, citing harms posed by carbon dioxide emissions, including ocean acidification. EPA acknowledged the impacts of carbon emissions on ocean acidification and marine ecosystems, but found that the petitioners had not supplied sufficient or specific enough information to make the \u201cunreasonable risk\u201d risk finding necessary to regulate under Section 6 of TSCA. In addition, EPA found that addressing carbon dioxide emissions under authorities other than TSCA would be more efficient and effective. EPA also found that there was insufficient information to require testing under TSCA Section 4 to determine whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions present an unreasonable risk.\u00a0Letter from EPA to Center for Biological Diversity and Donn J. Viviani<\/a>\u00a0(Sept. 25, 2015) andPrepublication Copy of Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Ocean Acidification; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response<\/a>\u00a0(signed Sept. 25, 2015): added to the \u201cForce Government Action\/Other Statutes\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

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

Oklahoma Withdrew Tenth Circuit Appeal of Dismissal of Clean Power Plan Lawsuit<\/strong><\/p>\n

Oklahoma filed a consent motion in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for voluntary dismissal of its appeal of a federal district court\u2019s dismissal of its challenge to the proposed Clean Power Plan. Oklahoma indicated that because the Tenth Circuit had denied its request for a stay pending appeal, EPA would formally promulgate the final Clean Power Plan in the next several months. Oklahoma said that final promulgation of the rule would deprive the Tenth Circuit of continuing jurisdiction since the Clean Air Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to final rules in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.Oklahoma v. McCarthy<\/a><\/em>, No. 15-5066 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Manufacturers Challenged New EPA Restrictions on Hydrofluorocarbons<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two chemical manufacturers and a manufacturer of composite preform products used in the marine and transportation industries filed petitions in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of EPA\u2019s final rule prohibiting or restricting use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under its Significant New Alternatives Policy program for replacing ozone-depleting substances under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The final rule changed the status of certain HFCs and HFC blends for end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and air conditioning sectors based on their high global warming potential. EPA determined that alternatives were available or potentially available that posed a lower overall risk to human health and the environment. On September 23, the D.C. Circuit consolidated the three cases.\u00a0Compsys, Inc. v. EPA<\/a><\/em>, No. 15-1334 (D.C. Cir., filed Sept. 18, 2015);\u00a0Arkema Inc. v. EPA<\/a><\/em>, No. 15-1329 (D.C. Cir., filed Sept. 17, 2015);\u00a0Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA<\/a><\/em>, No. 15-1328 (D.C. Cir., filed Sept. 17, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Lawsuit Alleged That Federal Government Should Address Climate Impacts of Coal Mining Plans<\/strong><\/p>\n

WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Colorado alleging that the federal government improperly approved mining plans for the development of federally owned coal in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. More generally, WildEarth Guardians accused the Secretary of the Interior, the Department of the Interior, and the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement of engaging in an \u201congoing pattern and practice of uninformed decisionmaking.\u201d The complaint included seven claims for relief under NEPA, including failure to consider direct, indirect, and cumulative climate impacts resulting from mining, burning, and transporting coal, and failure to consider the climate impacts of similar and cumulative actions. WildEarth Guardians contended that the defendants should have used the social cost of carbon protocol to address the costs of reasonably foreseeable carbon dioxide emissions.\u00a0WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell<\/a><\/em>, No.\u00a01:15<\/span>-cv-02026 (D. Colo.,\u00a0filed<\/a>\u00a0Sept. 15, 2015): added the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

WildEarth Guardians Challenged Lease Approval for Utah Coal Mine<\/strong><\/p>\n

WildEarth Guardians filed a petition for review in the federal district court for the District of Colorado, seeking to vacate federal approvals of a lease to expand and extend the life of the Skyline Mine, an underground coal mine in Utah. WildEarth Guardians alleged that the United States Bureau of Land Management, which issued the lease, and the United States Forest Service, which consented to the lease\u2019s issuance, had not complied with NEPA or the Mineral Leasing Act. WildEarth Guardians alleged that the agencies\u2019 environmental review relied on an analysis that was 15 years old, and had failed to consider air quality and climate impacts, including climate impacts associated with coal mining, transport, and burning. The organization also alleged that the agencies had failed to consider costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions and had failed to consider cumulative climate impacts of similar mining approvals and proposals.\u00a0WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell<\/a><\/em>, No. 15-cv-1984 (D. Colo.,\u00a0filed<\/a>\u00a0Sept. 11, 2015): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Environmental Groups Mounted CEQA Challenge to Logistics Center<\/p>\n

