{"id":3922,"date":"2015-12-08T09:38:06","date_gmt":"2015-12-08T14:38:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=3922"},"modified":"2015-12-08T09:38:06","modified_gmt":"2015-12-08T14:38:06","slug":"december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"December 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Charts"},"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 <\/strong>U.S. Climate Case Chart<\/strong><\/a> (Update #81).<\/strong><\/p>\n

FEATURED CASE<\/p>\n

California Supreme Court Said Agency Had Not Provided Adequate Rationale for Determination That Development\u2019s Greenhouse Gas Impacts Would Be Insignificant<\/strong><\/p>\n

The California Supreme Court ruled that consistency with statewide emission reduction goals was a permissible criterion for determining the significance of a project\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, but found that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife had not supported its conclusion that a 12,000-acre development\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions would not have significant impacts. The court, reversing a decision by the Court of Appeal upholding the agency\u2019s review, also ruled against the agency on other aspects of its CEQA review. The court remanded to the Court of Appeal for a determination of the parameters of a writ of mandate to be issued. One justice dissented as to the conclusion that the agency had not supported its determination that there would not be significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts, while another justice dissented from the entire opinion.\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife<\/em><\/a>, No. S217763 (Cal. Nov. 30, 2015): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

Fourth Circuit Blocked Deposition of EPA Administrator in Coal Companies\u2019 Jobs Study Lawsuit<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 25, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to preclude Murray Energy Corporation (Murray Energy) from deposing her in its lawsuit seeking to compel EPA to undertake an evaluation of the Clean Air Act\u2019s impacts on employment pursuant to Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Fourth Circuit indicated that a \u201creasoned exposition\u201d of the basis for its order would follow \u201cshortly.\u201d Earlier in November, the federal district court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied EPA\u2019s motions for a\u00a0protective order<\/a>\u00a0and to\u00a0stay McCarthy\u2019s deposition<\/a>. The district court found that there were extraordinary circumstances justifying deposition of a high-ranking official because of the \u201cdivergent positions\u201d taken by EPA with respect to whether it had undertaken the employment study pursuant to Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. The court found that McCarthy had personal knowledge of the facts and that her \u201capparent refusal\u201d to comply with Section 321(a) provided \u201csufficient prima facie evidence of wrongdoing such that the plaintiffs will be able to probe her deliberative processes.\u201d The district court also found that there was no viable alternative to the deposition of McCarthy. EPA\u00a0sought the writ of mandamus<\/a>prior to the district court\u2019s ruling on the motions, and\u00a0supplemented<\/a>\u00a0its arguments in support of granting the writ after the district court denied EPA\u2019s motions.\u00a0In re McCarthy<\/em><\/a>, No. 15-2390 (4th Cir. Nov. 25, 2015);\u00a0Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy<\/em><\/a>, No.\u00a05:14<\/span>-cv-00039 (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 12, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

