Opinion ID: 2542661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the sierra club has standing under the alternative test

Text: ¶ 20 We hold, alternatively, that the Sierra Club has standing under the alternative test. A party has standing under the alternative test if it is an appropriate party asserting an issue of public importance. Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co., 2006 UT 74, ¶ 35, 148 P.3d 960. Under the alternative test, an intervenor qualifies as an appropriate party where it has `the interest necessary to effectively assist the court in developing and reviewing all relevant legal and factual questions' and where the issues are unlikely to be raised if the party is not given standing. Id. ¶ 36 (quoting Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1150 (Utah 1983)). Once a party satisfies the appropriate party requirement, it must then demonstrate that it seeks to raise issues that `are of sufficient public importance in and of themselves' to warrant granting the party standing. Id. ¶ 39 (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150). This requires that the court determine not only that the issues are of a sufficient weight but also that they are not more appropriately addressed by another branch of government. Id. ¶ 21 Here, the Sierra Club is an appropriate party. As an environmental group with members that will be directly affected by the plant's expansion, the Sierra Club has an interest in ensuring that the expanded plant complies with all applicable state and federal environmental laws as well as with state administrative procedures, thus preventing any needless and unlawful pollution or other environmental destruction. Id. ¶ 42. Indeed, in this case the Sierra Club is the only party seeking to raise the issues of the plant's detrimental effects on health, the environment, property values, and recreational interests. Furthermore, because the Sierra Club's purpose is environmental protection, it has the interest and expertise necessary to investigate and review all relevant legal and factual questions relating to the proposed expansion of the plant. Id. Thus, we hold that the Sierra Club is an appropriate party in this case. ¶ 22 Moreover, the Sierra Club raises issues of sufficient public importance. The expanded plant will be emitting hazardous chemicals. Given the plant's proximity to homes and recreational areas, including Capitol Reef National Park, an area protected by the federal Clean Air Act, [4] the Executive Secretary must comply with all applicable state and federal laws. Id. ¶ 44. To ensure that this happens, it is important that those persons who will be directly affected by the alleged violations of state and federal law have the opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the Sierra Club's allegations that the Executive Secretary failed to comply with state and federal law are not more appropriately addressed by other branches of government. Id. ¶ 44. Rather, the legislative and executive branches have already addressed these issues by passing the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 to 7671q (2000), the Utah Air Conservation Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 19-2-101 to -127 (2003 & Supp.2005), and the Utah Administrative Procedures Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-46b-0.5 to -23 (2004 & Supp. 2005). The Sierra Club is merely seeking compliance with these laws, and thus is entitled to petition the Board for that relief under the alternative test. Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co., 2006 UT 74, ¶ 44, 148 P.3d 960.