Description: Challenge to BAAQMD’s issuance of permit for crude-by-rail operations.
-
Communities for a Better Environment v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/05/2014 Minute Order Download Proceeding dismissed. A judge ruled from the bench on September 5, 2014, that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. 03/27/2014 Petition Download Petition for writ of mandate filed. Environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court challenging the granting by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) of a permit to Kinder Morgan to conduct crude-by-rail operations. The organizations allege that the Kinder Morgan operations will bring North Dakotan Bakken crude oil to Bay Area refineries in the same types of rail cars that were involved in the explosive train derailment in Québec in July 2013. They allege that the BAAQMD permit was issued in a “clandestine” manner “without any notice or public process whatsoever.” They claim that BAAQMD “eschewed” its CEQA obligations by designating the project as “ministerial” and thereby failed to consider a number of impacts, including significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions. -
Communities for a Better Environment v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/14/2016 Opinion Download Opinion issued. California Appellate Court Affirmed Dismissal of Challenge to Crude Oil Transloading Facility as Time-Barred. The California Court of Appeal agreed with a trial court that a lawsuit challenging an authorization to convert a rail-to-truck ethanol transloading facility to a facility that could transload crude oil was time-barred. The petitioners alleged that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) had unlawfully evaded review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it authorized the conversion, and argued that the discovery rule should apply to extend the time in which they could initiate their lawsuit because BAAQMD had not given public notice of its action. The petitioners asserted that the facility’s conversion could have significant adverse environmental impacts, including significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions. The Court of Appeal concluded that under the relevant statute, the petitioners were deemed to have constructive notice of BAAQMD’s authorization and that the discovery rule did not apply where there was constructive notice.