Opinion ID: 2542661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the sierra club has standing under the traditional test

Text: ¶ 12 Under the traditional test for standing, the party must allege that it has suffered or will `suffer[] some distinct and palpable injury that gives [it] a personal stake in the outcome of the legal dispute.' Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co., 2006 UT 74, ¶ 19, 148 P.3d 960 (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1148 (Utah 1983)). When determining whether a party has suffered a distinct and palpable injury, we engage in a three-step inquiry. See id. First, the petitioning party must claim that it has been or will be `adversely affected by the [challenged] actions.' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150). Second, the party must allege a causal relationship `between the injury to the [party], the [challenged] actions and the relief requested.' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150). Third, the requested relief must be `substantially likely to redress the injury claimed.' Id. (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150). If the party can satisfy these three criteria, [it] has standing to pursue its claims before the courts of this state. Id. ¶ 13 In this case, we address the traditional criteria through the lens of associational standing. An association, such as the Sierra Club, has standing if its individual members have standing and the participation of the individual members is not indispensable to the resolution of the case. Utah Rest. Assoc. v. Davis County Bd. of Health, 709 P.2d 1159, 1163 (Utah 1985). Thus, we must assess whether the Sierra Club's individual members have standing to challenge the order. We hold that they do; the Sierra Club's affiants have identified personal adverse effects, sufficient causation, and redressability. In addition, their individual participation is not essential to the resolution of this case. ¶ 14 The Sierra Club's affiants have satisfied the first traditional standing requirement because they have alleged that the order approving the plant expansion adversely affects their interests. Mr. Cass and Mr. Trimble have pointed to the detrimental impact the proposed expansion will have on their economic livelihoods. Mr. Cass' ability to film and Mr. Trimble's ability to photograph the Colorado Plateau will be significantly impaired if the emissions from the expansion unlawfully decrease visibility around the Colorado Plateau. Moreover, damage to the soils, vegetation, and wildlife around the Colorado Plateau may affect their abilities to produce documentaries or publish books about the region. As we discussed in Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co., their allegations are not generalized to everyone in the area; [rather] these potential injuries affect only those who rely on the area and its environmental quality to make a living. 2006 UT 74, ¶ 23, 148 P.3d 960. ¶ 15 We conclude, furthermore, that the Sierra Club's affiants have identified sufficient adverse effects even without Mr. Cass' and Mr. Trimble's allegations that the plant will affect their economic livelihoods. All three affiants have claimed the proposed expansion will harm their health, their families' health, and their recreational interests in the area. In addition, Mr. Cass and Mr. Trimble have alleged the proposed plant expansion will decrease their property values. As we discussed in Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co., health, recreation, and property interests are legally cognizable interests for standing purposes. See id. ¶¶ 24, 30-31. While, as in that case, the affiants' concerns may be shared by many who live near Delta or who participate in recreational activities around the Colorado Plateau, the affiants have not complained about the impact of the plant's emissions on the community in general, but have claimed that the emissions will directly affect them and their families. See id. ¶ 24. That others may also share their concerns and be subject to the same specific, individualized injuries does not make the potential harms any less personal to the affiants in this case. Id. ¶ 16 Moreover, as in Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co., the injuries alleged in this case have been reduced to a concrete dispute. Id. ¶ 26. The issue is whether the Executive Secretary complied with various state and federal laws in granting the permit for the expansion to Intermountain Power's current plant. Id. This is a concrete dispute regarding the potentially harmful results of the Executive Secretary's alleged failure to follow existing law, and not merely an academic dispute about the environmental harms of coal-fired power plants in general. Id. While some of the affiants' claimed injuries may be shared by all those who live near Delta or use the Colorado Plateau for recreational activities, the affiants in this case all have a direct interest in the dispute as their economic livelihood, health, and property values are at stake. Id. Finally, there is no concern about the Board resolving a question that is best left to another branch of government because the proper branches of government have already passed 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). Id. The affiants in this case merely seek the opportunity to ensure that the Executive Secretary complies with these laws. Id. We therefore hold that the injuries identified by the affiants in this case are sufficient to satisfy the `adverse effects' requirement under the traditional standing test. Id. ¶ 17 Having determined the Sierra Club's affiants have shown a distinct and palpable injury, we now turn to whether they have alleged a plausible connection between their injuries and the order authorizing the expansion of the plant. Id. ¶ 32. In Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co., we held that the affiants had met this burden. Id. We likewise hold the affiants in this case have alleged a plausible connection between their injuries and the order. The Executive Secretary is responsible for denying or granting permits for the construction and operation of the plant expansion. Thus, his decision to grant the order is directly connected to the expansion of the plant and any resulting harms. See id. Moreover, the affidavits point to specific aspects of the plant and connect them to specific harms, rather than raising the general allegation that the mere presence of a coal-fired power plant is inherently harmful. See id. For example, the affidavits allege that the emission of mercury, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide have harmful health effects and will adversely affect the water quality, wildlife, wildlife habitat, [and] vegetation and soils around the Colorado Plateau. Likewise, the affiants have stated that they have already noticed that on highly polluted days, [they] cannot see as far, the colors of the land forms are muted, and [the] distant formations [are] less distinct. Although the affiants and the Sierra Club have not yet presented scientific evidence supporting their claims, they have argued that they could prove causation, [3] and we think their claims present a plausible connection between the emissions and the alleged health and environmental effects. Thus, we believe the Sierra Club has satisfied the causation requirement of the traditional test. See id. (recognizing that petitioners need not prove causation at the standing phase to the same extent they would need to prove it to obtain relief at trial). ¶ 18 Finally, the Board has the ability to redress the affiants' claimed injuries. Id. ¶ 33. The Sierra Club has requested that the Board declare the air emissions permit illegal, revoke the Executive Secretary's order, and remand the matter to the Division of Air Quality for further analysis. The Board is the only party with the authority to grant this relief, thus it can redress the Sierra Club's identified adverse effects by declaring the permit illegal or by referring it to the Division of Air Quality for further analysis to ensure that the Executive Secretary's order complies with state and federal law. ¶ 19 We therefore conclude that the Sierra Club, through its members, has alleged a distinct and palpable injury by pointing to specific injuries that the plant will cause and that the Board can remedy by granting the requested relief. Moreover, the individual participation of the Sierra Club's members is not necessary to the resolution of this case. Thus, the Sierra Club has satisfied our traditional criteria and is entitled to standing to challenge the order approving of the expansion to the plant.