Loading
Transportation
10 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Transportation, Energy, Climate Change, Renewable Energy, Environmental Science
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Hawaiʻi State
Fourteen young Hawaiʻi residents filed a constitutional challenge against the State's transportation system in Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, Case No. 1CCV-22-0000631, on June 1, 2022. The lawsuit named the State of Hawaiʻi, the Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation (HDOT), then-HDOT Director Jade Butay, and then-Governor David Ige as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that Hawaiʻi's transportation system remained heavily dependent on fossil fuels and contributed to greenhouse gas emissions that conflicted with protections under the Hawaiʻi Constitution. Their claims involved the constitutional public trust doctrine, the right to a clean and healthful environment, transportation planning, vehicle miles traveled, highway investment, and state laws governing greenhouse gas reduction.
The State moved to dismiss the lawsuit, but the Circuit Court allowed the constitutional claims to proceed in April 2023. The case then advanced through discovery, expert disclosures, case management, and preparations for a trial scheduled to begin on June 24, 2024. The plaintiffs served 10 expert reports, while the defendants served four. By the time the case was resolved, 13 youth plaintiffs remained parties to the settlement approved on June 20, 2024. Under the agreement, HDOT accepted transportation planning and emissions-reduction obligations tied to Hawaiʻi's zero-emissions transportation goals under HRS § 225P-8 and the State's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5.
Fourteen young Hawaiʻi residents filed suit in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit against the State of Hawaiʻi, HDOT, then-HDOT Director Jade Butay, and then-Governor David Ige. The complaint alleged that the State's transportation system remained dependent on fossil fuels and contributed to greenhouse gas emissions affecting Hawaiʻi's natural resources and environmental conditions. The plaintiffs based their claims on Hawaiʻi's constitutional public trust protections and the right to a clean and healthful environment. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief addressing transportation policies, emissions reduction, and compliance with state climate laws.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case before it advanced into full discovery and trial preparation. Their motion challenged the plaintiffs' standing, questioned the legal basis for the constitutional claims, and argued that the requested relief involved policy matters beyond the proper role of the judiciary. The State also raised the political question doctrine as a basis for dismissal. The plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 16, 2022, and the defendants submitted their reply later that month.
Judge Jeffrey P. Crabtree heard arguments on the dismissal motion on January 26, 2023. The court announced its denial of the motion on April 6, 2023, and the written Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was electronically filed on April 19, 2023. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded claims involving Hawaiʻi's public trust doctrine and constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. It also declined to dismiss the case for lack of standing and determined that the political question doctrine did not require dismissal at that stage.
The court did not decide that climate itself was a public trust resource. Instead, it found the allegations sufficient because the plaintiffs claimed that climate-related conditions affected natural resources already protected by the State's trust obligations. The court also considered Hawaiʻi laws addressing greenhouse gas reductions, fossil-fuel use in transportation, alternative fuels, and energy efficiency when evaluating the plaintiffs' clean and healthful environment claim.
The defendants filed their answer on April 17, 2023, after the motion to dismiss was denied. The case then moved into discovery and broader trial preparation, including the development of factual and technical evidence concerning transportation planning and greenhouse gas emissions. The matter was later assigned to Judge John M. Tonaki. On August 3, 2023, the court scheduled trial for June 24 through July 12, 2024, in Hawaiʻi's Environmental Court.
The plaintiffs served 10 expert reports on January 26, 2024. The defendants served four expert reports on March 11, followed by rebuttal reports from the plaintiffs on April 25. The disclosed subjects included transportation systems, greenhouse gas emissions, climate science, renewable energy, environmental conditions, public health, community effects, and Hawaiʻi climate policy. The reports addressed scientific, technical, and policy issues that the parties expected to present if the case proceeded to trial.
The parties participated in a mandatory settlement conference on May 2, 2024. By that point, the lawsuit had moved beyond the pleading stage, the principal expert reports had been exchanged, and trial preparations were underway. Settlement discussions continued alongside the remaining pretrial work. The dispute was resolved before opening statements or witness testimony took place.
Judge John M. Tonaki approved the parties' settlement on June 20, 2024, four days before trial was scheduled to begin. Thirteen youth plaintiffs were parties to the final agreement. Because the dispute was resolved by settlement, the court did not conduct a trial or enter a liability verdict on the plaintiffs' constitutional claims.
