Opinion ID: 344772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the injuries asserted by appellants

Text: 28 Appellants assert three injuries in their status as consumers and citizens. First, it is alleged that appellants will pay (higher costs) for petroleum products because the Council and all of its subgroups are unlawfully dominated by the petroleum industry. 72 In appellants' view the higher prices will result in part from the Council's failure to address the issue of consumer prices fairly or adequately in its reports to the DOI and the FEA; 73 his deficient advice in turn causes the DOI and the FEA to formulate policies which affect the pricing of petroleum products. . . 74 Appellants do not specify the way in which Council advice is unfair or inadequate with respect to consumer prices; the unfairness and inadequacy presumably result solely from the fact that the Council is composed primarily of petroleum industry personnel. Appellants do not allege that the burden of any future increased costs will fall on them in a disproportionate manner, nor do they specify the monetary loss associated with the asserted prospective injury. 75 29 The second consumer injury alleged by appellants concerns the availability of alternative energy sources and supplies. Appellants aver that the Council's advice is favorable to the petroleum industry and causes the DOI and the FEA to minimize the advantages of alternative energy sources when they formulate policy. 76 These agency policies in turn cause the appellants to be denied the lower costs, efficiencies, and enjoyment of (alternative) energy sources. 77 As support for this contention, appellants point to two NPC reports in which they feel that alternative energy sources were inadequately addressed. 78 In addition, appellants focus on the offshore exploration and drilling for oil. They state that such activity has been vigorously urged by the Council in its advice to the DOI, and that the DOI is now engaged in promoting an accelerated offshore drilling program. 79 The effort and resources which the DOI uses in support of this program in turn detract from the effort and resources which could be used to promote and develop other cost-saving energy alternatives. 80 This failure to concentrate maximum effort on the development of alternative energy supplies is the source of the injury alleged by appellants. Here again, appellants do not provide any evidence as to the potential monetary loss associated with this asserted consumer injury. 30 The third injury in this category relates to environmental damage and threats to health and safety that are associated with petroleum products. 81 Again, appellants allege that these subject areas have not been adequately considered by the NPC because of its allegedly unbalanced membership, thus setting in motion a chain of causation which ultimately inflicts environmental injury and threats to health and safety on them. In particular, appellant Metcalf avers that my use and enjoyment of my property (on Chesapeake Bay) is threatened by the biased advice of the Council to (DOI) that deepwater loading and unloading ports generally be developed. 82 Appellant Brown refers to oil spillages on the beaches where he desires to swim, 83 and states that he rejected vacationing in the Santa Barbara, California area in part . . . because of the possibility that (oil) spillages may recur there. . . 84 In addition appellant Brown complains that the projected oil tanker route from Alaska to Puget Sound is a threat to healthy swimming in the Puget Sound area he frequents. 85 The most specific allegation involving the Council's activities is that it recommended to (DOI) that in certain situations air quality controls be relaxed, including sulfur level limits, which adversely affects the air I breathe in and around the Washington, D. C. area. 86 There is no allegation that DOI took action based on this recommendation. 31 In addition to the alleged environmental injuries noted above, appellant Brown also asserts injuries related to aesthetic blight. 87 First, he asserts that he has viewed the aesthetically unappealing oil refining and storage complexes along the New Jersey Turnpike; 88 second, he regularly is exposed to the unsightly oil pumps strewn on the various home sites and other properties near his home town in north central Ohio, 89 and third, he is offended by the strong and unpleasant odors emanating from pumps located nearby in the area of Mount Gilead, Ohio. 90 Appellant contends that unspecified Council advice has caused these injuries. 91 32 There is an additional asserted injury in this consumer and citizen category which deserves mention in order to place the appellants' case in true perspective. Appellants contend that the alleged lack of fair balance on the NPC results in, among other things, 92 the possible increased risk of conflict between nations. 93 Appellants do not, of course, specify when such conflicts may take place or how the Council's advice will cause such upheaval. We state this asserted injury primarily to show the extraordinary consequences which appellants attach to the advice given by the NPC. 33 The unifying theme which underlies the injuries outlined in this section concerns the reason why the alleged injuries have taken place. With respect to all three, appellants claim to have been injured on the theory that the challenged structure of the NPC causes it to make certain biased recommendations, which in turn cause government agencies to adopt policies favoring the petroleum industry, which in turn cause the appellants to be injured as consumers and citizens. 34
