On February 18, 2025, the Illinois House introduced and referred HB 3673 to its Rules Committee . See attached draft copy at https://legiscan.com/IL/text/HB3673/id/3109030/Illinois-2025-HB3673-Introduced.html 

Like the New Jersey, Colorado and New York bills that were previously reported on and which are being considered by their respective state legislatures, if enacted, the Illinois Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act could become the fifth bill passed in the United States, which bills are all aimed at requiring entities with connections to Illinois to report on their greenhouse gas emissions under Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 beginning 3 years from the effective date of the Illinois Bill (which could be as soon as 2028). Illinois would join Colorado, New Jersey, California and New York (if New York’s, New Jersey’s and Colorado’s bills move to passage) as the fifth state in the US in requiring this type of reporting for companies with over $1 Billion in revenue.

Between Illinois at $1.025 Trillion, New Jersey at $666.9 Billion, Colorado at $437 Billion, New York at $1.6 Trillion of real GDP and California at $2.9 Trillion of real GDP, these four states together would represent more than 30.8% of the US’s real GDP being subject to Scope 1, 2 and 3 reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions.

California passed their version of a very similar reporting bill, SB 253, in 2023, with an effective date of January 2026. Illionois’ bill, if enacted, required regulations to be passed by July 1, 2026, with an effective reporting requirement for entities subject to the bill during 2027 for Scope 1 and 2 and 2028 for Scope 3. Colorado’s bill if passed will require reporting of Scope 1 and 2 by January 1, 2028, and Scope 3 by January 1, 2029. New Jersey’s bill, if passed, will require reporting of Scope 1 and 2 within 3 years of the passage of the NJ Bill and Scope 3 within 4 years of passage of the Bill. New York’s bill if passed will require reporting of Scope 1 and 2 by 2027 and by January 1, 2028, for Scope 3.

As readers will likely recall and as commented on in our pieces on New Jersey, New York and Colorado, the SEC had pursued a similar path during 2023 and 2024, issuing proposed rules, and then final rules and then revised final rules which were then challenged and consolidated into one case in the 8th Circuit. The SEC’s final rules only required reporting on Scope 1 and 2 after receiving a backlash of comments about required Scope 3 reporting. As of February 11, 2025, the SEC’s acting Chairman Mark Uyeda said that the Commission will pause litigation of its climate disclosure rule in the 8th Circuit case, effectively ending, for now at least, the SEC’s pursuit of federal rules focusing on climate disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gases for reporting companies.

Despite the SEC’s position, it appears that states will continue to pursue their own path regarding climate disclosure. While California’s law had been challenged by various parties, earlier this month on February 3, 2025, the District Court for the Central District of California issued an order (https://www.troutman.com/a/web/gEwAfXN75c6MMmenKh3yd3/us_dis_cacd_2_24cv801_d96315207e190_order_granting_defendants_motion_to_dismiss_plaint.pdf) dismissing constitutional challenges posed to SB 253 and SB 261 and clears a path for the California Air Resources Board to develop necessary implementing regulations.

The Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado and New York bills are very similar to the California bill and require reporting starting in 2027 and additional reporting in 2028 for Illionois and New York and starting in 2028 and continuing in 2029 for Colorado and potentially in 2028 and 2029 for New Jersey depending on when the NJ version is passed. The bills also require either a third-party verification in the case of Colorado, or a third-party report of limited assurance on Scope 1 and 2 in 2027 and a reasonable assurance report starting in 2031 and if in New Jersey beginning in the 4th year after passage of the NJ Bill and thereafter.

Note that unlike the New Jersey bill there is not a specific penalty per day for the failure to report.

If Illinois follows the path of California here, companies with limited contacts to Illinois will find themselves subject to this reporting regime and need to put in the work to measure, monitor and report on their Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions if they have sales of over $1 Billion Dollars (and those sales need NOT be in Illinois alone, rather they are in the aggregate and likely will include subsidiary and related entities).

Green Spouts: While it is highly likely that various parties like the US Chamber of Commerce (who sued California for implementing SB 261 and 253) will also attempt to block Illinois from implementing its version of HB 3673, given the District Court’s ruling noted above, it appears that if passed in Illinois, that the constitutional challenges raised by the plaintiffs are not likely to withstand Illinois court scrutiny and Illinois could join California (and Colorado, New Jersey and New York) as requiring such reporting as early as 2028. Again, the Bill needs to clear the House Rules Committee and then needs to be voted on and approved by the full House, the Assembly and also needs the Governor’s signature, but it appears that these steps are not only possible but likely in 2025, partially/fully in reaction to the Federal government’s overall environmental position and its position taken in withdrawing from the SEC Final rules on climate disclosure. This author’s view is that the Bill will likely pass in Illinois and in New Jersey, Colorado and New York and be signed by the respective Governors, will attract challenges like California’s version did and that those challenges under Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado and New York law will survive such a challenge and that these laws will become a reality during 2025/2026.