HDOT agreed to take actions toward Hawaiʻi's zero-emissions transportation goals under HRS § 225P-8 and to establish interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040 aligned with the State's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5. The agreement also requires an objective, scientifically based method for assessing the long-term greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts of transportation infrastructure projects and incorporating those measurements into planning, project evaluation, prioritization, and related decisions.
Additional provisions address electric vehicle charging infrastructure, multimodal transportation, carbon sequestration, climate mitigation and adaptation staffing within HDOT, and a volunteer youth council. The settlement also establishes procedures for resolving implementation disputes, while the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction until the earlier of December 31, 2045, or achievement of the Zero Emissions Target under HRS § 225P-5.
Court:
Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi
Case Name:
Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation
Climate
Climate Engineering
Climate Models
Clean Energy
Electric Vehicles
Energy Efficiency
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Reports EIRs
Public Transportation
Transportation And Traffic Engineering
Fourteen young Hawaiʻi residents filed a constitutional challenge against the State's transportation system in Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, Case No. 1CCV-22-0000631, on June 1, 2022. The lawsuit named the State of Hawaiʻi, the Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation (HDOT), then-HDOT Director Jade Butay, and then-Governor David Ige as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that Hawaiʻi's transportation system remained heavily dependent on fossil fuels and contributed to greenhouse gas emissions that conflicted with protections under the Hawaiʻi Constitution. Their claims involved the constitutional public trust doctrine, the right to a clean and healthful environment, transportation planning, vehicle miles traveled, highway investment, and state laws governing greenhouse gas reduction.
The State moved to dismiss the lawsuit, but the Circuit Court allowed the constitutional claims to proceed in April 2023. The case then advanced through discovery, expert disclosures, case management, and preparations for a trial scheduled to begin on June 24, 2024. The plaintiffs served 10 expert reports, while the defendants served four. By the time the case was resolved, 13 youth plaintiffs remained parties to the settlement approved on June 20, 2024. Under the agreement, HDOT accepted transportation planning and emissions-reduction obligations tied to Hawaiʻi's zero-emissions transportation goals under HRS § 225P-8 and the State's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5.
Fourteen young Hawaiʻi residents filed suit in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit against the State of Hawaiʻi, HDOT, then-HDOT Director Jade Butay, and then-Governor David Ige. The complaint alleged that the State's transportation system remained dependent on fossil fuels and contributed to greenhouse gas emissions affecting Hawaiʻi's natural resources and environmental conditions. The plaintiffs based their claims on Hawaiʻi's constitutional public trust protections and the right to a clean and healthful environment. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief addressing transportation policies, emissions reduction, and compliance with state climate laws.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case before it advanced into full discovery and trial preparation. Their motion challenged the plaintiffs' standing, questioned the legal basis for the constitutional claims, and argued that the requested relief involved policy matters beyond the proper role of the judiciary. The State also raised the political question doctrine as a basis for dismissal. The plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 16, 2022, and the defendants submitted their reply later that month.
Judge Jeffrey P. Crabtree heard arguments on the dismissal motion on January 26, 2023. The court announced its denial of the motion on April 6, 2023, and the written Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was electronically filed on April 19, 2023. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded claims involving Hawaiʻi's public trust doctrine and constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. It also declined to dismiss the case for lack of standing and determined that the political question doctrine did not require dismissal at that stage.
The court did not decide that climate itself was a public trust resource. Instead, it found the allegations sufficient because the plaintiffs claimed that climate-related conditions affected natural resources already protected by the State's trust obligations. The court also considered Hawaiʻi laws addressing greenhouse gas reductions, fossil-fuel use in transportation, alternative fuels, and energy efficiency when evaluating the plaintiffs' clean and healthful environment claim.
The defendants filed their answer on April 17, 2023, after the motion to dismiss was denied. The case then moved into discovery and broader trial preparation, including the development of factual and technical evidence concerning transportation planning and greenhouse gas emissions. The matter was later assigned to Judge John M. Tonaki. On August 3, 2023, the court scheduled trial for June 24 through July 12, 2024, in Hawaiʻi's Environmental Court.