D.C. Circuit Dismissed Challenge to EPA Grant of Waiver for California Tractor Trailer Regulations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a petition challenging EPA\u2019s granting to California of a waiver of federal preemption related to the State\u2019s tractor trailer emissions regulations. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition because the petitioner raised only a constitutional claim and did not address whether EPA\u2019s action was arbitrary or capricious. The court, which said the issues did not warrant a published opinion, said it was not determining whether it could decide a constitutional claim brought within a broader challenge to an EPA waiver determination.\u00a0Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, No. 14-1192 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 24, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Colorado Supreme Court Denied Governor\u2019s Petition in Dispute with Attorney General over Clean Power Plan Challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Colorado Supreme Court denied Governor John W. Hickenlooper\u2019s petition for a ruling requiring Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman to show cause regarding her authority to sue the federal government on behalf of the State without authorization from the governor. The governor filed the petition after the attorney general joined West Virginia and other states in their D.C. Circuit challenge to the Clean Power Plan. The governor and attorney general are elected separately. Governor Hickenlooper is a Democrat; Attorney General Coffman is a Republican. In its one-page order denying the governor\u2019s petition, the court said that the governor had an \u201cadequate alternative remedy.\u201d The granting of relief in an original proceeding in the Colorado Supreme Court requires that the case involve an extraordinary matter of public importance and that there be no adequate conventional appellate remedies. The governor had asked the court to declare that the governor has ultimate authority to determine whether the State will sue the federal government and that the attorney general must withdraw the State from the Clean Power Plan lawsuit. The petition also said that the attorney general\u2019s challenges of the federal \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule and federal regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands should be withdrawn. The petition asserted that the attorney general was without statutory, common law, or other authority to sue the federal government, that the lawsuits challenging the federal environmental laws were at odds with the attorney general\u2019s statutory obligations to be legal counsel to the State, and that the actions violated the Colorado Constitution, which the petition said grants the governor power to set executive department policy. On November 20, the attorney general responded, arguing that the Colorado Supreme Court should not invoke its \u201cextraordinary\u201d original jurisdiction to resolve \u201ca political disagreement between state officials of different parties.\u201d The attorney general contended that the governor was seeking to re-litigate issues that the court resolved 12 years earlier in a case where the attorney general sued to invalidate an act of the Colorado legislature. In that case, the attorney general said, the court ruled that the attorney general could independently seek judicial review on behalf of the people of the State.\u00a0Hickenlooper v. Coffman<\/em>, No. 2015 SA 296 (Colo.,\u00a0petition<\/a>\u00a0filed Nov. 4, 2015,\u00a0attorney general\u2019s brief<\/a>\u00a0Nov. 20, 2015,\u00a0order<\/a>Dec. 3, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\/Clean Power Plan\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Washington Court Said State\u2019s Ongoing Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Was Fulfilling Its Mandate to Protect Air Quality and Public Trust Resources<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Washington Superior Court issued a decision in which it affirmed that climate change affects public trust resources in the state, but ultimately held that the state was fulfilling its public trust obligations because it was engaged in rulemaking to establish more comprehensive greenhouse gas standards. The court said that Washington\u2019s current regulatory regime, which requires technological controls for a small number of sources but does not address greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, would not fulfill its statutory mandate under state air laws, a mandate that the court said must be understood in the context of the Washington State Constitution and the public trust doctrine. The court did not expand the definition of \u201cpublic trust resources\u201d protected under the Washington State Constitution to encompass the atmosphere. Instead, the court explained that climate change poses a threat to the state\u2019s navigable waters, a traditional public trust resource that the state has an obligation to protect from harm. The court concluded that the State was not acting arbitrarily and capriciously because it had commenced a rulemaking process, at the direction of the governor, to set a regulatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology<\/em><\/a>, No. 14-2-25295-1 (Wash. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2015): added to the \u201cCommon Law Claims\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

California Court of Appeal Said State Lands Commission Had to Consider Whether Sand Mining in San Francisco Bay Was Appropriate Use of Public Trust Resource, But Upheld CEQA Review<\/strong><\/p>\n

The California Court of Appeal ruled that the California State Lands Commission had complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it authorized continued dredge mining of sand from sovereign lands under the San Francisco Bay, but remanded to the commission for consideration of whether sand mining leases were a proper use of public trust property. The court\u2019s analysis of CEQA compliance did not address the environmental impact report\u2019s (EIR\u2019s) consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, but the court noted that the final EIR identified the selected alternative as environmentally preferable in part because not continuing the dredging likely would require the Bay Area construction industry to obtain sand from more distant locations, which would lead to increased air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0San Francisco Baykeeper v. California State Lands Commission<\/em><\/a>, No. A142449 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2015): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

California Appellate Court Said New Environmental Review Was Required for Affordable Housing Development Due to Deficient Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision that upheld a negative declaration prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Highland Park Transit Village Project in Los Angeles, a residential development composed of 20 condominiums and a 50-unit building for affordable housing. The appellate court found that the initial study prepared by the City of Los Angeles was inadequate because its discussion of greenhouse gas emissions did not comply with CEQA guidelines. The appellate court said that the study made no attempt to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, did not include qualitative analysis or performance-based standards, and did not support the effectiveness of a mitigation measure that required used of construction materials that contained no, or low levels of, volatile organic compounds.\u00a0Friends of Highland Park v. City of Los Angeles<\/em><\/a>, No. B261866 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2015): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

