Litigation Updates

February 2025 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

By
Margaret Barry and Maria Antonia Tigre
February 10, 2025

Each month, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collects and summarizes developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. and global climate litigation charts. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE U.S. CLIMATE CASE CHART FOR UPDATE #191:

FEATURED CASE

Federal Court Dismissed Preemption and Extraterritoriality Challenges to California Climate Disclosure Laws

The federal district court for the Central District of California dismissed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other plaintiffs’ Supremacy Clause (preemption) and extraterritoriality claims challenging California’s laws requiring companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. The court dismissed the claims challenging the emissions disclosure law without prejudice as unripe because the law did not on its own mandate action by the plaintiffs’ members or other reporting entities and implementing regulations had not yet been adopted. The court concluded the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the climate-related financial risk disclosure law and that the challenge was ripe but found that the plaintiff failed to state either a Supremacy Clause or extraterritoriality claim. Regarding the Supremacy Clause claim, the court found that the plaintiffs did not support the proposition “that a disclosure regime intended to regulate emissions through third-party actions is a de facto regulatory scheme subject to preemption.” The court also concluded that the law’s compelled disclosure was not preempted based on federalism principles in the Constitution, foreign affairs, or the Clean Air Act. Regarding the extraterritoriality claim, the court found that the plaintiffs could not allege that the law discriminated against interstate commerce or had a discriminatory purpose. Under the Pike test, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a significant burden on interstate commerce. The court dismissed the extraterritoriality claim without prejudice but dismissed the Supremacy Clause claim with prejudice. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:24-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

New Jersey Trial Court Ruled that Federal Law Preempted State Plaintiffs’ Climate Change-Based Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies

The New Jersey Superior Court concluded that federal law preempted State of New Jersey plaintiffs’ climate change claims against fossil fuel industry defendants. The court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs were the New Jersey Attorney General, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. They asserted eight state law causes of action based on their allegations that the defendants deceived consumers, the public, and decision-makers regarding the climate risks created by their products and that the deception resulted in increased emissions of greenhouse gases that caused climate change impacts in New Jersey. The court said its decision was “reliant upon and consistent with both federal and state courts across the country that have rejected the availability of state tort law in the climate change context,” with “[m]any of these courts conclusions flow[ing], in part,” from the Supreme Court’s 2011 opinion in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. The court concluded that these cases “compel dismissal of claims seeking damages by transboundary emissions” and found that, regardless of how the plaintiffs characterized their allegations, they were seeking damages for impacts of interstate and international emissions. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that state law could govern in this case because the Clean Air Act had displaced federal common law. The court noted that the Second Circuit had described this argument as “too strange to seriously contemplate” in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. and agreed with the defendants’ arguments that displacement of otherwise applicable federal common law by the Clean Air Act “did not somehow render state law competent to apply to this exclusively federal subject matter.” The court also noted that the Clean Air Act had not displaced federal common law with respect to international emissions. The court said the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision was not persuasive because it did not address the “critical point” about the competency of state law to apply when a federal statute displaces federal common law.  Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. MER-L-001797-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. Feb. 5, 2025)

Maryland Trial Court Dismissed Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Climate Suits Against Fossil Fuel Defendants

On January 23, 2025, the Maryland Circuit Court in Anne Arundel County dismissed the City of Annapolis’s and Anne Arundel County’s lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable under state law for harms allegedly suffered as a result of climate change. The City and County asserted claims under Maryland common law and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The court had issued a decision in May 2024 deferring a decision on the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In its January 23 decision, however, the court wrote that it was “persuaded on this second go-around” by the defendants’ authorities (including the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut in 2011) and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City’s dismissal in July 2024 of Baltimore’s similar lawsuit against fossil fuel industry defendants. The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court also cited the Superior Court decision granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss the State of Delaware’s case against fossil fuel companies. The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court concluded that Anne Arundel County’s and City of Annapolis’s claims were federally preempted, “possibly by federal common law but surely by the Federal Clean Air Act.”  The court also wrote that “[t]he clear message to be had, and this Court gets it, is as Justice Ginsburg for a unanimous Supreme Court says [in American Electric Power Co.] is that there is a prescribed order of decision-making—first by the expert then by federal judges. If states and municipalities even private parties are dissatisfied with the Federal rule making or the outcome of cases, they may seek federal court review.” The court found that it was not necessary to consider individual state law claims, concluding that if its decision dismissing the cases was reversed, the cases would “no doubt come back on remand regardless of this Court’s decision on the state law claims.” The Capital Gazette reported that the County would appeal the dismissal and that the City was “keeping options open for what comes next.” City of Annapolis v. BP p.l.c., No. C-02-CV-21-000250 (Md. Cir. Ct. Jan. 23, 2025); Anne Arundel County v. BP plc, No. C-02-CV-21-000565 (Md. Cir. Ct. Jan. 23, 2025)

New York Trial Court Said New York City Failed to State Greenwashing Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies

A New York Supreme Court dismissed New York City’s claims that fossil fuel companies violated the City’s Consumer Protection Law by misleading consumers about the climate change risks of their products and their commitments to renewable and alternative energy sources. Applying “an objective reasonable-consumer standard,” the court concluded the City failed to plausibly allege that the defendants’ statements regarding the environmental benefits of specific products were likely to mislead. The court was not persuaded by New York City’s theory that the companies’ statements were deceptive because they failed to disclose their products’ substantial greenhouse gas emissions. The court found that because the City also conceded that “the connection between fossil fuels and climate change is public information,” a reasonable consumer could not have been misled. The court also cited additional independent reasons for dismissal of these product greenwashing claims: (1) that the alleged greenwashing statements were taken out of context and (2)  that they constituted “statements of aspiration, opinion, or puffery.” Regarding the City’s claim of “corporate greenwashing,” the court found that the companies’ statements regarding their investments in clean and alternative energy sources were not actionable under the Consumer Protection Law because they were not alleged to be “made in connection with the sale” of a consumer good. The court also held that allegations of violations based on statements made more than three years before City filed its complaint (i.e., statements made before April 22, 2018) were time-barred under New York law and pursuant to a July 2024 stipulation by the parties. The court rejected the companies’ arguments that they were not subject to the court’s jurisdiction, finding that the companies’ contacts with and activities in New York City were “purposeful” and “substantially related to the underlying claims of deceptive practices in NYC.”  The court also declined to dismiss the City’s claims under New York State’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law, citing its earlier decision denying American Petroleum Institute’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The court did not address the defendants’ First Amendment arguments. City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Index No. 451071/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 14, 2025)

Sixth Circuit Granted Federal Government’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal of Decision on Rule Requiring Carbon Dioxide Emissions Targets for Highways

On January 28, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration’s motion to postpone the oral argument scheduled for February 5, 2025 in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other defendants’ appeal of an April 2024 district court ruling that the FHWA exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it adopted a regulation requiring states to establish declining targets for carbon dioxide emissions from on-road mobile sources. The defendants requested that the oral argument be postponed and the case held in abeyance to allow the agencies “to become familiar with the final rule and the issues presented by this litigation and to determine how they wish to proceed.” On January 31, FHWA informed the court that it no longer wished to pursue appellate review of the district court’s decision and requested that the appeal be dismissed. The court dismissed the appeal on February 3. Kentucky v. Federal Highway Administration, No. 24-5532 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).

