{"id":7070,"date":"2020-10-20T13:00:13","date_gmt":"2020-10-20T18:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=7070"},"modified":"2020-10-20T13:00:13","modified_gmt":"2020-10-20T18:00:13","slug":"october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
\"\"<\/a>
Charleston, SC filed suit against fossil fuel companies alleging their responsibility for \u201cdevastating\u201d climate change impacts. (Source: Khanrak<\/a>)<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati<\/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 # 138.<\/strong><\/p>\n

FEATURED CASE<\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n

Federal Court in Rhode Island Allowed Failure-to-Adapt Claims to Proceed<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island for the most part denied a motion to dismiss a citizen suit asserting that Shell Oil Products US and other defendants (Shell) failed to prepare a terminal in Providence for the impacts of climate change. Although the court found that the plaintiff, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), lacked standing to the extent its claims relied on \u201cfuture harms,\u201d the court concluded that CLF had asserted \u201ccertainly impending harm\u201d as to \u201cnear-term harms from foreseeable weather events.\u201d In particular, the court found that the complaint \u201cmakes clear that a major weather event, magnified by the effects of climate change, could happen at virtually any time, resulting in the catastrophic release of pollutants\u201d due to Shell\u2019s alleged failure to adapt. The court further found that CLF\u2019s members\u2019 alleged injuries to their use and enjoyment of waters and roads in the terminal\u2019s vicinity flowed from the alleged failure to prepare the terminal for the impacts of climate change. For the same reasons, the court found that the case was ripe for adjudication. The court also concluded that the complaint stated claims under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), except to the extent the claims were based on federal, instead of state, RCRA regulations. The court found that CLF pleaded facts satisfying the \u201cimminent and substantial endangerment\u201d standard on the theory that the alleged failure to prepare the terminal for foreseeable weather events was an imminent endangerment. The court also found that the complaint stated claims under the Clean Water Act related to the terminal\u2019s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The court said the plaintiff\u2019s claims required interpretation of the permit, including whether its requirement of \u201cgood engineering practices\u201d required preparing the terminal for catastrophic weather. In addition, the court declined to exercise its discretion to abstain or to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.\u00a0Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Products US<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:17-cv-00396 (D.R.I. Sept. 28, 2020).<\/p>\n

\u00a0DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Wyoming Federal Court Vacated 2016 Waste Prevention Rule<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Wyoming vacated the bulk of the Waste Prevention Rule promulgated during the Obama administration, holding that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Waste Prevention Rule was intended \u201cto reduce waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, and leaks during oil and natural gas production activities\u201d on federal and tribal lands and to clarify \u201cwhen produced gas lost through venting, flaring, or leaks is subject to royalties.\u201d In 2019, the Wyoming federal court stayed these proceedings challenging the Waste Prevention Rule while a challenge to the Trump administration\u2019s repeal of the rule was pending in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. After that court vacated the repeal in July 2020, the Wyoming federal court lifted the stay. In its order vacating all but two provisions of the Waste Prevention Rule, the court concluded that \u201ca principal purpose and intent\u201d of the rule was to \u201ccurb air emissions\u201d and that the Mineral Leasing Act did not delegate authority to the Secretary of Interior to promulgate rules \u201cjustified primarily upon the ancillary benefit of a reduction in air pollution, particularly when considered in light of historical context and the comprehensive regulatory structure under the Clean Air Act.\u201d The court also found that BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to consider the rule\u2019s impacts on marginal wells, failing to explain and identify support for the rule\u2019s capture requirements, and failing to separately consider the rule\u2019s domestic costs and benefits.\u00a0Wyoming v. U.S. Department of the Interior<\/a><\/em>, No. 2:16-cv-00285 (D. Wyo. Oct. 8, 2020).<\/p>\n

In Baltimore\u2019s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies, Supreme Court Agreed to Consider Scope of Appellate Review of Remand Order<\/strong><\/p>\n

On October 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted fossil fuel companies\u2019 petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit\u2019s order remanding to state court Baltimore\u2019s climate change case against the companies. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration or decision of the petition. The question the Supreme Court agreed to consider is whether the statutory provision prescribing the scope of appellate review of remand orders \u201cpermits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court\u2019s order remanding a removed case to state court where the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.\u201d The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute.\u00a0BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-1189 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2020).<\/p>\n

D.C. Circuit Stayed Compliance Dates for Obama-Era Truck Trailer Fuel Economy Standards<\/strong><\/p>\n

On September 29, 2020, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the compliance dates for fuel economy regulations adopted by the Obama administration to the extent the regulations apply to truck trailers. The court heard oral argument on September 15 in a case challenging not only the fuel economy regulations, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgated, but also greenhouse gas emissions standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the same rulemaking. In October 2017, the D.C. Circuit stayed the EPA standards, which would have taken effect in January 2018. The NHTSA regulations would have taken effect in January 2021. In its stay motion, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) argued that the court had already determined that its challenge to the EPA standards was likely to be successful and that the NHTSA standards could not function without the EPA standards. TTMA also argued that NHTSA lacked authority to regulate fuel economy of trailers. In addition, TTMA asserted that its members would suffer immediate and irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. Both EPA and NHTSA are still in the process of reconsidering their trailer rules.\u00a0Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc. v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, No. 16-1430 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 29, 2020).<\/p>\n

