Ormat Nevada Inc v. Doug Burgum

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3512
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORMAT NEVADA INC., and : ORNI 32 LLC, : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 25-3512 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 8 : U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE : INTERIOR, et al., : : Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND FALLON PAIUTE-SHOSHONE TRIBE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

I. INTRODUCTION

In September 2025, Plaintiffs Ormat Nevada Inc. and ORNI 32 LLC, (collectively,

“Ormat”) filed suit against the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), Doug Burgum in his official

capacity as Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”), and Brian

Nesvik in his official capacity as Director of the Service (collectively, “Federal Defendants”),

regarding the Service’s final rule designating the Dixie Valley toad as an endangered species.

The Dixie Valley toad’s only habitat is within Dixie Meadows, Nevada, which is where Ormat

seeks to construct and operate two geothermal power plants (“Project”). The Service cited

Ormat’s pending geothermal plants as a significant risk to the Dixie Valley toad because of the

toad’s reliance on the geothermal springs. In November 2021, before the final rule was

implemented, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) approved Plaintiff’s Project based on

geothermal exploration studies of the Project’s environmental impact. Ormat’s Project was

halted due to an injunction, which has since been lifted. Nevertheless, Ormat may not resume construction because of the Service’s final rule designating the Dixie Valley toad as an

endangered species. Ormat alleges that the Service’s decision to list the toad as an endangered

species was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because it runs

contrary to the best scientific information before the agency.

The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) and Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe

(“Tribe”) (collectively, “Defendant-Intervenors”) move to intervene as defendants as a matter of

right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), and, in the alternative, for permissive

intervention under Rule 24(b). Ormat and Federal Defendants take no position regarding the

motion to intervene. For the reasons stated below, the motion to intervene under Rule 24(a) is

granted.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Dixie Valley toad’s (Anaxyrus Williamsii) (“toad”) sole habitat is within the 760-acre

Dixie Meadows thermal wetlands in Churchill County, Nevada. Mem. in Supp. Mot. Intervene

(“Mot.”) at 12, ECF No. 8. The toad maintains its lifecycle within the thermal springs of the

wetlands, which allows the water to remain warm through the winter, preventing the toad from

freezing. Id. at 13. The toad has survived in the Dixie Meadows for at least a thousand years by

relying on the temperature balance between the cold shallow groundwater and hot geothermal

water. Id.

The Tribe has regarded the toad as an important ancestor, and its home, the Dixie

Meadows, is sacred to the Tribe. Id. at 12. The toad is “an inextricable element of Dixie

Meadows” because it is the toad’s only habitat in the world. Decl. of Catherine Williams-Tuni,

Chairwoman of the Tribe (“Williams-Tuni Decl.”) ¶ 8, ECF No. 8-3. For generations, the Tribe

has worked to preserve its sacred sites, such as the Dixie Meadows. Id ¶ 16. The Tribe also

2 works to protect the toad and its habitat. For example, the Tribe has sought help from the Navy

to include the springs in its resource management plan. Id. ¶ 17. Additionally, the Tribe has

used the Dixie Meadows for healing, spiritual contemplation, and ceremonies for countless

generations. Id. ¶ 9. The wetland springs are encompassed by plants and muds that the Tribe

uses for “ceremonial and medicinal purposes.” Id. ¶ 6.

The Center is an environmental non-profit with over 750 members in Nevada. Decl. of

Patrick Donnelly (“Donnelly Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 8-1. The Center uses science, law, and media

to protect species on the verge of extinction. Id. The Center has years of experience protecting

“ecosystems, species, water, and climate from inappropriate energy development on public

lands.” Id. Additionally, it conducts oversight on government actions and their associated

environmental impacts. Id. ¶ 8. Besides its environmental work, Center members also enjoy

recreational activities in the environments they protect. Id. ¶ 10. For instance, members

regularly participate in “wildlife and native plant observation, nature photography, hiking,

camping, backpacking, quiet and solitude in nature, dark skies, spiritual renewal, and a love of

Nevada’s natural landscapes.” Id.

