{"id":6642,"date":"2019-12-06T11:52:32","date_gmt":"2019-12-06T16:52:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=6642"},"modified":"2021-02-09T11:52:10","modified_gmt":"2021-02-09T16:52:10","slug":"december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

By Margaret Barry and Hillary Aidun<\/em><\/p>\n

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@gmail.com.<\/p>\n

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE\u00a0CLIMATE\u00a0CASE\u00a0CHART<\/a>\u00a0SINCE UPDATE # 128.<\/strong><\/p>\n

FEATURED CASE<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Denied Publishers\u2019 Petitions in Climate Scientist\u2019s Defamation Case; Alito Issued Written Dissent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court denied two petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of a D.C. Court of Appeals decision that allowed climate scientist Michael Mann to proceed with a defamation lawsuit against the authors and publishers of articles attributing scientific misconduct to Mann. Justice Alito issued a written dissent asserting that the questions raised by the petitioners \u201cgo to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press: the protection afforded to journalists and others who use harsh language in criticizing opposing advocacy on one of the most important public issues of the day.\u201d Alito wrote that one of the questions raised\u2014whether a court or a jury should determine the truth of allegedly defamatory statements\u2014was a \u201cdelicate and sensitive\u201d question that \u201chas serious implications for the right to freedom of expression,\u201d especially given the \u201chighly technical\u201d matter at issue in this case and the \u201cintense feelings\u201d that the issue of climate change arouses in the jury pool. Alito also said the petitioners raised the \u201cvery important question\u201d of where to draw the line between \u201ca pungently phrased expression of opinion regarding one of the most hotly debated issues of the day\u201d (which Alito said would be protected by the First Amendment and \u201ca statement that is worded as an expression of opinion but actually asserts a fact that can be proven in court to be false\u201d (which the First Amendment would not protect). Alito noted that he recognized that the D.C. court\u2019s decision was \u201cinterlocutory\u201d and that an ultimate outcome adverse to the petitioners could be reviewed later, but he said requiring a \u201cfree speech claimant to undergo a trial after a ruling that may be constitutionally flawed is no small burden.\u201d National Review, Inc. v. Mann<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-1451 (U.S. Nov. 25, 2019); Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-1477 (U.S. Nov. 25, 2019).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

D.C. Circuit Declined to Expedite or Stay Challenges to ACE Rule<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 22, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to expedite pending challenges to the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which repealed and replaced the Obama administration\u2019s Clean Power Plan. The D.C. Circuit said the respondents had not \u201carticulated \u2018strongly compelling\u2019 reasons that would justify expedition.\u201d The court also denied motions by the Environmental and Public Health Petitioners and the State and Municipal Petitioners to hold the cases in abeyance pending the resolution of the petitioners\u2019 requests for administrative reconsideration. (The Environmental and Public Health Petitioners also argued that the cases should be held in abeyance until EPA finalized its proposal to relax the application of New Source Review (NSR) requirements; the petitioners argued that EPA\u2019s anticipated finalization of the NSR regulations would be \u201chighly disruptive\u201d to the litigation because it would alter essential aspects of the ACE rule, including costs, emissions consequences, and sources\u2019 expected responses.) The D.C. Circuit also denied a motion by the Biogenic CO2 Coalition to sever its case\u2014which solely raised the issue of EPA\u2019s regulation of emissions from agricultural biomass feedstocks\u2014and hold the case in abeyance pending EPA\u2019s \u201cforthcoming\u201d administrative resolution of biogenic emissions issues. The court directed the parties to submit a proposed format for briefing within 30 days. Earlier in November, the D.C. Circuit granted Nevada\u2019s motion for voluntary dismissal and granted pending motions to intervene. American Lung Association v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, Nos. 19-1140 et al. (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 2019).<\/p>\n

D.C. Circuit Dismissed Challenge to Renewable Fuel Small Refinery Exemption Criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an unpublished judgment, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a proceeding challenging EPA\u2019s apparent modification of the criteria for a \u201csmall refinery\u201d exemption from Renewable Fuel Program requirements. The court found that the petitioner\u2014a biofuels trade group\u2014failed to identify a final agency action at the time the petition was filed in May 2018. The court indicated that \u201cEPA\u2019s briefing and oral argument paint a troubling picture of intentionally shrouded and hidden agency law that could have left those aggrieved by the agency\u2019s actions without a viable avenue for judicial review\u201d but concluded that it was not necessary to determine \u201cwhether or how an ongoing pattern of genuinely secret law might be challenged\u201d because EPA had publicly issued a memorandum in August 2019 that announced a new decisional framework for exemptions. Advanced Biofuels Association v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-1115 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2019).<\/p>\n

