Source: https://www.crowell.com/NewsEvents/AlertsNewsletters/all/Citizen-Suit-Watch-Ninth-Circuit-Rejects-Suit-Demanding-Greenhouse-Gas-Regulations-Based-on-Lack-of-Standing-But-Rehearing-May-Be-Next
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:58:59+00:00

Document:
A recent Ninth Circuit decision highlights the difficulties in demonstrating Article III standing in Clean Air Act (CAA) citizen suits involving greenhouse gas emissions. The case, Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 5646060 (9th Cir. 2013), involved two environmental groups' challenge to the State of Washington's alleged failure to issue emission standards for the state's five oil refineries, pursuant to its approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). In its October 13, 2013 decision, the court dismissed plaintiffs' claims, holding that they lacked Article III standing for failure to satisfy threshold causation and redressability requirements.
On October 31, however, the court announced that a single judge has called for a vote on rehearing en banc and ordered briefs filed by November 21 on whether the case should be reheard.
Plaintiffs Washington Environmental Council and the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club filed suit in March 2011 to challenge alleged inaction by the Washington State Department of Ecology and several regional environmental agencies in regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Plaintiffs brought their claims pursuant to the CAA's citizen-suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(1), specifically alleging violation of Washington's approved SIP for implementation and enforcement of the CAA in the state.
Plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order requiring the defendant agencies to promulgate specific RACT standards so as to limit the refineries' greenhouse gas emissions. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) successfully sought to intervene as defendant on behalf of its members, including the five oil refineries whose emissions were at issue.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington considered cross-motions for summary judgment from the plaintiff environmental groups and intervenor-defendant WSPA, as well as the agencies' motion to dismiss. The district court issued a mixed decision on the merits, finding for plaintiffs on the first count (failure to promulgate RACT standards for the refineries' greenhouse gas emissions) but dismissing plaintiffs' second claim as "overly broad and aspirational."3 Intervenor-defendant WSPA first raised the issue of standing on appeal, arguing that that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate they had Article III standing to pursue their CAA claims.
Relying on a declaration from WSPA's expert, the court reasoned that scientists have not yet developed any meaningful capacity in "assessing, detecting, or measuring the relationship between a certain [greenhouse gas] emission source and localized climate change impacts in a given region."11 As a consequence, the refineries' specific emissions could not be said to have been the cause of any specific impact or injury.
In reaching its decision, the court rejected several arguments by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued that the court should infer the existence of a sufficient causal link in cases seeking "to enforce a specific regulatory obligation."12 The court held, however, that while some generalized environmental injury might be inferred, this is insufficient as a showing that plaintiffs themselves had suffered some particularized injury as a result of the defendant agencies' inaction.
The court's specific holding on the question of redressability relied on much of the same analysis that governed its holding on the causation issue. Lacking sufficient evidence of a causal link between the state's failure to control the refineries' greenhouse gas emissions and plaintiffs' specific injuries, the court found no evidence that an order compelling the state to issue RACT standards would measurably reduce global climate change and its localized effects on plaintiffs and their members.16 Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not met Article III's standing requirements and therefore did not have jurisdiction to pursue their claims.
As the court itself recognized, Article III's requirement for an adequately supported and identifiable link between an injury and the claims alleged imposes a "particularly challenging" hurdle for prospective plaintiffs where climate change impacts are concerned.17 In litigating future suits similarly implicating state or federal greenhouse gas regulation, parties will surely want to give significant consideration to Article III's standing requirements and whether they are capable of being met, per the Ninth Circuit's analysis.
Even so, the Ninth Circuit decision leaves a number of key questions outstanding that could affect the outcome of future decisions. Such questions include precisely what level of emissions may be considered to constitute a "meaningful contribution" to climate change impacts generally, and when – if ever – a "meaningful contributor" to climate change impacts generally can be said to generate specific, localized injuries capable of redress. Prospective litigants will also want to pay close attention to the developing science surrounding these issues and its potential to affect the governing analysis and outcome in future cases.
And of course all of this analysis could change dramatically if the Ninth Circuit agrees to rehear the case en banc, so all readers of Citizen Suit Watch should stay tuned.
1 See Wash. Admin. Code § 173-400-040(1); Wash. Rev. Code § 7094-154.
2 See Wash. Admin. Code § 173-400-040(6).
3 Wash. Envtl. Council, 2013 WL 564060, at *6; see also Wash. Envtl. Council v. Sturdevant, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1213-14, 1215 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (decision of court below).
4 The Ninth Circuit also vacated the district court's decision on the merits, including its order that the state act pursuant to its SIP to limit the refineries' greenhouse gas emissions. Whether and what action the state may be required to take pursuant to governing CAA and SIP provisions remains unresolved.
7 As discussed in the court's decision, a plaintiff is required to show not only a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, but also that its injury is "fairly traceable" to the challenged action (or inaction), and that the injury is "likely to be redressed" by a decision in the plaintiff's favor. See id. at *8 (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).
9 Id. at *10, *11.
10 Id. at *11 (internal quotation marks omitted).
14 The court acknowledged that aggregate emissions from the five oil refineries totaled 5.9% of all greenhouse gas emissions from the State of Washington. Id. at *14.
16 Id. at *15-16. The court also found that plaintiffs had failed to adduce evidence that RACT standards would even meaningfully reduce the refineries' emission, given controverting evidence that "many sources are likely already meeting or exceeding RACT." Id. at *15.

References: v. 
 § 7604
 § 173
 § 7094
 § 173
 v. 
 v.