Conservation Law Foundation v. Gulf Oil LP

The federal district court for the District of Connecticut denied a motion by the former owner and operator of a bulk petroleum storage terminal in New Haven to dismiss a second amended complaint filed by Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) in a citizen suit alleging that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act by failing to account for the effects of climate change in its operation of the terminal. CLF filed the second amended complaint after the defendant sold the terminal to a nonparty. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the case was moot, finding that the defendant failed to submit any evidence “to sustain its heavy burden of establishing that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur” and therefore failed to demonstrate mootness with respect to CLF’s request for declaratory relief. The court further concluded that CLF’s request for civil penalties prevented the case from being moot. The court also concluded that CLF had constitutional standing. In addition, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments that CLF failed to state a claim for relief. Although the court questioned whether CLF acted in good faith in alleging “ongoing and continuous” violations at the time it filed its second amended complaint, the court found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged such a violation because it related back to the original complaint’s adequate allegations. The court declined to rule at this stage of the litigation on whether the “best management practices” provision of the terminal’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit could be construed to impose climate change-related requirements. The court concluded that a fuller factual record was required to determine the scope of the operative permit, despite the defendant’s argument that the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection’s inclusion, for the first time, of “resilience measures” in a 2024 draft and 2025 final version of a NPDES General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activities suggested that such measures were not required by the terminal’s operative permit. The court also rejected the defendant’s contention that any such requirements in the permit would render the operative permit impermissibly vague. In addition, the court found that CLF’s allegations that the defendant violated the NPDES permit’s best management practices provision were sufficient to proceed and concluded that the record was not sufficiently developed for it to address whether CLF’s citizen suit impermissibly sought to enforce state standards that exceeded federal standards.

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Connecticut granted in part Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) motion to determine the sufficiency of defendant Pike Fuels Limited Partnership’s (Pike’s) answers and objections to CLF’s requests for admission in CLF’s citizen suit asserting that Pike violated the Clean Water Act and an industrial stormwater permit by failing to prepare a bulk petroleum storage terminal in New Haven, Connecticut, for the effects of climate change. The parties previously resolved most of their disputes regarding the adequacy of the defendants’ responses to the requests for admissions, the purpose of which is narrow the scope of issues for trial. The magistrate directed Pike to respond to six requests regarding whether Pike treats storm surge discharges as stormwater discharges and other requests related to how Pike considered the impacts of climate change factors. The court sustained Pike’s objections to six other requests for admissions on the grounds that the requests sought admission of purely legal conclusions or were too vague, imprecise, or speculative, including a request for admission that Pike could “take steps to modify” the New Haven terminal “to withstand the impacts of climate change” and various requests regarding Pike’s awareness regarding climate change factors.