Klein v. United States Department of Energy
753 F.3d 576
6th Cir.2014Background
- Frontier Renewable Resources sought a $100 million DOE grant (about 34% of project cost) to build a 20 million gallon per year ethanol plant in Kinross Charter Township, MI, using wood chips as feedstock and potentially expanding to 40–80 million gallons; the DOE funded the project after a NEPA environmental assessment found no significant impact; Klein and the Sierra Club sued alleging NEPA violations and seeking to halt funding; the district court granted summary judgment for DOE/Frontier on standing and merits; the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Klein has standing to sue under NEPA's procedural rights | Klein has injury in fact and redressability due to pollution risk | Record shows Frontier would proceed with funding regardless of suit | Klein has standing |
| Whether the DOE environmental assessment was adequate under NEPA | Assessment was inadequate and failed to consider impacts and mitigation | Assessment adequately described impacts and mitigation and complied with NEPA standards | Assessment adequate; no need for full EIS |
| Whether the agency properly analyzed alternatives under NEPA | Only two options (funding vs. not funding) were considered | Agency considered binding mitigation and implicitly evaluated other possibilities | Agency did not act arbitrarily; considered reasonable alternatives |
| Whether a supplemental assessment was required in light of later developments | Valero deal required supplementation | Valero deal abandoned; supplementation not required | moot; no supplementation required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (procedural NEPA rights can establish standing if relief could prompt reconsideration)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (agency may avoid full EIS through thorough assessment)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (scope of review for agency decisions under NEPA)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Kempthorne, 453 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2006) (agency's alternatives and scope in EA can be reviewed for reasonableness)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (supplementation when significant new information arises)