Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology

The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed a May 2016 trial court decision ordering the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to issue a final rule setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2016 and to make recommendations to the state legislature for changes to statutory emission standards. The May 2016 decision came after Ecology withdrew a proposal to set greenhouse gas standards and vacated in part the trial court’s November 2015 judgment denying the youth petitioners’ appeal from Ecology’s denial of their request that the agency Ecology mandate greenhouse gas emission reductions. The November 2015 decision found that Ecology was fulfilling its obligations under the Clean Air Act, as well as the Washington constitution and public trust doctrine, because it had commenced rulemaking to establish greenhouse gas standards. As an initial matter, the appellate court found that Ecology’s appeal was not moot despite Ecology having completed the tasks the trial court ordered May 2016. On the merits of the appeal, the appellate court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the petitioners’ motion for relief from the November 2015 judgment. The appellate court said the trial court had not found a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and that the granting of affirmative relief to the petitioners was a misuse of the procedure for granting relief from a judgment. In addition, the appellate court said the petitioners had not demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from the judgment—the appellate court said climate change could not be considered extraordinary circumstances for purposes of relief from the judgment because the trial court had already considered climate change as well as Ecology’s alleged inaction in addressing climate change, climate change’s “urgent and serious” nature was a component of the November 2015 judgment, and the parties did not contest the seriousness of climate change. Nor did Ecology’s withdrawal of a proposed rule constitute extraordinary circumstances.