Effective Date Administratively Stayed for EPA Amendments to Oil and Gas Standards<\/strong><\/p>\n

On September 17, 2020, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals administratively stayed EPA\u00a0amendments<\/a>\u00a0to the 2012 and 2016 new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector. The amendments\u2014which were effective upon their publication in the\u00a0Federal Register<\/em>\u2014removed transmission and storage sources from the oil and natural gas source category, rescinded the NSPS for such sources for both volatile organic compounds and methane, and separately rescinded methane requirements for production and processing sources. The amendments were challenged in a petition filed by 20 states, along with Chicago, Denver, and the District of Columbia, and in a second petition filed by 10 environmental groups. The D.C. Circuit issued the administrative stay to allow the court \u201csufficient opportunity\u201d to consider an emergency motion for stay filed by the environmental groups. After the amendments were stayed, the state and city petitioners filed their own emergency motion. The environmental groups also filed a separate petition challenging\u00a0amendments<\/a>\u00a0to the NSPS resulting from EPA\u2019s reconsideration of fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, requirements for certification of closed vent systems, and provisions to apply for use of an alternative means of emission limitation.\u00a0California v. Wheeler<\/em><\/a>, No. 20-1357 (D.C. Cir., filed Sept. 14, 2020);\u00a0Environmental Defense Fund v. Wheeler<\/em>, No. 20-1359 (D.C. Cir., filed Sept. 14, 2020);\u00a0Environmental Defense Fund v. Wheeler<\/em>, No. 20-1363 (D.C. Cir., filed Sept. 15, 2020).<\/p>\n

Federal Court Denied Preliminary Injunction in Steel Mill Owner\u2019s Pipeline Challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas denied a steel mill owner\u2019s motion for a preliminary injunction barring construction of a gas pipeline that will cross the plaintiff\u2019s property. The owner asserted that the U.S. Corps of Engineers violated NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by reauthorizing and reissuing Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP-12) and by approving the pipeline under NWP-12. The court found that the steel mill owner was unlikely to succeed on the merits because it did not have standing under NEPA or the Endangered Species Act and its Clean Water Act claim failed. (The steel mill owner\u2019s allegations in support of its NEPA claim included that the Corps failed to adequately analyze NWP-12\u2019s climate change impacts including potential increased lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.) The court also found that the plaintiff did not show irreparable harm or that the balance of equities or public interest weighed in its favor.\u00a0Optimus Steel, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<\/em><\/a>, No. 1:20-cv-00374 (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 10, 2020 and order Oct. 4, 2020).<\/p>\n

After District Court Declined to Enjoin Coal Company\u2019s Road-Building Activities in Colorado, Tenth Circuit Entered Temporary Injunction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Colorado declined to vacate mining lease modifications that authorized a coal company to undertake road construction in the Sunset Roadless Area in Colorado. The U.S. Forest Service adopted the North Fork Exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule in 2016, allowing for road construction related to coal mining in the Sunset Roadless Area. In March 2020, the Tenth Circuit vacated the North Fork Exception due to the arbitrary and capricious exclusion of an alternative in the supplemental final environmental impact statement (SFEIS) for the Exception. The Tenth Circuit rejected, however, an argument that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management\u2019s SFEIS for the lease modifications failed to consider a \u201cMethane Flaring Alternative.\u201d The district court concluded that although the Tenth Circuit vacated the North Fork Exception, the appellate court had not expressly or impliedly directed the district court to vacate the lease modifications. The district court further concluded that it could not enjoin the coal company from conducting surface-disturbing activities in the North Fork Exception area because all of the plaintiffs\u2019 challenges to the lease modifications had been resolved in favor of the federal agency defendants and the plaintiffs\u2019 assertions that the coal company\u2019s activities violated the Roadless Rule appeared to raise \u201can entirely new claim\u201d targeted not at the agencies but at the coal company. The plaintiffs appealed the court\u2019s ruling and filed motions for injunction pending appeal in the district court and the Tenth Circuit. To facilitate its consideration of the motion, the Tenth Circuit on October 7 entered a temporary injunction enjoining bulldozing additional drilling pads, drilling methane ventilation boreholes, and engaging in further surface disturbance in preparation for coal mining in the Sunset Roadless Area.\u00a0High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:17-cv-03025 (D. Colo. Oct. 2, 2020), No. 20-1358 (10th Cir.).<\/p>\n

Federal Defendants Agreed to Make Determination on Climate Change-Threatened Beetle by August 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n

WildEarth Guardians and federal defendants reached an agreement for dismissal of one portion of an Endangered Species Act lawsuit challenging the defendants\u2019 failure to make final listing determinations on five aquatic species. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendants agreed to submit a determination as to whether the listing of the narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle as threatened or endangered is warranted for publication in the\u00a0Federal Register\u00a0<\/em>by August 15, 2023. WildEarth Guardians agreed to dismiss with prejudice its claim based on the narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle. The complaint alleged that WildEarth Guardians petitioned for listing of the beetle due to the organization\u2019s concern that the beetle \u201cwill be unable to adapt and keep pace with changing climatic conditions, especially in light of the species\u2019 restricted range.\u201d\u00a0WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:20-cv-01035 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2020).<\/p>\n