The plaintiffs served 10 expert reports on January 26, 2024. The defendants served four expert reports on March 11, followed by rebuttal reports from the plaintiffs on April 25. The disclosed subjects included transportation systems, greenhouse gas emissions, climate science, renewable energy, environmental conditions, public health, community effects, and Hawaiʻi climate policy. The reports addressed scientific, technical, and policy issues that the parties expected to present if the case proceeded to trial.
The parties participated in a mandatory settlement conference on May 2, 2024. By that point, the lawsuit had moved beyond the pleading stage, the principal expert reports had been exchanged, and trial preparations were underway. Settlement discussions continued alongside the remaining pretrial work. The dispute was resolved before opening statements or witness testimony took place.
Judge John M. Tonaki approved the parties' settlement on June 20, 2024, four days before trial was scheduled to begin. Thirteen youth plaintiffs were parties to the final agreement. Because the dispute was resolved by settlement, the court did not conduct a trial or enter a liability verdict on the plaintiffs' constitutional claims.
HDOT agreed to take actions toward Hawaiʻi's zero-emissions transportation goals under HRS § 225P-8 and to establish interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040 aligned with the State's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5. The agreement also requires an objective, scientifically based method for assessing the long-term greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts of transportation infrastructure projects and incorporating those measurements into planning, project evaluation, prioritization, and related decisions.
Additional provisions address electric vehicle charging infrastructure, multimodal transportation, carbon sequestration, climate mitigation and adaptation staffing within HDOT, and a volunteer youth council. The settlement also establishes procedures for resolving implementation disputes, while the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction until the earlier of December 31, 2045, or achievement of the Zero Emissions Target under HRS § 225P-5.
Transportation and Energy Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Daniel Sperling, Ph.D., addressed transportation energy systems, greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle electrification, transportation fuels, and methods for reducing transportation-sector emissions. Michael Replogle was also identified among the plaintiff experts and brought experience involving transportation policy, mobility, and sustainable transportation planning.
Climate Science and Environmental Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Steve Running, Ph.D., addressed greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and climate processes. Greg Asner, Ph.D., and Rosanna ʻAnolani Alegado, Ph.D., were also included among the plaintiff experts addressing environmental, ecological, and climate-related subjects.
Renewable Energy and Decarbonization Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Mark Z. Jacobson, Ph.D., examined renewable energy systems and the technical feasibility of reducing dependence on fossil fuels across transportation and other energy uses. His work addressed possible pathways for transitioning toward lower-emission energy systems.
Climate Policy and Transportation Emissions Expert Witness - Plaintiff Side:
Jeff Mikulina addressed Hawaiʻi climate policy, transportation-related emissions, and state planning connected with greenhouse gas reduction requirements. His work focused on the policy framework governing emissions reduction and transportation decisions in Hawaiʻi.
Health, Community, and Children's Rights Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Kealoha Fox, Ph.D., addressed climate-related effects on human and social well-being in Hawaiʻi communities. Lise Van Susteren, M.D., addressed the mental health effects of climate change on youth, while Catherine Smith, J.D., addressed children's rights, equal protection, and related constitutional issues.
Hawaiʻi Constitutional Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment
Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution recognizes a right to a clean and healthful environment as defined by laws relating to environmental quality. The plaintiffs relied on this provision together with Hawaiʻi statutes addressing greenhouse gas reduction, fossil-fuel use, alternative fuels, and energy efficiency. They alleged that transportation policies contributing to continued emissions conflicted with those protections.
When the Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss, it allowed the clean and healthful environment claim to continue. The ruling addressed whether the plaintiffs had pleaded a legally sufficient claim and did not determine liability after a trial.
Public Trust Doctrine Claims Involving Hawaiʻi Natural Resources
The plaintiffs also relied on Hawaiʻi's constitutional public trust doctrine. They alleged that transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate conditions affecting natural resources protected by the State's trust obligations.
At the dismissal stage, the court did not classify climate itself as a public trust resource. Instead, it allowed the claim to proceed because the plaintiffs alleged that climate-related changes affected natural resources already subject to public trust protections.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled in Transportation Planning
The settlement requires HDOT to develop an objective, scientifically based method for assessing the long-term greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts of transportation infrastructure projects. Vehicle miles traveled, commonly called VMT, measures the total distance traveled by vehicles within a defined transportation system or geographic area.
HDOT must incorporate greenhouse gas and VMT information into transportation planning, project evaluation, prioritization, and related decision-making. These requirements apply project-level measurements to broader transportation and emissions-reduction planning.
Hawaiʻi Transportation Emissions Goals Under HRS § 225P-8
HRS § 225P-8 establishes a state goal of zero greenhouse gas emissions across transportation modes, including ground transportation and sea and air interisland transportation. The settlement requires HDOT to take actions directed toward that goal.
The agreement also requires HDOT to address transportation emissions through planning, project evaluation, infrastructure measures, and other programs. These obligations operate alongside Hawaiʻi's broader clean-economy requirements.
Interim Targets and Hawaiʻi's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target
The settlement requires HDOT to establish interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040. These interim targets are aligned with Hawaiʻi's Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5, which sets a statewide target for no later than 2045.
The agreement therefore uses both transportation-specific emissions goals and broader statewide emissions targets. The interim milestones provide scheduled points for measuring progress before 2045.
Continuing Court Jurisdiction Over Settlement Compliance
The settlement includes procedures for addressing disagreements concerning implementation and compliance. After the required dispute-resolution steps are completed, qualifying disputes may be brought before the Circuit Court.
The court retained jurisdiction until the earlier of December 31, 2045, or achievement of the Zero Emissions Target under HRS § 225P-5. That jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the parties' obligations under the settlement.
Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation proceeded from a June 2022 complaint filed by 14 youth plaintiffs through a contested motion to dismiss, discovery, expert disclosures, and preparations for a multiweek Environmental Court trial. After the court allowed the constitutional claims to proceed in April 2023, the parties developed evidence concerning transportation emissions, climate science, renewable energy, environmental conditions, health, and state transportation policy. By June 2024, 13 youth plaintiffs remained parties to the settlement approved on June 20, 2024, which resolved the plaintiffs' claims without a trial or liability verdict. HDOT accepted obligations involving interim greenhouse gas reduction targets, transportation project assessment, vehicle miles traveled analysis, multimodal transportation, electric vehicle infrastructure, carbon sequestration, climate-focused staffing, and youth participation. The settlement did not constitute an admission by the defendants of a constitutional or other legal violation, and the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction over qualifying compliance disputes until the earlier of December 31, 2045, or achievement of the Zero Emissions Target under HRS § 225P-5.
How many youth plaintiffs filed Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation?
Fourteen young Hawaiʻi residents filed the original lawsuit on June 1, 2022. By the time the case was resolved in June 2024, 13 youth plaintiffs were parties to the settlement. The defendants included the State of Hawaiʻi, HDOT, then-HDOT Director Jade Butay, and then-Governor David Ige.
What constitutional claims did the Navahine plaintiffs bring?
The plaintiffs relied primarily on Hawaiʻi's constitutional public trust doctrine and the right to a clean and healthful environment. They alleged that state transportation policies and continued fossil-fuel dependence contributed to greenhouse gas emissions that affected natural resources and conflicted with state environmental protections. Their claims also referred to Hawaiʻi laws addressing greenhouse gas reduction, transportation energy use, alternative fuels, and related climate obligations.
Why did the court deny Hawaiʻi's motion to dismiss the Navahine case?
The Circuit Court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded claims involving the public trust doctrine and the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. It also declined to dismiss the case for lack of standing and determined that the political question doctrine did not require dismissal at that stage. The April 6, 2023 ruling allowed the lawsuit to proceed into discovery and trial preparation. It was not a final finding that the defendants had violated the Hawaiʻi Constitution.
Which experts were involved in the Navahine climate lawsuit?
The plaintiffs served 10 expert reports, while the defendants served four expert reports. Publicly identified plaintiff experts included Catherine Smith, J.D.; Daniel Sperling, Ph.D.; Greg Asner, Ph.D.; Jeff Mikulina; Rosanna ʻAnolani Alegado, Ph.D.; Kealoha Fox, Ph.D.; Michael Replogle; Steve Running, Ph.D.; Mark Z. Jacobson, Ph.D.; and Lise Van Susteren, M.D. Their fields included transportation, climate science, renewable energy, environmental conditions, public health, community impacts, climate policy, and children's rights. The case settled before trial, so the experts did not provide trial testimony.