Ninth Circuit Granted Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal Challenging 2021 Moratorium on ANWR Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Program

After the Biden administration issued a final record of decision for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Program on December 8, 2024, plaintiffs who unsuccessfully challenged the June 2021 moratorium on the program and suspension of oil and gas leases asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss their appeal. They asked either that the Ninth Circuit dismiss the appeal as moot or that the court grant a motion for voluntary dismissal. On January 24, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted the motion for voluntary dismissal. The Ninth Circuit did not address the mootness issue. Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority v. Biden, No. 24-2533 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)

D.C. Circuit Vacated 2020 Rule Authorizing Rail Transport of Liquefied Natural Gas

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2020 rule authorizing and specifying requirements for the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail. Citing the “potent combination of risk and extreme danger” entailed by transporting LNG by rail, the court found that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it concluded that the LNG rule would not have a significant effect on the environment and decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Because the court found that PHMSA failed to take a hard look at public safety impacts, the court did not reach other challenges raised by the petitioners, including arguments that PHMSA failed to consider the rule’s effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 20-1317 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 17, 2025)

D.C. Circuit Rejected Challenge to FERC Authorization of Pipeline to Serve Solar, Wind, and Gas Replacement to Coal-Fired Units in Indiana

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was required to consider non-gas alternatives when it granted authorization for a 24-mile natural gas pipeline to serve new gas turbines included in a plan approved by the State of Indiana. The court described the plan as involving retirement of coal-fired facilities and replacement with wind and solar energy sources, with the gas turbines included to ensure reliability. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the D.C. Circuit found that FERC did not have jurisdiction over non-gas alternatives and therefore properly declined to consider them in its alternatives analysis. The court said that “Congress entrusted the choice of electricity generation to the States, and FERC has no authority to second-guess those choices on environmental or any other grounds” and that FERC had reasonably identified the purpose of the pipeline project as supporting the new gas units rather than defining the purpose more broadly as promoting solar and wind energy. The D.C. Circuit also upheld FERC’s approach to disclosing the project’s greenhouse gas emissions, which involved reporting the project’s emissions as a percentage of state and national total emissions. In addition, the court rejected the contention that it was arbitrary and capricious or a violation of NEPA not to label the project’s impacts on emissions as “significant” or “not significant.” The court said the NEPA argument was now foreclosed by precedent. Under the Natural Gas Act, the D.C. Circuit rejected the petitioner’s contention that FERC could not consider emissions reductions from retirement of the coal-fired facilities when assessing the pipeline project’s public convenience and necessity. The court also rejected the argument that FERC acted unreasonably by failing to respond to a rehearing petition, which instead was denied by operation of law. Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No 23-1046 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 7, 2025)

Fifth Circuit Said Dallas Property Owners Could Bring NEPA Lawsuit Challenging Floodway Project

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated claims brought by owners of a vacant lot in Dallas, Texas, against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in connection with the attempted condemnation of their property for the Dallas Floodway Extension project. The project is part of a flood protection project and includes a chain of wetlands and two levees. The City of Dallas informed the owners in 2021 that construction of one of the levees required condemnation of a portion of their property. In their lawsuit, the owners asserted that the Corps failed to comply with its duty to supplement an environmental impact statement issued in 2003 for the project. They alleged that new information about flood planning and climate risks, including updated Corps standards and studies, necessitated supplemental environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that the lawsuit was not ripe and also found that the owners had standing. Ondrusek v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 23-10892 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024)

Montana Supreme Court Said Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Was Required in Air Permitting Process for Power Plant but Reversed Vacatur of Permit

The Montana Supreme Court held that the 2021 version of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) required the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to analyze greenhouse gas emissions as part of the air quality permitting process for the Laurel Generating Station, a natural gas-fired power plant that was completed and went into operation in 2024. The Supreme Court concluded that even if the lack of substantive permitting standards for greenhouse gases affected DEC’s authority to deny the permit, MEPA’s procedural requirements required DEQ to consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions within Montana. The opinion noted that regulation of air pollutants “falls squarely within DEQ’s authority” under the Montana Clean Air Act and that although the Court’s decision in Held v. State did not require DEQ to analyze greenhouse gas emissions for every potential state action or to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in an air quality permit application, consideration of greenhouse gases was required in this case, “which undisputedly involves a significant amount of CO2e emissions (nearly 770,000 tons annually) from a fossil fuel Electric Generating Unit and generated hundreds of public concerns regarding potential impacts from those emissions.” The Supreme Court also agreed with the district court that DEQ took a hard look at noise impacts and that the lack of analysis of lighting impacts was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court reversed, however, the district court’s vacatur of the permit, finding that the district court had failed to analyze factors as required for the granting of equitable relief. Two justices concurred in the reversal of the vacatur of the permit but would have ruled that the case was moot. Two justices dissented from the reversal of the vacatur. Montana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, No. DA 23-0225 (Mont. Jan. 3, 2025)

Settlements Reached in Endangered Species Act Lawsuits that Concerned Climate Change-Threatened Species

During the final weeks of the Biden administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reached agreements that set schedules for review of the status of species to determine whether listing them as endangered or threatened is warranted. The plaintiffs in these cases identified climate change as one of the threats facing these species:

  • In a lawsuit challenging the FWS’s determination that listing of the Berry Cave salamander was not warranted, FWS agreed to review the salamander’s status by August 23, 2029. Center for Biological Diversity alleged that FWS disregarded best available scientific data regarding imminent threats—including climate change—to the species, which inhabits a small number of caves in East Tennessee. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:24-cv-01328 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2025)
  • In a lawsuit that originally sought to compel FWS to complete listing and critical habitat actions for 274 species, Center for Biological Diversity and FWS reached a settlement agreement pursuant to which FWS will submit 12-month findings regarding whether listing is warranted for 76 species to the Federal Register by the end of Fiscal Year 2029 in accordance with a schedule that requires a certain number of findings each year. The 76 species are those that remain after previous settlements, listing and critical habitat actions, and withdrawn petitions. Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 1:20-cv-00573 (D.D.C. Jan. 15, 2025)
  • FWS agreed to review the status of the Rio Grande shiner and make a 12-month finding as to whether listing is warranted by September 16, 2026, and to review the status and making a 12-month finding regarding the Clover’s cactus by September 9, 2027. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:24-cv-00534 (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2025)
  • Humane Society International and three other organizations reached an agreement with FWS pursuant to which FWS will review the status of the common hippopotamus and submit a 12-month finding to the Federal Register by July 27, 2028 on whether listing the species is warranted. Humane Society International v. Haaland, No. 1:24-cv-02717 (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 2025)

Center for Biological Diversity and Interior Department Agreed to Dismissal of FOIA Lawsuit Regarding Petition to Reduce Oil and Gas Production on Public Lands and Waters

Center for Biological Diversity and the U.S. Department of the Interior stipulated to the dismissal of CBD’s lawsuit seeking to compel a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for records related to its 2022 “Petition to Reduce the Rate of Oil and Gas Production on Public Lands and Waters to Near Zero by 2035.” The lawsuit was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement that the parties did not file with the court. The parties had reported to the court in December that the Department had completed its response to the records request in September 2024 and that the only remaining issue was attorneys’ fees and costs. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:23-cv-03544 (D.D.C. Jan. _, 2025)

Plaintiff Dropped NEPA Challenge to Subsidies for California Nuclear Plant

Friends of the Earth (FOTE) voluntarily dismissed its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to the U.S. Department of Energy’s award of more than $1 billion to prevent the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant from ceasing operations. FOTE concluded that funds committed by the State of California to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to support operations at the power plant and the terms under which the funds were provided “very likely moot this case and divest the Court of Article III jurisdiction.” FOTE had alleged that the Department of Energy relied on outdated environmental analysis and failed to consider impacts, including the impacts of climate change on the power plant’s systems and equipment. Though it acknowledged that the case was moot, FOTE offered several “critical observations,” including that PG&E and California had been able to unilaterally moot the case using “contractual loopholes,” thus evading NEPA scrutiny. FOTE questioned whether the Department of Energy would comply with NEPA in connection with future subsidies through the Civil Nuclear Credit (CNC) Program and also questioned the effectiveness and utility of the CNC Program. Friends of the Earth v. Granholm, No. 2:24-cv-2678 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2025)

Texas Federal Court Found that American Airlines Breached ERISA Duty of Loyalty Due to Influence of ESG Interests