35 Appellant Metcalf claims three injuries in his capacity as a United States Senator. First, he claims that his previously cast votes in favor of FACA and FEAA have been effectively nullified by the alleged lack of fair balance in the membership of the NPC. 94 Second, appellant Metcalf alleges that until the legal issues surrounding the operation of the NPC are resolved by a federal court, he is uncertain how best to take effective legislative action to correct the illegalities he perceives. 95 Appellant Metcalf relies solely on this court's decision in Mitchell v. Laird 96 as support for the acceptability of this second injury as a basis for legislator standing. Third, appellant alleges that the imbalance of the NPC has caused him injury in his committee work in the Senate. 97 In view of our opinion in Harrington v. Bush, we conclude that the first two asserted injuries do not satisfy the constitutional requirement of injury in fact. 98 We therefore turn our attention to appellant Metcalf's contention that he has been injured in his Senate committee work. 36 Appellant Metcalf is a member of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and is Chairman of its Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels. 99 This subcommittee has major responsibility . . . in the Senate's task of developing national policies on fuels and other energy matters. 100 Appellant Metcalf is also a member of two other Interior Committee subcommittees which deal with issues on which the NPC renders advice. 101 Although he contends that all of his committee work suffers because of the allegedly tainted and biased advice of the NPC, appellant Metcalf focuses primarily on his work as a subcommittee chairman in describing the injury done to him as a Senator. 37 In the process of developing national policies and legislation on energy-related matters, appellant Metcalf's subcommittee holds hearings and obtains data and recommendations from the DOI, the FEA, and other sources. 102 The NPC does not testify or otherwise provide data or advice directly to this subcommittee. 103 Appellant complains that, since the DOI and FEA rely on advice from the Council, the input which these two federal agencies have into his subcommittee is biased and tainted to the extent that the agencies' views reflect the Council's advice. By relying on the recommendations of DOI and FEA which may have been developed on the basis of Council advice, appellant alleges that he is impeded in his efforts to develop the best possible legislative product. 104 This is the injury which appellant Metcalf believes to be sufficient to confer standing on him as a Senator. 38 It is necessary to make several additional observations concerning appellant Metcalf's claim of legislator standing. First of all, appellant admits that he has other sources 105 than DOI or FEA that could be utilized by his subcommittee in gathering data and advice on energy-related matters. Curiously, however, appellant contends that he is under no legal obligation to employ these additional sources in order to mitigate any bias he perceives in the Council's input into DOI and FEA or these agencies' input into Congress. 106 Appellant asserts that he relies on DOI and FEA input even though he firmly believes the Council advice to these agencies to be biased and tainted and therefore is misled in his committee work to the detriment of his status as a Senator. It may well be that appellant Metcalf is under no obligation to consult other sources, but his tenacious insistence on reliance on agency advice which he thoroughly disbelieves certainly undermines his concern with developing the best possible legislative product. 39 Appellant Metcalf does not contend that the investigatory or information-gathering powers of his subcommittee have been circumscribed in any manner because of the alleged illegality of the NPC's operation. In addition, he in noway specifies the characteristics of the best possible legislative product which he seeks to develop so that the impact of the Council's advice on the product can be delineated. Indeed, appellant points to no specific legislation which has been impaired by the Council's actions; rather, the asserted injury relates to appellant's subjective judgment as to the quality of legislation which his subcommittee can produce under present circumstances.