January 2025 Updates to the Climate Case Charts
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 #190:
FEATURED CASES
Montana Supreme Court Ruled that State Law Restricting Consideration of Climate Change in Environmental Reviews Violated Youth Plaintiffs’ Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment
In a lawsuit filed by youth plaintiffs in March 2020, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s 2023 decision holding that the Montana Constitution protects the right to a stable climate system and that a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) restricting consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corresponding climate change impacts in environmental reviews violated that right.
First, the Supreme Court held that a stable climate system is “clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment” in the Montana Constitution. The court rejected the State’s arguments that because the framers did not specifically discuss climate change or other global issues, they could not have intended for the right to include environmental degradation resulting from climate change. The court cited precedent describing the Montana Constitution’s right to a clean and healthful environment as “forward-looking and preventative” and concluded that the right should apply to pollutants not in existence or fully understood at the time of the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention. The Supreme Court also noted that the plaintiffs had shown that climate change has impacted environmental resources identified by the framers and that the trial court had made “extensive, undisputed findings of fact that GHG emissions are drastically altering and degrading Montana’s climate, rivers, lakes, groundwater, atmospheric waters, forests, glaciers, fish, wildlife, air quality, and ecosystem.”
Second, the Montana Supreme Court rejected arguments that the youth plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the MEPA provision’s constitutionality. The court found that the plaintiffs showed “a sufficient personal stake in their inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment” with their definitive showing at trial of climate change’s “serious and irreversible harms” to Montana’s environment and their allegation that the statute infringed on that right by prohibiting consideration of projects’ GHG emissions. Regarding the causation and redressability prongs of standing, the court concluded that while the statute might be “only a small contributor to climate change generally, and declaring it unconstitutional will do little to reverse climate change,” the harm to the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights would be alleviated by declaring the statute unconstitutional and enjoining the State from acting in accordance with it.
Third, the Montana Supreme Court found that the MEPA prohibition on considering GHG emissions had to be analyzed under strict scrutiny because it “clearly implicates” the right to a clean and healthful environment. The court ruled that even if the State defendants had a compelling interest in balancing private property rights with that right, the State did not show that the statute was narrowly tailored to this interest.
The Supreme Court also found that State failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in finding no good cause to grant the State’s motion requesting psychological evaluations of eight of the plaintiffs. The court said it was not necessary to resolve the issue of whether the plaintiffs put mental health “in controversy” because, among other factors, the question of standing was resolved based on injury to the plaintiffs’ constitutional right “rather than to any mental, emotional, physical, aesthetic, or property interests harmed by the State’s actions.”
A dissenting justice would have ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they alleged “an abstract injury that is indistinguishable from that to the public as a whole and is not legally concrete to them personally” and, furthermore, had not shown that the MEPA restrictions caused the constitutional harm. Held v. State, No. DA 23-0575 (Mont. Dec. 18, 2024)
Supreme Court Denied Fossil Fuel Companies’ Certiorari Petitions in Honolulu Climate Case
On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied two petitions for writ of certiorari in which fossil fuel companies sought review of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision allowing the City and County of Honolulu to proceed with its climate change-based claims against the defendants. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration or decision of the petitions.
In December, the Solicitor General of the United States had submitted a brief to the Court expressing the U.S.’s view that the Court should deny the petitions. The Solicitor General argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to review the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s interlocutory decision because it was not a final judgment and did not qualify for treatment as final based on an exception for cases in which the state courts have finally decided the federal issue and the parties seeking review might prevail on nonfederal grounds in further proceedings and where reversal of the state court ruling on the federal action would preclude the further litigation and the refusal to immediately review the state court decision “might seriously erode federal policy.” The Solicitor General also argued that the merits did not warrant the Court’s review at this time because the Hawai‘i Supreme Court had correctly rejected the petitioners’ reliance on federal common law and also correctly determined that the Clean Air Act did not preempt Honolulu’s claims. The Solicitor General distinguished other cases, including the Second Circuit’s 2021 decision affirming dismissal of claims brought by New York City against fossil fuel company defendants. City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, Nos. 23-947 and 23-952 (U.S.)
The Solicitor General also argued that the Court should deny a motion by Alabama and 18 other states for leave to file a bill of complaint against states that had brought climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel industry defendants. The Solicitor General contended that the plaintiff states’ alleged economic harms from the defendant states’ lawsuits depended on contingencies that were “too speculative and too attenuated to establish standing.” The Solicitor General also argued that the complaint did not satisfy the Court’s criteria for exercising original jurisdiction because only the interests of private companies were directly at stake and the pending lawsuits were a better vehicle for addressing issues raised by the plaintiff states. The states’ motion was still pending as of January 13. Alabama v. California, No. 158 (U.S.)
DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
Supreme Court Agreed to Consider Fuel Producers’ Standing to Challenge Preemption Waiver for California Emissions Standards, But Denied States’ Petition Seeking Review of Waiver
The U.S. Supreme Court denied Ohio and 16 other states’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision upholding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) grant of a preemption waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Car Program regulations. The question presented by the petition concerned congressional authority to give EPA the authority to waive preemption of California vehicle emissions standards. Justice Thomas would have granted the petition. Ohio v. EPA, No. 24-13 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2024)
The Supreme Court granted a separate certiorari petition filed by fuel producers to the extent the petition sought review of the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that the fuel producers lacked standing because they failed to allege that a successful challenge to the preemption waiver would redress their alleged economic injuries. The Court granted review of the question of whether a party can establish the redressability component of standing “by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties,” in this case, third-party automakers. The fuel producers argued that the preemption waiver would have the “obvious” and “predictable” effect of causing automakers to make and sell more electric vehicles, and that elimination of the waiver would result in automakers making more vehicles that run on liquid fuel. Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA, No. 24-7 (U.S. Dec. 13, 2024)
Vermont Trial Court Denied Motions to Dismiss State’s Consumer Protection Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies
A Vermont Superior Court denied fossil fuel defendants’ motions to dismiss the State of Vermont’s action alleging that the defendants violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) by misrepresenting and concealing fossil fuel products’ contributions to climate change. Vermont alleged three categories of deceptive or unfair acts and practices: (1) climate science disinformation campaigns; (2) deceptive marketing of specific products; and (3) greenwashing campaigns. First, the court found that the State demonstrated a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction against each defendant under Vermont law, citing Vermont Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that a forum state may assert personal jurisdiction over companies that deliver their products “into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers” in the state. Second, the court rejected the argument that the “alleged decades-old climate science disinformation campaign falls well outside the statute of limitations” because Vermont consumers should have been aware of the link between fossil fuels and climate change by 2003 at the latest. The court agreed with the State that this action was based not on the link between fossil fuels and climate change but rather on the defendants’ alleged deceptive acts. Regarding the defendants’ arguments that the State failed to state a VCPA claim, the court first concluded that the State sufficiently alleged that the deceptive acts took place “in commerce.” The court also found that determinations of whether defendants’ statements were deceptive or constituted “mere commercial puffery” required further factual development. In addition, the court concluded that the State’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions were material for purposes of the motion to dismiss. In addition, the court found that at this stage, the State had adequately alleged an “agency relationship” between the defendants and American Petroleum Institute (API) as well as the defendants’ direct participation in API’s alleged greenwashing campaigns. The court therefore permitted the State to continue to assert the defendants’ derivative liability based on API statements. The court also concluded that the defendants were not entitled to dismissal on either First Amendment or Commerce Clause grounds. In addition, the court rejected the contention that complaint presented a non-justiciable political question. The court also denied Exxon Mobil Corporation’s request that the court strike Vermont’s request for disgorgement of funds acquired or retained as a result of practices found to be unlawful under the VCPA. The court said the request was premature and, moreover, that Exxon was incorrect that such relief was not authorized. State of Vermont v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 21-CV-02778 (Vt. Super. Ct. Dec. 11, 2024)
California Trial Court Denied Chevron’s Motion to Strike Climate Cases Under California Anti-SLAPP Law; Companies Sought California Supreme Court Review of Personal Jurisdiction
The California Superior Court hearing the California Attorney General’s and California local government’s climate cases against fossil fuel companies denied Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.’s special motion to strike or dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law. The court found that the commercial speech exemption to the anti-SLAPP law applied.
On January 2, 2025, fossil fuel companies filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court requesting that the court review the trial court’s determination that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The defendants argued that the case presented “an important legal question concerning the limits of a court’s specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for a claim allegedly caused in overwhelming part by conduct outside of the forum State.” An intermediate appellate court had denied the defendants’ petition for writ of mandate. Fuel Industry Climate Cases, No. CJC-24-005310 (Cal. Super. Ct.), No. S288664 (Cal.)
Ninth Circuit Rejected Dormant Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Challenges to Washington Law’s Allocation of Emissions Allowances
In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by owners of a natural gas power plant in Washington challenging a provision of the Washington Climate Commitment Act that provides no-cost emissions allowances to electric utilities but requires non-utility owners of power plants to purchase allowances. Although the Ninth Circuit found that the district court had erred by addressing standing without providing the parties an opportunity to be heard and in finding that the power plant owners lacked standing, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the owners failed to state a viable dormant Commerce Clause or equal protection claim. Regarding the dormant Commerce Clause, the appellate court said the law did not discriminate against out-of-state entities because electric utilities and independent plant owners were not similarly situated, and that the law did not impose an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. Regarding equal protection, the court again noted that electric utilities and independent power plant owners are not similarly situated, which foreclosed the equal protection claim. In addition, the Ninth Circuit found that the owners did not negate Washington’s rational basis for the law, i.e., its “interest in balancing the rising cost of energy against the State’s desire to reduce greenhouse gases.” Invenergy Thermal LLC v. Watson, No. 3:22-cv-05967 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2024)
Wyoming Federal Court Issued Mixed Ruling on BLM’s Decisions to Forgo Oil and Gas Lease Sales in 2021 and 2022