CARB, EPA, and NHTSA Resolved Dispute over Disclosure of Technical Studies Underlying Preemption Determination<\/strong><\/p>\n

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), EPA, and NHTSA stipulated to dismissal of CARB\u2019s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking disclosure of records concerning the analysis supporting the federal agencies\u2019 preemption of state authority to establish vehicle emission standards. The parties agreed in July 2020 that EPA and NHTSA would respond by September 24 to clarified, limited, and revised requests for emissions analyses and other technical or scientific records regarding whether revocation of CARB\u2019s Clean Air Act waiver for zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) regulations would have impacts on emissions of criteria pollutants, California\u2019s attainment of the national ambient air quality standards, and California\u2019s conformity responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. In addition to the joint stipulation of dismissal, the parties also filed a joint motion to extend time for CARB to move for fees and costs to allow the parties \u201ca suitable period\u201d to determine whether they could reach agreement on this issue.\u00a0California Air Resources Board v. EPA<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:20-cv-1293 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2020).<\/p>\n

Federal Court Found Problems with Assessment of How Sea Level Rise Would Affect Skink Habitat<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in a case challenging the Secretary of the Interior\u2019s decision not to list the Florida Keys mole skink as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The skink is a lizard that lives only on islands of the Florida Keys; its habitat is threatened by sea level rise. The court found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did not explain why it relied on one set of habitat loss projections while also crediting 2017 projections by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that indicated sea levels were rising 15% faster. The court also found that the FWS needed to explain its conclusion that habitat threats were uniform across the skink\u2019s range notwithstanding non-uniform rates of inundation by sea level rise. The court was not persuaded, however, that the FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by limiting the foreseeable future to 2060, though the court said the FWS should consider on remand whether its approach to Geoplan would affect its conclusions regarding the foreseeable future. The court also rejected CBD\u2019s other arguments, including an argument that the FWS disregarded climate change effects other than sea level rise such as storm surge and saltwater intrusion.\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service<\/a><\/em>, No. 2:19-cv-14243 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2020).<\/p>\n

New Jersey Federal Court Transferred Shareholder Derivative Action Against Exxon to Texas<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a consolidated stockholder derivative action against Exxon Mobil Corporation board members and executive officers (Exxon), the federal district court for the District of New Jersey granted Exxon\u2019s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas. The case involves allegations that the defendants misrepresented the costs of climate change regulations and did not appropriately project future costs of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. A related federal securities action and additional shareholder derivative actions are pending in the Northern District of Texas. The New Jersey federal court concluded that private and public interests weighed in favor of transfer.\u00a0In re Exxon Mobil Corp. Derivative Litigation<\/a><\/em>, No. 2:19-CV-16380 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2020).<\/p>\n

Federal Court Upheld State Department\u2019s Invocation of FOIA Exception for Legal Memorandum Supporting Paris Agreement Request<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a FOIA lawsuit brought by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a federal district court in the District of Columbia ruled that the U.S. Department of State properly withheld a legal memorandum that accompanied an \u201caction memorandum\u201d seeking authorization from the Secretary of State to join the Paris Agreement. The court found that the legal memorandum met the criteria for the deliberative process privilege because it was predecisional and deliberative and did not constitute the \u201cworking law\u201d of the State Department. The court rejected CEI\u2019s argument that because a document appearing to be the legal memorandum had been posted on the internet, the memorandum fell outside the FOIA exemption under the \u201cpublic domain doctrine.\u201d\u00a0Competitive Enterprise Institute v. U.S. Department of State<\/a><\/em>, No. 17-cv-02032 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2020).<\/p>\n

Federal Court in Virginia Declined to Issue Preliminary Injunction in Challenge to CEQ Amendments to NEPA Regulations, Denied Motions to Dismiss<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia denied a motion for preliminary injunction or stay barring the Council on Environmental Quality\u2019s (CEQ\u2019s) amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations from taking effect. The court concluded that while the plaintiffs \u201cmay ultimately succeed,\u201d at this point they had not made the necessary \u201cclear showing\u201d that they were likely to succeed. The court indicated it was \u201cnot unlikely that interpretative testimony and expert opinion would be required for the proper determination of the validity\u201d of the amendments. The court also said the jurisdictional standing and ripeness issues raised by the defendants \u201cmay very well require evidence.\u201d The court also cited the Fourth Circuit\u2019s statement that issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction should be limited \u201cto the most exceptional circumstances.\u201d The court subsequently denied motions to dismiss the lawsuit and clarified that discovery was not contemplated but that summary judgment motions might be supported by expert declarations or other interpretive opinion.\u00a0Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality<\/a><\/em>, No. 3:20-cv-00045 (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2020).<\/p>\n

Federal Court Upheld Environmental Review for Logging Project<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the District of Colorado upheld the U.S. Forest Service\u2019s approval of a timber project authorizing logging on 1,631 acres in the White River National Forest in Colorado. The court rejected three claims under NEPA, including an argument that the Forest Service failed to consider foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions and the project\u2019s indirect and cumulative effect on global warming. The court found that the petitioners did not show that emissions from the project\u2014which the court characterized as a \u201crelatively small timber and biomass project\u201d\u2014would likely result in a cumulatively significant impact. The court distinguished this case from other cases in which consideration of emissions was required, indicating that in those cases \u201cthe significance of emissions was often beyond doubt.\u201d\u00a0Swomley v. Schroyer<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:19-cv-01055 (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2020).<\/p>\n