Duane Morris has an active Sustainability and Risk Mitigation Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and Risk Mitigation planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Earlier in February, we posted about New York’s second in the U.S. “Polluter Pays” law (check the website for a copy of the post that outlines the law that was signed by Governor Hochul in 2024). Not surprisingly, 22 states and some private concerns sued New York claiming the law constitutes “an attack on US energy producers that will be felt by consumers.” An interesting phrase given that one could argue that tariffs on energy do exactly the same thing but a turn of the phrase for a different day.

The states who filed the action (close your eyes and stop reading and see if you can guess who …) via their Attorneys General against New York include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Others joining in the lawsuit include Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc. (a coal supplier), the West Virginia Coal Association, the Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia and America’s Coal Association.

Surprisingly, Tennessee has now put forth a bill in their House entitled the “Climate Resiliency Fund Act.” The bill was assigned to its Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee who is due to meet late this month. Given that Tennessee joined the States who are fighting New York’s bill it would come as a bit of a surprise if this Tennessee Bill which was put forth by a Democrat, actually moves in a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Tennessee’s bill is similar to the New York and Vermont Superfund Acts in that the bill seeks to hold polluters (i.e., refiners of fossil fuels in this bill) strictly liable and responsible for climate impact damages resulting from more than one billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas emissions during the covered period. The applicable covered period is defined as January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2025. Funds collected from fines of these responsible actors would be used to prioritize climate change adaption projects.

Green Spouts: The Tennessee Climate Resiliency Fund Act would be the third of its kind state law that attempts to hold a polluter strictly liable for past acts that have created a negative impact on the State’s infrastructure and climate adaptability. The Act makes any entity or successor company that engaged in the trade or business of fossil fuel extraction or refining crude oil between 1-1-1995 and 12-31-2025 strictly liable for its share of costs incurred by the State.  The emitters are being held responsible for their respective portion of greenhouse gas emissions above the 1 billion metric tons noted above. 

So far, only New York and Vermont have passed these types of “Polluter Pays” laws, noting that Massachusetts, California, New Jersey and Maryland are considering them. Whether this type of State Superfund strict liability law gets traction and passage by other states and whether these 22 State Attorneys General follow up with other lawsuits in an effort to blunt the impact of these laws, remains to be seen but it is surely a further evolution/development and one which bears watching, especially in light of the new Administration federally which will likely see the Federal government take a step back from its climate initiatives and by default will leave the leadership role for climate change initiatives in the hands of state and local government. That said, given that Tennessee is one of the 22 states challenging the legality of the New York bill it would stand to reason that it is very unlikely that this Tennessee bill will move out of its Subcommittee, but we will keep an eye out in case lightning strikes here.

Duane Morris has an active Sustainability and Risk Mitigation Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and Risk Mitigation planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact. Duane Morris has an active Sustainability and Risk Mitigation Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and Risk Mitigation planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

On February 3, 2025, the New Jersey Senate introduced and referred S4117 to its Environment and Energy Committee proposed Bill S4117. See attached draft copy at https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S4117/2024

Like the Colorado and New York bills that were previously reported on and which are being considered by their respective state legislatures, if enacted, the New Jersey Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act could become the fourth bill passed in the United States, which bills are all aimed at requiring entities with connections to New Jersey to report on their greenhouse gas emissions under Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 beginning 3 years from the effective date of the NJ Bill (which could be as soon as 2028). New Jersey would join Colorado, California and New York (if New York’s and Colorado’s bills move to passage) as the fourth state in the US in requiring this type of reporting for companies with over $1 Billion in revenue.

Between New Jersey at $666.9 Billion, Colorado at $437 Billion, New York at $1.6 Trillion of real GDP and California at $2.9 Trillion of real GDP, these four states together would represent more than 26.9% of the US’s real GDP being subject to Scope 1, 2 and 3 reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions.

California passed their version of a very similar reporting bill, SB 253, in 2023, with an effective date of January 2026. New York’s bill, if enacted, required regulations to be passed by December 31, 2026, with an effective reporting requirement for entities subject to the bill during 2027 for Scope 1 and 2 and 2028 for Scope 3. Colorado’s bill if passed will require reporting of Scope 1 and 2 by January 1, 2028, and Scope 3 by January 1, 2029. New Jersey’s bill, if passed, will require reporting of Scope 1 and 2 within 3 years of the passage of the NJ Bill and Scope 3 within 4 years of passage of the Bill.

