Okeson v. City of Seattle
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 — In this class action on behalf of Seattle City Light ratepayers, we are asked to decide whether a municipal utility may mitigate the effects of its greenhouse gas emissions by paying public and private entities to reduce those entities’ emissions. We hold that combating global warming is a general government purpose, albeit a meritorious one, and not a proprietary utility purpose. Therefore, such mitigation expenses must be borne by general taxpayers rather than utility ratepayers. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Seattle.
Alexander, C.J.
I
¶2…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Franklin CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Okeson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Okeson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- KEY TRONIC CORPORATION, INC. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Friends of North Spokane County Parks v. Spokane CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Nisqually Indian Tribe v. GregoireDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2009
- Ago, Washington Attorney General Reports2009
- Ago, Washington Attorney General Reports2009
- Ago, Washington Attorney General Reports2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.