Court Denied Injunction in Challenge to Highway Project in Arkansas<\/strong><\/p>\n

The federal district court for the Eastern District of Arkansas declined to enjoin a highway reconstruction and widening project. The court found that the plaintiffs\u2014who asserted, among other things, that the defendants failed to consider the project\u2019s cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions\u2014had not shown a likelihood that they would prevail on the merits. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate they would suffer irreparable harm if work on the project commenced and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the defendants.\u00a0Little Rock Downtown Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Federal Highway Administration<\/a><\/em>, No. 4:19-cv-00362 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 3, 2020).<\/p>\n

Montana Supreme Court Affirmed that Public Service Commission Improperly Rewrote Terms of Solar Project PPA, Including by Eliminating Carbon Adder<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a district court order that reversed a Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) order setting terms and conditions of a power purchase agreement (PPA) for a proposed 80 megawatt solar project. The project developer filed a petition with the PSC to establish terms and conditions after negotiations with a utility stalled. The PSC altered all terms and conditions in the PPA, including terms on which the parties agreed such as use of a \u201ccarbon adder\u201d in the calculation of avoided energy costs. The PSC concluded that carbon costs would no longer be included in the avoided-costs calculation because the current federal administration opposed carbon emissions regulation. The district court held, among other things, that elimination of the carbon adder was arbitrary and capricious and directed the PSC to assign a price for carbon. The Montana Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the solar project developer was entitled to an agreed-upon rate for energy, a carbon adder, and a 25-year contract term. The Supreme Court said the PSC lacked authority to rewrite these terms.\u00a0MTSUN, LLC v Montana Department of Public Service Regulation<\/a><\/em>, No. DA-19-0363 (Mont. Sept. 22, 2020).<\/p>\n

Massachusetts High Court Upheld Approval of Hydropower Purchase Agreements<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities\u2019 approval of power purchase agreements allowing electricity distribution companies to purchase clean electricity generated hydroelectrically by Hydro-Qu\u00e9bec Energy Services (U.S.), Inc. The court held that the Department applied a reasonable interpretation of the statutory requirement that the PPAs provide for \u201cfirm service\u201d hydroelectric generation (i.e., power provided without interruption). The court also found that substantial evidence supported the Department\u2019s conclusions that the PPAs \u201cprovide for the procurement of energy from hydroelectric generation alone\u201d and that an industry-standard tracking system was an appropriate mechanism to meet statutory requirements intended to allow the Department of Environmental Protection to monitor progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. Department of Public Utilities<\/a><\/em>, No. SJC-12886 (Mass. Sept. 3, 2020).<\/p>\n

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

Connecticut Filed Lawsuit Alleging Exxon Engaged in \u201cCampaign of Deception\u201d Regarding Climate Change<\/strong><\/p>\n

Connecticut filed a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation in Connecticut Superior Court alleging that Exxon \u201cmisled and deceived Connecticut consumers about the negative effects of its business practices on the climate.\u201d Connecticut alleged that Exxon executives and other agents knew as early as the 1950s that fossil fuel combustion contributed to global warming and that when Exxon had the opportunity in the 1980s \u201cto responsibly contribute to public understanding of climate change and its potentially catastrophic consequences,\u201d Exxon instead \u201cbegan a systematic campaign of deception\u201d to undermine climate science and maximize its profits. The complaint listed \u201cmyriad negative consequences in Connecticut\u201d to which the State alleged the \u201ccampaign of deception\u201d contributed, including sea level rise, flooding, drought, increases in extreme temperatures and severe storms, decreases in air quality, contamination of drinking water, increases in spread of diseases, and severe economic consequences. The State asserted eight counts under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and sought injunctive and equitable relief; civil penalties; restitution for State expenditures attributable to Exxon to respond to the effects of climate change; disgorgement of revenues, profits, and gains; disclosure of research and studies on climate change; and funding of a corrective education campaign.\u00a0State v. Exxon Mobil Corp.<\/a><\/em>, No. HHDCV206132568S (Conn. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 14, 2020).<\/p>\n

Delaware Lawsuit Sought Damages from Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Injuries<\/strong><\/p>\n

Delaware filed a lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court asserting common law claims and a claim under its Consumer Fraud Act against fossil fuel companies for allegedly causing \u201cthe climate crisis\u201d through \u201cconcealment and misrepresentation of their products\u2019 known dangers\u2014and simultaneous promotion of their unrestrained use.\u201d Delaware alleged \u201csevere injuries,\u201d including inundation and loss of State property, loss of tax revenue due to inundation of private property and businesses and other impacts to Delaware\u2019s economy, injury to or destruction of critical State facilities, increased costs of providing government services, increased health care and public health costs, increased planning and preparation costs, and disruption and loss of coastal communities. The common law claims asserted by Delaware are negligent failure to warn, trespass, and nuisance. The State seeks compensatory damages, penalties for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, attorneys\u2019 fees, punitive damages, and costs of suit.\u00a0State v. BP America Inc.<\/a><\/em>, No. N20C-09-097 (Del. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 10, 2020).<\/p>\n

Charleston Filed Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies Alleging Their Responsibility for \u201cDevastating\u201d Climate Change Impacts<\/strong><\/p>\n