After a four-day bench trial, the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas found that the facts “compellingly demonstrated” that American Airlines, Inc. (American) and the American Airlines Employee Benefits Committee had breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by allowing corporate interests in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives and their investment manager’s ESG interests to influence their management of employee retirement plans. The court found that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the defendants acted disloyally by allowing ties to the investment manager (BlackRock)—which was also one of American’s largest shareholders—to influence management of the plan. In addition, the court concluded that the defendants acted disloyally by allowing corporate goals, including sustainable aviation fuel and climate change initiatives, to influence management and oversight of the retirement plans. The court found that the defendants failed to maintain the “critical divide” between these corporate goals and their fiduciary obligations. The court also found that the defendants “utterly failed to loyally investigate BlackRock’s ESG investment activities.” The court concluded, however, that the plaintiff did not prevail on the claim that the defendants violated the duty of prudence under ERISA because the defendants had acted “according to prevailing industry practices, even if leaders in the fiduciary industry contrived to set the standard.” The court described its conclusion that there was no violation of the duty of prudence a “shocking result given that the evidence revealed ESG investing is not in the best financial interests of a retirement plan” but found that “faithful application of the law” required the court to find that the defendants oversaw and monitored the plan consistent with existing industry standards. The court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding issues related losses suffered by the class members. Spence v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00552 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2025)

Federal Court Said Pollution Exclusions Barred Coverage of Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Company

The federal district court for the District of Hawaii ruled that insurers had no duty to defend a fossil fuel company policyholder under 10 policies that included pollution exclusions in climate change-related lawsuits brought in Hawaiʻi state courts by the County of Maui and the City and County of Honolulu. The district court previously certified two questions to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court regarding what would constitute a covered “occurrence” and whether greenhouse gases are “pollutants.” The district court concluded that although the allegations in the underlying complaints of reckless behavior would constitute a covered occurrence, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court had “unequivocally” ruled in the insurer’s favor by holding that greenhouse gases were pollutants and by concluding that the policyholder could not rely on legal uncertainty created by a national dispute over whether pollution exclusions should be limited to traditional pollutants because the policyholder’s claims would be excluded under either interpretation. The court said it would address the duty to defend under policies that did not include pollution exclusions in a subsequent decision. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 1:22-cv-00372 (D. Haw. Dec. 27, 2024)

Colorado Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to Rio Grande National Forest Plan; Court Rejected Claim Involving Climate Threat to Endangered Butterfly

The federal district court for the District of Colorado denied a petition challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of a revised management plan for the Rio Grande National Forest in southwestern Colorado. The court rejected the petitioners’ arguments that the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, including an argument that the Forest Service failed to comply with the NFMA because components of the plan did not adequately mitigate threats to the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly from illegal collection, recreation, livestock grazing, and climate change. San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council v. Dallas, No. 1:21-cv-2994 (D. Colo. Dec. 13, 2024)

New York Appellate Court Rejected Local Zoning Board’s Finding of No Public Necessity for Solar Generating Facility

The New York Appellate Division ordered the Zoning Board of Appeals (Zoning Board) for the Town of Athens to issue a use variance for a solar energy generation facility. The appellate court reversed a trial court judgment that had dismissed the project applicants’ challenge to the variance denial. The Appellate Division found that due to the project’s minimal impact—as evidenced by the environmental review finding no significant impacts—the Zoning Board should have required a “reduced showing” by the applicants to establish the facility’s public necessity. Regarding the Zoning Board’s finding of no public necessity, which the applicants said was improperly focused on “needs and wants of a small group of landowners,” the Appellate Division noted that “local concerns are not typically part of the more general public necessity calculus” and found, moreover, that the environmental review revealed that local concerns related to aesthetics and environmental impacts were not present in this case. The Appellate Division also found that the Zoning Board’s finding of no public necessity due to New York State being “on track” to meet certain renewable energy goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. The appellate court said the Zoning Board’s finding focused on the CLCPA’s minimum requirements for solar procurement and “side-steps the consideration of the overarching goals of the CLCPA and future, long-term goals and targets.” The court also found that the Zoning Board erroneously required the applicants to establish that it would be “impossible” to construct the project in a zoning district where solar facilities are permitted. Freepoint Solar LLC v. Town of Athens Zoning Board of Appeals, No. CV-24-0711 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 19, 2024)

California Appellate Court Said Environmental Review for Habitat Restoration Project Did Not Have to Address Sea Level Rise Impacts on Habitat

The California Court of Appeal rejected a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s approval of a project to restore, enhance, and establish native coastal wetland and upland habitats in the Ballona wetlands ecosystem in Los Angeles County. The project’s objectives included establishment of habitats that are “self-sustaining” by adapting to sea level rise; improving tidal circulation into the wetlands; and developing public access for recreation and educational activities. One CEQA argument raised by the petitioner was that the Department failed to account for sea level rise that would make areas of the ecosystem uninhabitable by certain terrestrial bird species. The court cited precedent holding that CEQA environmental impact reports (EIRs) are not required to address “the significant effects of the environment on the project.” The court therefore concluded that the EIR “was not deficient for failing to address or mitigate the effect of sea level rise on raptor foraging habitats.” Ballona Ecosystem Education Project v. California Department of Fish & Wildlife, No. B331193 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2024)

Louisiana Appellate Court Upheld Coastal Use Permit for Gas Pipeline Project

The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed a district court judgment upholding the Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources (LDENR) approval of a coastal use permit for the Evangeline Pass Project, which consists of two natural gas pipelines totaling approximately 13 miles in length, a new compressor station, and modification to an existing compressor station. The project is intended to supply feed gas to a natural gas liquefaction and liquefied natural gas export facility in Plaquemines Parish. The appellate court found that LDENR adequately weighed the costs of the project’s adverse environmental impacts and determined that social and economic benefits outweighed these costs, in fulfillment of its constitutional mandate as public trustee. The appellate court also found that LDENR adequately considered potential impacts of the project, including cumulative and secondary impacts related to climate change. The court agreed with LDENR that there was no legal authority requiring the agency to consider global impacts on climate change when issuing a coastal use permit. The court noted that LDENR had required the applicant to provide a mitigation plan to account for potential coastal zone impacts of climate change such as land loss. In addition, the court found that LDENR “recognized the minimal amounts of greenhouse gas emissions from the emergency generator and other stationary fuel combustion sources at the compressor stations” and that the applicant would comply with all regulatory and reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions. The court also upheld LDENR’s determination that a provision of its Coastal Use Guideline regarding surface alterations was not applicable because the project was “neither commercial nor industrial.” Healthy Gulf v. Secretary, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, No. 2024-CA-0286 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2024)

Maryland Appellate Court Rejected Claim that Agency Failed to Consider Climate Issues in Groundwater Discharge Permit

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the Maryland Department of the Environment’s (MDOE’s) issuance of a groundwater discharge permit for sanitary waste from a proposed wastewater facility that would serve a new residential development in the Town of Trappe. The court found that MDOE’s determination that the discharge was not the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge to surface waters was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court therefore upheld the determination not to require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. In addition, the court rejected the contention that MDOE did not establish that the facility’s operations would result in “zero nutrient discharge to groundwater.” Regarding an argument that the permit did not account for increased precipitation due to climate change, the court found that the record reflected that MDOE “clearly considered climate issues” and that the permit included conditions to address climate-related issues. Matter of Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., No. 1434 (Md. App. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024)

California Court of Appeal Said City Did Not Abuse Discretion by Relying on Climate Change Concerns in Denial of Franchise Renewal for Gas Pipeline

In a partially published opinion, the California Court of Appeal rejected a challenge by a company that owned and operated a natural gas pipeline to a decision by the City of Antioch and Antioch City Council to deny an application to extend the term of the franchise under which the company operated the pipeline within the City’s public right-of-way. The court found that the company’s allegations did not establish that denial of the franchise renewal was arbitrary and irrational. The court disagreed with the company’s position that the City Council’s “reliance on generalized concerns expressed by protestors regarding environmental justice, natural gas pipeline safety, and climate change, if proven, would establish an abuse of discretion.” The court also said the City Council was not required to tie these generalized concerns to the safety and operational records of the company and the pipeline. The court also ruled that the company could not sustain a “class of one” equal protection claim, a regulatory taking claim, or claims regarding extraterritoriality and preemption. The company’s preemption arguments had included that the decision on the franchise renewal was preempted because it conflicted with California law and policy to maintain natural gas as a natural resource. The court ruled that the preemption claim failed because the City had not taken any regulatory action that could be preempted. California Resources Production Corp. v. Antioch City Council, Nos. A168517, A168558 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024)

BlackRock and Tennessee Attorney General Settled ESG-Related Consumer Protection Claims

The Tennessee Attorney General agreed to dismiss his action against BlackRock, Inc. alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act related to BlackRock’s disclosures regarding environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in its management of investments. The dismissal is contingent on BlackRock’s substantial compliance with undertakings set forth in a settlement agreement. The undertakings included a requirement that BlackRock engage with portfolio companies and cast shareholder votes “solely to further the financial interests of investors” in “In-Scope Funds,” which are funds that do not disclose investment objectives beyond financial performance (such as sustainability) or screens or investment restrictions based on non-financial criteria. BlackRock also agreed to cast proxy votes based on its “own independent judgment and without coordinating or communicating its voting plans” with external entities and to maintain records regarding its reasons for declining to vote with management recommendations on environmental or social shareholder proposals. Other requirements included removing data regarding “sustainability characteristics” from the U.S. product pages for In-Scope Funds and disclosing on its website any memberships in organizations “principally devoted to achieving climate-focused investment or stewardship objectives and having written terms of membership.” A third-party service is to conduct annual audits of BlackRock’s compliance with recordkeeping obligations. BlackRock must establish procedures and training “reasonably designed to achieve compliance” with the settlement’s requirements.  State ex rel. Skrmetti v. BlackRock, Inc., No. 23CV-618 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Jan. 17, 2025)

New York Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Attorney General’s Anti-Idling Enforcement Action Against School Bus Companies

A New York Supreme Court denied school bus companies’ motion to dismiss the New York Attorney General’s action alleging that they violated New York State idling prohibitions and seeking injunctive and monetary relief for repeated and persistent violations of New York State and New York City idling prohibitions. The court rejected the defendants’ contentions that the Attorney General failed to allege that each defendant was a “person” under the anti-idling requirement, that the idling occurred in a “heavy-duty vehicle,” and that the defendants allowed or permitted the idling. In addition, the court rejected the contention that the Attorney General failed to demonstrate that exceptions to the prohibition were inapplicable or that the complaint “improperly lumped” allegations against the defendants. The court also rejected arguments regarding the Attorney General’s jurisdiction to bring the cause of action related to repeated and persistent violations. The court found that the defendants’ contentions that the action violated equal protection or the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment and a related New York constitutional provision lacked merit; the court also said the excessive fines challenge was not ripe. In addition, the court denied a motion to strike the entire complaint. The court found that the complaint’s allegations regarding idling’s contributions to climate change, as well as other allegations, did not reach the level of being “inherently prejudicial.” People v. Jofaz Transportation, Inc., No. 513822/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2025)

New York Court Granted Attorney General Leave to File New Complaint in Climate Washing Action Against Beef Producer

The New York Supreme Court granted a motion by the beef producer companies JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS USA) to dismiss the New York State Attorney General’s climate washing action to the extent of granting the Attorney General leave to file an amended complaint. The Attorney General alleged that JBS USA violated the New York General Business Law by making misleading and unsubstantiated claims regarding its commitment to climate goals, including achievement of net zero emissions by 2040. From the bench, the court granted the Attorney General 90 days to file an amended complaint that would, among other things, “articulate … more clearly” the basis for subjecting JBS USA to jurisdiction in New York. The court also suggested during oral argument that the complaint needed “a clearer statement of how the statute was violated” even after JBS USA changed its language to refer to “ambition to achieve” net zero rather than “commitment to achieve.”People v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 450682/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 10, 2025)

California County Agreed to Withdraw Approval for Hydrogen Plant

On December 12, 2024, the Fresno Bee reported that residents of Pixley in Tulare County in California had reached a settlement agreement that required the County to withdraw its approval for an ethanol-to-hydrogen plant. The petition challenging the approval asserted that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act as well as zoning laws. A County official said the project applicant would have to include a “more robust environmental document” in a reapplication in order to advance the project. Pixley Residents for Environmental Justice v. County of Tulare, __ (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 12, 2024)

NEW CASES, MOTIONS, AND OTHER FILINGS

Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Whether City and County of Boulder Can Bring State Law Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies

The Colorado Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for February 11, 2025 in the climate change case brought by the City of Boulder and Boulder County against Exxon Mobil Corporation, Suncor Energy USA, Inc., and related companies. The Supreme Court agreed in July 2024 to consider whether a district court erred when it allowed the City and County to proceed with claims under state law. County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy USA, Inc., No. 2024SA206 (Colo.)

Solicitor General Asked Supreme Court to Hold Proceedings in California Waiver Case in Abeyance; Briefs Filed by Petitioners and Amici

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Acting Solicitor General’s motion requesting that the Court hold the briefing schedule in abeyance in fuel producers’ attempt to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s determination that they lacked standing to challenge the Biden administration’s reinstatement of the Clean Air Act preemption waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Car Program regulations. The motion said EPA’s Acting Administrator had determined that the agency “should reassess the basis for and soundness of the 2022 reinstatement decision,” which could “obviate the need for this Court to determine whether petitioners had Article III standing.” The fuel producers opposed the motion. They filed their opening brief on January 27. Eleven amicus briefs were filed in support of the fuel producers. Our Children’s Trust, the public interest law firm representing the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, filed an amicus brief, along with Public Justice, in support of neither petitioners nor respondents. They argued that the redressability element of standing could be satisfied where a plaintiff requests prospective relief “at least as coercive as a declaratory judgment.” Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, No. 24-7 (U.S. Feb. 6, 2025)

Lawsuits Filed Challenging IRA’s Waste Emissions Charge and EPA’s Rule Implementing It

Six petitions for review were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule on “Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions.” The rule implements the waste emissions charge in the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA’s) Methane Emission Reduction Program. Petitioners included trade associations of oil and natural gas producers; Texas and 22 other states; and other industry and business groups. Petitioners said they would show that the final rule exceeded EPA’s statutory authority and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law. Independent Petroleum Association of America v. EPA, No. 25-1021 (D.C. Cir., filed Jan. 15, 2025)

American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce and Michigan Oil and Gas Association also filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan challenging the constitutionality of provision of the Inflation Reduction Act that imposed the waste emissions charge, which the plaintiffs referred to as a “Methane Tax.” The plaintiffs contended that the provision did not provide an “intelligible principle” for applying a “regulatory compliance exemption” from the charge. The plaintiffs further asserted that the provision constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the waste emissions charge violated the Constitution’s Export Clause to the extent it applied to liquefied natural gas export facilities because it was “in effect” a tax on exports. American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce v. Nishida, No. 1:25-cv-00067 (W.D. Mich., filed Jan. 17, 2025)

Lawsuit Challenged Biden Administration Energy Conservation Standards for Gas-Powered Water Heaters

Georgia, 20 other states, a manufacturer of tankless water heaters, and natural gas and building industry trade groups filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) energy conservation standards for consumer gas-fired instantaneous water heaters. In its final rule, DOE reported that its analyses indicated that the standards would save a significant amount of energy, resulting in consumer cost savings and health and environmental benefits, including cumulative carbon dioxide emission reductions of 32 million metric tons. Georgia v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 25-10161 (11th Cir., filed Jan. 17, 2025)

Challenge Filed in Ninth Circuit to EPA Waiver for California Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations

American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA’s decision granting California a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for its Advanced Clean Cars II regulations. The petition was filed on January 6, 2025, the same day that EPA published its notice of decision in the Federal Register. California, 15 other states, the District of Columbia, and several cities sought leave to intervene in support of the respondents, as did three environmental organizations and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, a coalition of companies in the electric vehicle supply chain. American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, No. 25-106 (9th Cir., filed Jan. 6, 2025)

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Constitutionality of New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act

West Virginia and 21 other states, along with several coal, oil, and gas trade associations and a mining company, filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York challenging New York State’s Climate Change Superfund Act. The 2024 law established a $75 billion Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program to fund adaptation projects in the state. The program is to be funded by companies that engaged in fossil fuel extraction or crude oil refining during a covered period and that are responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions during that period. The complaint alleged that the law was preempted under the U.S. Constitution because it “invades the equal sovereignty of other States by unconstitutionally imposing liability and penalties on energy companies outside of New York for greenhouse gas emissions produced by lawful activities outside of New York’s borders.” The plaintiffs also alleged that the New York law undermined federalism principles by inserting state law where there are “[u]niquely federal interests.” The complaint also asserted that the law was preempted under the Clean Air Act and violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the foreign Commerce Clause. In addition, plaintiffs claimed that the law was retroactive in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effected a regulatory taking under the U.S. and New York constitutions, and violated the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. West Virginia v. James, No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 6, 2025)

Greenwashing Class Action Filed Against Charmin Toilet Paper Manufacturer

Consumers filed a greenwashing class action in the federal district court for the Western District Washington against Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G), the manufacturer of Charmin toilet paper. They alleged that the company had for years “been complicit in the clear cutting of untouched ancient primary forests in order to sell billions of dollars of single use toilet paper – all the while reassuring consumers with false claims that it was helping to regrow and restore these unique forests.” The allegedly misleading claims made by P&G included statements to investors related to climate change and carbon storage, including that it was investing in “natural climate solutions that can remove and store more carbon.” The complaint also alleged that the company’s “Keep Forests as Forests” marketing campaign and “Protect-Grow-Restore” messaging for Charmin misled consumers by failing to disclose that most wood pulp used to manufacture Charmin is from Canada’s boreal forest, which the complaint described as “one of the last large primary forests on earth.” The complaint alleged that primary forests store 30­–40% of the earth’s land-based carbon and that P&G intentionally misled consumers to believe that its suppliers’ replanting efforts in logged areas were able to mimic the previously existing ecosystems. In addition, the complaint alleged improper use of third-party logos regarding sustainability and violation of the Federal Trade Commission Green Guides. The plaintiffs asserted claims of fraudulent concealment and violations of state consumer protection laws on behalf of classes in a number of states. They sought injunctive relief as well as costs, restitution, damages, including punitive damages, and disgorgement. Lowry v. Proctor & Gamble Co., No. 2:25-cv-00108 (W.D. Wash., filed Jan. 16, 2025)

Lawsuits Asserted that President Biden’s Withdrawal of Outer Continental Shelf Lands from Oil and Gas Development Exceeded Presidential Authority

At least two lawsuits were filed challenging President Biden’s permanent withdrawal of areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean from oil and gas leasing. A complaint filed by the State of Texas and a Texas-based oil and natural gas producer in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas asserted that the withdrawal exceeded authority granted to the President by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), including because the action implicated the major questions doctrine and there was no clear congressional authorization in OCSLA for a permanent withdrawal of lands from consideration for oil and gas development. In a lawsuit filed in the Western District of Louisiana, the State of Louisiana, along with four other states and two industry groups, asserted that the withdrawals violated separation of powers because the OCSLA provision at issue violates the non-delegation doctrine and the President’s actions taken pursuant to it are therefore ultra vires. They also alleged that the OCSLA provision violates the Property Clause, which gives Congress the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” In addition, they asserted a major questions doctrine-based claim that the President acted beyond the authority granted by OCSLA. Texas v. Biden, No. 9:25-cv-00010 (E.D. Tex., filed Jan. 20, 2025); Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:25-cv-00071 (W.D. La., filed Jan. 17, 2025)

Lawsuit Sought Endangered Species Act Listing Decision on Springsnail with Nevada Habitat

Western Watersheds Project and People of Red Mountain filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Nevada to compel a 12-month finding under the Endangered Species Act as to whether listing of the Kings River pyrg as an endangered or threatened species was warranted. The complaint alleged that the pyrg is a “tiny endemic springsnail, … known to exist only in 13 small, shallow springs in two locations in Humboldt County, Nevada.” The complaint further alleged that the pyrg is highly vulnerable to threats including impacts associated with an approved lithium mine project, spring modification, drought, livestock grazing, and climate change.” Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 3:25-cv-00023 (D. Nev., filed Jan. 13, 2025)

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Federal Approvals for Offshore Wind Project Off the New Jersey Coast

A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey challenged federal authorizations for the Atlantic Shores South offshore wind project off the coast of New Jersey. The plaintiffs asserted violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Their climate change-related arguments involved allegations that the final environmental impact statement failed to provide information on the project’s effect on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions changes on a regional scale. The plaintiffs also contended that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s belief that the project would further the “public interest” in its Coastal Zone Management Act analysis was unsupported by evidence, “including an absence of climate change benefit.” Save Long Beach Island v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 3:25-cv-00240 (D.N.J., filed Jan. 10, 2025)

Lawsuits Challenged Biden Administration’s Version of the ANWR Coastal Plain Lease Sale

At least two lawsuits were filed in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging the Biden administration’s December 2024 decision authorizing oil and gas leasing on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In one lawsuit, Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority (AIDEA)—which was awarded seven leases in early January 2021 that the Biden administration ultimately canceled in 2023—asserted that the record of decision (ROD) issued in December 2024 did not comply with the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which required the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to establish a “competitive” oil and gas program on the ANWR Coastal Plain. In addition, AIDEA asserted violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). AIDEA also asserted that the ROD was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and asked the court to compel BLM to conduct a lease sale that includes at least 400,000 acres of area not already leased and to remove all unnecessary restrictions on the leased area as had been done in the earlier lease sale. In the second lawsuit, Alaska alleged that the December 2024 ROD negated the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s directive for oil and gas leasing on the Coastal Plain “by severely limiting use and occupancy” the surface of the lands to be leased. Alaska asserted violations of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, ANILCA, and NEPA. Alaska v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 3:25-cv-00003 (D. Alaska, filed Jan. 6, 2025); Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 3:24-cv-00282 (D. Alaska, filed Dec. 20, 2024)

Lawsuit Challenged Environmental Review for Oakland Airport Expansion

A lawsuit filed in California Superior Court challenged the final environmental impact report (FEIR) for expansion of the Oakland Airport. The petitioner’s allegations included that the FEIR certified by the Port of Oakland and the Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland (the Port) failed to adequately analyze project-related greenhouse gas emissions and failed to adopt an adequate threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. The petition also alleged that the FEIR did not adequately consider mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions. The petitioner contended that the FEIR’s description of the project was incomplete, that it improperly used a pre-COVID baseline, and that the FEIR failed to acknowledge “that improving and expanding the Airport’s facilities will enable a substantial increase in aviation activity – that is, the Project is the driver of significant environmental effects; the Port cannot properly disclaim responsibility for those effects on the faulty assumption that the demand for commercial airline service is going to increase regardless of the Project.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Port of Oakland, No. 24CV105232 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 19, 2024)

HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Ireland: Court decided that climate concerns take precedence over visual concerns in wind energy project

The case concerned an application by a wind farm company for planning permission to construct a wind farm in Co. Laois. An Bord Pleanála (the national planning authority) rejected permission for the wind farm, citing visual impacts and local development plan designations for wind turbines. Under the local Laois County Development Plan, wind farms would not be constructed in the relevant area based on the alleged visual concerns. Still, as the national planning authority, An Bord Pleanála could grant permission for the wind farm regardless of any alleged material contravention of the County Development Plan. In this instance, however, the planning permission was refused in line with the visual concerns outlined in the original County Development Plan.

The company sought to appeal the decision before the High Court, arguing inter alia that under S15(1) of the Climate Act, as well as in line with EU law and obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the planning authority had an obligation to interpret its planning decisions such that climate considerations would take priority over the visual concerns and that the authority had therefore taken inadequate account of S15(1) of the Climate Act. The planning authority argued in response that a narrow interpretation of this provision was appropriate, obliging the authority only to give regard to climate considerations and that the authority had, therefore, acted within its powers in refusing permission for the wind farm.