Colorado Federal Court Enjoined Implementation of Coal Mining Plan During Further Analysis of Methane Flaring Alternative<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Colorado enjoined a coal mining company from proceeding with a mining plan in Colorado until further analysis was conducted regarding a methane flaring alternative and potential impacts to perennial streams. The court found that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) acted arbitrarily and capriciously in recommending approval of the mining plan based on other agencies\u2019 environmental analysis documents. First, the court found that methane flaring was a reasonable alternative and that the federal agencies were required to consider it since no agency reasonably concluded it was infeasible. (The court also concluded as a threshold matter that the plaintiffs were not precluded based on litigation challenging other agency approvals related to the mine from making their argument regarding the methane flaring alternative. The court noted that the earlier litigation<\/a> concerned actions involving different agencies that took place years before the actions at issue in this case. The court further noted that the court in the earlier case did not find that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the methane flaring analysis was insufficient but only that the analysis had been reasonably postponed.) Second, the court rejected the plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the defendants failed to consider the project\u2019s cumulative climate change impacts in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The court said the plaintiffs waived this argument at the leasing stage and found that OSM could have reasonably concluded that the new information since the leasing stage did not significantly alter the analysis. Third, the court found that OSM should have given additional attention to impacts on perennial streams based on new information that \u201cserves to completely reverse\u201d the agency\u2019s previous conclusions. The court noted that the mining company had recently filed information about a potential methane flaring system for which it was seeking Mine Safety and Health Administration approval and that OSM had thereafter sought voluntary remand without vacatur so that it could prepare an environmental assessment to consider the methane flaring proposal. The court concluded, however, that it was necessary to enjoin further work pursuant to the mining plan because \u201cremand without vacatur or injunction would incentivize agencies to rubber stamp a new approval, rather than take a true and informed hard look.\u201d WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:19-cv-01920 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 2019).<\/p>\n

Rejecting Climate Change Concerns, Federal Court Declined to Question EPA\u2019s Remedy Selection at Superfund Site<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an order approving a consent decree that resolved federal government claims related to the cleanup of a Superfund site on the Atlantic coast of Georgia, the federal district court for the Southern District of Georgia was not persuaded by arguments that EPA\u2019s selected remedy of capping contaminated soils would not withstand flooding caused by hurricanes, tidal changes, and global warming. (This concern had been raised by amici curiae.) The court found that the record showed that EPA considered such concerns, and the court cited EPA\u2019s conclusion that the remedial measures provided a \u201clong-term effective remedy with a high degree of permanence and resiliency as required by the Climate Change Adaptation Implementation Plan of 2014.\u201d The court said it would not second-guess EPA technical judgments and found that the selection of the remedy was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. United States v. Hercules, LLC<\/em><\/a>, No. 2:18-cv-62 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 27, 2019).<\/p>\n

Montana and Trade Groups Allowed to Intervene in Challenge to Nationwide Permit that Authorized Keystone XL; Plaintiffs Moved for Summary Judgment<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Montana allowed the State of Montana and five trade groups to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\u2019 reissuance of Nationwide Permit 12 and the Corps\u2019 application of Nationwide Permit 12 to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline. The court found that Montana and the trade groups were not entitled to intervention as of right but allowed them to intervene permissively on a limited basis since their defenses shared a common issue of law or fact\u2014their \u201csignificant interest\u201d in defending the legality of Nationwide Permit 12\u2019s streamlined process for pipelines and other utility projects. On November 22, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their claims that reissuance of Nationwide Permit 12 and its application to Keystone XL violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Under NEPA, the plaintiffs argued that the Corps failed to evaluate the indirect and cumulative effects of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions caused by projects authorized under Nationwide Permit 12. Under the Endangered Species Act, the plaintiffs asserted that programmatic consultation was required because reissuance of Nationwide Permit 12 was clearly an agency \u201caction\u201d that \u201cmay affect\u201d and \u201cis likely to adversely affect\u201d listed species and critical habitat due in part to the permit\u2019s authorization of activities that cause indirect impacts associated with climate change. Northern Plains Resource Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<\/em><\/a>, No. 4:19-cv-00044 (D. Mont. order granting intervention Nov. 7, 2019; motion for partial summary judgment Nov. 22, 2019).<\/p>\n

California Federal Court Denied EPA Request to Vacate Deadlines for Landfill Emission Guidelines<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the Northern District of California denied EPA\u2019s motion for relief from the court\u2019s order and judgment setting a schedule for EPA to implement landfill emission guidelines adopted in August 2016. EPA sought relief from the court\u2019s deadlines after the agency amended its regulations to extend the deadlines for states and EPA to take action. The court rejected EPA\u2019s request, finding that that EPA had amended its regulations only to reset its non-discretionary deadline, not to rectify any violation identified by the court, and that enforcement of the original judgment was still equitable. California v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-cv-03237 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019).<\/p>\n

