SF Chapter of A. Philip Randolph Institute v. EPA

The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court found that the federal writ of mandamus did not apply because EPA had not violated any "duty that is so plain as to be free from doubt simply because it has not yet responded to the Supreme Court’s directive" in Massachusetts v. EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide released from motor vehicles causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. The court also found that EPA had not unreasonably delayed its response to Massachusetts v. EPA pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The court dismissed public nuisance claims as unripe against the City and County of San Francisco, which planned to construct the power plants, and as unsustainable against the Bay Area Air Quality Management District because BAAQMD would be permitting the plants pursuant to its statutory authority. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the power plants would infringe on their property and liberty interests, and that they they had been denied their due process rights. The court said the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect the right to be free of climate change pollution. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not have a state mandamus claim to compel San Francisco to comply with the San Francisco Precautionary Principle by creating a new energy plan that would accomplish reliability goals with less pollution.