The High Court, in a ruling by Humphreys J. upheld the appeal, finding that An Bord Pleanála had acted unlawfully by failing to exercise its powers in a manner compliant as far as practicable with the climate objectives and policies set out in the Climate Act, and had also breached its duties under EU law and European human rights law. The Court noted that “if climate goals take precedence over visual impacts [as had been found in a previous case of Nagle View Turbine Aware Group v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 603 (Unreported, High Court, 1st November 2024)] and the like, then logically they must take precedence over development plan provisions that are motivated by visual impacts.”

The High Court further noted that the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland demonstrated that the requirement to read legislation in an ECHR-compliant manner supported an interpretation of S15 that went beyond the board’s approach and that the interpretation should ensure that ECHR obligations are complied with in practice, including compliance in practice with stated goals in relation to renewable energy infrastructure. The failure to properly consider the climate benefits of allowing the project, therefore, constituted a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Taking the importance of climate action into account, the Court held that the authority had not adequately considered S15(1) in its considerations of whether to grant permission in light of the need to consider climate objectives in contrast to the visual impacts and local planning concerns expressed by those opposed to the wind farms. It stated that “the need for an imperative reading of S15(1) in line with what it says, namely that the board and any other relevant body is required to act in conformity with the climate plans and objectives set out in the subsection unless it is impracticable to do so.” [117]

The Court, therefore, granted the appeal and ordered that the application be remitted to An Bord Pleanála for further consideration in accordance with the judgment. Coolglass Windfarm Limited v. An Bord Pleanala [2025] IEHC 1 (Ireland, High Court)

DECISIONS & SETTLEMENTS

New Zealand: Court of Appeal finds Māori leader’s challenge to New Zealand’s Climate Change Response Act untenable

In March 2022, the plaintiff, a Māori elder, landowner, and tribal climate spokesperson, brought a claim against New Zealand’s government, alleging “inadequate action in relation to climate change”. He argued that the successive New Zealand governments had failed to adequately address the effects of climate change on New Zealand and its citizens, especially Māori. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the government had failed to incorporate international obligations into domestic law, and to reduce the carbon emissions produced by government activities. Furthermore, although the government had introduced an emissions trading scheme, the plaintiff argued that the overall emissions cap was set too high and contained unjustifiable exemptions.

The claim was based on three legal grounds: (1) rights protected under New Zealand’s statutory Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), specifically the rights to life and culture; (2) obligations allegedly owed under the Treaty of Waitangi | Te Tiriti o Waitangi (including possible fiduciary duties); and (3) rights protected under New Zealand’s common law (including the public trust doctrine). First, the plaintiff alleged that the New Zealand government had breached the rights guaranteed under sections 8 and 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), namely the rights to life and the rights of minorities. Second, the plaintiff alleged that the New Zealand government had failed to act in accordance with its obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti), New Zealand’s founding document. The defendant applied for the claims to be struck out. Third, the plaintiff argued that the government owed (and had breached) a common law duty of care to New Zealanders to “take all necessary steps to reduce NZ emissions and to actively protect the plaintiff and his descendants from the adverse effects of climate change.”

In July 2022, the New Zealand’s High Court struck out all three claims as untenable. First, it found that the common law duty of care lacked reference to any recognized legal obligations, and went beyond mere incremental development of new obligations. Furthermore, it was beyond the democratic role and institutional competence of a Court to “monitor” the full scope of the government’s climate change response. Next, the Court found that the right to life claim was untenable because the plaintiff had not pointed to a “real and identifiable” risk to a specified individual. Furthermore, the minority rights claim had failed to particularize specific breaches, NZBORA s 20 does not impose positive duties on the State, and that the Crown had taken adequate steps to consider the interests of Māori. Finally, the Court found that Te Tiriti does not give rise to free-standing obligations, and that plaintiff’s claim was too wide-ranging to give rise to fiduciary Te Tiriti obligations because such obligations would untenably be owed to the public in general. Even if such duties were to be developed, they would need to rely on the common law duty advanced in the first cause of action, which the Court deemed untenable in any event.

In December 2024, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal accepted that it might be plausible that “an inadequate response” to climate change could be challenged under NZBORA. However, the Court found that Smith’s particular claim was untenable. This was because it challenged a comprehensive piece of legislation, New Zealand’s Climate Change Response Act (CCRA), rather than specific decisions made under it. The framework itself “reflect[s] policy choices that are for Parliament,” not the courts. Secondly, the Court of Appeal found the plaintiff’s Treaty of Waitangi claims to be “clearly untenable.” It concluded that the present case was ill-suited to considering whether legislation could be declared inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, partly because the challenged CCRA already integrated Treaty-related obligations. Likewise, the claimed fiduciary duty was too broad and general. Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s common law claim. In addition to similar reasons for striking out the first two claims, the Court concluded that the public trust doctrine obligations alleged by the plaintiff were too broad and displaced by legislation. Smith v. Attorney-General (New Zealand, New Zealand Court of Appeals)

Brazil: São Paulo Court upholds challenge to the establishment of a protected area due to incompatibility with climate justice and environmental racism principles

On March 31, 2014, the São Paulo State Public Defender’s Office (DPESP) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the São Paulo State Land Institute Foundation (ITESP), the São Paulo State Foundation for Forest Conservation and Production (Fundação Florestal), and the State of São Paulo. The lawsuit seeks the annulment of the state decree that created a state park overlapping with a quilombola territory. The case highlights environmental racism as a major factor behind the marginalization of the Quilombola Community of Bombas, which has been denied its territorial rights due to the supposed incompatibility of these rights with local biodiversity protection. This is because the community’s territory overlaps with the Alto Ribeira Tourist State Park (PETAR). The plaintiffs argue that the Quilombola peoples of that region are protectors of nature and have a relationship of mutual dependence with it. They, therefore, request Quilombola territorial recognition, a land survey with the removal of any third parties, the revocation or invalidation of State Decree 32.283/1958 (only regarding its impact on the Quilombola territory), the titling of the Quilombola territory, and the construction of a road providing adequate access to the community. The initial claim does not mention climate issues, which are referenced for the first time in the judgment.

On December 29, 2023, a ruling was issued upholding the initial claim in favor of the Quilombola Community of Bombas, recognizing the material invalidity of Decree 32.238/1958, which created PETAR, insofar as it overlaps with the quilombola territory. The court affirmed its incompatibility with Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT) and ILO Convention 169, declaring the allocation of that territory to the state park null and void. The decision addressed the concept of environmental racism in the context of climate justice but concluded that the case resulted from a combination of social, environmental, historical, and legal factors. Additionally, the court affirmed that the relationship between traditional communities and the environment is non-conflictual. It acknowledged the urgent need to halt unrestrained human activity in ecosystems—activity that is altering climatic conditions essential for humanity’s survival.

On March 5, 2024, the São Paulo State Attorney General’s Office filed an appeal against the decision, contextually incorporating the climate argument. It stated that climate change is one of humanity’s greatest global threats and emphasized the importance of carbon sinks in sequestering carbon and reducing the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. It argued that the solution to the climate challenge lies in simple concepts, such as preserving and restoring green areas, including forests and vegetation cover. The appeal contended that investing in the conservation and sustainable management of green areas is not only an environmental necessity but also a strategic approach to addressing climate challenges and strengthening the resilience of communities (including Quilombolas). It used this argument to advocate for the continued protection of PETAR. São Paulo State Public Defender’s Office v. São Paulo State Land Institute Foundation (ITESP), the São Paulo State Foundation for Forest Conservation and Production (Fundação Florestal) and the State of São Paulo (Brazil, São Paulo State Court)

Finland: Court finds that it is still early to assess government’s inaction on climate targets

In August 2024, a coalition of six Finnish environmental and human rights organizations, including Finnish Nature Conservation Union, Greenpeace, Amnesty International Finland, Climate Parents, Nature Association and Suoma Sámi Nuorat - Suomen Sámi youth filed a lawsuit against the Finnish government at the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. In Finland, the warming of the climate has a strong impact on the traditional ways of life of the Sámi people and, thus, on the Sámi culture. The plaintiffs claim that the Finnish government’s inadequate climate policies are not only a breach of the nation’s own laws but also a violation of human rights. The plaintiffs argue that the Government’s insufficient climate actions and ignoring the special status of the Sami people in the preparation of policy measures in the land use sector violate the rights guaranteed to the Sami people by the Constitution and outlined in Finland’s 2022 Climate Act, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035.