Federal Court Denied Center for Biological Diversity Request to Intervene in Defense of California County\u2019s Denial of Oil Facility Permits<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the Northern District of California denied Center for Biological Diversity\u2019s (CBD\u2019s) motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Alameda County\u2019s decision not to renew conditional use permits for continued operation of an oil extraction and production facility in the City of Livermore. CBD argued that its \u201csubstantial involvement\u201d in the matter\u2014including its administrative appeal, which led to the County\u2019s denial of the permits\u2014gave it a significantly protectable interest in the litigation. In addition, CBD asserted a significantly protectable interest in \u201cadvancing its longstanding organizational mission to protect the environment and combat climate change.\u201d Although the court agreed that CBD had a significantly protectable interest, the court found that CBD had not demonstrated that the County would not adequately represent CBD\u2019s interests. The court also found that efficient resolution of the dispute outweighed the benefits of permissive intervention. E&B Natural Resources Management Corp. v. County of Alameda<\/em><\/a>, No. 4:18-cv-05857 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019).<\/p>\n

Federal Court Declined to Put Case Concerning Lobster Fishery and Endangered Right Whales on Hold<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Columbia denied the National Marine Fisheries Service and other federal defendants\u2019 (NMFS\u2019s) motion to stay a lawsuit challenging the management of the American lobster fishery. Plaintiffs asserted that the federal defendants failed to adequately address the fishery\u2019s impacts on the endangered North American right whale, including by failing to consider cumulative effects of climate change. NMFS argued that the case should be stayed because its pending promulgation of two conservation measures would moot the claims, but the court found that NMFS had not shown a compelling need for a stay. The court decided that the case should proceed \u201cbecause harm to a critically endangered species hangs in the balance.\u201d Center for Biological Diversity v. Ross<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:18-cv-00112 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2019).<\/p>\n

South Dakota Agreed Not to Enforce Provisions of Riot Boosting Act<\/strong><\/p>\n

A month after a federal court in South Dakota blocked the State from enforcing provisions of a riot boosting statute, the State and plaintiffs reached a settlement pursuant to which the State agreed not to enforce the provisions that the court temporarily enjoined. The plaintiffs had alleged that the statute had been passed in anticipation of possible protests by environmental activists along the route of the Keystone XL pipeline. Dakota Rural Action v. Noem<\/em><\/a>, No. 5:19-cv-05026 (D.S.D. Oct. 24, 2019).<\/p>\n

Federal Government Agreed to Take Actions Under Endangered Species Act to Resolve Lawsuit that Sought Action on Six Climate-Threatened Species<\/strong><\/p>\n

Center for Biological Diversity and U.S. Department of the Interior defendants reached an agreement that resolved CBD\u2019s lawsuit that sought to compel action under the Endangered Species Act with respect to 24 species, including six species that CBD identified in its complaint as threatened by climate change. Pursuant to a stipulated settlement agreement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must abide by a schedule for making 12-month findings as to whether listing is warranted for nine species, final listing determinations for two species, proposed critical habitat designations for four species, and final critical habitat designations for two species. The agreement provides that any challenges to final determinations made in accordance with the agreement must be filed in separate actions. Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:19-cv-01071 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 2019).<\/p>\n

California Appellate Court Upheld Greenhouse Gas Analysis for Sacramento\u2019s 2035 General Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a petition challenging the City of Sacramento\u2019s 2035 General Plan and the related environmental impact report. Among other things, the appellate court rejected the petitioner\u2019s \u201cunsupported and undeveloped arguments\u201d that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was based on faulty traffic analyses and therefore deficient. The appellate court also was not persuaded by the argument that the City did not support its rejection of a no-action alternative\u2014i.e., the 2030 General Plan. The appellate court noted that the City rejected the no-action alternative as infeasible because it did not advance some City objectives (such as inclusion of the City\u2019s 2012 climate action plan), had greater impacts than the 2035 General Plan (including greenhouse gas and climate change impacts), and would not avoid any significant impacts associated with the 2035 General Plan. Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento<\/em><\/a>, No. C086345 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2019).<\/p>\n

Coal Companies and Coal Executive Dropped Appeal of Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Comedian<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 10, 2019, comedian John Oliver announced<\/a> on his television show that coal executive Robert E. Murray and related coal companies had withdrawn their appeal of the dismissal of their lawsuit against Oliver. The plaintiffs asserted claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that Oliver and the other defendants knowingly broadcast malicious statements that they knew to be false based on information provided by the plaintiffs. The allegedly defamatory statements included statements that Mr. Murray and his companies \u201cappear to be on the same side as black lung\u201d and that their position on a coal dust regulation was the equivalent of rooting for bees to kill a child, as well as a description of Mr. Murray as looking \u201clike a geriatric Dr. Evil.\u201d A West Virginia trial court dismissed the case in 2018, and an appeal had reportedly<\/a> been pending before the West Virginia Supreme Court for more than a year. Marshall County Coal Co.<\/em> v. Oliver<\/em><\/a>, No. __ (W. Va. Nov. 10, 2019).<\/p>\n

