- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Washington
- /
- Millennium Bulk Terminals-Longview, LLC v. Washington State Department of Ecology
Millennium Bulk Terminals-Longview, LLC v. Washington State Department of Ecology
Geography
Year
2017
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2017
Status
Complaint filed.
Geography
Docket number
n/a
Court/admin entity
United States → State Courts → Washington Superior Court (Wash. Super. Ct.)
Case category
Constitutional Claims (US) → Other Constitutional Claims (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Clean Water Act (US)State Law Claims (US) → Industry Lawsuits (US)
Principal law
United States → Clean Water Act (CWA)United States → Fourteenth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited States → Fourteenth Amendment—Equal ProtectionUnited States → Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA)United States → Ports and Waterways Safety ActUnited States → Supremacy Clause
At issue
Challenge to denial of water quality certificate for coal terminal.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
10/24/2017
Complaint filed.
A company proposing to develop a coal export terminal on the lower Columbia River in Washington State filed a lawsuit alleging that the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and its director had violated federal and state law and the U.S. and Washington State constitutions by denying “with prejudice” the company’s application for a water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The company contended that the defendants had “turned section 401 on its head by denying the certification based on purported impacts of every kind other than water quality” and said that Ecology “created from whole cloth a uniquely onerous and unfair environmental review process … that it justified based on its animus towards the commodity that would be handled.” The company’s claims included that the Clean Water Act preempted the denial and that the denial order was ultra vires, a misapplication or misinterpretation of the law, at odds with previous Ecology practice, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. In support of its claim that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, the complaint alleged that “[a]lthough the Denial does not mention greenhouse gas … emissions (not even once),” the defendants had speculated on social media about the new emissions associated with the project; the company alleged that the defendants’ social media posts demonstrated their bias against the project. The company also claimed that the denial constituted a deprivation of rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violated equal protection. The complaint also disclosed claims of preemption under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and the Interstate Commerce Clause Termination Act and violation of the Commerce Clause. The company said it would soon file a federal lawsuit to pursue these claims.
Complaint
–
Summary
Challenge to denial of water quality certificate for coal terminal.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance