Californians for Renewable Energy v. United States Department of Energy
860 F. Supp. 2d 44
D.D.C.2012Background
- CARE sues DOE over §1705 loan guarantees issued under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
- Title XVII loan guarantees broadened in 2009 to include renewable projects using commercially available technology under § 1705.
- DOE guaranteed 100% of principal and interest for several loan recipients; program expired September 30, 2011.
- Plaintiffs allege DOE failed to promulgate required regulations and to allow public comments, causing procedural, environmental, aesthetic, and financial harms.
- Michael Boyd is the named individual plaintiff; CARE seeks associational standing based on his claimed injuries.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing; court analyzes Article III standing and associational standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have standing to sue under Article III? | Boyd alleges procedural, environmental, and financial injuries via CARE. | No injury, causation, or redressability; standing not established. | Plaintiffs lack standing; case dismissed |
| Does associational standing exist for CARE given Boyd's lack of individual injury? | CARE members would be injured; organization represents them. | No named member with injury; associational standing fails. | No associational standing; claims dismissed |
| Are the asserted harms (procedural, aesthetic, recreational, financial) cognizable injuries for standing here? | Injuries arise from lack of rulemaking and project impacts. | Injuries are too generalized or speculative to establish injury-in-fact or causation. | Injuries insufficient to establish standing; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three elements of standing; injury, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (requirement of concrete, particularized injury; imminence)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (associational standing; individual member injuries needed)
- Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (injury must be particularized, not generalized)
- Florida Audubon Soc’y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (causation and imminence in standing; avoid speculation)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (aesthetic/recreational injury requires specific interest)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (environmental injury must be concrete and particularized)
- United Transp. Union v. ICC, 891 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (causation and redressability requirements in standing)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing requires concrete injury and causal connection)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing; associate harms must be individualized)