Connecticut High Court Upheld Variances to Allow Rebuilding of Sea Cottage in Flood-Prone Area<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld variances granted for the reconstruction of a \u201csea cottage\u201d severely damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Because the cost of repairs exceeded 50% of the sea cottage\u2019s value, the reconstructed cottage was required to comply with certain current City of Stamford regulations for structures in flood-prone areas, including a minimum elevation requirement, even though the cottage was a legally nonconforming structure. To satisfy the elevation requirement, however, the owner had to obtain variances from building height and setback requirements. A neighbor challenged the variances. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with the cottage owner and the City of Stamford that the minimum flood elevation requirement applied even though the cottage was legally nonconforming, noting that the City had to impose a minimum standard of floodplain management regulation to be eligible for the National Flood Insurance Program. The court also cited the \u201ccrucial role\u201d that zoning regulations for flood-prone areas play in responding to the threat of coastal flooding, which would be exacerbated by climate change. The court further found that the cottage owner established the existence of an \u201cunusual hardship\u201d warranting approval of the height and setback variances because enforcement of the height and setback restrictions would have deprived the owner of his constitutionally protected right to continue using the cottage. Mayer-Wittmann v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford<\/em><\/a>, No. SC 19972 (Conn. Nov. 5, 2019).<\/p>\n

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

Ninth Circuit to Hear Oral Argument in February 2020 in California Local Government Climate Change Cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for the morning of Wednesday, February 5, 2020 for the appeals in California local governments\u2019 climate change cases against fossil fuel companies. By that time, two other federal courts of appeal will have heard arguments in cases involving municipal claims against fossil fuel companies. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on November 22 in New York City\u2019s appeal of a district court\u2019s dismissal of its lawsuit. The Fourth Circuit will hear oral argument on December 11 in fossil fuel companies\u2019 appeal of the remand order in Baltimore\u2019s case. (The federal district court in the Baltimore case lifted the stay on the remand order on November 12.) The Ninth Circuit cases concern (1) companies\u2019 appeals of remand orders sending six cases brought by California counties and cities back to state court and (2) Oakland and San Francisco\u2019s appeal of orders denying their motion to remand and dismissing their cases for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction over four of the companies. City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-16663 (9th Cir.); County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.<\/em><\/a>, Nos. 18-15499, 18-15502, 18-15503 (9th Cir.); City of New York v. BP p.l.c.<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-2188 (2d Cir.); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c.<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-1644 (4th Cir.).<\/p>\n

Opening Briefs Filed in First and Tenth Circuits Seeking Reversal of Remand Orders in Climate Change Cases Against Fossil Fuel Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fossil fuel companies argued in briefs to the First and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal that they had properly removed cases brought by the State of Rhode Island and Colorado municipal governments in which the plaintiffs seek to hold the companies liable for the impacts of climate change. The companies\u2019 opening briefs contended that the appellate courts had jurisdiction to review the entirety of the remand orders, not just the district courts\u2019 conclusions that the federal officer removal statute did not provide a basis for removal. The companies further argued that there were multiple grounds for removal, including that the plaintiffs\u2019 claims asserted injuries that were caused by nationwide (and worldwide) greenhouse gas emissions and therefore necessarily arose under federal, not state, common law. In addition, the companies argued that the presence of substantial, disputed federal questions invoked federal jurisdiction and that the cases were also subject to federal jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute, the federal bankruptcy statute (Rhode Island case only), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, federal enclave doctrine, and admiralty jurisdiction (Rhode Island case only), and due to complete preemption by the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed amicus briefs in the First and Tenth Circuit amplifying the companies\u2019 arguments that federal common law provided a basis for federal jurisdiction and that the appellate court could review the entirety of the remand orders. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-1330 (10th Cir. Nov 18, 2019); Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co.<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-1818 (1st Cir. Nov. 20, 2019).<\/p>\n

Opening Briefs in Ninth Circuit Said President Trump Had Authority to Reverse Obama\u2019s Withdrawal of Arctic and Atlantic Areas from Oil and Gas Leasing<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal government, State of Alaska, and American Petroleum Institute (API) filed briefs urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the District of Alaska\u2019s decision vacating President Trump\u2019s revocation of President Obama\u2019s withdrawals of areas in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans from oil and gas leasing. The federal brief argued that the plaintiffs had not satisfied threshold requirements for their suit, including standing, ripeness, a waiver of sovereign immunity, and the existence of a congressionally created cause of action. The federal brief also argued that the district court erred in concluding that President Trump\u2019s action exceeded his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which provides that the president \u201cmay, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.\u201d Alaska also argued that the district court erred in determining that President Trump lacked authority, contending that the district court\u2019s interpretation \u201cdistorts the meaning of the withdrawal provision of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and effectively allows a single president to nullify the Act and vitiate the Act\u2019s promises for the State of Alaska.\u201d API\u2019s brief also argued for a reading of the Act that gives the president \u201cbroad discretion over withdrawals,\u201d including authority to modify previous exercises of that discretionary authority. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-35460 (9th Cir. Nov. 7 and 22, 2019).<\/p>\n