In 2017, the toad received formal recognition as a unique species based on morphological

and genetic differences from the broader western toad complex. Donnelly Decl. ¶ 18; Ex. A to

Mot. (“Listing Petition”) at 7, ECF No. 8-4. In September 2017, the Center petitioned the

Service to list the toad as an endangered species so it could receive federal protection. Donnelly

Decl. ¶ 24. To justify an endangered species designation, the petition cited Ormat’s proposed

geothermal plants as the principal threat to the toad and its habitat. Id. However, the Service did

not rule on the petition by the statutory deadline. Mot. at 14. In February 2020, the Center filed

suit against the Service because it failed to issue a timely decision regarding the petition. Id. In

3 February 2022, the Center and the Service entered a settlement whereby the Service agreed to

make a final decision on or before April 4, 2022. Id. On April 7, 2022, the Service issued an

emergency rulemaking listing the Dixie Valley toad as an endangered species and

simultaneously issued a proposed rule to list the toad as an endangered species indefinitely. Id.

at 14–15. In December 2022, the Service issued a final “Listing Rule” granting the Dixie Valley

toad endangered species status and cited Plaintiff’s Project as a risk for the toad’s extinction. Id.

at 15.

From 2010 through 2017—before the toad’s formal recognition as a unique species—

Ormat conducted geothermal exploration studies in the Dixie Meadows in preparation for its

application to construct two 30 megawatt closed-loop binary technology geothermal power

plants. Compl. ¶¶ 39–40, ECF No. 1. The study was authorized by the BLM, which included

nine exploration wells and a 46-day flow and injection test from April 27 to June 11, 2017. Id.

¶ 39. In 2015, Plaintiff submitted a formal application to the BLM for its two geothermal plants

in the Dixie Meadows. Id. ¶ 41. In November 2021, after its environmental assessment, the

BLM approved Plaintiff’s Project in a Decision Record, “including a rigorous aquatic resources

monitoring and mitigation plan[.]” Id. ¶¶ 41–42.

However, because of the Listing Rule, Ormat cannot proceed with the Project and has

filed suit against Federal Defendants to vacate the rule. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. On January 13, 2026, the

Center and Tribe moved to intervene as defendants. Mot. at 1. The current parties have taken no

position on Defendant-Intervenors’ motion to intervene. Federal Defs.’ Resp. to Mot. (“Federal

Defs.’ Resp.”) at 1, ECF No. 9; Ormat’s Resp. to Mot. Lift Stay & Mot. Intervene (“Ormat’s

Resp.”) at 1, ECF No. 10.

4 III. LEGAL STANDARD

The D.C. Circuit requires putative defendant-intervenors to demonstrate Article III

standing by showing injury in fact, causation, and redressability. See Crossroads Grassroots

Pol’y Strategies v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 788 F.3d 312, 316 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Additionally,

courts in this Circuit require four elements for a party to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a):

“1) timeliness of the application to intervene; 2) a legally protected interest; 3) that the action, as

a practical matter, impairs or impedes that interest; and 4) that no party to the action can

adequately represent the potential intervenor’s interest.” Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 320. “Courts

are to take all well-pleaded, nonconclusory allegations in the motion to intervene, the proposed

complaint or answer in intervention, and declarations supporting the motion as true absent sham,

frivolity or other objections.” WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 272 F.R.D. 4, 9 (D.D.C. 2010)

(quoting Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001)).

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court first analyzes Defendant-Intervenors’ constitutional standing, and then whether

they satisfy Rule 24(a)’s requirements for intervention as of right. Because the Court concludes

that Defendant-Intervenors are entitled to intervene as of right, it does not consider permissive

intervention.

A. Standing

To intervene, Defendant-Intervenors must establish that they have Article III standing.

“When an organization . . . seeks to establish Article III standing, it may . . . demonstrate that it

has ‘associational standing’ to sue on behalf of its members.” Mayor of Baltimore v. Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 738 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2024) (citing Public

Citizen, Inc., v. Trump, 297 F. Supp. 3d 6, 17 (D.D.C. 2018); and Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 316).