In January 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) of Finland turned down the complaint alleging the government’s inaction on climate targets. The court acknowledged the government’s consideration of carbon sinks but emphasized the need for time to assess the effectiveness of current policies. As implementing the measures takes time, it is impossible to rule on whether they can be considered insufficient relative to the target set for the burden-sharing sector for 2030 and the climate-neutrality target set for 2035. The court held that the climate report cannot be regarded as violating the law. The court also noted that the complaint could yield a different conclusion at a later date if it were shown that the additional measures were insufficient to meet the binding objectives set forth in the Climate Act. Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and others v Finland (Finland, Supreme Administrative Court)

ICSD: Arbitral tribunal finds that emissions allowances are not considered property under NAFTA

In 2016, Ontario, a province in Canada, established a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions as part of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a collaborative effort among regional governments in the United States and Canada to create a shared emissions trading market. During auctions held in 2017 and 2018, KS&T acquired a significant number of emissions trading allowances, transferring the majority of these allowances to California, another participant in the WCI. While the specific value of the allowances is not disclosed in the arbitration award, earlier reports estimate the amount to be approximately USD 30 million, aligning with the claimants’ stated damages in the arbitration.

In June 2018, a conservative government came to power in Ontario, announcing plans to terminate the cap-and-trade program. This decision included canceling a scheduled auction for additional emissions allowances that month. Subsequently, California ceased recognizing Ontario’s emissions allowances, preventing KS&T from transferring certain recently purchased allowances out of Ontario. By October 2018, Ontario formally ended the cap-and-trade program, invalidating existing emissions allowances without providing any compensation to “market participants,” including those who had purchased allowances on the secondary market.

In December 2020, Koch Industries and KS&T initiated an ICSID arbitration, challenging Ontario’s cancellation of their emissions trading allowances under NAFTA. They relied on the “Legacy Investments” provision of the USMCA, as previously discussed in detail.

As the Tribunal declined jurisdiction, it did not consider the merits issues. However, it did clarify several issues on international carbon trading emissions which are crucial for the intersection of ISDS and climate change moving forward. We summarize those issues below:

Whether the emission allowances held by the investor constituted property in Ontario under Article 1139(g) of NAFTA.

Canada argued that the investor´s emissions trading allowances did not qualify as protected investments under NAFTA. The claimants, however, argued that the allowances constituted “property” under NAFTA Article 1139(g), asserting that the term “property” carried an independent and expansive meaning under customary international law. In response, Canada maintained that the allowances lacked essential common-law characteristics of property and that the cap-and-trade program did not demonstrate any intention to create proprietary rights in emissions trading allowances. Citing Lion v. Mexico, the tribunal held that the claimants needed to “prove that the asset over which the claimant alleges property rights is considered as property in that legal system, and that, according to the corresponding laws or rules of that legal system, the property right is vested in the claimant.”

The tribunal noted that the cap-and-trade program did not define emissions allowances as property rights and examined whether the allowances met the Ontario common-law definition of property. The tribunal reviewed several Canadian court rulings addressing claims to novel intangible property rights. Ultimately, it found no decision that established a general test for determining the existence of property. Specifically, the tribunal considered: (i) the Saulnier case, (ii) the Anglehart case, (iii) the Tucows case, (iv) the Bouckhuyt case. Synthesizing principles from these cases, the tribunal determined, among others that:

• Significant government discretion in deciding what constitutes property may negate the exclusivity necessary to establish property rights.
• Predictability of renewal of emissions trading’s allowances has limited relevance.
• Government powers to take, modify, or remove statutory rights without compensation, or to exclude expropriation claims, may indicate a lack of “exclusive control” and, therefore, a lack of property rights.

The Tribunal ultimately concluded that emissions allowances are not property within are not “property” within the meaning of NAFTA Article 1139(g). The Tribunal’s analysis centered on whether emission allowances under Ontario’s Cap and Trade Act satisfied the “exclusive control” element necessary to constitute property under Ontario law. While the claimants argued that provisions in the Act allowed participants exclusive rights to trade, hold, and use allowances, the Tribunal noted that these provisions were subject to significant government oversight and restrictions. For instance, the government retained broad discretionary powers to regulate allowances, including canceling them, imposing conditions, and limiting their transferability. These powers, alongside statutory limitations on compensation and expropriation claims under Section 70, indicated that the government maintained overarching control over the allowances, undermining the claimants’ assertion of exclusive control. The Tribunal found that this regulatory framework was inconsistent with the degree of autonomy typically required for property under Ontario law.

The Tribunal also evaluated Canadian case law, which emphasized exclusivity as the defining characteristic of property. Cases such as Bouckhuyt and Saulnier highlighted that property rights require a significant degree of autonomy and exclusivity, which were lacking in this instance due to the government’s regulatory powers. Although the Tribunal acknowledged that emission allowances exhibited some attributes of property, it ultimately concluded that the claimants failed to demonstrate sufficient control to satisfy the exclusivity element. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the emission allowances did not constitute property under Ontario law and, consequently, did not qualify as an investment under Article 1139(g) of NAFTA. This decision underscores the challenges of asserting property rights in regulatory frameworks designed to address climate and environmental objectives.

Whether cross-border emission trading activities are classified as an economic activity under Article 1139(h).

The claimants sought to characterize the emissions allowances and their trading business as “interests arising from the commitment of capital or other resources in the territory of a Party to economic activity in such territory,” within the meaning of NAFTA Article 1139(h). In contrast, the respondent contended that respondents’ interests did not meet the requirements of Article 1139(h) and failed to align with the illustrative examples provided in the provision, which emphasize contracts involving property or economic activity directly tied to the host state. Notably, the Tribunal emphasized that the claimants needed to show “a cognizable interest that results from committing those resources within the territory of a Party towards economic activity within that territory,” meaning economic activity in Ontario specifically.

The tribunal further held that the claimant’s emissions allowances did not provide it with a legal share in any asset or resource, and therefore, did not constitute a qualifying interest. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the trading activities—purchasing allowances in auctions and reselling them in secondary markets—did not align with the types of interests described in the Article 1139(h) examples, as the Claimant did not operate an enterprise in Ontario. Additionally, the tribunal observed that the Claimant lacked any physical or corporate presence, or economic activity, in Ontario, apart from employing a local representative to satisfy regulatory obligations. Its trading operations were conducted entirely from the United States, and there was “no evidence that KS&T’s trading business was linked to a specific underlying economic project, operation, or activity taking place in Ontario.” As in Apotex v. USA and Canadian Cattlemen v. USA, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s cross-border trading activities through auctions and transfers of emissions allowances did not qualify as protected investments.

On this basis, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims filed by Claimants, Koch Industries, Inc. and Koch Supply & Trading, LP, against Respondent, Canada, and that each Party shall bear its own costs, fees, and expenses. Koch Industries, Inc. and Koch Supply & Trading, LP (ICSD)

NEW CASES

Brazil: Federal Prosecutor’s Office files several lawsuits against large landowners for climate damages due to deforestation

In September 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against Roges Pereira Sales for the deforestation of 287.96 hectares between 2015 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant’s occupation of the land was unlawful, as the area is part of an Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), which is federal property under the management of the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and is occupied by traditional extractivist communities. This ACP is one of 22 actions brought by the MPF following an investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, addressing illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agroextractivist Settlement Project, though involving different defendants. The legal arguments for the action are based, among other elements, on Brazilian Environmental Law, emphasizing the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages (including climate-related damages), and collective moral damages. The MPF also highlights the environmental liability resulting from unauthorized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by illegal deforestation, estimated at 161,016.06 tons of carbon dioxide. These emissions are directly linked to Brazil’s deviation from its climate goals, violating commitments under the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12,187/2009) and the Paris Agreement.

The ACP includes the following key requests:

(i) reversal of the burden of proof from the outset;

(ii) immediate cessation of activities contributing to ongoing damage;

(iii) restoration of the environment to its original state, or alternatively, payment of compensation aimed at achieving environmental restitution;

(iv) payment of compensation for interim and residual environmental material damages;

(v) payment of compensation for climate-related damages; and

(vi) payment of compensation for collective moral damages.

In August 2024, the defendant, represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office, filed an answer arguing the absence of both causation and authorship regarding deforestation. The defense also claimed that combining the requests for in natura restoration and compensation for material damages for the same act would constitute bis in idem. The defendant requested that the action be dismissed. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office  v. Roges Pereira Sales (Desmatamento e dano climático no PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)

Other lawsuits that were simultaneously filed against other large landowners on the same grounds: Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Cleide Guimarães Machado (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Nilton Oliveira da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Ana Paula Moura de Souza (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Clair Cunha da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Tauane Camurça do Vale (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Sarah Ketley Muniz Almeida (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Istefania Ferreira da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Degmar Serrath de Menezes Caetano (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary PAE) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Carlos Eduardo de Oliveira Lima (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary PA (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Loacir Maria da Conceição (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary PAE) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Jorginei Anjos Batista (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary PAE) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)

Romania: NGOs file case challenging hydroelectric powerplant for biodiversity loss and flood risk

Two Romanian NGOs, namely Declic and Bankwatch Romania, submitted an application to the Cluj Administrative Court on December 11, 2024, seeking the suspension of Environmental Permit No. 2024/6 for the Răstolița hydro project. This permit was issued by the Mureș Environmental Agency. The case concerns a hydropower project whose implementation blatantly disregards fundamental legal provisions for environmental protection. The plaintiffs argue that by authorizing the clearing of 39.38 hectares of protected natural areas and the execution of major hydro-technical works based on technical documentation that is more than three decades old, this permit fails to account for current realities regarding climate change, biodiversity, and public safety.

Accordingly, they contend that the court must order the suspension of the effects of Environmental Permit No. 2024/6, issued for the Răstolița Hydroelectric Power Plant. Their argument is based on the apparent illegality of both the permitting procedure and the permit itself, specifically,

(i) the lack of an integrated analysis of the entire project: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study fails to adequately address the impact of major hydro-technical works (dam, secondary catchments, watercourse diversions, compensatory basin) on soil, water, biodiversity, and climate change. By focusing exclusively on deforestation, the study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the project’s full impacts, violating Art. 3 para. (1) lit. d) of Law 2018/292. The works authorized under Environmental Permit No. 2024/6 exceed the scope and limits of Urban Planning Certificates Nos. 2022/7 and 2024/23. Consequently, APM Mureș has acted beyond its legal prerogatives.

(ii) Hydro-technical works that were not subject to the environmental impact assessment but were nonetheless included in Environmental Permit No. 2024/6 are based on Authorization No. 1990/304—an outdated building permit. Technologies and standards, particularly regarding environmental protection and hydro-technical construction safety, have changed significantly over the past three decades. Failure to update the documentation creates major public safety risks, including the potential for irreversible environmental damage.

(iii) The environmental agreement violates Art. 6(3)-(4) of the Habitats Directive in conjunction with Art. 28 of GEO 2007/57.

(iv) The public consultation procedure was completed only formally, in violation of the mandatory deadlines set out in Annex 5 of Law 2018/292.

(v) The permit lacks a proper assessment of the impact of deforestation on climate change and ignores the associated risks in relation to hydro-technical works.

(vi) Without the suspension of Environmental Permit No. 2024/6, the environmental and community losses caused by this project would be severe and irreversible.

(vii) Biodiversity loss: The deforestation of 39.38 hectares of protected natural areas for the Răstolița AHE project will significantly impact biodiversity, destroying the habitats of numerous protected species, such as Carabus hampei, Osmoderma eremita, and Hucho hucho (a species of privet).

(viii) Impact on climate change: A mature forest of 39.38 hectares can store approximately 20,000 tons of CO₂, substantially contributing to climate change mitigation. Deforestation releases this carbon into the atmosphere, equivalent to the annual emissions of 4,500 continuously operating cars.

(ix) Increased flood risk: Forests act as natural water regulators, absorbing and retaining rainwater. Tree roots stabilize the soil and reduce erosion, while the topsoil slows the rate at which rainwater reaches rivers and streams. Deforestation removes this protective barrier, leading to: a. Increased surface runoff, b. Faster accumulation of water in watercourses, c. Higher flood risks in downstream areas.

(x) The destruction of 39.38 hectares of protected land is not just the loss of a forest—it is the sacrifice of an entire natural infrastructure that safeguards communities, stabilizes the climate, and supports wildlife. It is an intervention with long-term, irreversible consequences, undertaken for marginal and temporary energy gains.

The plaintiffs further contend that this is not a project of major public interest contributing to Romania’s energy independence or flood prevention. According to project documentation, the hydropower plant’s installed flow is only 17m³/s, generating an insignificant amount of energy relative to the national energy system’s needs. With a total installed national capacity of 18,000 MW, Răstolița’s capacity (~35 MW) represents just 0.19% of the total. Meanwhile, the project will have negative impacts on ten rivers. Thus, if Romania’s energy independence were a raging fire needing containment, the Răstolița project would be the equivalent of using a wet napkin to put out the flames—symbolic, but ultimately ineffective. The hearing in this case is set for February 5, 2025. Declic and Bankwatch Romania v. Răstoliţa Hydropower Project (Romania, Cluj Administrative Court)

Chile: State Defense Council files complaint against open-pit mining company for environmental damages intensified by climate change

On July 2, 2024, the plaintiff filed a judicial complaint under Article 17, No. 2 of Law No. 20.600, aiming to hold the defendant accountable for environmental damage resulting from the open-pit mining of ulexite deposits in the Salar de Surire. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant violated Ley N.º 19.300 (General Environmental Law) by failing to implement mitigation, repair, and compensation measures, as well as neglecting to enter the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA). Consequently, significant environmental harm ensued, including the destruction of sediments, alteration of topography, loss of surface runoff, and degradation of critical ecosystem services. The plaintiff further emphasizes the damage to microbiota and extremophile microbial ecosystems (EMEs), which possess scientific value, particularly in astrobiology.

The plaintiff emphasizes that climate change intensifies these impacts, citing the Sixth IPCC Report (2021), which highlights the vulnerability of unique ecosystems like the Salar to climate change. Increased summer rainfall worsens environmental degradation and disrupts the Salar’s role as a climate refuge, which is critical for sustaining biodiversity both regionally and globally. The plaintiff also references Chile’s international obligations under the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Paris Agreement, along with the Climate Change Framework Law (Ley N.º 21.455), which outlines long-term climate management strategies. Furthermore, the plaintiff invokes Article 19, No. 8 of the Chilean Constitution, which guarantees the right to live in an environment free from pollution and requires the State to protect nature.

The plaintiff contends that the defendant’s actions, which violate both domestic and international environmental obligations, have inflicted irreparable damage on the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Salar de Surire. To mitigate further harm, the plaintiff has requested a complete suspension of Quiborax’s mining operations, a measure granted by resolution on September 11, 2024. The plaintiff seeks reparative or compensatory measures in line with relevant environmental laws and commitments.

The defendant argues that the claim is inadmissible due to res judicata, as a prior judgment by the First Civil Court of Arica, confirmed by the Court of Appeals, ruled over a decade ago that there was no environmental damage in the Salar de Surire, no negligence by Quiborax, and no obligation to enter the SEIA process. The defendant also asserts that the action is time-barred, as the alleged damage began 37 years ago, far exceeding the statutory limitation period. Additionally, the defendant contends that the claimed environmental harm does not exist, as the impacts are inherent to regulated mining activities conducted under valid authorizations and continuous oversight. It denies causation, attributing changes in the Salar’s lagoons to climatic factors such as temperature and rainfall. Finally, it rejects the presumption of liability under Article 52 of Law No. 19.300, arguing that no infringement has been proven and that the court lacks direct sanctioning authority. The defendant requests the complete dismissal of the claim, including costs. State Defense Council vs. Quiborax S.A. (Chile, Segundo Tribunal Ambiental)

Tags
Climate Litigation Climate Litigation, International