Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company

── Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12682 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 1 of 20 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12682 ____________________ MOBILE BAYKEEPER, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00382-KD-B ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. GRANT, Circuit Judge: In the early stages, a lot of environmental litigation looks alike. One company or another is allegedly engaged in activity that violates federal law and harms the environment. Local citizens then assert that the unlawful activity burdens their use or USCA11 Case: 24-12682 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 2 of 20 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12682 enjoyment of natural resources, and sue the company to stop the harm. As with any other lawsuit, environmental plaintiffs must satisfy the three traditional elements of standing: injury, causation, and redressability. Usually, it is easy to see that they have pleaded all three. Injury? The burden on their use or enjoyment. Check. Causation? The company’s unlawful activity causes the burden. Check. Redressability? Making the company comply with federal law would eliminate the burden. Check. The standing analysis in this case is no different. Mobile Baykeeper’s members include local Alabamians who say their use and enjoyment of the Mobile River and neighboring waterways have been harmed by toxic leaching from a coal ash impoundment at one of Alabama Power’s plants. The organization sued, alleging that a closure plan Alabama Power is already implementing violates EPA regulations, and that a lawful plan would ease or eliminate the harms its members suffer. Sounds like run-of-the-mill environmental litigation so far. But after Alabama Power’s motion to dismiss, the district court asked whether Mobile Baykeeper had standing to bring suit, ordered supplemental briefing, and held a hearing. Ultimately the district court dismissed the complaint, finding both that Mobile Baykeeper lacked standing and that its claims were not ripe for review. We disagree on both points. USCA11 Case: 24-12682 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 3 of 20 24-12682 Opinion of the Court 3 I. We first describe the legal framework surrounding coal ash removal, then turn to the factual and procedural background for this appeal. A. Coal ash is dangerous and dirty—“one of the largest industrial waste streams generated in the U.S.” Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (“Coal Ash Rule”), 80 Fed. Reg. 21302, 21303 (Apr. 17, 2015) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 257, 261). Formally known as “coal combustion residuals,” it consists of byproducts from coal combustion at elect