Transportation and Energy Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Daniel Sperling, Ph.D., addressed transportation energy systems, greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle electrification, transportation fuels, and methods for reducing transportation-sector emissions. Michael Replogle was also identified among the plaintiff experts and brought experience involving transportation policy, mobility, and sustainable transportation planning.
Climate Science and Environmental Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Steve Running, Ph.D., addressed greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and climate processes. Greg Asner, Ph.D., and Rosanna ʻAnolani Alegado, Ph.D., were also included among the plaintiff experts addressing environmental, ecological, and climate-related subjects.
Renewable Energy and Decarbonization Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Mark Z. Jacobson, Ph.D., examined renewable energy systems and the technical feasibility of reducing dependence on fossil fuels across transportation and other energy uses. His work addressed possible pathways for transitioning toward lower-emission energy systems.
Climate Policy and Transportation Emissions Expert Witness - Plaintiff Side:
Jeff Mikulina addressed Hawaiʻi climate policy, transportation-related emissions, and state planning connected with greenhouse gas reduction requirements. His work focused on the policy framework governing emissions reduction and transportation decisions in Hawaiʻi.
Health, Community, and Children's Rights Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff Side:
Kealoha Fox, Ph.D., addressed climate-related effects on human and social well-being in Hawaiʻi communities. Lise Van Susteren, M.D., addressed the mental health effects of climate change on youth, while Catherine Smith, J.D., addressed children's rights, equal protection, and related constitutional issues.
Hawaiʻi Constitutional Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment
Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution recognizes a right to a clean and healthful environment as defined by laws relating to environmental quality. The plaintiffs relied on this provision together with Hawaiʻi statutes addressing greenhouse gas reduction, fossil-fuel use, alternative fuels, and energy efficiency. They alleged that transportation policies contributing to continued emissions conflicted with those protections.
When the Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss, it allowed the clean and healthful environment claim to continue. The ruling addressed whether the plaintiffs had pleaded a legally sufficient claim and did not determine liability after a trial.
Public Trust Doctrine Claims Involving Hawaiʻi Natural Resources
The plaintiffs also relied on Hawaiʻi's constitutional public trust doctrine. They alleged that transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate conditions affecting natural resources protected by the State's trust obligations.
At the dismissal stage, the court did not classify climate itself as a public trust resource. Instead, it allowed the claim to proceed because the plaintiffs alleged that climate-related changes affected natural resources already subject to public trust protections.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled in Transportation Planning
The settlement requires HDOT to develop an objective, scientifically based method for assessing the long-term greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts of transportation infrastructure projects. Vehicle miles traveled, commonly called VMT, measures the total distance traveled by vehicles within a defined transportation system or geographic area.
HDOT must incorporate greenhouse gas and VMT information into transportation planning, project evaluation, prioritization, and related decision-making. These requirements apply project-level measurements to broader transportation and emissions-reduction planning.
Hawaiʻi Transportation Emissions Goals Under HRS § 225P-8
HRS § 225P-8 establishes a state goal of zero greenhouse gas emissions across transportation modes, including ground transportation and sea and air interisland transportation. The settlement requires HDOT to take actions directed toward that goal.
The agreement also requires HDOT to address transportation emissions through planning, project evaluation, infrastructure measures, and other programs. These obligations operate alongside Hawaiʻi's broader clean-economy requirements.
Interim Targets and Hawaiʻi's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target
The settlement requires HDOT to establish interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040. These interim targets are aligned with Hawaiʻi's Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5, which sets a statewide target for no later than 2045.
The agreement therefore uses both transportation-specific emissions goals and broader statewide emissions targets. The interim milestones provide scheduled points for measuring progress before 2045.
Continuing Court Jurisdiction Over Settlement Compliance
The settlement includes procedures for addressing disagreements concerning implementation and compliance. After the required dispute-resolution steps are completed, qualifying disputes may be brought before the Circuit Court.
The court retained jurisdiction until the earlier of December 31, 2045, or achievement of the Zero Emissions Target under HRS § 225P-5. That jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the parties' obligations under the settlement.
Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation proceeded from a June 2022 complaint filed by 14 youth plaintiffs through a contested motion to dismiss, discovery, expert disclosures, and preparations for a multiweek Environmental Court trial. After the court allowed the constitutional claims to proceed in April 2023, the parties developed evidence concerning transportation emissions, climate science, renewable energy, environmental conditions, health, and state transportation policy. By June 2024, 13 youth plaintiffs remained parties to the settlement approved on June 20, 2024, which resolved the plaintiffs' claims without a trial or liability verdict. HDOT accepted obligations involving interim greenhouse gas reduction targets, transportation project assessment, vehicle miles traveled analysis, multimodal transportation, electric vehicle infrastructure, carbon sequestration, climate-focused staffing, and youth participation. The settlement did not constitute an admission by the defendants of a constitutional or other legal violation, and the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction over qualifying compliance disputes until the earlier of December 31, 2045, or achievement of the Zero Emissions Target under HRS § 225P-5.
How many youth plaintiffs filed Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation?
Fourteen young Hawaiʻi residents filed the original lawsuit on June 1, 2022. By the time the case was resolved in June 2024, 13 youth plaintiffs were parties to the settlement. The defendants included the State of Hawaiʻi, HDOT, then-HDOT Director Jade Butay, and then-Governor David Ige.
What constitutional claims did the Navahine plaintiffs bring?
The plaintiffs relied primarily on Hawaiʻi's constitutional public trust doctrine and the right to a clean and healthful environment. They alleged that state transportation policies and continued fossil-fuel dependence contributed to greenhouse gas emissions that affected natural resources and conflicted with state environmental protections. Their claims also referred to Hawaiʻi laws addressing greenhouse gas reduction, transportation energy use, alternative fuels, and related climate obligations.
Why did the court deny Hawaiʻi's motion to dismiss the Navahine case?
The Circuit Court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded claims involving the public trust doctrine and the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. It also declined to dismiss the case for lack of standing and determined that the political question doctrine did not require dismissal at that stage. The April 6, 2023 ruling allowed the lawsuit to proceed into discovery and trial preparation. It was not a final finding that the defendants had violated the Hawaiʻi Constitution.
Which experts were involved in the Navahine climate lawsuit?
The plaintiffs served 10 expert reports, while the defendants served four expert reports. Publicly identified plaintiff experts included Catherine Smith, J.D.; Daniel Sperling, Ph.D.; Greg Asner, Ph.D.; Jeff Mikulina; Rosanna ʻAnolani Alegado, Ph.D.; Kealoha Fox, Ph.D.; Michael Replogle; Steve Running, Ph.D.; Mark Z. Jacobson, Ph.D.; and Lise Van Susteren, M.D. Their fields included transportation, climate science, renewable energy, environmental conditions, public health, community impacts, climate policy, and children's rights. The case settled before trial, so the experts did not provide trial testimony.
What did HDOT agree to under the Navahine settlement?
HDOT agreed to take actions toward zero greenhouse gas emissions across transportation modes under HRS § 225P-8 and to establish interim emissions-reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040 aligned with Hawaiʻi's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5. The agreement also requires greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled analysis in transportation planning and project evaluation. Additional obligations address multimodal transportation, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, carbon sequestration, climate mitigation and adaptation staffing, and a volunteer youth council. Qualifying disputes over compliance may return to the Circuit Court under the settlement's enforcement procedures.
Climate
Climate Engineering
Climate Models
Clean Energy
Electric Vehicles
Energy Efficiency
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Reports EIRs
Public Transportation
Transportation And Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering, +3
Transportation
Traffic Engineering, +4
Transportation
What did HDOT agree to under the Navahine settlement?
HDOT agreed to take actions toward zero greenhouse gas emissions across transportation modes under HRS § 225P-8 and to establish interim emissions-reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040 aligned with Hawaiʻi's 2045 Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target under HRS § 225P-5. The agreement also requires greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled analysis in transportation planning and project evaluation. Additional obligations address multimodal transportation, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, carbon sequestration, climate mitigation and adaptation staffing, and a volunteer youth council. Qualifying disputes over compliance may return to the Circuit Court under the settlement's enforcement procedures.