Conservation Law Foundation v. Pike Fuels LP

–

–

–

In Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) citizen suit alleging that Gulf Oil Limited Partnership violated federal environmental laws by failing to prepare a bulk petroleum storage terminal in New Haven for the impacts of climate change, the federal district court for the District of Connecticut granted CLF’s motion to amend its complaint to remedy deficiencies identified by the court when it dismissed certain counts under the Clean Water Act and all counts under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for failure to plausibly allege standing. In its earlier decision, the court concluded that CLF’s allegations regarding the “longer-term impacts” of climate change were not sufficient to establish Article III standing, which requires an imminent risk of harm. Although the court found that most of CLF’s proposed new allegations still pertained to climate change’s longer-term impacts, the court ruled that other assertions in the proposed amended complaint and its attachments adequately alleged standing, “albeit just barely.” The court found that the proposed allegations plausibly suggested that a Category 1 or 2 hurricane could be expected to strike the terminal “at virtually any time” and that there was “a substantial risk that such a storm will cause the discharge of pollutants from the Terminal.” The court said these allegations, “coupled with [CLF’s] allegations that climate change is continually increasing the risk that a severe storm will cause a discharge of pollutants from the terminal,” were sufficient to plausibly suggest a substantial risk of harm to CLF’s members in the near term. The court denied CLF’s request to assert a new Clean Water Act claim alleging that Gulf Oil caused or contributed to an exceedance of water quality standards. The court found that CLF failed to show good cause to add this new count.

The federal district court for the District of Connecticut agreed with defendant Gulf Oil LP (Gulf) that Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) failed to allege an injury in fact for purposes of standing in CLF’s citizen suit charging that Gulf failed to prepare its bulk petroleum storage facility in New Haven, Connecticut for the impacts of climate change. The court found that “although the complaint discusses the worsening impacts of climate change on New Haven at great length, Plaintiff does not articulate whether or how such impacts will imminently lead to the discharge of pollutants from Defendant’s Terminal.” The court distinguished the allegations in similar lawsuits in which CLF established standing, finding that the allegations in the other cases concerned not “just the likely future occurrence of major and foreseeable weather events” but “how such weather events would result in the discharge of pollutants, thereby validating Plaintiff’s theory of increased risk of exposure to such pollutants as its near-term injury.” The court also distinguished the other cases based on their allegations that past severe storms had caused pollutant discharges. The court dismissed nine Clean Water Act counts and all Resource Conservation and Recovery Act counts without prejudice, and granted CLF leave to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies in its standing allegations.

–

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) argued that this case was not related to Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Company (No. 3:21-cv-933) and that transfer to the same judge was not necessary. If the case was transferred, CLF contended that the cases should not be consolidated.

Gulf Oil LP told the court that it agreed that this case was related to Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company (No. 3:21-CV-933), and that the Shell lawsuit should be transferred to this court. Gulf Oil also contended that the cases could be properly consolidated for discovery and pre-trial purposes only.

–

–

–