The federal district court for the District of Wyoming concluded that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) decisions not to hold oil and gas lease sales for Wyoming parcels in the second and third quarters of 2021 (Q2 and Q3 2021) were not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or in violation of law. The court also concluded, however, that the failure to hold a sale in the third quarter of 2022 (Q3 2022) was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. In separate cases brought by industry trade groups, the court found that the trade groups did not have standing to challenge the failure to hold lease sales because “the lost possibility of acquiring a federal oil and gas lease” was not a redressable injury and the groups did not specifically allege that any of their members would have participated if the lease sales had occurred. In its consideration of the merits of the State of Wyoming’s challenge regarding decisions not to hold Wyoming lease sales, the court first interpreted the terms “eligible” and “available” in the Mineral Leasing Act’s provision requiring that “[l]ease sales shall be held for each State where eligible lands are available at least quarterly.” Citing Loper Bright, the court noted it was not deferring to BLM’s interpretation, but that BLM’s definition helped inform the court’s conclusion that “‘eligible’ lands are those that are not precluded from leasing by law and ‘available’ lands are those that have met all statutory requirements and reviews necessary to be leased.” For the Q2 and Q3 2021 sales, the court found that recent litigation regarding National Environmental Policy Act compliance—including regarding the sufficiency of consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts in other reviews—“had drawn into question whether the eligible lands in Wyoming were ‘available’ at the time.” The court found that the administrative record supplied a basis for BLM’s decisions. Regarding Q3 2022, however, the court found that the administrative record provided no evidence to explain the decision not to hold a sale. The court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the appropriate remedy. Wyoming v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:22-cv-00247 (D. Wyo. Dec. 31, 2024)
States, Cities, and Environmental Groups Dropped NEPA Challenge to Postal Service’s Vehicle Acquisition Program
California, 16 other states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and three environmental organizations voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging the U.S. Postal Service’s review of its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that even after conducting supplemental review that considered an alternative acquisition program with more electric vehicle purchases, the Postal Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, failing to take a hard look at the impacts of alternatives, failing to consider consistency with state and local plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and awarding contracts prior to completing environmental review. Reuters reported that the plaintiffs had decided to dismiss the lawsuits due to the Postal Service’s commitment to electrify its vehicle fleet. California v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 3:22-cv-02583 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2024); CleanAirNow v. DeJoy, No. 3:22-cv-02576 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2024)
XTO Energy and U.S. Agreed to Consent Decree to Resolve Ohio Well Blowout Enforcement Action
The U.S. Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the federal district court for the Southern District of Ohio to resolve an enforcement action against XTO Energy, Inc. (XTO) in connection with a 2018 post-fracking gas well blowout in southeastern Ohio. The U.S. asserted that XTO violated Clean Air Act § 112(r), which imposes a general duty on facility owners and operators to take steps to prevent releases of hazardous substances and minimize consequences of accidental releases. The U.S. alleged that as a result of XTO’s failures to assess and mitigate risk, the consequences of the release of methane were greater than they should have been, including the release of 60,000 tons of methane in 20 days, which the complaint alleged was more than the entire annual emissions of the oil and gas sectors for many European countries and the equivalent of a year’s worth of emissions from 350,000 passenger vehicles. The consent decree, which was subject to 30 days of public comment, would require XTO to pay an $8 million civil penalty, certify that it will apply parent company ExxonMobil Corporation’s procedures at its wells in its Eastern Business Unit (EBU), undertake an audit of pressure monitoring equipment at existing wells in the EBU, and undertake and document investigations of any potential failures of subsurface barriers at wells in the EBU. In addition, the consent decree would require implementation of mitigation projects that would result in more than 20,000 tons of methane emissions reductions. The projects include rebuilding and implementing other upgrades to engines; installing equipment to recover compressor rod-packing vent discharges; retrofitting, replacing, or retiring at least 300 pneumatic devices powered by methane-containing gas; and plugging and restoring existing wells. United States v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04269 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 17, 2024)
Federal Court Said Consumer Adequately Alleged Standing for Injunctive Relief Claims in Climate Washing Action Against Delta
The federal district court for the Central District of California found that a consumer plaintiff’s addition of allegations that she was a “longstanding and loyal Delta customer” who intended to purchase flights from the company in the future were sufficient to establish standing for claims under California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition Laws. The court previously dismissed claims seeking injunctive relief under these laws because the plaintiff did not allege an intent to purchase future flights. In allowing the claims to proceed, the court found that the plaintiff “sufficiently alleged a particularized injury because refraining from purchasing future Delta flights, notwithstanding her desire to continue purchasing Delta flights and being an environmentally concerned consumer, is an injury that affects her in a harmful and personal way.” The specific alleged injury was “her inability to rely on the validity of Delta’s representations that it is a carbon-neutral airline, despite her intention to continue flying Delta.” The court further found that this injury was actual and imminent and that a favorable ruling ordering Delta to make truthful representations regarding its environmental impact would redress the alleged injury. Berrin v. Delta Air Lines Inc., No. 2:23-cv-04150 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2024)
Fish and Wildlife Service Agreed to Consider Extent to Which Endangered Species Act Consultations Must Consider Climate Change Factors
On December 7, 2024, the federal district court stayed all filing deadlines in a case brought by Center for Biological Diversity and a Duke University ecology professor challenging the 2018 biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas activities. The lawsuit also asserted that FWS had unreasonably delayed in responding to a rulemaking petition that requested that FWS amend its Endangered Species Act regulations to specify that greenhouse gas emissions must be considered during the consultation process. The plaintiffs and federal defendants requested that the litigation be stayed based on FWS’s agreement to consider four issues—only “as is appropriate under governing laws and regulations”—in the Endangered Species Act consultation that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement reinitiated with FWS a month before the filing of this lawsuit. The four issues concerned whether and the extent to which FWS is required to analyze effects on endangered and threatened species of large oil spills, sea level rise, and lighting on offshore platforms and infrastructure, and also whether and the extent to which greenhouse gas emissions, including downstream emissions, from the Bureaus’ proposed actions must be considered an “effect of the action.” FWS also agreed to respond to the portion of the rulemaking petition that proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act consultation regulations to guarantee that federal agencies consider the impact of their actions on climate change and climate-impacted species. FWS agreed to complete these actions by March 28, 2025. Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 1:24-cv-00990 (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2024)
California Appellate Court Said Condominium Was Not Entitled to Shoreline Armoring Under Coastal Act
The California Court of Appeal agreed with the California Coastal Commission that condominiums and a sewer line built in Half Moon Bay in 1984 were not entitled to shoreline armoring under the California Coastal Act. The appellate held that the phrase “existing structures” in the provision that specifies circumstances in which seawalls or other armoring infrastructure are permitted referred to structures that existed prior to the Coastal Act’s effective date of January 1, 1977. The court said “[t]his interpretation effectuates the Coastal Act’s goal to “[a]nticipate, assess, plan for, and, to the extent feasible, avoid, minimize, and mitigate the