As readers will likely recall and as commented on in our pieces on New York and Colorado, the SEC had pursued a similar path during 2023 and 2024, issuing proposed rules, and then final rules and then revised final rules which were then challenged and consolidated into one case in the 8th Circuit. The SEC’s final rules only required reporting on Scope 1 and 2 after receiving a backlash of comments about required Scope 3 reporting. As of February 11, 2025, the SEC’s acting Chairman Mark Uyeda said that the Commission will pause litigation of its climate disclosure rule in the 8th Circuit case, effectively ending, for now at least, the SEC’s pursuit of federal rules focusing on climate disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gases for reporting companies.

Despite the SEC’s position, it appears that states will continue to pursue their own path regarding climate disclosure. While California’s law had been challenged by various parties, earlier this month on February 3, 2025, the District Court for the Central District of California issued an order (https://www.troutman.com/a/web/gEwAfXN75c6MMmenKh3yd3/us_dis_cacd_2_24cv801_d96315207e190_order_granting_defendants_motion_to_dismiss_plaint.pdf) dismissing constitutional challenges posed to SB 253 and SB 261 and clears a path for the California Air Resources Board to develop necessary implementing regulations.

The New Jersey, Colorado and New York bills are very similar to the California bill and require reporting starting in 2027 and additional reporting in 2028 for New York and starting in 2028 and continuing in 2029 for Colorado and potentially in 2028 and 2029 for New Jersey depending on when the NJ version is passed. The bills also require either a third-party verification in the case of Colorado, or a third-party report of limited assurance on Scope 1 and 2 in 2027 and a reasonable assurance report starting in 2031 and if in New Jersey beginning in the 4th year after passage of the NJ Bill and thereafter.

Note that the New Jersey Bill includes an increasing fine of $10,000 for the first offense, up to $20,000 for the second offense and up to $50,000 for the third offense and each subsequent offense. Note that if a violation continues, each day is an additional and separate offense of $50,000 each for failure to file the applicable report.

If New Jersey follows the path of California here, companies with limited contacts to New Jersey will find themselves subject to this reporting regime and need to put in the work to measure, monitor and report on their Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions if they have sales of over $1 Billion Dollars (and those sales need NOT be in New Jersey alone, rather they are in the aggregate and likely will include subsidiary and related entities).

Green Spouts: While it is highly likely that various parties like the US Chamber of Commerce (who sued California for implementing SB 261 and 253) will also attempt to block New Jersey from implementing its version of S4117, given the District Court’s ruling noted above, it appears that if passed in New Jersey, that the constitutional challenges raised by the plaintiffs are not likely to withstand New Jersey court scrutiny and New Jersey could join California (and Colorado and New York) as requiring such reporting as early as 2028. Again, the Bill needs to clear the Senate Committee and then needs to be voted on and approved by the full Senate, the Assembly and also needs the Governor’s signature, but it appears that these steps are not only possible but likely in 2025, partially/fully in reaction to the Federal government’s overall environmental position and its position taken in withdrawing from the SEC Final rules on climate disclosure. This author’s view is that the Bill will likely pass in New Jersey given the Governor will be leaving office at the end of 2024 and in Colorado and New York and be signed by the respective Governors, will attract challenges like California’s version did and that those challenges under New Jersey, Colorado and New York law will survive such a challenge and that these laws will become a reality during 2025/2026.

Duane Morris has an active Sustainability and Risk Mitigation Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and Risk Mitigation planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

On January 28, 2025, the Colorado House in its Energy and Environment Committee proposed House Bill 25-1119. See attached draft copy at https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025A/bills/2025a_1119_01.pdf.

Like the New York bill, if enacted, the Colorado bill would become the second or third set of bills passed in the United States which are aimed at requiring entities with connections to Colorado to report on their greenhouse gas emissions under Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 beginning in 2028. Colorado would join California and likely New York (if New York’s bill moves to passage) as the third state in the US in requiring this type of reporting for companies with over $1 Billion in revenue.

Between Colorado at $437 billion, New York at $1.6 Trillion of real GDP and California at $2.9 Trillion of real GDP, these three states together would represent more than 21.5% of the US’s real GDP being subject to Scope 1, 2 and 3 reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions.

