Can the Court Hear Delaware’s Appeal of the FERC’s Conditional Orders?
Aside from the substantive question of how the CZMA and CAA might limit the FERC’s authority, this case also raised questions of court jurisdiction — most importantly, the doctrine of constitutional “standing,” which requires a party bringing suit to show that it has been injured by the other party’s conduct. The FERC argued that because its Crown Landing orders were conditional, expressly prohibiting construction or operation until satisfaction of enumerated conditions (e.g., completion of the CZMA process), they imposed no actual injury upon Delaware, nor could they impose any such injury until the FERC’s conditions are satisfied and the project is green-lighted to begin construction and operation. This lack of injury, the FERC argued, precluded Delaware from showing that it had constitutional “standing” to petition for judicial review of the orders. Delaware argued, by contrast, that the orders did impose injury on the state. Among its claims of injury, Delaware argued that the FERC
