The Utah Supreme Court considered that question Tuesday in two cases that could have a far-reaching effect on environmental groups' participation in state regulatory decisions.

The high court's five justices questioned lawyers for the electric-power industry, state regulators and two environmental groups on when interest groups should have “standing” and be permitted to play a legal role in regulatory cases.

Their decision is not expected for weeks or months, but the outcome will be keenly watched. While it's clear that state and federal law intends for citizens to participate in the government's decisions about the environment, it is not as obvious what role environmental groups ought to be allowed to play.

Both cases before the court involved the Sierra Club and the Grand Canyon Trust. And both involved decisions by the state Air Quality Board to uphold permits for coal-fired power plants, a 270-megawatt generator planned for Sigurd and a 950-megawatt addition to the Intermountain Power Plant in Delta.

Last year, the board ruled that the environmental groups did not have standing to appeal the air-pollution permits it granted for either plant. But the board did allow a local group, Sevier Citizens for Clean Air and Water, to appeal the Sigurd plant license.

James Kennon, leader of the citizens group was on hand Tuesday for the arguments. He said the Sierra Club's involvement would be welcomed.

“In some cases,” he said, “we don't have the expertise to hit on some of the fine points.”

Cindy Roberts, another local plant opponent, was effectively barred by the air board's decision from using her membership in the Sierra Club to win it a seat at the table in the appeal. She also attended the hearing Tuesday.

“We have to have a voice,” she said. “And we have to have some checks and balances.”

But Fred Nelson, an assistant attorney general representing the air-quality board, said rights of the companies and the rights of citizens need to be balanced when the board hears an appeal.

“The board requires more than just an allegation” that an environmental group member might be harmed by a permit before it would be inclined to allow standing, he told the justices.

George M. Haley, arguing on behalf of IPP, said the club needed to do more to prove that it deserved to participate in the appeals process.

“You can't just care about something,” he told the justices. “You've got to submit sufficient facts.”

“Generalized grievances are not enough. You've got to come forward with specific instances of palpable injury.”

But Joro Walker, representing the environmental groups, told the justices noted there are many instances in law when courts have granted organizations the right to represent the broad public interest. She also noted that the air-board's regulations differ from court procedures in such a way that a group like hers must prove its whole case before the right to participate is granted.

fahys@sltrib.com