Challenges to Withdrawal of California and Other States\u2019 Authority to Set Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Proceeded in D.C. Circuit and District Courts<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 15, 2019, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and the Cities of New York and Los Angeles filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal challenging EPA\u2019s withdrawal of the waiver allowing California to implement its greenhouse gas and zero emission vehicle program. The petition for review also included a protective petition challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration\u2019s (NHTSA\u2019s) related preemption of state programs regulating tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The states and municipalities previously filed a separate challenge to the NHTSA action in federal district court, which they believe has exclusive original jurisdiction to review the NHTSA preemption regulation. San Francisco, three air quality management districts in California, a group of power company and utility petitioners, and the National Coalition for Advanced Transportation\u2014a \u201ccoalition of companies and non-profit organizations that supports electric vehicle and other advanced transportation technologies and related infrastructure\u201d\u2014filed similar petitions for review. Advanced Energy Economy\u2014a \u201cnot-for-profit business association dedicated to making energy secure, clean, and affordable\u201d\u2014also filed a petition challenging the EPA action. (The California air quality management districts also filed a complaint in federal district court in D.C. seeking a declaration that the NHTSA preemption rule is invalid.) In addition, 11 environmental and citizen groups\u2014nine of which previously filed a protective petition challenging NHTSA\u2019s action\u2014filed a second petition for review challenging EPA\u2019s withdrawal of the waiver. All of the D.C. Circuit proceedings were consolidated, with Union of Concerned Scientists v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<\/em> as the lead case. The D.C. Circuit allowed groups representing auto manufacturers to intervene on behalf of the respondents. A group of 13 states, led by Ohio, has moved to intervene as respondents. Union of Concerned Scientists v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-1230 (D.C. Cir.); South Coast Air Quality Management District v. Chao<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:19-cv-03436 (D.D.C., filed Nov. 14, 2019).<\/p>\n

On December 3, 2019, NHTSA and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the district court cases challenging the preemption regulation. NHTSA argued that the Court of Appeals had exclusive jurisdiction to review the regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act claims related to the preemption regulations. NHTSA also argued that the D.C. Circuit should resolve any question as to whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acted outside its statutory authority in issuing the regulations. NHTSA said the district court should either dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction or transfer them to the D.C. Circuit. California v. Chao<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:19-cv-02826 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2019).<\/p>\n

Lawsuits Challenged Rule that Excluded Certain Lightbulbs from Scope of Energy Efficiency Standards <\/strong><\/p>\n

Two petitions for review were filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the U.S. Department of Energy\u2019s (DOE\u2019s) withdrawal of a final rule adopted in January 2017 that expanded the types of lightbulbs subject to backstop energy conservation standards that would take effect on January 1, 2020. DOE said the 2017 rule included certain \u201cgeneral service incandescent lamps\u201d as \u201cgeneral service lamps\u201d (the category of lightbulbs subject to the backstop standard) in a manner that was not consistent with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The first petition was filed by 15 states, New York City, and the District of Columbia. The second petition was filed by six organizations that included environmental, consumer, and public housing tenant groups. New York v. U.S. Department of Energy<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-3652 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019); Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Energy<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-3658 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019).<\/p>\n

Exxon Said Massachusetts Climate Change Enforcement Action Belonged in Federal Court<\/strong><\/p>\n

On November 29, 2019, Exxon Mobil Corporation removed Massachusetts\u2019s enforcement action alleging that Exxon misled investors and consumers regarding climate change risks and its products\u2019 impacts on climate change to federal district court in Massachusetts. Exxon contended that the Massachusetts attorney general\u2014in conjunction with \u201cplaintiffs\u2019 attorneys, climate activists, and special interests\u201d\u2014was engaged in a plan \u201cto force a political and regulatory agenda that has not otherwise materialized through the legislative process.\u201d Exxon said the enforcement action was not properly brought under state law and instead sought \u201cto wade into complex federal statutory, regulatory, and constitutional issues and frameworks, and to substitute one state\u2019s judgment for that of longstanding decisions by the federal government about national and international energy policy and environmental protection.\u201d Exxon asserted that it was necessary for the case to be heard in federal court because the Commonwealth\u2019s claims necessarily raised disputed and substantial issues concerning international climate change policy and the balance between environmental policy and economic development. In addition, Exxon argued that the case arose under federal common law because it was \u201cinherently premised on interstate pollution that causes environmental harm in the form of global warming\u201d and therefore implicated \u201cuniquely federal interests and should be governed by federal common law.\u201d In addition, Exxon said the case satisfied the requirements of the federal officer removal statute because federal officials directed Exxon to engage in the extraction and production of fossil fuels, the activities that \u201cconstitute the crux\u201d of the State\u2019s complaint. In addition, Exxon asserted that the case qualified for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act. Massachusetts v. Exxon Mobil Corp.<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:19-cv-12430 (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2019).<\/p>\n

