DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Seneca Lake Guardian, Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes, and Sierra Club (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this citizen suit pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1376 (the “Clean Water Act”), alleging that defendant Greenidge Generation LLC (“Defendant” or “Greenidge”) is discharging pollutants into Seneca Lake and the Keuka Lake Outlet without a valid permit. (Dkt. 1). More particularly, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant had a valid permit, but that permit expired on September 30, 2022, and Defendant failed to take steps required by federal law to extend that permit while its renewal application is pending. (Id.). Currently pending before the Court are four motions: (1) a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs (Dkt. 10); (2) a motion to opt out of this District’s mandatory alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) program filed by Plaintiffs (Dkt. 11); (3) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant (Dkt. 13); and (4) a cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant (Dkt. 24). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denies the remaining motions as moot. More specifically, the Court is not persuaded by the arguments advanced pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), but it does agree with Defendant that dismissal is warranted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). BACKGROUND I. The Clean Water Act To understand the parties’ dispute, it is necessary to briefly set forth some legal background regarding the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person — which is defined to included corporations and other business associations — except in compliance with its terms. See 33 U.S.C. §§1311(a), 1362(5). “Discharge of a pollutant” is defined as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” Id. §1362(11). “Navigable waters” include tributaries to intrastate lakes. Id. §1362(7); 33 C.F.R. §328.3. The Clean Water Act further establishes the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”), pursuant to which the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Administrator may issue permits for the discharge of pollutants. 33 U.S.C. §1342(a)(1). States that wish to administer their own discharge permitting programs may seek approval from the EPA Administrator. Id. §1342(b). Permits issued by state permit programs “are for fixed terms not exceeding five years.” Id. §1342(b)(1)(B). “States authorized to administer the NPDES program may continue either EPA or State-issued permits until the effective date of the new permits, if State law allows. Otherwise, the facility or activity is operating without a permit from the time of expiration of the old permit to the effective date of the State-issued new permit.” 40 C.F.R. §122.6(d) (emphasis added). Federal regulations provide that all state permit programs “must have legal authority to implement [certain enumerated Clean Water Act regulations] and must be administered in conformance with each, except that States are not precluded from omitting or modifying any provisions to impose more stringent requirements.” 40 C.F.R. §123.25(a). Among the enumerated regulations are 40 C.F.R. §122.21(a)-(b), (c)(2), (e)-(k), (m)-(p), (q), and (r) and subparts A, B, D, H, I, J, and N of 40 C.F.R. §125. In turn, subpart J of 40 C.F.R. §125 sets forth requirements applicable to cooling water intake structures for existing facilities under §316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Included within subpart J is 40 C.F.R. §125.95(a)(1), which provides that “[t]he owner or operator of a facility subject to this subpart whose currently effective permit expires after July 14, 2018, must submit to the Director the information required in the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 122.21(r) when applying for a subsequent permit (consistent with the owner or operator’s duty to reapply pursuant to 40 CFR 122.21(d)).” New York operates a state pollutant discharge elimination system (“SPDES”). See N.Y. Env’t Conserv. Law §17-0801. Under New York law, “a permit holder may make written request to the department for the renewal…of an existing permit. Such request shall be accompanied by sufficient information supporting the request for the departmental action sought.” Id. §70-0115.2. Pursuant to New York’s State Administrative Procedures Act (“SAPA”), “[w]hen a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.” N.Y. Admin. P. Act §401. New York regulations provide that filing for renewal of a SPDES permit “shall be made by the permittee on forms provided by” the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and must be done at least 180 days prior to the permit’s expiration. 6 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. §750-1.16(a). The Clean Water Act expressly grants to district courts jurisdiction to enforce an effluent standard or limitation and to apply appropriate civil penalties. 33 U.S.C. §1365(a). The Clean Water Act further provides that “any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf…against any person…who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation…or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation[.]” Id. “ Citizen suits play an important role in the Act’s enforcement scheme,” and “[t]he citizen suit provisions were designed not only to ‘motivate government agencies’ to take action…but also to make citizens partners in the enforcement of the Act’s provisions.” Weiler v. Chatham Forest Prods., 392 F.3d 532, 536 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 613 (2d Cir. 1988)). “The purpose of the citizen suit is to stop violations of the Clean Water Act that are not challenged by appropriate state and federal authorities.” Atl. States Legal Found. v. Eastman Kodak, 933 F.2d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 1991). II. Factual Background The following facts are taken from the parties’ statements of fact submitted in support of their opposing motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 10-1; Dkt. 24-1), the responses thereto (Dkt. 25; Dkt. 35-1), and the exhibits submitted by the parties. Relevant factual disputes are noted. Greenidge is the owner and operator of Greenidge Power Generation Station (the “Facility”), an electric generating plant located in Dresden, New York. (Dkt. 10 at
1, 3; Dkt. 25 at