<\/strong>Five environmental groups commenced a lawsuit against the City of Moreno Valley, California, alleging that it failed to comply with CEQA when it approved the World Logistics Center Project. The groups alleged that the project would cover 2,610 acres and more than 40 million square feet, which would make the warehouse complex larger than Central Park in New York City. The groups alleged numerous procedural and substantive failures in the City\u2019s CEQA review, including that the final environmental impact report (EIR) failed to analyze and mitigate mobile source greenhouse gas emissions based on the allegedly faulty premise that such emissions are capped by California law.\u00a0Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley<\/a><\/em>, No. RIC1511327 (Cal. Super. Ct.,\u00a0filed<\/a>\u00a0Sept. 23, 2015): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs Added Climate Change NEPA Claim to Chukchi Sea Lease Sale Challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and a supplemental complaint in their challenge in the federal district court for the District of Alaska to the second supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for an oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast. The plaintiffs, which are environmental groups and Alaskan communities, added a new count alleging that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management\u2019s (BOEM\u2019s) failure to analyze the climate change effects of the consumption of oil and gas from the lease sale in the second SEIS violated NEPA. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs contended that advances had been made since preparation of earlier environmental analyses that would allow the agency to assess the impacts of oil and gas extraction on climate change based on \u201can overall atmospheric \u2018carbon budget.\u2019\u201d The plaintiffs said that BOEM had improperly concluded that it could not perform an assessment of whether the lease sale would affect energy markets and consumer behavior, and had also improperly concluded that NEPA did not require it to consider climate impacts of burning lease sale fuels.Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell<\/em>, No.\u00a01:08<\/span>-cv-00004 (D. Alaska\u00a0third supplemental complaint<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0opening brief<\/a>\u00a0Aug. 28, 2015): added to the \u201cStop Government Action\/NEPA\u201d slide.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Environmental Groups Threatened Lawsuit Over Corps of Engineers Permits for Virginia Oil Terminal<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club sent a request for reevaluation and 60-day notice of intent to sue to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in connection with permits issued by the Corps for an oil transport facility in Yorktown, Virginia. The letter asked the Corps to reevaluate the granting of permits under the River and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act. The organizations said that the Corps had failed to consider certain information in its \u201cpublic interest review,\u201d including threats posed by rising sea levels. The organizations also asserted that the Corps violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding potential effects of the agency action on the endangered Atlantic sturgeon and Kemp\u2019s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles.\u00a0Letter from Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<\/a>\u00a0(Sept. 24, 2015): added to the \u201cAdaptation\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

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

Court Ruled Against Pakistani Government for Failure to Implement Climate Policy, Created Climate Change Commission<\/p>\n

<\/strong>An appellate court in Pakistan granted the claims of Ashgar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer, who had sued the national government for failure to carry out the 2012 National Climate Policy and Framework. On September 4, 2015 the court, citing domestic and international legal principles, determined that \u201cthe delay and lethargy of the State in implementing the Framework offend the fundamental rights of the citizens.\u201d As a remedy, the court 1) directed several government ministries to each nominate \u201ca climate change focal person\u201d to help ensure the implementation of the Framework, and to present a list of action points by\u00a0December 31, 2015<\/span>; and 2) created a Climate Change Commission with representatives of key ministries, NGOs, and technical experts. On September 14 the court issued a supplemental decision naming 21 individuals to the Commission and vesting it with various powers.\u00a0Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan<\/em>\u00a0(Lahore High Court Green Bench, 2015).<\/p>\n

Petition Sought Investigation of Major Emitters for Alleged Human Rights Violations
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Greenpeace Southeast Asia and numerous other organizations and individuals filed a petition asking the Commission to investigate a general issue\u2014\u201cthe human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification and the resulting rights violations in the Philippines\u201d\u2014and a more specific one\u2014\u201cwhether the investor-owned Carbon Majors have breached their responsibilities to respect the rights of the Filipino people.\u201d The core factual allegation of the petition draws on research identifying particular entities\u2019 quantum of responsibility for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions since 1751. The petition names 50 of those entities, all publicly traded corporations, as respondents. It identifies multiple sources of human rights, but draws most heavily on the UN Human Rights Commission\u2019s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.\u00a0In re Greenpeace Southeast Asia et al.<\/em>, CHR Case No. 2015-__ (Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, 2015).
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our\u00a0U.S.\u00a0and\u00a0non-U.S.\u00a0climate litigation charts. \u00a0If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com. Here are the additions to the\u00a0Climate Case Chart, Update […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1403,"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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3666","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nOctober 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart - 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\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our\u00a0U.S.\u00a0and\u00a0non-U.S.\u00a0climate litigation charts. \u00a0If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com. Here are the additions to the\u00a0Climate Case Chart, Update […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-10-09T14:09:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jessica Wentz\" \/>\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=\"Jessica Wentz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 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\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jessica Wentz\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/32e3a0482a78fd977239941012823bd4\"},\"headline\":\"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-09T14:09:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3152,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/\",\"name\":\"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-09T14:09:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/09\\\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart\"}]},{\"@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\\\/32e3a0482a78fd977239941012823bd4\",\"name\":\"Jessica Wentz\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/jwentz\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart - 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\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our\u00a0U.S.\u00a0and\u00a0non-U.S.\u00a0climate litigation charts. \u00a0If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com. Here are the additions to the\u00a0Climate Case Chart, Update […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2015-10-09T14:09:42+00:00","author":"Jessica Wentz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jessica Wentz","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/"},"author":{"name":"Jessica Wentz","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/32e3a0482a78fd977239941012823bd4"},"headline":"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart","datePublished":"2015-10-09T14:09:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/"},"wordCount":3152,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/","name":"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-10-09T14:09:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/10\/09\/october-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-chart\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"October 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Chart"}]},{"@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\/32e3a0482a78fd977239941012823bd4","name":"Jessica Wentz","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/jwentz\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3666","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\/1403"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}