Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Board

Citations: 2006 UT 73; 148 P.3d 975; 565 Utah Adv. Rep. 23; 2006 Utah LEXIS 209; 2006 WL 3359649Docket: 20050454

Court: Utah Supreme Court; November 21, 2006; Utah; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Utah addressed a case involving the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Grand Canyon Trust challenging the Utah Air Quality Board's denial of their standing to intervene in proceedings related to a permit granted to Intermountain Power Service Corporation for a new 950-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Millard County. The Sierra Club objected to the permit, claiming it violated the Clean Air Act and other state regulations. They sought to revoke the permit and requested the Board to ensure proper compliance with environmental laws.

The petition included affidavits from members of the Sierra Club and the Grand Canyon Trust, notably from Brian Cass, who stated that the emissions from the new plant would impair visibility and adversely affect his work as a videographer, as well as pose health risks to him and his family. The court ultimately ruled that the Sierra Club had standing to challenge the permit.

Mr. Trimble, a resident of Salt Lake County and property owner in Torrey, Utah, is a member of the Sierra Club and a photographer, author, and naturalist with a focus on the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin Desert. He travels to his Torrey home bi-monthly and asserts that emissions from the proposed expansion of a nearby plant will degrade visibility in these areas, negatively impacting his ability to take quality photographs and harming his economic livelihood. Trimble expresses concern about impaired visibility affecting his recreational activities and the health risks posed by emissions of mercury, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. He believes these emissions will lower his property's value and harm local water quality, wildlife, vegetation, and soils.

Similarly, Mr. Bloxham, also a Salt Lake County resident and Sierra Club member, frequently visits the Great Basin Desert and Colorado Plateau. He has observed current plant emissions and fears that the expansion will further impair visibility and detract from the area's scenic beauty. Bloxham notes that pollution has already caused muted colors and reduced clarity in distant landscapes. He shares Trimble's health concerns regarding pollution levels and warns that emissions could contribute to global warming and climate change, adversely affecting the region.

In response to concerns raised by the Sierra Club, the Millard County Commission filed a Petition to Intervene, asserting that it is best suited to represent the interests of local residents, while contending that the proposed plant expansion serves Millard County's interests.

The Board held a hearing regarding the Sierra Club's request to intervene, ultimately denying the petition on the grounds that the Sierra Club failed to demonstrate a distinct and palpable injury. This decision rested on the affiants' generalized concerns about visibility, public health, and global warming, which the Board deemed insufficient to establish a personal stake in the permit's issuance. Additionally, the Board determined that the Sierra Club was not the most appropriate party to intervene and that the issues did not warrant standing due to their general nature. Consequently, the Board did not address Millard County's petition, which was contingent on the Sierra Club's request.

Following the Board's ruling, the Sierra Club sought judicial review from the Utah Court of Appeals, which certified the standing question to the Supreme Court of Utah, asserting jurisdiction under specific state codes. The court reviews agency standing determinations without deference to the Board's findings, allowing for relief only if the petitioner can show substantial prejudice from the agency's decision.

In a concurrent ruling (Sierra Club v. Sevier Power Co.), the court clarified that standing can be established in two ways: through a distinct and palpable injury or as an appropriate party on matters of great public importance. The Sierra Club's standing will be evaluated under both tests. Under the traditional test, the party must demonstrate adverse effects from the challenged actions, establish a causal relationship with those actions, and show that the requested relief is likely to remedy the injury. If these criteria are met, the Sierra Club may pursue its claims in court.

Associational standing allows an association like the Sierra Club to have standing if its individual members also have standing, and their participation is not crucial to the case's resolution. The Sierra Club's members have demonstrated standing by showing personal adverse effects from a plant expansion order. Specifically, affiants Mr. Cass and Mr. Trimble have indicated that the expansion would negatively impact their economic activities—filming and photography—due to potential emissions reducing visibility and harming the local environment, which is essential for their work. Additionally, the affiants have reported health concerns and decreased property values due to the proposed expansion, which are recognized as legally valid interests for standing. 

Their claims are individualized and not merely general concerns affecting the broader community, emphasizing their direct stake in the outcome. The dispute is concrete, focused on whether the permit for the plant expansion was granted in compliance with state and federal laws, rather than a general debate about the environmental impacts of coal-fired power plants. The injuries claimed by the affiants are specific and personal, ensuring their direct interest in the case is acknowledged and significant.

The Board has determined that there are no concerns regarding its authority to address issues related to the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations, as these laws have already been enacted by the appropriate government branches. The affiants seek to ensure compliance with these laws and have demonstrated sufficient injury to satisfy the "adverse effects" requirement for standing. The Sierra Club’s affiants have established a plausible connection between their injuries and the order permitting plant expansion, as the Executive Secretary's decision to grant the order directly relates to the potential harms from plant emissions. The affidavits detail specific emissions (mercury, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide) and their harmful effects on health and the environment, providing a plausible link to the alleged injuries, even without scientific evidence at this stage. 

The Board possesses the authority to redress the injuries claimed by the affiants, as the Sierra Club has requested that the Board declare the air emissions permit illegal and remand the matter for further analysis. Thus, the Board can provide the relief sought by the Sierra Club, addressing the identified adverse effects. Consequently, the Sierra Club has demonstrated a distinct injury and the ability to seek remedy, fulfilling the criteria for standing to challenge the order approving the plant expansion. Additionally, individual participation from the Sierra Club's members is not necessary for the case resolution. The Sierra Club also meets the criteria for standing under an alternative test.

The Sierra Club has established standing under the alternative test, which permits parties asserting public importance issues to intervene in legal matters. A party qualifies as appropriate if it can effectively assist the court with relevant legal and factual questions and if the issues are unlikely to be raised without its involvement. The Sierra Club meets these criteria as it represents an environmental interest directly impacted by the plant's expansion, ensuring compliance with environmental laws to prevent pollution. The Sierra Club is uniquely positioned to address concerns regarding health, environmental damage, property values, and recreational interests, which are not more appropriately handled by other government branches.

The court determined that the Sierra Club raises issues of significant public importance, especially concerning hazardous emissions from the expanded plant near residential and recreational areas, including Capitol Reef National Park. The need for affected parties to be heard is emphasized, and the Sierra Club’s allegations regarding violations of state and federal laws are deemed suitable for judicial review rather than legislative or executive resolution. Consequently, the Board's denial of the Sierra Club's standing was found to be erroneous and prejudicial, warranting a reversal and remand to allow the Sierra Club to intervene in the proceedings. All relevant justices concurred in the Chief Justice's opinion. Additionally, Pacificorp's petition to intervene is noted but not pertinent to the current decision.

The designation for the companion case is avoided as "Sierra Club I" due to two previous cases involving the Sierra Club, known as Sierra Club I and Sierra Club II, which were decided by the Utah Court of Appeals. To maintain clarity, the current cases are referred to by the names of the involved power companies. In its reply regarding standing, the Sierra Club cited evidence suggesting that emissions from the operational plant could result in health issues, referencing the Environmental Protection Agency's findings on the links between air pollution and health problems, as well as an article about mercury emissions affecting children's intelligence. The mention of these sources is solely to indicate the Sierra Club's claims of a causal relationship between emissions and health risks, without commenting on the sources' credibility. Additionally, the Federal Clean Air Act classifies national parks over six thousand acres as class I Federal areas, with a national goal to prevent and remedy visibility impairment from air pollution in these areas. Capitol Reef National Park is identified as a class I Federal area.