Exxon Asked New York Trial Court to Reject Attorney General\u2019s Withdrawal of Fraud Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

After the New York attorney general\u2019s office said during closing arguments in its enforcement action against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) that it was abandoning two fraud counts, Exxon filed a post-trial motion opposing the request to discontinue the claims. Exxon said the attorney general\u2019s \u201clast-minute gambit to avoid judicial repudiation of its claims should not be countenanced\u201d because New York\u2019s procedural rules bar unilateral discontinuance of claims after the close of evidence and because any exercise of discretion by the court to permit the attorney general to discontinue the claims would be inappropriate. Exxon argued that without \u201cexpress acknowledgment\u201d that the evidence did not show the intent or reliance necessary for the fraud claims, Exxon \u201ccan never repair the reputational damage \u2026 inflicted on the Company and its employees\u201d or deter \u201ccopycat litigants\u201d from pursuing identical claims. If the court allowed the attorney general to withdraw the fraud claims, the two remaining claims would be a Martin Act securities fraud cause of action and a related claim under New York\u2019s Executive Law. Both sides filed post-trial memoranda and proposed findings of fact, with the attorney general arguing that the evidence proved that Exxon made \u201cmaterially misleading representations to its investors concerning its use of an internal cost of carbon to account for the likelihood of increasingly stringent climate regulations,\u201d while Exxon argued that the evidence showed that its disclosures were not materially misleading, particularly when viewed in the context of its financial statements, stock price, and analyst valuation and in light of investors\u2019 expectations regarding the climate risk information provided in response to investor requests. Exxon said the evidence showed that \u201creasonable investors would not have considered the disclosures at issue here to have significantly altered the total mix of information available.\u201d People v. Exxon Mobil Corp.<\/em><\/a>, No. 452044\/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 18, 2019).<\/p>\n

Lawsuit Filed Challenging EPA\u2019s Failure to Comply with NEPA and Endangered Species Act Before Granting Aquifer Exemption<\/strong><\/p>\n

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging EPA\u2019s granting of a Safe Drinking Water Act exemption that CBD alleged would allow the injection of oil and gas wastewater and other fluids in the Arroyo Grande Oil Field in San Luis Obispo County in California. CBD asserted that EPA failed to comply with NEPA and with the consultation requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. With respect to NEPA, CBD said the approval of the aquifer exemption was \u201cmajor Federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment by, among other things, expanding injections and oil production that could \u201cexacerbat[e] the climate crisis.\u201d Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, No. 3:19-cv-07664 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 21, 2019).<\/p>\n

Restaurant Industry Group Challenged Berkeley Ban on Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings<\/strong><\/p>\n

An association representing the restaurant industry in California challenged the City of Berkeley\u2019s ordinance banning natural gas infrastructure in new buildings beginning on January 1, 2020. The plaintiff asserted that both federal law (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act) and state law (the California Building Standards Code and the California Energy Code) preempted the ordinance. The plaintiff alleged that \u201c[w]ith millions of Californians sitting in the dark to avoid wildfires, and California\u2019s energy grid under historic strain, banning the use of natural gas is irresponsible and does little to advance climate goals.\u201d California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley<\/a><\/em>, No. 3:19-cv-07668 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 21, 2019).<\/p>\n

Lawsuit Said Federal Approval of Coal Mine Expansion Missed Opportunity to Plan for \u201cJust Transition\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Five organizations challenged federal approval of expansion of the Rosebud coal strip-mine in Colstrip, Montana. In a complaint filed in federal district court in Montana, the plaintiffs cited a \u201cwarning\u201d by the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences in 1973 regarding economic reliance on \u201cexploitation\u201d of coal and alleged that in approving an expansion of the mine, the federal defendants had \u201crefused to heed this warning and failed to use their considerable resources to outline what a just transition would look like in Colstrip.\u201d The plaintiffs asserted violations of NEPA, including failure to evaluate the greenhouse gas pollution from combustion of the mined coal despite monetizing the economic benefits of the mine expansion. The complaint also asserted that the defendants failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including a \u201cmiddle-ground alternative that involved mining less coal.\u201d The complaint said failure to consider such an alternative \u201cprecluded the agency from examining in detail any just transition alternative and increase[d] the likelihood that an abrupt \u2018bust\u2019 \u2026 will come to pass.\u201d Montana Environmental Information Center v. Bernhardt<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:19-cv-00130 (D. Mont., filed Nov. 18, 2019).<\/p>\n

Conservation Groups Launched New Challenge to Bull Trout Recovery Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Three conservation groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana to challenge the Bull Trout Recovery Plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2015. The plaintiffs previously challenged<\/a> the plan in the District of Oregon, which dismissed the case without prejudice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and in July 2019, the district court in Oregon denied a motion to amend the complaint but left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could file a new complaint. In the District of Montana complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that the recovery plan failed to incorporate objective and measurable recovery criteria and failed to incorporate recovery criteria that addressed Endangered Species Act delisting factors. The complaint alleged that \u201c[c]limate change has, and will continue to affect bull trout habitat,\u201d with changes including \u201cwarmer air and water temperatures and reduced stream flows\u201d that \u201cwill reduce available bull trout habitat, stress existing populations and allow more heat tolerant non-native species to out-compete bull trout.\u201d Save the Bull Trout v. Everson<\/a><\/em>, No. 9:19-cv-00184 (D. Mont., filed Nov. 18, 2019).<\/p>\n

Environmental Groups Cited Failure to Adequately Consider Wildlife Risk in Challenge to Land Management Project in Oregon<\/strong><\/p>\n

Four environmental groups challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management\u2019s (BLM\u2019s) approval of the first project prepared by the Lakeview District in the Klamath Falls Resource Area in Oregon under a 2016 resource management plan, which allowed additional timber harvest from BLM-managed lands in Oregon. The complaint, filed in federal court in Oregon, asserted that BLM failed to comply with NEPA. The plaintiffs also indicated that they planned to amend their complaint to add the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a defendant and an Endangered Species Act claim. The complaint\u2019s allegations included that BLM\u2019s environmental assessment failed to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the land management project on wildfire risk and also alleged that fire season in Oregon had grown \u201clonger and more unpredictable\u201d because \u201cthe effects of global climate change in the region is resulting in hotter, drier summers, and less snow accumulation during the winters.\u201d The complaint also alleged that BLM\u2019s consideration of impacts on northern spotted owls was inadequate. Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:19-cv-01810 (D. Or., filed Nov. 11, 2019).<\/p>\n

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Decision Not to List Joshua Tree as Threatened Species<\/strong><\/p>\n

WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Central District of California challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\u2019s (FWS\u2019s) decision not to list the Joshua tree as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that the Joshua tree\u2014\u201can icon of the Southern California desert\u201d\u2014faced eradication by the end of the century due to climate change and \u201cother often related and synergistic threats\u201d such as prolonged droughts, increasing fire, and habitat loss. WildEarth Guardians said FWS failed to adequately analyze and impermissibly dismissed these significant threats to habitat and also erroneously discounted and failed to adequately consider how the lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address climate change could impact the Joshua tree. In addition, the complaint asserted that FWS arbitrarily and capriciously found that Joshua trees were not threatened throughout a significant portion of their range and failed to use best available science by disregarding models that provided information on the future status of Joshua trees. WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt<\/a><\/em>, No. 2:19-cv-09473 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2019).<\/p>\n

Non-Profit Group Sought State Department Records on Treatment of Paris Agreement as Non-Treaty Agreement<\/strong><\/p>\n

A non-profit organization filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State seeking a response to requests for documents, memoranda, and emails related to the State Department\u2019s \u201cCircular 175\u201d analysis for determining whether an international agreement is a treaty. The plaintiff alleged that the records it sought would \u201cinform the public of the Department\u2019s \u2018working law\u2019 leading it to declare that the 2015 \u2018Paris climate agreement\u2019 \u2026 was, for U.S. purposes, not a treaty, but a mere \u2018agreement\u2019, despite Paris requiring ever-tightening constraints every five years in perpetuity or until the U.S. withdraws, and despite Paris otherwise being a treaty according to its duration, its lineage, international practice and U.S. custom and practice.\u201d The plaintiff said it had in its possession a document that purported to be the Circular 175 memorandum of law for the Paris Agreement. The plaintiff alleged that, if authentic, this document \u201crepresents a significant legal and political scandal\u201d because it misstated the history of agreements that supported its conclusion that the Paris Agreement was not a treaty. The plaintiff asserted that documents it sought from the State Department were the \u201conly means\u201d that would allow the public to evaluate the propriety of entering and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Energy Policy Advocates v. U.S. Department of State<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:19-cv-03307 (D.D.C., filed Nov. 3, 2019).<\/p>\n

Environmental Defense Fund Sought Documents on White House Climate Science Review Panel<\/strong><\/p>\n

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking \u201crecords relating to a White House effort to discredit established findings that climate change poses a national security threat to the United States.\u201d EDF alleged that it sent FOIA requests to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) after the Washington Post<\/em> and other media outlets reported in February 2019 that the White House was planning to convene a panel to \u201ctarget\u201d recent federal climate change studies, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment, and that representatives of the Interior Department, NOAA, and NASA had been invited to a February 22, 2019 meeting concerning the panel. Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of the Interior<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:19-cv-03286 (D.D.C., filed Oct. 31, 2019).<\/p>\n

