## Facts

- In 2014, the Washington State Department of Ecology released two reports describing climate-change impacts on Washington, including ocean acidification, wildfires, and drought.
- Around the time those reports were issued, several youth, including Zoe and Stella, filed a petition asking Ecology to adopt stricter greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions limits consistent with current science on global warming.
- Ecology denied the petition, stating that Washington law did not require it to adopt the specific measures requested and noting that the agency had already adopted less stringent limits.
- The youth appealed the denial to the Superior Court of Washington.
- Based on Ecology’s second report and an additional technical report submitted in the case, the superior court ordered Ecology to reconsider the petition.
- After reconsideration, Ecology again denied the petition, but informed the court that it had started a new rulemaking process to adopt new GHG emission limits under a directive from the Governor.
- The youth appealed the second denial to the same superior court and requested an order requiring Ecology to adopt emissions rules consistent with current climate science.
- The youth submitted evidence arguing that the emissions limits Ecology was considering could not achieve reductions needed to protect the environment.
- The youth relied on public-trust doctrine authorities stating that state agencies must use their discretion to protect certain natural resources held in trust for the public; Ecology responded that the doctrine was limited and did not extend to a judicially enforceable duty to regulate the atmosphere in the manner requested.

## Issues

1. On judicial review of an agency’s denial of a petition for rulemaking, may a superior court require Ecology to adopt specific GHG emissions limits aligned with current climate science?
2. Does the public trust doctrine require Ecology, in this procedural posture, to regulate GHG emissions at the level requested on the theory that the atmosphere (or climate system) is a protected trust resource?

## Decision

- The superior court affirmed Ecology’s denial of the youth’s petition for rulemaking.
- The court declined to order Ecology to adopt the specific, science-based GHG limits requested by the youth.
- The court treated the selection of the content and timing of emissions rules as primarily committed to the agency’s discretion and the political branches, particularly where Ecology had initiated a rulemaking process under the Governor’s direction.
- The court did not accept the public trust doctrine as a basis, in this petition-review posture, to compel the particular rule demanded.

## Legal Principles

- Review of an agency’s denial of a petition for rulemaking is limited; the remedy is not a judicial rewrite of agency policy or mandatory adoption of a petitioner’s preferred rule text.
- Where the governing statutes grant an agency discretion about whether and how to regulate, a court generally will not substitute its judgment for the agency’s policy choices absent a showing that the denial was unlawful, arbitrary, or outside delegated authority.
- Public-trust principles may inform discussion of governmental responsibilities toward certain natural resources, but they do not automatically create a court-enforceable duty to impose specific numeric emissions limits through review of a rulemaking-petition denial.
- The existence of an ongoing, executive-directed rulemaking process can support judicial restraint in ordering detailed regulatory outcomes through petition-denial review.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court of Washington affirmed the Department of Ecology’s denial of youth petitioners’ request for stricter, science-based GHG rules, concluding that the court could not compel adoption of the particular emissions limits sought and that public-trust arguments did not supply a basis, in this procedural setting, for mandating those specific regulations.


Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology (Order Affirming the Department of Ecology's Denial of Petition for Rule Making), 2015 WL 7721362 (2015)