11th Cir.

Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company

May 18, 2026 ·24-12682 ·Published ·Grant · By Raj Patel

The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court dismissal, holding that an environmental group had standing to challenge a coal ash closure plan. The court also found the claims ripe for review despite arguments about future implementation delays.

Background

Mobile Baykeeper sued Alabama Power, alleging its cap-in-place closure plan for the James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant violated EPA coal ash regulations by allowing toxic leaching into the Mobile River. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the group lacked standing and that the claims were not ripe for review.

The court’s reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit held that Mobile Baykeeper satisfied all three elements of standing: injury, causation, and redressability. The court rejected the argument that past pollution or future implementation delays negated standing, noting that a compliant plan would reduce the harm. Regarding ripeness, the court found the legal question of whether the plan violated federal standards was fit for judicial decision and that delaying review would cause hardship to the members who are currently suffering injury.

This case should not have been dismissed.

USCA11 Case: 24-12682 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 9 of 20

What it means going forward

The decision allows environmental citizen suits challenging coal ash closure plans to proceed in federal court even when the plan is currently being implemented and full compliance is years away.