5 An organization has associational standing “if (1) at least one of its members would have

standing to sue in his own right; (2) the interest it seeks to protect is germane to its purpose; and

(3) neither the claim asserted, nor the relief requested requires the member to participate in the

lawsuit.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d 174, 182 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Am.

Trucking Ass’ns v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 724 F.3d 243, 247 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). As

explained below, the Court concludes that Defendant-Intervenors have established associational

standing.

First, Defendant-Intervenors must show that one of its members would have standing to

sue in their own right. To do so, they must demonstrate that they would suffer an “injury in

fact.” Farmer v. EPA, 759 F. Supp. 3d 101, 108 (D.D.C. 2024) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). In particular, “where a party seeks to intervene as a

defendant to uphold an action taken by the government,” as is the case here, “the party must

establish that it will be ‘injured in fact by the setting aside of the government’s action it seeks to

defend, that this injury would have been caused by that invalidation, and the injury would be

prevented if the government action is upheld.’” Forest Cnty. Potawatomi Cmty. v. United States,

317 F.R.D. 6, 11 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n, Inc. v. Veneman, 200 F.R.D.

153, 156 (D.D.C. 2001)).

In this lawsuit, Ormat seeks to vacate the Listing Rule designating the toad as an

endangered species and proceed with the development of its geothermal plants in the Dixie

Meadows. See Compl. ¶¶ 82, 112. If the Court grants this relief, Defendant-Intervenors’

members would be injured because they currently benefit from the Listing Rule. See

Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 317 (finding sufficient injury in fact “where a party benefits from

agency action, the action is then challenged in court, and an unfavorable decision would remove

6 the party’s benefit.”). Currently, the Listing Rule grants the toad and its habitat federal

protection. Without the Listing Rule, Plaintiff would proceed in constructing its geothermal

plants in the Dixie Meadows to the toad’s detriment. Mot. at 20. And Defendant-Intervenors’

members have material “interests in protecting the toad and its unique thermal wetland habitat,”

such as “recreational, aesthetic, scientific, and professional interests in observing the toad in the

wild.” Mot. at 19–20. For example, Great Basin Director Patrick Donnelly and Chairwoman

Catherine Williams-Tuni visit the Dixie Meadows to observe the toad in its habitat. Donnelly

Decl. ¶ 16; Williams-Tuni Decl. ¶ 22. They both plan to regularly return to the Dixie Meadows,

and an adverse ruling would diminish their enjoyment of the ecosystem, toad, and fauna. Mot. at

¶¶ 19–20. Therefore, Defendant-Intervenors’ members have established an injury in fact, and in

turn, causation and redressability. See Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 316 (finding that if defendant-

intervenors have established an injury in fact for standing, then causation and redressability

“rationally follow[]”). Indeed, the injury to Defendant-Intervenors members would materialize

without the Listing Rule, as Ormat’s success in this lawsuit would, at the very least, lead to

significant development and consequential environmental impact to the toad’s habitat, while a

successful defense would redress that potential injury by preventing it. Thus, the Court finds that

Defendant-Intervenors’ members have standing to sue in their own right.

Second, Defendant-Intervenors must show that the interest they seek to protect is

germane to their purposes. The Center has a long history of litigating to protect the environment.

Donnelly Decl. ¶ 6. Alongside its litigation arm, the Center also advocates in the defense of

endangered species and at-risk habitats by conducting government oversight and providing

educational materials to the public. Id. ¶ 9. The Center is “dedicated to environmental

protection” of the Dixie Meadows and the Listing Rule protects that interest. Mot. at 18–19, n.2.

7 Regarding the Tribe’s purpose, they have historically referred to themselves as “Cattail-

eaters,” because they have “always based [their] way of life on the marshes and springs within

[their] vast ancestral territory[.]” Williams-Tuni Decl. ¶ 5. For generations, the Tribe has

utilized the Dixie Meadows for healing, spiritual contemplation, and ceremonies. Id. ¶ 9. The

Tribe views the toad as an “inextricable element of the Dixie Meadows springs and [to] the

Tribe’s culture” and the toad’s protection is linked to the preservation of their sacred sites. Id.

