Global Community Monitor v. Mammoth Pacific, L.P.
230 F. Supp. 3d 1235
| E.D. Cal. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Laborers’ Int’l Union Local 783 and two individuals) sued owners/operators of a geothermal complex under the CAA citizen-suit provision, alleging the four plants should be treated as a single stationary source and thus should have obtained ATCs with BACT and offsets under Air District Rules 209‑A and 209‑B.
- Three plants are operational (MP‑I East/West, MP‑II, PLES‑I); a fourth (M‑1) is proposed and its claims were dismissed as unripe. Several earlier claims were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); only the eighth cause of action (alleged single‑source violation of Rule 209‑A) remained.
- Plaintiffs allege Defendants operated the complex as a single source (shared wellfield, pipes, control room, ownership) and obtained combined PTOs/ATCs in 2009 and 2014 that improperly allowed higher fugitive VOC limits without BACT/offsets.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs’ claims are time‑barred by the five‑year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2462) because any Rule 209‑A violation occurred when the units were originally built in the late 1980s.
- The court evaluated whether the complaint’s remaining cause of action asserted Rule 209‑B claims, whether a Rule 209‑A violation is a continuing violation, whether 2009/2014 re‑permitting revived claims, and whether § 2462 bars equitable relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the eighth cause of action alleges Rule 209‑B violations | The eighth incorporates prior paragraphs, so it includes Rule 209‑B allegations | Eighth cause is titled and pleaded as Rule 209‑A only; it does not assert Rule 209‑B | Held: Eighth cause does not plead Rule 209‑B claims |
| Whether a Rule 209‑A preconstruction permit violation is ongoing or a discrete event | Ongoing because operating permits require ongoing compliance; 2009/2014 acts show continuing obligations | Rule 209‑A creates only an obligation at construction; California SIP separates ATC (preconstruction) and PTO (operation), so violation is discrete | Held: Rule 209‑A violation is a singular event, not ongoing |
| Whether 2009 and 2014 re‑permitting restart the limitations period or would yield BACT/offset relief | Reissued ATCs/PTOs were unlawful and restarted the clock; suit filed within 5 years of re‑permits | Even if reissued ATCs were invalid, reissuing would not trigger BACT because combining limits is not a modification and 2014 overhaul reduced emissions | Held: Re‑permits do not revive Rule 209‑A claims or provide requested relief |
| Whether § 2462’s five‑year statute bars plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief | Injunctive relief serves a different purpose and should be allowed despite § 2462 | § 2462 applies to injunctive claims under the concurrent‑remedies principle; injunctive claim is connected to legal remedies and is time‑barred | Held: § 2462 applies; injunctive claim is time‑barred and summary judgment for defendants granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Air for Everyone v. U.S. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.) (discussing SIP approval and enforceability)
- National Parks and Conservation Ass’n v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 480 F.3d 410 (6th Cir.) (treats permitting schemes where obligation to obtain construction permits is ongoing)
- National Parks and Conservation Ass’n v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 502 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.) (distinguishes SIPs that separate construction and operating permits and analyzes continuing vs. discrete violations)
- Coal for Clean Air v. VWR Int’l, LLC, 922 F. Supp.2d 1089 (E.D. Cal.) (instructs close examination of permitting scheme to determine continuing violations)
- Federal Election Comm’n v. Williams, 104 F.3d 237 (9th Cir.) (applies § 2462 to injunctive claims where equitable relief is connected to legal remedies)