adverse environmental and economic effects of sea level rise within the coastal zone.” The court therefore reversed the portion of a trial court’s decision that vacated the Commission’s denial of a request to build a seawall to protect the condominium and sewer line. The appellate court affirmed, however, the portion of the trial court’s decision that found that no substantial evidence supported the Commission’s conclusion that shoreline armoring was not necessary to protect a segment of the California Coastal Trail. Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission, No. A168645 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024)
New Jersey Court Said Approvals for Warehouse Site Did Not Have to Consider New Studies Showing Increased Precipitation but Vacated and Remanded on Other Grounds
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, rejected most challenges to project approvals issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the 645-acre site of a planned warehouse facility. The approvals were a Flood Hazard Area Verification for four on-site waters and a Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit for work in regulated areas. The court concluded that DEP “properly carried out its flood hazard area delineation responsibility,” rejecting the appellant’s contention that DEP should have considered recent studies showing that precipitation levels in New Jersey had been rising and would likely continue to rise at significant rates. The court said DEP properly approved the permit on December 1, 2022 without incorporating the studies’ findings, which were not adopted into the inland flood protection regulations through formal rulemaking until 2023. The court also found that DEP properly conducted its Water Quality Management Plan consistency assessment and that DEP was not required to delineate floodways on the site. The court agreed with the appellant, however, that under New Jersey regulations the developer had an obligation to demonstrate that it was not feasible to construct a bridge rather than a culvert as a channel modification. The court therefore vacated the permit “without prejudice to the outcome of a remand, to enable the agency to reconsider an amplified application” that addressed the bridge infeasibility issue. Matter of Flood Hazard Area Verification & Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit, 1113-22-0002.1 LUP220002, No. A-1639-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 27, 2024)
NEW CASES, MOTIONS, AND OTHER FILINGS
Juliana Plaintiffs Asked Supreme Court to Review Ninth Circuit Order Directing Dismissal of Their Case
On December 9, 2024, the youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ granting of the federal government’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 7, 2025, the Solicitor General requested an extension until February 12, 2025 for the filing of the government’s response. The petition presented two questions: (1) When plaintiffs have established their ongoing injuries are traceable to defendants’ policies and practices, does Article III require a particularized factual determination of whether a federal agency or official will redress plaintiffs’ injuries following a favorable declaratory judgment that resolves the constitutional controversy?, and (2) Whether exceptions exist to the three demanding conditions for mandamus articulated in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). The plaintiffs argued that the first question was “nearly identical” to the question presented in a case in which the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument later this term. The plaintiffs asked the Court to hold their petition pending the Court’s opinion in the other case and then grant their petition, vacate the Ninth Circuit’s order, and remand to the Ninth Circuit for review. Regarding the second question, the plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit was wrong because it did not apply Cheney’s “demanding conditions” for mandamus and that its decision “deepens an acknowledged circuit split” over whether an exception to Cheney exists when mandamus is sought to enforce an appellate court’s mandate. Juliana v. United States, No. 24-645 (U.S., filed Dec. 9, 2024)
Lawsuit Alleged that Failure to Designate Critical Habitat for Sierra Nevada Red Fox Was Unlawful
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) determination that designation of critical habitat for the endangered Sierra Nevada red fox would not be prudent. FWS found that designation of critical habitat would fall within a regulatory category established in 2019 that allowed FWS to issue a not-prudent finding if the “present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species’ habitat or range is not a threat to the species[.]” CBD alleged that FWS’s not-prudent finding failed to consider critical habitat’s role in ensuring the species’ recovery and survival and expanded the regulatory exception beyond statutory authority. CBD further alleged that best available scientific information demonstrated that the fox’s habitat was “subject to numerous threats, including motorized winter recreation, domestic livestock grazing, and climate change.” CBD asserted that FWS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Endangered Species Act and asked the court to vacate the decision not to designate critical habitat and to remand for new proceedings within one year of entry of judgment. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 2:24-cv-03756 (E.D. Cal., filed Dec. 30, 2024)
Lawsuit Challenged Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act as Unconstitutional and Preempted
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Vermont challenging Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act, which established a Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program to be funded by payments, based on a standard of strict liability, from companies that engaged in fossil fuel extraction or crude oil refining between 1995 and 2024 to which more than one billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed. The Program is to fund climate adaptation programs in the state. The plaintiffs asserted that the Vermont law is precluded by the U.S. Constitution, including constitutional principles that require that federal law govern matters concerning “uniquely federal interests” such as interstate and global greenhouse gas emissions and that recognize the “equal sovereignty” of all states. The plaintiffs contended that these and other constitutional principles restrict states from legislating in ways that extend beyond their borders. The plaintiffs also asserted that the Vermont law is preempted by the Clean Air Act; violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; violates the domestic and foreign Commerce Clauses; imposes an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and effects an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Moore, No. 2:24-cv-01513 (D. Vt., filed Dec. 30, 2024)
Religious Community Challenged Component of Corps of Engineers Everglades Restoration Plan
A Nichiren Buddhism community and related limited liability company filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Florida seeking to block the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from proceeding with the “C-11 Impoundment Project,” a component of the Corps’ Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Corps says Everglades restoration “provides critical benefits to improve the health of the ecosystem including endangered species habitat, improves water storage, and improves resilience to climate change.” The plaintiffs alleged that in planning the C-11 Impoundment Project, portions of which are adjacent to the community’s retreat campus in Weston, Florida, the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The plaintiffs’ NEPA claim includes allegations that environmental review documents relied on out-of-date climate information that assumed lower rainfall averages that recent data indicated. Soka Gakkai International-USA v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 0:24-cv-62452 (S.D. Fla., filed Dec. 30, 2024)
Lawsuit Alleged that Clean Air Act Preempted California Agreement with Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Manufacturers