California passed their version of a very similar reporting bill, SB 253, in 2023, with an effective date of January 2026. New York’s bill, if enacted, required regulations to be passed by December 31, 2026, with an effective reporting requirement for entities subject to the bill during 2027 for Scope 1 and 2 and 2028 for Scope 3. Colorado’s bill if passed will require reporting of Scope 1 and 2 by January 1, 2028, and Scope 3 by January 1, 2029.

As readers will likely recall and as commented on in our piece on New York, the SEC had pursued a similar path during 2023 and 2024, issuing proposed rules, and then final rules and then revised final rules which were then challenged and consolidated into one case in the 8th Circuit. The SEC’s final rules only required reporting on Scope 1 and 2 after receiving a backlash of comments about required Scope 3 reporting. As of February 11, 2025, the SEC’s acting Chairman Mark Uyeda said that the Commission will pause litigation of its climate disclosure rule in the 8th Circuit case, effectively ending, for now at least, the SEC’s pursuit of federal rules focusing on climate disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gases for reporting companies.

Despite the SEC’s position, it appears that states will continue to pursue their own path regarding climate disclosure. While California’s law had been challenged by various parties, earlier this month on February 3, 2025, the District Court for the Central District of California issued an order (https://www.troutman.com/a/web/gEwAfXN75c6MMmenKh3yd3/us_dis_cacd_2_24cv801_d96315207e190_order_granting_defendants_motion_to_dismiss_plaint.pdf) dismissing constitutional challenges posed to SB 253 and SB 261 and clears a path for the California Air Resources Board to develop necessary implementing regulations.

The Colorado and New York bills are very similar to the California bill and require reporting starting in 2027 and additional reporting in 2028 for New York and starting in 2028 and continuing in 2029 for Colorado. The bills also require either a third-party verification in the case of Colorado, or a third-party report of limited assurance on Scope 1 and 2 in 2027 and a reasonable assurance report starting in 2031.

Note that the Colorado bill includes a $100,000 fine per day for failing to file the applicable report.

If Colorado follows the path of California here, companies with limited contacts to Colorado will find themselves subject to this reporting regime and need to put in the work to measure, monitor and report on their Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions if they have sales of over $1 Billion Dollars (and those sales need NOT be in Colorado alone, rather they are in the aggregate and likely will include subsidiary and related entities).

Green Spouts: While it is highly likely that various parties like the US Chamber of Commerce (who sued California for implementing SB 261 and 253) will also attempt to block Colorado from implementing its version of HB 25-1119, given the District Court’s ruling noted above, it appears that if passed in Colorado, that the constitutional challenges raised by the plaintiffs are not likely to withstand Colorado court scrutiny and Colorado could join California (and New York) as requiring such reporting as early as 2028. Again, the Bill needs to clear the House Committee and then needs to be voted on and approved by the full House, the Senate and also needs the Governor’s signature, but it appears that these steps are not only possible but likely in 2025, partially/fully in reaction to the Federal government’s overall environmental position and its position taken in withdrawing from the SEC Final rules on climate disclosure. This author’s view is that the Bill will likely pass in Colorado and New York and be signed by the respective Governors, will attract challenges like California’s version did and that those challenges under Colorado and New York law will survive such a challenge and that these laws will become a reality during 2025/2026.

Duane Morris has an active Sustainability and Risk Mitigation Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and Risk Mitigation planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of hosting Dr. Chris Pyke (GRESB), Chris Cayten, M. Arch, LEED AP (Code Green), and Duncan C. Ellis (Marsh) on my monthly sustainability and risk mitigation webinar where we focused on the ever-intensifying impact of storms, wildfires and natural disasters and how insurance is figuring into the picture (or not) for commercial real estate.

As weather related climate risks intensify, the panelists uniformly agreed that real estate and insurance industries are shifting from high-level risk awareness to tangible asset-level resilience and action. We spent the hour exploring how climate risk, insurance market trends, and financial resilience are reshaping the built environment.

Key Takeaways:

• The Climate Risk Landscape Is Evolving Rapidly, and the number of events and the impact of these weather-related events are increasing in number and severity.
• Natural disasters are increasing in frequency and cost, with the U.S. averaging 23 billion-dollar plus disasters per year in the last four years (compared to 9 events per year from 1980-2024).
• Canada’s insurance claims have surged 93% over the past decade, signaling market instability.
• Practitioners have moved from discussing rental premiums for having certain green features at their properties to focusing on Risk Mitigation and Efficiency (some would say they have returned to this place)
• Sustainability is no longer just about certifications; it’s about financial risk reduction and fiduciary responsibility in asset preservation.
• Building performance standards (BPS) are increasingly incorporating resilience and physical climate risk into their analysis of where to invest and where to hold vs. sell.
• Insurance Premiums Are Climbing—And Discounts Aren’t Guaranteed for building in resiliency features, but the lack of focus will likely make a property much less desirable to insure at all. Property insurance has leveled over the last few years despite the increase in number of losses and the severity of such losses; the casualty side of the business is driving cost at this point in the cycle.
• Many factors are driving higher property premiums—such as community risk, rebuilding costs, and interest rates—these factors are some of the features which insurance carriers review in pricing coverage are beyond the control of individual property owners.
• While resilience measures may not yield direct insurance discounts, they can help secure better access to coverage and slower premium hikes over time.

