National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
759 F.3d 969
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Six environmental groups sued the EPA seeking a court order compelling the agency to promulgate a RAVI-BART (reasonably attributable visibility impairment — best available retrofit technology) determination requiring emission controls at NSP’s Sherburne County (Sherco) power plant after the DOI certified Sherco as a RAVI source for two Class I parks.
- The Environmental Groups’ complaint sought an order directing EPA to issue RAVI-BART for Sherco; they framed the DOI certification as triggering a mandatory, non-discretionary duty.
- NSP (Northern States Power) moved to intervene, asserting the relief sought would impose costly retrofit technology (estimated > $280 million) and thus directly threaten its property and financial interests.
- At the intervention hearing the Environmental Groups narrowed their argument to asking only that EPA begin rulemaking, but their complaint’s broader remedial request remained operative.
- The district court denied NSP’s motion to intervene, accepting the Environmental Groups’ narrowed position and concluding NSP lacked Article III standing and that EPA adequately represented NSP’s interests.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed: it held the court must assess intervention based on the complaint and the intervenor’s allegations (construed favorably to the intervenor), found NSP had Article III standing, and held NSP was entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Proper record to assess intervention/standing: whether courts may rely on post-pleading statements at hearing/briefing or must use the operative complaint and intervenor’s allegations | Use the Environmental Groups’ narrowed statements at hearing (only seek initiation of rulemaking) | Court should consider the complaint and intervenor’s motion, construing intervenor’s allegations favorably | Court must focus on the complaint and intervenor’s pleadings; post-pleading positional shifts cannot defeat intervention or standing analysis |
| 2) Article III standing of prospective intervenor (NSP) | EPA’s potential action is procedural; no direct injury unless rulemaking leads to controls — thus no concrete, imminent injury | NSP: would suffer direct financial harm if court ordered EPA to impose BART; injury is concrete, imminent, and redressable | NSP has Article III standing (concrete financial injury, causation, redressability) |
| 3) Rule 24(a)(2) — recognized interest and impairment | Intervenor lacks sufficient interest because the suit primarily challenges EPA procedure, not targeting NSP directly | NSP: property ownership of Sherco and direct economic stake suffice as recognized interests; disposition could impair ability to protect those interests | NSP’s property and financial interests satisfy Rule 24(a)(2) recognized-interest and impairment requirements |
| 4) Rule 24(a)(2) — adequacy of representation by the government (parens patriae issue) | EPA will adequately represent NSP because both oppose plaintiffs’ bypassing of procedures | NSP: EPA’s public duties differ from NSP’s narrow private financial interest; EPA may not protect NSP’s parochial interests | EPA does not adequately represent NSP; parens patriae presumption is limited to coinciding public/private interests; NSP entitled to intervene as of right |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist. v. United States, 569 F.3d 829 (8th Cir.) (prospective intervenor must establish Article III standing)
- Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy v. Trustees of the Islamic Center, 643 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir.) (standing and intervention standards; determine interests at commencement of suit)
- South Dakota v. Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir.) (threatened injury sufficient for standing where agency action could cause concrete harm)
- Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994 (8th Cir.) (minimal burden to show inadequate representation; recognized interest for intervenors with parochial stake)