New York Attorney General Settled with Peabody Energy After Investigation of Company\u2019s Disclosures of Climate Policy Risks<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 8, Peabody Energy Corporation reached a settlement with the New York State Attorney General\u2019s Office (NYAG) in which the company agreed to revise its financial disclosures to reflect the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. The settlement followed an investigation by the NYAG concerning Peabody\u2019s disclosure of financial risks associated with climate change policies in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The NYAG found\u2014and Peabody neither admitted nor denied\u2014that Peabody had repeatedly denied its ability to reasonably predict the potential impacts of climate change policies on future operations, financial conditions, and cash flows, while at the same time making market projections about the impact of future climate change policies, some of which concluded that regulatory actions could have a severe negative impact on Peabody\u2019s future financial condition. The NYAG also found that Peabody misrepresented findings and projections of the International Energy Agency regarding global coal demand in SEC filings and in communications to the investment community and general public. The NYAG concluded that Peabody had violated New York\u2019s Martin Act, which forbids financial fraud. In the assurance of discontinuance of the investigation, Peabody agreed to add specific language on climate policy risks in its next quarterly report and to acknowledge potential effects of climate regulation on demand for Peabody\u2019s products and securities.\u00a0In re Peabody Energy Corp.<\/em><\/a>, Assurance No. 15-242 (N.Y. State Att\u2019y Gen. Nov. 8, 2015): added to the \u201cRegulate Private Conduct\u201d slide.
\n
\nNEW CASES, MOTIONS, AND NOTICES<\/p>\n

Additional Parties Joined Clean Power Plan Litigation; EPA Filed Opposition to Stay<\/p>\n

<\/strong>As of December 4, additional petitions challenging the final Clean Power Plan rule had been filed, bringing the total number of petitions challenging EPA\u2019s carbon dioxide emission standards for existing power plants to 28 and the total number of states challenging the rule to 27. All of the petitions have been consolidated under the captionWest Virginia v. EPA<\/em>. On December 3, 2015, EPA filed its brief opposing motions to stay the rule. EPA said that the petitioners were unlikely to succeed on the merits, arguing that its carbon dioxide emissions guidelines were within its authority and that it had not impinged on the regulatory turf of other federal agencies or the states. In addition, EPA said that neither the states nor the industry petitioners had shown a likelihood of irreparable injury, and that a stay would not be in the public interest because climate change was already affecting the national public health, welfare, and environment and because grid reliability and electricity rates were not threatened by the rule. A group of 18 states, joined by the District of Columbia and six municipalities, have moved to intervene on behalf of EPA, along with a number of other parties, including owners, developers, and operators of power plants; the municipally-owned utilities of Austin and Seattle; and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a utility that provides electricity and gas to northern and central California. In addition, two former EPA administrators\u2014William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA\u2019s first and fifth administrator, and William K. Reilly, who led the agency during President George H.W. Bush\u2019s administration\u2014sought to participate on EPA\u2019s behalf as amici curiae. Additional parties have also asked to intervene on behalf of the petitioners challenging the Clean Power Plan rule. On November 30, the D.C. Circuit extended the deadline for filing initial submissions and procedural motions fromNovember 30 to December 18<\/span>. The deadline for dispositive motions was extended to December 28. Additional petitions were also filed seeking review of EPA\u2019s carbon dioxide standards for new and modified power plants. The new petitioners, whose proceedings were consolidated with the one filed by North Dakota, included the coal company Murray Energy Corporation, the nonprofit group Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, and 23 states led by West Virginia (but not including Colorado, which had joined the West Virginia coalition in the challenge to the Clean Power Plan rule). Sixteen states and the District of Columbia and New York City moved to intervene on behalf of EPA in the challenge to the New Source Performance Standards.\u00a0<\/em>Links to all of these filings are available on the\u00a0climate litigation chart<\/a>.\u00a0West Virginia v. EPA<\/em>, Nos. 15-1363 et al. (D.C. Cir.);\u00a0North Dakota v. EPA<\/em>, Nos. 15-1381 et al.\u00a0(D.C. Cir.): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\/Clean Power Plan\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Group Asked Supreme Court to Require More EPA Rulemaking Post-UARG v. EPA<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation (Group) filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision on remand from the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA<\/em>. In April 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an order governing further proceedings in which it accepted EPA\u2019s view that\u00a0UARG v. EPA<\/em>\u00a0did not require EPA to start from scratch to establish a greenhouse gas permitting regime for stationary sources. The D.C. Circuit said that EPA should rescind its regulations requiring Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Title V permits solely based on a source\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions and that the agency should \u201cconsider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate in light of\u00a0UARG v. EPA<\/em>.\u201d In its petition for a writ of certiorari, the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group argued that EPA should be required to conduct new rulemaking if it wants to regulate greenhouse emissions from \u201canyway\u201d sources (i.e., sources that meet PSD and Title V emissions thresholds for other air pollutants) and that the D.C. Circuit should have vacated the existing regulations.\u00a0Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, No. 15-637 (U.S., filed Nov. 5, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to Federal Action\/Clean Air Act\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Group Alleged Los Angeles Failed to Comply with CEQA in Agreement to Open LAX to \u201cTransportation Network Companies\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/strong>An organization commenced a lawsuit challenging a licensing agreement approved by the City of Los Angeles that would allow the manager of the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to grant \u201cTransportation Network Companies\u201d such as Uber, Sidecar, and Lyft permits to conduct operations at LAX. The organization alleged that the City had violated CEQA by improperly using categorical exemptions to avoid environmental review. The organization said the categorical exemptions were not appropriate because the action would result in an increase in the use of vehicles not subject to clean fleet vehicle rules. Among the potential impacts alleged by the organization was a substantial increase in carbon monoxide emissions; the petition cited carbon monoxide\u2019s health effects, but also its \u201cimportant indirect effects on global warming\u201d due to its reaction in the atmosphere with hydroxyl radicals that would otherwise reduce the lifetimes of strong greenhouse gases such as methane.\u00a0Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion v. City of Los Angeles<\/em><\/a>, No. BS158633 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed Nov. 2, 2015): added to the \u201cState NEPAs\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

Ethanol Producer Challenged California\u2019s Readopted Low Carbon Fuel Standard<\/p>\n

<\/strong>An ethanol producer and a California resident filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court challenging the California Air Resources Board\u2019s (CARB\u2019s) re-adopted low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) regulation and related alternative diesel fuel regulations. The petitioners alleged that CARB failed to comply with its obligations under CEQA or with the terms of a peremptory writ of mandate issued by the California Superior Court in 2014 that ordered CARB to consider its 2009 LCFS regulation\u2019s potential adverse environmental effects of emissions of nitrogen oxides. The petitioners asserted a number of substantive CEQA violations. The petitioners also contended that CARB had failed to respond adequately to numerous environmental comments or to maintain a public rulemaking file, and that CARB had not complied with California\u2019s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.\u00a0POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board<\/em><\/a>, No. 15 CECG03380 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 30, 2015): added to the \u201cChallenges to State Action\u201d slide.<\/p>\n

New York Attorney General Issued Subpoena to Exxon Mobil Regarding Climate Disclosures<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 5, 2015, Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) confirmed that it had received a subpoena from the New York State Attorney General\u2019s Office related to the company\u2019s statements to investors and its board of directors regarding climate change risks and their consistency with the company\u2019s internal research. The subpoena reportedly seeks extensive financial records, emails, and other documents covering a 40-year period as part of an investigation that began a year earlier. The investigation is being conducted under the State\u2019s Martin Act, which forbids financial fraud and gives the State broad investigative powers. The investigation is also reported to be looking into whether Exxon violated state consumer protection laws. The subpoena itself is not publicly available, but reports on the subpoena are available in the\u00a0New York Times<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0Bloomberg Business<\/em><\/a>, andInsideClimate News<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/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 U.S. Climate Case […]<\/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":[9410,5680,5532,5673,9415,8460,9417],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3922","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-ceqr","7":"category-clean-energy","8":"category-climate-disclosures","9":"category-litigation","10":"category-coal","11":"category-epa","12":"category-state-law","13":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nDecember 2015 Update 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\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-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=\"December 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Charts - 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 U.S. Climate Case […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-12-08T14:38:06+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\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jessica Wentz\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/32e3a0482a78fd977239941012823bd4\"},\"headline\":\"December 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Charts\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-12-08T14:38:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3137,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"CEQR\",\"Clean Energy\",\"Climate Disclosures\",\"Climate Litigation\",\"Coal\",\"EPA\",\"State Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\",\"name\":\"December 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-12-08T14:38:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/12\\\/08\\\/december-2015-update-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\":\"December 2015 Update 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\\\/32e3a0482a78fd977239941012823bd4\",\"name\":\"Jessica Wentz\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/jwentz\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"December 2015 Update 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\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"December 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Charts - 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 U.S. Climate Case […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2015-12-08T14:38:06+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\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"},"author":{"name":"Jessica Wentz","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/32e3a0482a78fd977239941012823bd4"},"headline":"December 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Charts","datePublished":"2015-12-08T14:38:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"},"wordCount":3137,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"articleSection":["CEQR","Clean Energy","Climate Disclosures","Climate Litigation","Coal","EPA","State Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/","name":"December 2015 Update to the Climate Litigation Charts - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-12-08T14:38:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-to-the-climate-litigation-charts\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/12\/08\/december-2015-update-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":"December 2015 Update 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\/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\/3922","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=3922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}