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Colorado ZEV Program<\/strong><\/p>\n

An organization that described its membership as including individuals, businesses, local government representatives, and organizations throughout Colorado filed a lawsuit in Colorado state court challenging the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission\u2019s adoption of a modified version of California\u2019s zero emission vehicle (ZEV) program. The organization asserted that the Commission lacked authority to adopt ZEV regulations due to the federal withdrawal of California\u2019s waiver and that ZEV regulations were preempted due to NHTSA\u2019s adoption of regulations preempting state regulation of greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions. In addition, the organization said Colorado\u2019s ZEV regulations violated the Clean Air Act\u2019s requirement that standards be identical to California\u2019s. The organization also said the Commission violated the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act and the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act. Freedom to Drive Inc. v. Colorado Air Quality Control Commission<\/a><\/em>, No. 2019CV34156 (Colo. Dist. Ct., amended complaint filed Oct. 30, 2019).<\/p>\n

HERE IS A RECENT ADDITION TO THE NON-U.S. CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART.<\/strong><\/p>\n

NGOs Alleged Energy Company Failed to Consider Greenhouse Gases from Oil Project in Uganda <\/strong><\/p>\n

Six nongovernmental organizations have sued energy company Total in a French court over an oil project in Uganda and Tanzania. The plaintiffs allege that Total failed to adequately assess the project\u2019s threats to human rights and the environment.<\/p>\n

Under France\u2019s Duty of Vigilance Law, French companies must identify and prevent risks to human rights and the environment that could occur as a result of their business practices. In June 2019, Friends of the Earth France, Survie, AFIEGO, CRED, NAPE\/Friends of the Earth Uganda, and NAVODA sent Total a formal demand to revise its vigilance plan for the Tilenga Project, along with a report detailing alleged inadequacies in the vigilance plan. According to Friends of the Earth, the Tilenga Project includes plans to drill over 400 wells, extracting around 200,000 barrels of oil per day, and to construct a pipeline to transport the oil to Tanzania.<\/p>\n

Although the claimants\u2019 report focuses on human rights and conventional pollution, it also argues that Total\u2019s vigilance plan does not properly account for the project\u2019s potential life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. According to Friends of the Earth, after Total rejected the allegations following a three-month deadline, the complainants filed a proceeding with an \u201curgent applications\u201d judge, who will hold a hearing on January 8, 2020. Friends of the Earth et al. v. Total<\/em><\/a> (Naterre High Court).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Margaret Barry and Hillary Aidun 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@gmail.com. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE\u00a0CLIMATE\u00a0CASE\u00a0CHART\u00a0SINCE UPDATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1962,"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":[5680,5673,8451,8460,5671,9471],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6642","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-clean-energy","7":"category-litigation","8":"category-endangered-species","9":"category-epa","10":"category-international","11":"category-natural-resources","12":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nDecember 2019 Updates to the Climate Case 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\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Margaret Barry and Hillary Aidun 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@gmail.com. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE\u00a0CLIMATE\u00a0CASE\u00a0CHART\u00a0SINCE UPDATE […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-12-06T16:52:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-02-09T16:52:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tiffany Challe\" \/>\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=\"Tiffany Challe\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 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\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Tiffany Challe\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/971d4ee9ad0ccd9c94fcf47a1d546e28\"},\"headline\":\"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-12-06T16:52:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-02-09T16:52:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":6835,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Energy\",\"Climate Litigation\",\"Endangered Species\",\"EPA\",\"International\",\"Natural Resources\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\",\"name\":\"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-12-06T16:52:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-02-09T16:52:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/12\\\/06\\\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case 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\\\/971d4ee9ad0ccd9c94fcf47a1d546e28\",\"name\":\"Tiffany Challe\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/tchalle\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case 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\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"By Margaret Barry and Hillary Aidun 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@gmail.com. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE\u00a0CLIMATE\u00a0CASE\u00a0CHART\u00a0SINCE UPDATE […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2019-12-06T16:52:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-02-09T16:52:10+00:00","author":"Tiffany Challe","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Tiffany Challe","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/"},"author":{"name":"Tiffany Challe","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/971d4ee9ad0ccd9c94fcf47a1d546e28"},"headline":"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts","datePublished":"2019-12-06T16:52:32+00:00","dateModified":"2021-02-09T16:52:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/"},"wordCount":6835,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Clean Energy","Climate Litigation","Endangered Species","EPA","International","Natural Resources"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","name":"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-12-06T16:52:32+00:00","dateModified":"2021-02-09T16:52:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/12\/06\/december-2019-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"December 2019 Updates to the Climate Case 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\/971d4ee9ad0ccd9c94fcf47a1d546e28","name":"Tiffany Challe","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/tchalle\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6642","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\/1962"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}