The City of Charleston filed an action in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas against fossil fuel companies asserting that they are responsible for \u201cdevastating adverse\u201d climate change impacts on Charleston and its residents. The alleged impacts included flooding, inundation, erosion, and beach loss due to sea level rise; \u201cmore frequent, longer-lasting and more severe\u201d extreme weather events; and resulting social, economic, and other consequences. The conduct alleged to be a substantial factor in causing the impacts includes failure to warn of threats posed by fossil fuel products, wrongful promotion of fossil fuels and concealment of known hazards, \u201cpublic deception campaigns designed to obscure the connection\u201d between the defendants\u2019 products and climate change, and failure to pursue less hazardous alternatives. The City asserted claims of public and private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass, as well as violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The City sought compensatory damages, treble damages under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, equitable relief, attorneys\u2019 fees, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and costs of suit.\u00a0City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.<\/a><\/em>, No. 2020CP1003975 (S.C. Ct. Com., filed Sept. 9, 2020).<\/p>\n

First Circuit Heard Oral Arguments in Fossil Fuel Companies\u2019 Appeal of Remand Order in Rhode Island Case; Ninth Circuit Extended Stay of Mandate in\u00a0<\/strong>County of San Mateo<\/b><\/em>; Other Cases Still Pending in District Courts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Developments in September and early October in other state and local government climate change cases against fossil fuel companies included oral arguments heard by the First Circuit on September 11 in the companies\u2019 appeal of a federal district court\u2019s remand of Rhode Island\u2019s case to state court. On October 5, defendant Chevron notified the First Circuit of the Supreme Court\u2019s granting of review in\u00a0BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore<\/em>. The letter indicated that the same issue the Supreme Court agreed to review was pending before the First Circuit in the Rhode Island case and that the Supreme Court was likely to decide the Baltimore case in this term.\u00a0Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co.<\/a><\/em>, No. 19-1818 (1st Cir.).<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit extended its stay of the mandate in\u00a0County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.<\/em>\u00a0for 90 days. In May, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a remand order in cases brought by localities in California. The Ninth Circuit granted the extension of the stay of mandate after the Supreme Court allowed the fossil fuel company defendants an additional 60 days to file a petition for writ of certiorari. The petition must be filed by January 4, 2021.\u00a0County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.<\/a><\/em>, No. 18-15499 (9th Cir.).<\/p>\n

In cases still pending in district courts, the District of Hawaii on September 9 declined to reconsider its order lifting the stay in the City and County of Honolulu\u2019s case against fossil fuel companies. The district court rejected the companies\u2019 contention that it should reconsider lifting the stay in light of the Ninth Circuit\u2019s stay of the issuance of the mandate in\u00a0County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.<\/em>\u00a0The District of Hawaii said it remained \u201cunpersuaded that the contingent utility of a stay in this case outweighs proceeding in the normal course with, at the very least, Plaintiff\u2019s anticipated motion to remand.\u201d Honolulu filed its motion to remand on September 11.\u00a0City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:20-cv-00163 (D. Haw.).<\/p>\n

In the Western District of Washington, the district court continued a stay that has been in place since October 2018. The parties jointly requested that the stay be maintained pending resolution of the earlier of (1) defendants\u2019 petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in\u00a0City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.<\/em>\u00a0or (2) the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in two cases involving personal jurisdiction issues.\u00a0King County v. BP p.l.c.<\/a><\/em>, No. 2:18-cv-00758 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2020).<\/p>\n

In\u00a0City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.<\/em>, which has returned to the Northern District of California, the court scheduled a case management conference for November 12, 2020.\u00a0City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.<\/a><\/em>, No. 3:17-cv-06011 (N.D. Cal.).<\/p>\n

Environmental Groups Challenged FERC Approval of Alaska LNG Project of \u201cUnprecedented\u201d Scale<\/strong><\/p>\n

Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for review of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) actions authorizing the Alaska LNG Project, which includes a liquefied natural gas terminal in southcentral Alaska, an 807-mile gas pipeline, a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, and other related transmission lines. Issues\u00a0raised<\/a>\u00a0by Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club before FERC included failure to meaningfully consider an alternative that would avoid the project\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, failure to take a hard look at the project\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions, and failure to take a hard look at impacts of the project\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions on polar bear recovery. The organizations also contended that FERC failed to consider how the project\u2014the size of which they described as \u201cunprecedented\u201d\u2014would exacerbate climate change in its public interest analysis under the Natural Gas Act.\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission<\/a><\/em>, No. 20-1379 (D.C. Cir., filed Sept. 21, 2020).<\/p>\n

D.C. Circuit Heard Oral Argument on Clean Power Plan Repeal and Replacement<\/strong><\/p>\n

On October 8, 2020, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, EPA\u2019s authority to promulgate a replacement rule for carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, and the legality of EPA\u2019s replacement rule, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule. The court also heard arguments on issues related to EPA\u2019s treatment of biomass-based fuels and biogenic emissions.\u00a0American Lung Association v. EPA<\/a><\/em>, No. 19-1140 (D.C. Cir.).<\/p>\n

Petitioners Requested Briefing Schedule to Allow Oral Argument in Current Term on Amendments to Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards; EPA and NHTSA Opposed<\/strong><\/p>\n

Petitioners and respondents in the proceedings challenging EPA and NHTSA\u2019s amendment of greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks disagreed over the timeframe for briefing in the case. The petitioners asked the D.C. Circuit to establish a schedule that would allow for oral argument during the current term, with briefing to begin on November 10, 2020 and be completed on March 5, 2021. They also requested that the court permit petitioners to file five separate principal briefs. The respondents contended that the motion to establish a briefing schedule was premature because motions to supplement the record and motions to intervene were still pending. If the court decided to establish a briefing format and schedule, the respondents requested that the petitioners\u2019 opening briefs be due on January 14, 2021, with final briefs due on June 14, 2021. The respondents also argued that the petitioners\u2019 proposed word counts were unreasonable and requested reduced word counts.\u00a0Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<\/a><\/em>, No. 20-1145 (D.C. Cir.).<\/p>\n

Briefs Filed in Support of EPA and NHTSA\u2019s Actions Restricting State Authority to Regulate Vehicle Emissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

EPA and NHTSA defended their rulemaking that withdrew California\u2019s waiver for its Advanced Clean Car program and explicitly preempted state and local regulations of tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emission vehicle mandates. They argued in a brief filed in the D.C. Circuit that NHTSA had authority to issue the preemption regulations under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), that EPCA expressly and impliedly preempted state mandates and standards, and that NEPA did not apply to NHTSA\u2019s preemption regulations. They also argued that jurisdiction for review of the regulation was properly in the D.C. Circuit. The respondents also argued that EPA has authority to reconsider and withdraw waivers and that it properly withdrew California\u2019s waiver. Twelve states and several trade groups filed briefs as intervenors supporting EPA and NHTSA\u2019s actions. In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the organization Urban Air Initiative filed amicus briefs in support of EPA and NHTSA. On September 22, Alaska moved to withdraw as a respondent-intervenor, and the D.C. Circuit granted its motion on September 24.\u00a0Union of Concerned Scientists v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<\/a><\/em>, No. 19-1230 (D.C. Cir.).<\/p>\n

Plaintiff in Securities Action Against Exxon Said Decision Against New York Attorney General Should Not Affect this Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

The lead plaintiff in a federal securities action against Exxon Mobil Corporation told the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas that a New York State court\u2019s rejection of the New York attorney general\u2019s fraud claims against Exxon should have no impact on the district court\u2019s previous denials of Exxon\u2019s motion to dismiss the securities action. The plaintiff argued that the claims in this action were not dependent on evidence or allegations at issue in the New York decision, that the New York decision\u2019s factual findings did not provide a basis for finding the plaintiff\u2019s claims in this case implausible, and that the limited evidence produced to date strongly supported the plaintiff\u2019s claims.\u00a0Ramirez v. Exxon Mobil Corp.<\/a><\/em>, No. 3:16-cv-03111 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2020).<\/p>\n

New Lawsuit Challenging Amended NEPA Regulations Focused on CAFO Exemptions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Six organizations led by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement filed a lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia challenging the Council on Environmental Quality\u2019s amendments to the NEPA regulations. It is the fifth lawsuit filed challenging the amended regulations; the cases are pending in four district courts. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the amendments give \u201cyet another free pass\u201d to the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) industry by restricting NEPA review of federal funding for the CAFO industry. The complaint alleged that CAFOs and the slaughterhouses they supply \u201ccause and exacerbate climate change and harm rural community and economic health, drinking water quality and quantity, air quality, endangered species, the confined animals themselves, and other aspects of the human environment.\u201d\u00a0Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement v. Council on Environmental Quality<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:20-cv-02715 (D.D.C., filed Sept. 23, 2020).<\/p>\n

Center for Biological Diversity Sought to Compel Listing Determination on Rare Lizards Threatened by Sea Level Rise<\/strong><\/p>\n

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\u2019s failure to determine whether eight species of Caribbean skink warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that skinks are rare lizards \u201cendemic to a few islands in the Caribbean Sea and found nowhere else on earth\u201d that are in \u201csteep decline from threats including habitat destruction and degradation, human-introduced predators, climate change, and accelerating sea level rise.\u201d CBD alleged that it had petitioned the FWS to list the skins in February 2014, that the FWS determined there was substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted in 2016, and that the FWS had subsequently failed to make a listing determination.\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:20-cv-2714 (D.D.C., filed Sept. 23, 2020).<\/p>\n

Lawsuit Challenged Opening of Federal Land in Western Colorado to Oil and Gas Leasing<\/strong><\/p>\n

A second lawsuit was filed by conservation groups challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management\u2019s (BLM\u2019s) approval of a resource management plan (RMP) covering almost a million acres in western Colorado. (Six other organizations filed a\u00a0lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0in August.) The approval made 95% of the area covered by the RMP available for oil and gas leasing. The petitioners asserted that BLM violated NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, including by failing to take a hard look at climate change impacts.\u00a0Western Slope Conservation Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management<\/a><\/em>, No. 1:20-cv-02787 (D. Colo., filed Sept. 15, 2020).<\/p>\n

U.S. Appealed District Court\u2019s Rejection of Challenges to Linkage Between California and Quebec Cap-and-Trade Programs<\/strong><\/p>\n

