Conservation Law Foundation v. ExxonMobil Corp.

On December 5, 2023, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) <a href="https://www.clf.org/newsroom/clf-settles-landmark-climate-lawsuit-against-exxon/#gsc.tab=0">announced</a> that it had settled its lawsuit asserting that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) violated the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by failing to prepare its oil terminal in Everett, Massachusetts for the impacts of climate change. CLF reported that just before pretrial discovery was scheduled to start, Exxon notified the court of its decision to permanently close the facility. CLF said the settlement included “an enforceable prohibition on the property ever being used for polluting bulk fossil fuel storage.”

After a court conference on October 26, the court ordered that all discovery be stayed until further order of the court. The conference was held to discuss issues including whether the case should be referred to mediation as requested by CLF and whether the court should order briefing on whether the case was moot, as requested by Exxon.

–

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal district court in Massachusetts improperly stayed Conservation Law Foundation’s citizen suit charging Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) with violating its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as well as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by failing to account for climate change factors at a petroleum storage and distribution terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. The district court had granted Exxon’s motion to stay the case under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a decision on Exxon’s application to renew the NPDES permit, which had expired in 2014. The First Circuit found that it had appellate jurisdiction even though the stay order was not a final decision because the stay order rendered Conservation Law Foundation “effectively out of court” due to the length of the stay and its indefinite nature. The First Circuit further found that the stay was unnecessary because abstention under the primary jurisdiction doctrine was improper. The First Circuit concluded that two of the three factors for application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine could weigh in favor of a stay—(1) issuing the permit was “at the heart” of the task assigned to EPA by Congress, and (2) the court assumed for the sake of argument that “agency expertise would be helpful to unravel which climate models most accurately capture the effects of the climate change factors” that Exxon allegedly failed to take into account. The First Circuit concluded, however, that the third factor—whether EPA’s decision would materially aid the court—outweighed the other factors and that EPA’s determination on the permit application “seems to us largely irrelevant to whether ExxonMobil has violated the conditions of the permit currently in effect” and that it was “wholly speculative whether the issuance of the permit will illuminate EPA’s beliefs as to the best climate change models or how good engineers would respond to them.” The court also found that a need for “national uniformity” was not at issue in this case. The First Circuit therefore disagreed with the district court’s determination that EPA’s decision on the permit could render much of the case moot, as well as the district court’s belief that deferring to EPA would not delay resolution of the case. The First Circuit vacated the stay order and remanded to the district court.

The First Circuit issued an order directing that the appeal proceed to merits briefing, with the issues of finality and any other jurisdictional issues to be considered by the merits panel.

On July 10, 2020, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) filed a brief arguing that the First Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over CLF’s appeal of a district court order staying CLF’s citizen suit alleging that an ExxonMobil Corporation terminal in Massachusetts was not prepared for climate change risks in violation of the its Clean Water Act permit and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. CLF said the stay order was an appealable “final decision” under the effectively-out-of-court rule and also under the collateral order doctrine. Alternatively, CLF argued the First Circuit should construe its appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and exercise its discretion to review the stay order.