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting that the Clean Air Act preempted an agreement between the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and major manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and engines and trade group representing vehicle and engine manufacturers. The plaintiff described itself as representing businesses, including fleet owners and operators, that “are vitally interested in the preservation of free markets, free innovation, and the continued economic viability of the internal-combustion engine in our transportation sector, along with the economic growth and opportunities it enables.” It alleged that the CARB agreement “purportedly allows truck manufacturers limited relief from California’s intrusive and unlawful regulations for heavy-duty vehicles” in return for the manufacturers’ agreement to phase out sales of internal-combustion vehicles “regardless of what the law says or what their customers want.” The plaintiff mentioned a lawsuit filed by Nebraska and other states challenging the agreement on antitrust grounds but asserted that regardless of whether the agreement violated state or federal antitrust law, it was prohibited by the Clean Air Act because California had not received preemption waivers for the heavy-duty vehicle standards and the agreement therefore was “an ‘attempt to enforce’ prohibited state standards.” American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce v. Engine Manufacturers Association, No. 3:24-cv-50504 (N.D. Ill., filed Dec. 16, 2024)
Lawsuit Challenged Decision that Striped Newt’s Status Did Not Warrant Protection Under Endangered Species Act
Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) decision not to designate the striped newt as an endangered or threatened species. The complaint alleged that the newt, which occurs in north-central Florida and southern Georgia, was “highly imperiled in both regions due to a multitude of threats, including logging, agriculture, fire suppression, urbanization, climate change, disease, vehicle strikes, recreational activities, and the extinction risk inherent to small isolated populations.” FWS found that the newt did not warrant listing in 2018 and removed it from the candidate list after making annual determinations since 2011 that listing as threatened or endangered was warranted. The complaint alleged, among other issues, that FWS in 2018 “unlawfully assumed the best case scenario in the face of uncertainty” in its analysis of the newt’s viability, including by assuming in all viability scenarios that the newt would adapt to drought and most other climate change impacts, predictions that the complaint alleged were contrary to best available science. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:24-cv-03467 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 12, 2024)
Lawsuit Challenged Decision to End New Federal Coal Leasing in Powder River Basin
In a lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of Wyoming, the States of Wyoming and Montana challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2024 Records of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Buffalo Field Office and Miles City Field Office that ended new federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin. The states asserted that BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), including by elevating consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate chance above resource values expressly identified in the FLPMA. The complaint also asserted that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act. Wyoming v. Haaland, No. 1:24-cv-00257 (D. Wyo., filed Dec. 11, 2024)
Challenge to Montana Logging Project Said BLM Failed to Consider Climate Impacts of Tree Removal
Center for Biological Diversity and four other conservation organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) authorization of a project in the Clark Fork River sub-basin and Garnet Mountain Range that would include logging on 8,283 acres, burning on 4,600 acres, and fuels management treatments on 2,146 acres. The complaint asserted violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The complaint’s NEPA claims included that BLM failed to take a hard look at the climate impacts of the removal of trees. Center for Biological Diversity v. Carey, No. 9:24-cv-00168 (D. Mont., filed Dec. 3, 2024)
Lawsuits Said CARB Failed to Disclose Low Carbon Fuel Standard’s Impacts
Two lawsuits were filed challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) approval of amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. One lawsuit, brought by Communities for a Better Environment, alleged that the amendments would “lock in decades of subsidies for polluting fuels without the required analysis and mitigation of their wide-ranging environmental harms.” The petition alleged that CARB “brushed aside” evidence of significant harms from crop-based biofuels, production of which would increase under the amendments. The petition also alleged that the amendments would expand production of hydrogen produced from methane, “despite the evidence that such production emits GHGs and other air pollutants and undermines the production of cleaner hydrogen alternatives,” and that the amendments would subsidize “unlimited growth of direct air capture” to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which CARB’s modeling allegedly showed would become more cost-effective than reducing fossil fuels, “perversely prolonging fossil fuel use in California.” The petition asserted violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and asked the court to set aside the approval of deficient provisions of the amendments. The second petition also asserted that CARB failed to comply with CEQA and focused on CARB’s alleged failure to consider the environmental impacts of factory farm expansion that the amendments would cause by increasing incentives for “avoided methane crediting.” Defensores del Valley Central para el Aire & Agua Limpio v. California Air Resources Board, No. _ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 18, 2024); Communities for a Better Environment v. California Air Resources Board, No. _ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 18, 2024)
Lawsuit Alleged Florida Public Service Commission’s Oversight of Electric Utilities Violated Young Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights
On December 12, 2024, six young residents of Miami-Dade County filed an amended complaint asking a Florida state court for a declaratory judgment that the Florida Public Service Commission had violated their fundamental and inalienable rights to life under the Florida Constitution “by and through its pattern and practice of determining fossil fuel-dependent 10-Year Site Plans of Florida’s electric utilities are suitable, even though such conduct results and locks in a fossil fuel-dependent electricity sector in Florida.” The plaintiffs alleged that the Commission’s conduct caused and worsened climate change impacts in Miami-Dade County, including sea level rise; heat waves and extreme heat; increasing frequency and severity of tropical storms and hurricanes; ocean heatwaves, ocean acidification, and harm to coral reefs; and increased vector-borne disease. The plaintiffs contended that renewable, non-fossil fuel-based electricity generation methods were technically available and economically feasible to deploy in Florida, but that the Commission had not considered in its long-term energy planning and suitability determinations either utilities’ own decarbonization commitments or research and white paper reports demonstrating the feasibility of renewable energy in Florida. Reynolds v. Florida Public Service Commission, No. 2024-019966-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 12, 2024)
Lawsuit Filed in Washington Court to Block Implementation of Natural Gas Access Ballot Initiative
Three nonprofit organizations, a solar energy trade association, King County, the City of Seattle, and a Seattle resident filed a lawsuit asking a state court in Washington to declare Initiative Measure No. 2066 (I-2066) unconstitutional and prohibit its implementation. I-2066’s ballot title said it concerned “regulating energy services, including natural gas and electrification,” and that it “would repeal or prohibit certain laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use and/or promote electrification, and require certain utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers.” Voters approved I-2066 in the November 2024 election. The plaintiffs alleged that I-2066 reversed “carefully crafted laws” to encourage development of clean energy, promote energy efficiency, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and that I-2066 would jeopardize local government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. They asserted that I-2066 violated the Washington Constitution’s “single subject” requirement by containing several provisions unrelated to each other and also violated the Washington Constitution’s “subject-in-title requirement” by not reflecting the initiative’s changes to state emissions regulation and the Clean Air Act in the title. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that that I-2066 failed to state in full each of the state law provisions it would change. Amy Turner, the Director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, published a blog post about this case on December 20, 2024. Climate Solutions v. State, No. 24-2-28630-6 (Wash. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 11, 2024)