The United States filed an appeal from the judgment in favor of California and other defendants in the U.S. case challenging agreements linking California\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade agreement with the trading program of provincial government of Quebec, Canada. The district court rejected the U.S.\u2019s claims that the linkage violated the Treaty and Compact Clauses and was preempted under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine.\u00a0United States v. California<\/a><\/em>, No. 2:19-cv-02142 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020), No. 20-16789 (9th Cir.).<\/p>\n

Two Lawsuits Challenged Oil and Gas Leasing Program in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two more lawsuits were filed in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging federal defendants\u2019 approval of an oil and gas leasing program on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Plaintiffs in one case are three federally recognized Indian Tribes; plaintiffs in the other suit are 15 states. In both cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims under NEPA, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The tribes also asserted a claim under the National Historic Preservation Act. With respect to climate change, the tribes contended that the defendants failed to meaningfully analyze climate change in relation to subsistence, sociocultural systems, and environmental justice; cultural resources; caribou; migratory waterfowl; vegetation, tundra, and wetlands; and soils, permafrost, sand, and gravel. The states alleged that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts was inadequate because it \u201cdrastically\u201d underestimated the leasing program\u2019s indirect greenhouse gas emissions, failed to quantify costs from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and failed to meaningfully analyze climate impacts of methane emissions or cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0Washington v. Bernhardt<\/a><\/em>, No. 3:20-cv-00224 (D. Alaska, filed Sept. 9, 2020);\u00a0Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government\u00a0 v. Bernhardt<\/a><\/em>, No. 3:20-cv-00223 (D. Alaska, filed Sept. 9, 2020).<\/p>\n

Lawsuit Challenged Chicken Slaughterhouse\u2019s Water Use as Unconstitutional<\/strong><\/p>\n

Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging that a chicken slaughterhouse\u2019s use of millions of gallons of groundwater was unreasonable in violation of Article X, Section 2, of the California Constitution. ALDF alleged that the water use violated the Constitution for multiple reasons, including that \u201cCalifornia is plagued with drought that is exacerbated by the effects of climate change, and there exists an ever-increasing need for water conservation,\u201d and that the state of existing water resources was \u201cdire\u201d and would continue to be worsened by climate change.\u00a0Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Foster Poultry Farms<\/a><\/em>, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 2, 2020).<\/p>\n

HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART<\/strong><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Spain Admitted Climate Case Against the Government of Spain<\/strong><\/p>\n

On September 15, 2020, Greenpeace Spain, Oxfam Interm\u00f3n, and Ecologistas en Acci\u00f3n filed suit against the Spanish Government, alleging failure to take adequate action on climate change. The plaintiffs assert that Spain is in violation of Regulation (EU) 2018\/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action. According to plaintiffs, by last December Spain should have approved a National Energy and Climate Plan and Long Term Strategy, and the draft plan is not consistent with the Paris Agreement and IPCC recommendations to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. According to news reports, the complaint seeks an order compelling greater climate action.<\/p>\n

On September 30, 2020, the Supreme Court admitted the statement of claim and required the Ministry of the Presidency to present its administrative file within 20 days.\u00a0Greenpeace v. Spain<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Supreme Court of Spain).<\/p>\n

Solar Power Plant Owners and Residents Near Biomass Plants Sued the South Korean Government to Challenge Biomass Subsidies<\/strong><\/p>\n

On September 28, 2020, more than 60 solar power plant owners and residents near biomass plants sued the South Korean government in the South Korean Constitutional Court, challenging biomass subsidies on climate and pollution grounds. The plaintiffs allege that the South Korean New and Renewable Energy Promotion Act and regulations treat biomass generation as renewable and low or zero carbon, thus making it eligible for significant subsidies. According to the plaintiffs, however, biomass generation leads to forest devastation, higher CO2<\/sub>\u00a0emissions than coal, and local air pollution. As a result, South Korea\u2019s biomass policy violates South Korean constitutional environmental rights.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs also allege that Korean biomass policy infringes on the property rights of solar power plant owners and other renewable energy developers. They argue that the false classification of biomass burning as carbon neutral and renewable diverts subsidies away from other, truly carbon neutral resources.\u00a0Korean Biomass Plaintiffs v. South Korea<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(South Korean Constitutional Court).<\/p>\n

Polish Judge Said Operators of Europe\u2019s Largest Emitting Coal Plant Must Negotiate with ClientEarth to Reduce Climate Impacts<\/strong><\/p>\n

In September 2019, environmental law organization ClientEarth filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Lodz seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Europe\u2019s largest power plant, Belchatow, owned and operated by Polska Grupa Energetyczna (PGE).<\/p>\n

On September 22, 2020, the judge in the case ruled that PGE must negotiate with ClientEarth to attempt to reach a settlement within three months to swiftly reduce Belchatow\u2019s climate impacts. ClientEarth demands that PGE close 11 of 12 coal units at Belchatow by 2030, and the last by 2035, while PGE\u2019s existing schedule would close them by 2040 after existing reserves are depleted. According to ClientEarth, this marks the first time a Polish Court has required a coal plant to engage in such negotiations to reduce climate emissions.\u00a0ClientEarth v. Polska Grupa Energetyczna<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Regional Court in Lodz).<\/p>\n

Australian Youth Sought Injunction to Block Extension of a Coal Mine<\/strong><\/p>\n

