Montana Environmental Information Center v. Haaland

The federal district court for the District of Montana granted in part federal defendants’ motion to extend the deadline for revising a final environmental impact statement and issuing a final decision regarding the expansion of the Rosebud coal mine. The court issued a decision in September 2022 finding that the defendants’ review of the expansion did not satisfy NEPA requirements, including because the defendants failed to take a hard look at greenhouse gas emissions and their costs. The September 2022 decision deferred vacatur of the approval of the proposed expansion until April 30, 2024. In response to the defendants’ request for a 14-month extension, the court found that relief from the deadline was warranted because the “the novelty of the greenhouse gas analysis” and Council on Environmental Quality guidance concerning greenhouse gases and climate change that was published after the September 2022 decision qualified as “unforeseen circumstances.” The court concluded, however, that a 14-month extension would be “disproportionate to the reasons for the modification of the deadline” and instead granted a nine-month extension.

The federal district court for the District of Montana adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the court find that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) must quantify the socioeconomic costs of the greenhouse gas emissions of a coal mine expansion because OSM had quantified the expansion’s economic benefits. The court rejected, however, the magistrate judge’s conclusion that OSM was required to use the social cost of carbon to quantify those costs. The court cited the Ninth Circuit’s April 2022 decision in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/350-montana-v-bernhardt/">350 Montana v. Haaland</a> holding that use of the social cost of carbon was not required. In this case, the district court found that OSM provided an acceptable rationale for not using the social cost of carbon—that it was too uncertain to provide value and was not designed for project-level analysis. The court reminded OSM, however, “of its obligation to provide high quality, accurate scientific analysis on the economic costs” of greenhouse gases from the expansion on remand. Regarding other environmental review issues, the court agreed with the magistrate judge that OSM failed to take the required hard look at cumulative impacts to surface water and indirect effects on water withdrawals from the Yellowstone River and that OSM’s alternatives analysis violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

–

–

–

–

–

–

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Montana recommended that the court rule that the environmental impact statement (EIS) for expansion of a surface coal mine in Montana failed to take a hard look at greenhouse gas emissions (or at cumulative impacts to surface water or the effects of water withdrawals from the Yellowstone River by a nearby power plant that uses coal from the mine). Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the magistrate judge found that because the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) elected to quantify the proposed expansion’s economic benefits, it was also required to quantify the project’s costs, including the costs of greenhouse gas emissions, or to offer a non-arbitrary explanation for the decision not to do so. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that “OSM’s analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was arbitrary and its record justifications for not using the [social cost of carbon (SCC) protocol] lack merit.” The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the variability in the SCC protocol’s calculations justified the decision not to use it; the court stated that “the fact the SCC Protocol is expressed in a range of values is not necessarily a valid reason to decline to quantify the costs of greenhouse gas emissions altogether.” The court found, moreover, that even if OSM could justify the decision not to use the SCC protocol, the EIS failed to demonstrate why the agency could not present “a balanced quantitative analysis of the economic costs of greenhouse gas emissions.”

–

–

The federal district court for the District of Montana denied a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining mining operations in an expansion area for the Rosebud Mine, a coal mine in Montana. The court noted that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement had approved the mine’s expansion in June 2019 but that the plaintiffs had not sought the preliminary injunction until August 2020. The court stated that “[u]nfortunately, the Court does not see what harm a preliminary injunction could prevent now that excavation in [the expansion area] has been ongoing since at least May 2020 and coal extraction since August 2020.” The court also found that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of demonstrating that a preliminary injunction would prevent irreparable harm from the release of greenhouse gases. The court indicated that the plaintiffs had conceded that halting mining in the expansion area would not affect the level of greenhouse gas emissions from a nearby power plant that used coal from the mine.

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Montana recommended that the court grant in part and deny in part a Montana coal mine owner’s motion to dismiss a National Environmental Policy Act challenge to federal approval of the mine’s expansion. The mine, known as the Rosebud Mine, is a 25,949-acre surface coal mine, and expansion would increase the mine’s size by approximately 6,500 acres. The magistrate found that two of the organizations had adequately alleged standing but that the standing allegations of three other organizations were insufficient. The magistrate recommended that the three organizations be allowed to amend the complaint with additional allegations.

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Montana denied a Montana coal mine owner’s motion to transfer a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to federal approval of the mine’s expansion to the federal district court in the District of Columbia, where the owner is challenging the exclusion of 74 acres from the mine expansion approval. Among other factors weighing against transfer, the magistrate found that there was not substantial overlap between the two cases because the issues in this case—which included impacts on surface waters and greenhouse gas emissions—were broader than the NEPA issues raised in the mine owner’s lawsuit. The court also found that the case implicated both local concerns (harm to waters, endangered species, and the local economy) and national interests (climate change), making the “local interests” factor neutral.

–