Trade Group Asked Court to Declare that Washington Building Code Council Should Conduct Emergency Rulemaking to Implement Natural Gas Ballot Initiative
After Washington voters approved I-2066, Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) filed a lawsuit in Washington Superior Court seeking an order declaring that the State Building Code Council must comply with the statute as amended by the ballot initiative and that it would be appropriate for the Council to conduct emergency rulemaking “to ensure that natural gas equipment and appliances are not penalized in the home building process.” BIAW described I-2066 as “end[ing] natural gas bans or restrictions for new and existing natural gas customers, repeal[ing] laws requiring energy companies to remove natural gas as an energy option, and protect[ing] Washingtonians’ ability to rely on clean natural gas for cooking, heating their homes, and warming their water.” BIAW alleged that it would suffer immediate damage and harm if the Council refused to acknowledge that changes to the Washington State Energy Code were necessary to make the code consistent with state laws. Building Industry Association of Washington v. Washington State Building Code Council, No. 24-2-04269-34 (Wash. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 6, 2024)
Cases Filed Challenging California State Water Project Long-Term Operation Plan
In two cases filed in California Superior Court challenging approval of a plan for the long-term operation of the California State Water Project, the petitioners raised climate change-related claims. The project allows an increase in the amount of water exported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. One set of petitioners, led by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, asserted causes of action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the 2009 Delta Reform Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the public trust doctrine. The CEQA cause of action included allegations that the environmental review failed to disclose the project’s potential impacts during foreseeable sea level rise. The petition alleged that this failure “obscures an enormous potential impact: that the intakes for the State Water Project’s Delta diversions might be rendered useless due to inundation by saline waters as rising sea levels push upstream.” In the proceeding filed by San Francisco Baykeeper, other environmental groups, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, the petition asserted claims under the Delta Reform Act, CEQA, and the public trust doctrine. The CEQA allegations included that the Department of Water Resources had failed to provide “a realistic analysis … of how bad the Project, coupled with climate change-caused droughts, reduced streamflow, and increased sea level rise, will be for the Delta environment including imperiled fish species.” In addition, the petition alleged that the environmental impact report did not adequately discuss and analyze “California’s over-appropriated water rights system” or “the implications of impending climate change on future water deliveries for the Project.” The petitioners contended more generally that the CEQA review did not adequately address the Project’s foreseeable cumulative impacts on the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed “in light of future climate change, particularly with regards to water supplies in the context of sea level rise, changes in storm patterns, and watershed run-off.” San Francisco Baykeeper v. California Department of Water Resources, No. _ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Nov. 27, 2024); California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. California Department of Water Resources, No. 24WM000181 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Nov. 26, 2024)
HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART
HIGHLIGHTED CASE
South Africa: Court finds the procurement of new coal-fired power violates children’s rights
The Cancel Coal case was initiated in November 2021 by the African Climate Alliance (a youth-led organization), Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action, and Groundwork Trust, represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights. These groups filed proceedings in the High Court of South Africa to challenge the government’s decision to include 1,500 MW of new coal-fired power in the Integrated Resource Plan of 2019. The applicants named the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, and the President as respondents.
The applicants argued that the government’s decision violated multiple constitutional rights, including the right to a healthy environment (section 24), the best interests of children (section 28), and the rights to life, dignity, and equality. They contended that coal-fired power, a major contributor to climate change and environmental degradation, posed severe risks to public health, particularly for children and future generations. Expert evidence was presented to demonstrate the harmful effects of coal emissions on health, livelihoods, and food security, as well as the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of cleaner, renewable energy alternatives. The applicants also criticized the decision-making process for failing to: (i) conduct specific impact assessments on children’s rights, (ii) consider cleaner coal technologies or renewable energy options, and (iii) ensure public participation, particularly from youth and vulnerable communities. An interlocutory application was filed in 2022 to compel the government to provide complete records of the decision, which the court granted on December 9, 2022. The Minister of Electricity was added as a fifth respondent on April 17, 2024.
In a judgment handed down on December 4, 2024, Judge Cornelius van der Westhuizen ruled that the government’s plan to procure 1,500 MW of new coal-fired power was unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid. The court found that the government had failed to meet its constitutional and statutory obligations by: (i) omitting any assessment of the decision’s impact on children’s health and well-being, (ii) failing to evaluate the feasibility of high-efficiency, low-emission coal technologies, and (iii) neglecting its obligation to ensure transparent and participatory decision-making processes. The court noted that the government’s Rule 53 record provided no evidence of adequate consideration of the environmental and health impacts of coal power, particularly on children. The respondents’ argument that South Africa’s energy crisis justified the procurement of coal-fired power was dismissed, as the court found no evidence supporting the necessity of coal over renewable alternatives. The judgment ordered the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and NERSA to pay the applicants’ legal costs, including the costs of two counsel. Africa Climate Alliance et. al., v. Minister of Mineral Resources Energy et. al. (#CancelCoal case) (South Africa, High Court)
DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
Czech Republic: Supreme Administrative Court dismisses case against government on climate inaction
On April 21, 2021, a group of Czech citizens filed a lawsuit against the Czech government for its failure to act on climate change and associated human rights violations. The plaintiffs include the climate action NGO Klimatická žaloba ČR, a municipality (Svatý Jan pod Skalou), and four individuals. The defendants are the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Transport, and the Government of the Czech Republic. The plaintiffs alleged that the government, by failing to adequately address climate change, is violating the rights to life, health, and a sustainable environment of Czech citizens, as guaranteed by the Czech constitution, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The plaintiffs plan to present evidence that the country has a limited carbon budget necessary to meet its constitutional and Paris Agreement obligations and that the government’s Climate Protection Policy permits emissions 2.5 times higher than what the carbon budget allows. The plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the government to implement necessary measures to maintain a carbon budget of 800 Mt CO2 from January 2021 until the end of the century and to take essential actions to adapt to climate change.
On June 15, 2022, the Prague Municipal Court upheld the lawsuit and ordered the state to urgently take necessary measures to mitigate climate change. The Court ruled that the state’s failure to implement sufficient GHG mitigation measures is unlawful and that the state should refrain from further infringing on the plaintiffs’ rights due to this failure. The court derived the obligation to combat climate change from the Paris Agreement and the EU Climate Law, which sets a target to reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, as the Czech Republic currently lacks a dedicated climate act. State authorities are required to develop a plan with precise and complete measures to reach this goal, which has yet to be established. While the Court concluded that the objectives of the Paris Agreement, regarding keeping the increase in global temperatures below 2°C, are not legally binding, the Czech Republic’s national contribution cannot be overlooked. Neglecting these climate goals would jeopardize the plaintiffs’ constitutionally guaranteed rights. The court further noted that the government cannot absolve itself of its climate responsibilities simply by pointing out its minor contribution to climate change.
Regarding remedies, the Court urged the defendants (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport) to implement additional measures aimed at achieving a 55% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, as the measures outlined in the Climate Protection Policy of the Czech Republic are inadequate to meet the emission reduction target established by the EU. Specifically, the state must take necessary actions to decrease GHG emissions in the sectors of energy, transport, and forestry within six months. However, the adaptation claims put forth by the plaintiffs were rejected since the state is preparing a new adaptation plan and is actively executing certain measures.
The Ministry of the Environment appealed on legal grounds to the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. On February 20, 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision made by the Prague Municipal Court and sent the case back to the lower court (the Prague Municipal Court). The primary reason for reversing the initial decision is the collective obligation of the EU to reduce its GHG emissions by 55% by 2030, along with the ongoing legislative and political negotiations regarding the specific distribution of these obligations among Member States. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the Municipal Court did not adequately justify its order for the 55% target by 2030. The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that the plaintiffs must further clarify the specific areas in which the defendants’ alleged inaction violated their obligations, which directly impact the applicants’ rights.
The Prague Municipal Court held a public hearing on October 25, 2023, and then dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which confirmed its earlier opinion and dismissed the case in November 2024. Klimatická žaloba ČR v. Czech Republic (Czech Republic, Prague Municipal Court)
Turkey: Court Cancels Agricultural Protocol to Restore Marmara Lake’s Wetland Status
Marmara Lake, located in the city of Manisa, Turkey, was designated as a wetland of national importance in 2017 and has since been protected under the Regulation on Conservation of Wetlands. The lake is an alluvial barrier lake and serves as an important carbon sink. To provide water to the city of Izmir, the government allocated water resources to the Gördes Dam, which led to a depletion of resources for Marmara Lake, causing it to dry up over the last ten years, losing almost ninety-eight percent of its surface area. In 2022, a lawsuit was filed regarding rent and an order of payment that the government sought from the fishers. The court ruled in favor of the claimants, who then filed another lawsuit against several government agencies for allowing the area, formerly known as Lake Marmara, to be used for agricultural activities through the “Cooperation Protocol on Rehabilitation of Marmara Lake Wetland,” dated November 4, 2022.
The discovery and expert examination of the lake within the fire occurred on March 25.
Following this examination, the experts submitted a report to the court on July 1, 2024. The report stated, “Marmara Lake is suitable for regaining its wetland and lake characteristics as a result of relevant activities and natural factors.” In the expert report, it was also concluded that “the planned agricultural activities in the lake basin under the protocol will negatively impact the potential for the lake to return to a wetland in the future. These activities will adversely affect the lake basin, groundwater and surface waters, as well as the ecosystems in the lake basin and its surroundings. Furthermore, the relevant protocol and commission decision do not comply with Environmental Law No. 2872 and the associated regulations and legislation.” In response to the expert report, the court decided to stay the execution, noting that the number of days without rain has increased due to climate change, normal rainfall has decreased, and heavy rainfall has risen. Consequently, the court emphasized the importance of wetlands, stating that the lake area might be needed in emergency situations.
Following the final hearing on November 4, 2024, the court stated that the expert report evaluated the potential damage to the wetland caused by agricultural activities and the chemicals used in these activities, as well as the disruption of the ecological integrity, structural balance, and ecosystem structure of the wetland resulting from the conversion of the lake into an agricultural area. It was determined that the transactions related to the “Marmara Lake Wetland Rehabilitation Collaboration” protocol and the decisions of the National Wetland Commission regarding the approval and implementation of the boundaries of the revised Marmara Lake Wetland Protection Zones are unlawful. Consequently, the court canceled the cooperation protocol and the boundary revision decision on November 6, 2024, stating that the implementation of the mentioned protocol and decisions would cause damage that is difficult or impossible to compensate for when considering the environmental impacts. Nature Association and Others v. Manisa Governorship and Others (Turkey, Administrative Court of Manisa)
New Zealand: Court Upholds Competition Commission’s Gas Pipeline Pricing Decisions Amid Fossil Fuel Phase-Out
This case concerns the regulation of competition law regarding gas pipeline services in New Zealand. The plaintiff, representing the largest gas consumers in the country, sued New Zealand’s competition regulator, the Commerce Commission. They challenged decisions in which the Commission effectively allowed the country’s largest gas pipeline operators to raise prices to recover higher short-term costs in light of New Zealand’s announced phase-out of fossil fuels. The Commission essentially adjusted the useful lives of gas pipeline assets to account for this phase-out and accelerated the depreciation of those assets.
The first of the two decisions hinged on a challenge to the Commission’s selected “input methodologies” in making its decision. Section 52Z of the Commerce Act states that challenges to the Commission’s input methodologies can only succeed if the plaintiff identifies an alternative methodology that is “materially better in meeting the purpose” of the Commerce Act’s competition regulation provisions. In this instance, the Court determined that the plaintiff failed to identify a materially better methodology, concluding that the Commission’s decision fulfilled the purposes of the Act—such as promoting the long-term benefit of consumers by reflecting long-run supply costs and acknowledging the risk of stranded assets. The Court rejected arguments claiming that the decision was premature, contrary to the specific purposes of input methodologies, or that it overcompensated suppliers at the expense of consumers.
In the second decision, the Court concluded that the Commission’s ruling did not satisfy the threshold of an error of law (namely that the Commission had not failed to apply the correct legal test, had not misconstrued or misunderstood the law, and had not made a clearly untenable decision). Major Gas Users’ Group v Commerce Commission (New Zealand, High Court)
NEW CASES
Norway: New case challenges parliamentary decision to expand seabed mining
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is challenging a Norwegian parliamentary decision to open up vast areas of the seabed for mining. The organization, which announced the lawsuit as a climate case, argues that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) on which the decision was based is inadequate. In April 2024, WWF notified the government of its intention to sue if the decision was not reversed. WWF maintains that the EIA does not meet the minimum requirements set out in the Norwegian Subsea Minerals Act §2-2. The organization also points out that the Norwegian Environment Directorate has expressed similar concerns. WWF further argues that the EIA shows that the Norwegian government does not have sufficient knowledge to assess the environmental impacts of seabed mining. Without this knowledge, it is impossible to properly assess the consequences of exploration and extraction activities. WWF’s lawsuit aims to prevent the Norwegian government from violating the law by opening up a new and potentially destructive industry without adequately assessing the consequences. The organization believes this would set a dangerous precedent and lead to irreversible environmental damage. Several Norwegian political parties, including the Socialist Left Party, the Liberal Party, the Red Party, the Green Party, and the Christian People’s Party, voted against the decision to open up the seabed for mining. These parties share WWF’s concerns about the inadequacy of the EIA and the potential environmental risks of seabed mining. WWF has urged the Norwegian government to reconsider its decision and conduct a more thorough EIA considering the potential environmental impacts of seabed mining. WWF v Norwegian Parliament (Seabed Mining Case) (Norway, Oslo District Court)
New Zealand: Legal Challenge Filed Against New Zealand Government’s Rollback of Clean Car Standard Targets
In July 2024, the New Zealand government weakened the national Clean Car Standard, a policy that requires imported vehicles to meet a target for average emissions per kilometer. Importers that do not meet these requirements must pay a penalty or purchase surplus credits from low- and zero-emissions importers. Government modeling acknowledges that this will reduce the uptake of hybrid and electric vehicles. Section 167C states that before setting clean car standards, the Minister of Transport must “be satisfied … that the targets are set at an appropriate level to increase the supply of zero- and low-emissions vehicles in the market.” Standards must also be “consistent with transport-specific policies and strategies outlined in the emissions reduction plan.” The Better New Zealand Trust argues that the new targets will “decrease compared to the previous targets, and that the Emissions Reduction Plan target to have 30% of the fleet as EVs by 2035 will be that much harder to achieve.” Better New Zealand Trust v Minister for Transport (New Zealand, High Court)
ISDS: ExxonMobil Launches Arbitration Against Dutch State Over Groningen Gas Extraction Dispute
ExxonMobil initiated arbitration proceedings against the Dutch State, alleging breaches of contractual obligations under a 2018 Framework Agreement concerning the cessation of gas extraction in Groningen and the handling of earthquake-related damages. The company claims the Dutch State failed to engage in meaningful settlement discussions, with prior unilateral actions causing arbitrary and disproportionate harm to ExxonMobil as an investor. ExxonMobil seeks an amicable resolution with the new government to restore confidence in the investment climate. ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV v Kingdom of the Netherlands (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)
European Union: NGOs Challenge European Commission’s 2030 Emission Reduction Targets
Two NGO’s, the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, have filed a claim against the European Commission, demanding that the Commission increase the emission reduction targets for European Union member states by 2030. According to the claimants, the annual emissions allocations established by the European Commission in the Effort Sharing Regulation 2018/842, amended in 2023, violate article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the Paris Agreement, which require the European Union to preserve, protect and defend the environment, to protect human health and promote international measures to combat climate change. Global Legal Action Network and CAN-Europe v Commission (European Union, General Court)
Turkey: Youth Plaintiffs Challenge Turkey’s Climate Strategy for Failing to Protect Human Rights and Meet Global Targets
During COP29, hosted in Azerbaijan, Turkey announced its 2053 Long-Term Climate Strategy. However, this strategy falls short of aligning with the 1.5 °C target of the Paris Agreement. The plan lacks a clear roadmap for phasing out coal and fails to substantiate emission reduction targets with concrete actions, undermining the urgent fight against the climate crisis. Similarly, Turkey’s 2023 nationally determined contribution (NDC), submitted to the United Nations, has been criticized as inadequate.
Youth claimants filed a lawsuit ( A.S. & S.A. & E.N.B v. Presidency of Türkiye & The Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change) with the Council of State in 2023, arguing that Turkey’s climate policies fail to protect the rights of children and young people. After the court rejected their initial claim, the plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit. The new case challenges Turkey’s NDC and the new strategy. The plaintiffs assert that Turkey’s climate policies and strategies neglect the need for a just energy transition and fall short of consistent emission reductions. The claim emphasizes that the inadequacy of Turkey’s climate response poses direct risks to human rights, particularly for future generations, and demands stronger commitments to phase out fossil fuels and align with international climate goals. A.S. & S.A. & E.N.B v. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye (Constitutional Court, Turkey)