On September 8, 2020, eight young people filed a putative class action in Australia\u2019s Federal Court to block a coal project. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop the Australian Government from approving an extension of the Whitehaven Vickery coal mine. The plaintiffs claim to represent all people under 18, and argue that Federal Minister Sussan Ley has a common law duty of care for young people. They further assert that digging up and burning coal will exacerbate climate change and harm young people in the future.\u00a0Sharma and others v. Minister for the Environment<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Federal Court of Australia).<\/p>\n

Ontario Court Struck Down Law Requiring Gas Pumps to Post Carbon Tax Notices<\/strong><\/p>\n

On September 4, 2020, an Ontario court struck down legislation requiring gas pumps to post notices informing customers that Canada\u2019s carbon pricing scheme will \u201ccost\u201d them.<\/p>\n

In 2018 Canada enacted the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which imposed a nationwide price on carbon. In May 2019, the Ontario Legislature enacted the Federal Carbon Tax Transparency Act, which required that a notice explaining certain fuel charges be posted on every gas pump in every gas station in Ontario. The notice stated \u201cthe federal carbon tax will cost you,\u201d with a graph showing costs to consumers rising through 2022. Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought suit seeking a declaration that the legislation violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<\/p>\n

The court concluded that CCLA had public interest standing to bring the action, particularly because the group had tried to find a gas retailer to act as a co-plaintiff. The court then concluded that the required notice adversely affected expression. Moreover, the court reasoned, the notice was \u201cinaccurate in a way that the Ontario government well knows\u201d because the carbon pricing act serves a regulatory rather than a revenue-raising purpose, and so is not a tax. Finally, the court held that the notice\u2019s infringement on free speech was not justified because it served more to advance a partisan message than to share information with the public. The court ordered that the gas retailers may but do not need to keep the notices on their fuel pumps.\u00a0Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Ontario<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Ontario Superior Court of Justice).<\/p>\n

Newly Available English Translation of 2018 Nepal Decision: Nepal Supreme Court Ordered Government to Enact New Climate Change Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

On August 23, 2017, Padam Bahadur Shrestha filed an application to compel the government of Nepal to enact a new climate change law. When the authorities failed to respond, Shrestha petitioned the Supreme Court of Nepal to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order to enact such a law. According to the petition, the Environmental Protection Act of 1997 was inadequate because it did not address climate change, the Climate Change Policy of 2011 had not been implemented, and as a result, the humans and ecosystems of Nepal had experienced grave climate impacts. Shrestha alleged that the government\u2019s failure to adequately address climate had violated the rights to a dignified life and a healthy environment guaranteed in the Constitution of Nepal, and violated Nepal\u2019s commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n

In a decision issued on December 25, 2018, the Supreme Court ordered the government of Nepal to enact a new climate change law to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and promote low carbon technologies, and to develop scientific and legal instruments to compensate those harmed by pollution and environmental degradation, among other provisions. The Court said that a new law was needed to effectuate Nepal\u2019s commitments under the Paris Agreement and obligations under the Constitution. The Court further reasoned that the Environmental Protection Act of 1997 was inadequate to address needed climate change mitigation and adaptation, and ordered the government to implement existing national climate policy until the new law would be enacted.<\/p>\n

Subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, the government of Nepal passed the Environment Protection Act of 2019 and the Forests Act of 2019.\u00a0Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Nepal Supreme Court).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati 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":2323,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5673,4781,9471,65695],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-7070","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"category-human-rights","8":"category-natural-resources","9":"category-public-health","10":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nOctober 2020 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\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-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=\"October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati 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\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-10-20T18:00:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/10\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston-300x200.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"grennanmilliken\" \/>\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=\"grennanmilliken\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 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\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"grennanmilliken\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0fd552ab007de25497147ffc92ee1766\"},\"headline\":\"October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-10-20T18:00:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":7517,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston-300x200.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\",\"Human Rights\",\"Natural Resources\",\"public health\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\",\"name\":\"October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston-300x200.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-10-20T18:00:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":427,\"caption\":\"Charleston, SC filed suit against fossil fuel companies alleging their responsibility for \u201cdevastating\u201d climate change impacts. (Source: Khanrak)\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/20\\\/october-2020-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\":\"October 2020 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\\\/0fd552ab007de25497147ffc92ee1766\",\"name\":\"grennanmilliken\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/grennanmilliken\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"October 2020 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\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati 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\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2020-10-20T18:00:13+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/10\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston-300x200.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"grennanmilliken","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"grennanmilliken","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/"},"author":{"name":"grennanmilliken","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/0fd552ab007de25497147ffc92ee1766"},"headline":"October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts","datePublished":"2020-10-20T18:00:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/"},"wordCount":7517,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/10\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston-300x200.jpg","articleSection":["Climate Litigation","Human Rights","Natural Resources","public health"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","name":"October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/10\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston-300x200.jpg","datePublished":"2020-10-20T18:00:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/10\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/10\/640px-BroadStreetCharleston.jpg","width":640,"height":427,"caption":"Charleston, SC filed suit against fossil fuel companies alleging their responsibility for \u201cdevastating\u201d climate change impacts. (Source: Khanrak)"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/10\/20\/october-2020-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":"October 2020 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\/0fd552ab007de25497147ffc92ee1766","name":"grennanmilliken","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/grennanmilliken\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7070","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\/2323"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}