¶¶ 8, 16. Therefore, Defendant-Intervenors’ interests are germane to their purposes.

Finally, Defendant-Intervenors must show that neither the claim asserted, nor the relief

requested requires the Defendant-Intervenors’ members to participate in the lawsuit. It is

unnecessary for individual members to be named as defendants and nothing in the suit requires

individual members to participate in the suit. Mot. at 18–19, n.2. Therefore, Defendant-

Intervenors have associational standing in this case.

B. Intervention as of Right

Having met the requirements for standing, the Court’s analysis of the Rule 24(a)

requirements for intervention as of right is straightforward. First, the motion to intervene was

timely filed.

Timeliness “is to be judged in consideration of all the circumstances, especially weighing the factors of time elapsed since the inception of the suit, the purpose for which intervention is sought, the need for intervention as a means of preserving the applicant’s rights, and the probability of prejudice to those already parties in the case.”

Amador Cty. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 772 F.3d 901, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting United States

v. British Am. Tobacco Austl. Servs., Ltd., 437 F.3d 1235, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). Defendant-

Intervenors’ motion to intervene was filed on January 13, 2026, before Federal Defendants even

filed an Answer to the Complaint. See Mot. at 1. Neither party has argued that they will be

prejudiced by Defendant-Intervenors’ participation in the suit, nor that responding to their

8 briefings will unduly disrupt or delay the litigation. See Federal Defs.’ Resp at 1; Ormat’s Resp.

at 1. Thus, this Court finds that the motion to intervene is timely.

Further, this Court finds that Defendant-Intervenors have demonstrated a legally

protected interest under Rule 24(a) and that an adverse action by this Court could impair or

impede that interest. When a prospective intervenor “has constitutional standing, it a fortiori has

‘an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.’”

Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 320 (quoting Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 735 (D.C. Cir.

2003)); see also Safari Club Int’l v. Salazar, 281 F.R.D. 32, 38 (D.D.C. 2012) (“The injury-in-

fact and causation connection with the challenged action requirements for standing are closely

related to the second and third factors under Rule 24(a) . . . .”).

Finally, the Court agrees that Federal Defendants might not adequately represent the

interests of Defendant-Intervenors. The adequate representation requirement “is satisfied if the

applicant shows that representation of his interest ‘may be’ inadequate.” Trbovich v. United

Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). “[T]he burden of making that showing should be

treated as minimal.” Id. Here, Defendant-Intervenors seek to defend the existing federal

protections from the Listing Rule to ensure the safety and sanctity of the toad and the Dixie

Meadows. Mot. at 12. Presumably, Federal Defendants have an interest in defending BLM’s

decision-making process regarding the Project’s approval in the Dixie Meadows, and for the

benefit of the American people broadly. See Mot. at 30–31; Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n, Inc. v.

Veneman, 200 F.R.D. 153, 159 (D.D.C. 2001) (concluding the Department of Agriculture may

not adequately represent a non-profit organization when the agency was charged with balancing

a “broad spectrum of interests . . . includ[ing] the general public[.]”). While similar, Defendant-

Intervenors have interests that are narrower than Federal Defendants’. “We have often

9 concluded that governmental entities do not adequately represent the interests of aspiring

intervenors.” Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 736. “[T]here may be a partial congruence of

interests, [but] that does not guarantee the adequacy of representation.” Id. at 737; see also Am.

Horse Prot. Ass’n, Inc., 200 F.R.D. at 159 (sharing a “general interest in the legality of a

program or regulation does not mean their particular interests coincide so that representation by

the agency alone is justified.”). Because this Court finds that it is not clear that Federal

Defendants share Defendant-Intervenors’ interests, Defendant-Intervenors have satisfied the final

element of Rule 24(a).

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Center for Biological Diversity and Fallon Paiute-

Shoshone Tribe’s Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. An order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.

Dated: March 20, 2026 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge