# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-1134 September Term, 2021 NRC- PRM-50-111 7 Filed O n: Februa ry

3, 202 2 Geo rg e B erka,

Pet itione r
v
. U.S. Nu clear Regulat oryCom mission an d United Sta tes o f

Am erica, Respo nde nts
PETITIO N FOR REVIE W FROM A N ORDER OF THE NUCLEA R REGULA TORY COM MISSIO N
BEFORE: W ilkins, Rao, an d Ja ckson, Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T T his pe tition for review of an orde r of

the Nuclea r Regulatory Comm ission was consid ered on the briefs an d a ppe ndix f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e p etition for review be dism issed. Pet itione r has notsho w n th at h e h as A rticle III stan ding to challen ge the Nuclea r Regulatory Comm ission’s de nial o f his p etition for rulem aking. S ee Luja n v. Defend ers of W ildlife , 50 4 U.S . 55 5, 5 60-6 1 (19 92) (Article I II sta ndin g req uires a sho w ing of a particu lariz ed injury-in-fa ct, ca usat ion, and redressa bility ). Pe titione r’s asserted injury base d o n clim ate cha nge is no t a particu lariz ed injury . S ee Ctr. for Biolo gical Diversity v . U.S. Dep’t of

Int erior, 56 3 F.3 d 4 66, 47 8 (D.C. Cir. 20 09) (sta ting tha t clima te ch ange doe s no t con stitute a p articularized injury in the ab sence of allegation s sho w ing thatthe harm is “focuse d a ny more on [a p etition er] th an it is on the rem aind er of the world’s pop ulatio n”). Ad dition ally , to the extent pet itione r claims p articularized injury resulting f rom possib le po wer ou tages d uring cold weath er, h e h as n ot d em onst rated injury that is actu al or im min ent . S ee Pub lic Citiz en, Inc. v. Nat’l Hig hway T raf f ic Safety Adm in., 489 F.3d 12 79, 12 92 (D.C. Cir. 2007 ) (injury m ust b e “distin ct an d p alpa ble, as o ppo sed to m erely abstract, an d th e a lleged ha rm m ust b e a ctua l or imm inen t, n ot co njectu ral or hypothe tical”). Nor ha s pe titione r dem onst rated tha t th e a sserted injury is redressab le

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-1134 September Term, 2021 by a favorable d ecision. W here redress “dep end s on actio ns b y a t hird p arty not b efore the cou rt, th e p etition er m ust d em onst rate tha t a favorable d ecision would creat e a significan t increa se in the likelihoo d th at t he plaint if f would ob tain relief

tha t direct ly redresse s the injury suf fered .” Klam ath W ate r Users Ass’n v. FERC, 53 4 F.3 d 7 35, 73 9 (D.C. Cir. 2008 ) (interna l quotat ion m arks om itted ). Here, pet itione r has not dem onst rated tha t a favorable d ecision would creat e a significa nt in crease in th e likelihood of

third partie s reop enin g a nu clear p ower plant tha t would pre vent interrup tion of

po wer service to p etition er. Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2