Insurance Market Challenges & Risk Differentiation:

Insurers are tightening terms, raising deductibles, and exiting high-risk markets like California and Florida due to regulatory constraints and continued extreme weather risks. Carriers have exited these markets on the residential front rather than the commercial front, but insurance costs in the commercial real estate markets have been priced to take into account property level risk and the insurance carriers’ appetite to take risk in particular markets given the past history with their clients’ losses.

Resilient properties in lower-risk areas may retain more value and command higher rents, thereby reinforcing the financial case for adaptation.

Modeling of these risks and Data Transparency Are Key to Risk Assessment at the property level as the Insurers rely on tools like RMS and AIR to help price and assess weather related risk, but inconsistencies in modeling approaches continue to create confusion for real estate owners. Better data alignment between insurers and property owners is critical to improving risk assessment and pricing. Simple things like making sure the insured data is accurate regarding sprinklering, the location of HVAC equipment, what type of resiliency measures have been enacted at the property are critical to making sure the carrier is pricing the applicable real risk into its premium quote.

What Real Estate Owners & Investors Should Do Next:

Understand the insurance models and data sources that underwriters use to assess risk.
Implement resilience measures that demonstrate tangible risk reduction to insurers.
Engage insurers early and improve transparency to ensure fairer risk assessments and pricing.

As climate-driven losses mount, risk mitigation is becoming a business necessity rather than an optional sustainability strategy. Those who adapt will not only protect asset value but also navigate insurance challenges more effectively in an increasingly volatile market.

Physical risk assessment and mitigation is part of a broader trend in sustainable real estate where down-side risk reduction is replacing the ephemeral “green premium”.

Green Spouts: Undeniable risks such as the increase in severity of weather-related events (e.g., flooding, hurricanes, wildfires) and similar climate events and upcoming Building Performance mandates in various cities and states are motivating owners of all sizes to build and operate buildings more responsibly, regardless of their ideology or opinion of “sustainability”. Irrespective of being blue or red, owners are focusing on risk mitigation measures that make financial sense, including physical risk mitigation.

Duane Morris has an active Sustainability and Risk Mitigation Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and Risk Mitigation planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Earlier this week (December 17, 2024), in Rikki Held et al. vs, the State of Montana, the Montana Supreme court affirmed a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed state law that barred consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in state permitting decisions. In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that greenhouse gas emissions can be considered in permitting decisions. 20241218_docket-DA-23-0575_opinion.pdf

The Court agreed with the plaintiffs who made the argument to the lower court that the Montana state lawmakers attempted amendments to the Montana Environmental Policy Act prohibiting regulators from taking into consideration greenhouse gas emissions in permitting decisions violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment”.

The Court rejected the state’s argument that the authors of the State constitutional provision could NOT have intended to include climate change concerns in the right to a “clean and healthful environment”. Instead, they indicated that …”new advancements, consistent with the object and true principles of the constitution are provided for within Montana’s living constitution.”

The plaintiffs had sued in 2020, claiming that the Montana Legislature had compromised their future and the rights of Montana citizens by prioritizing the development of carbon intensive fossil fuels and by barring the review of greenhouse gas impacts as part of the permit review process. The lower court had agreed with the plaintiffs and struck down the proposed legislation as unconstitutional.

The justices also agreed with the plaintiffs in ruling that they had standing to bring the suit based on the plaintiffs providing that that they had a sufficient personal stake in their right to a clean and healthful environment as well as that they had shown sufficient injury resulting from the proposed amendments.

Plaintiffs showed at trial—”without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future,” the order states. “Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the State.”

Green Spouts: While this case is limited to the facts and drafting of the Montana proposed legislation and the State’s constitution, plaintiffs in other states will likely take notice of the arguments used by the Rikki Held plaintiffs in crafting similar arguments to a recent proliferation of legislation in various states that seek to limit regulatory bodies from taking into account greenhouse gas emissions in their rule making.

Duane Morris has an active Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.