Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A procedural rule before the Indiana Supreme Court could determine whether only individuals and institutions with substantial litigation resources can effectively challenge state regulatory decisions.
In Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana and Vote Solar v. Duke Energy Indiana LLC and Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, No. 26S-EX-127, two consumer and environmental organizations are appealing Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission orders connected to Duke’s proposed Cayuga power project. Duke estimated construction of two natural-gas units at approximately $3.33 billion. Citizens Action Coalition says the approved arrangement allows Duke to collect construction costs from customers years before the units produce electricity.
Duke has asked the court to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing. It argues that the organizations have not themselves suffered the direct injury Indiana law requires. Citizens Action Coalition and Vote Solar respond that their Duke ratepayer-members are affected and that the organizations may represent those members.
The court has therefore asked whether Indiana should recognize associational standing under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission. Hunt allows an organization to sue only when its members would otherwise have standing, the interests at stake relate to its purpose, and the case can be decided without requiring each member’s participation.
That framework preserves the injury requirement. An organization cannot sue merely because it dislikes a policy. It must establish that at least one member could bring the case and that the dispute is genuinely connected to the organization’s work.
Duke correctly notes that participation before the IURC alone does not create standing. But that is not the organizations’ central claim. They rely on injuries allegedly experienced by ratepayer-members, not simply their status as regulatory intervenors.
Associational standing also promotes efficiency. Without it, substantially similar challenges may have to be reconstructed around separately named individuals or pursued through more complicated procedures. Associations pool information, legal expertise and financial resources, allowing common legal questions to be litigated once.
That explains why support for the doctrine crosses ideological and economic lines. Fourteen national and state business and industry associations filed an amicus brief urging Indiana to adopt associational standing. The rule can serve trade groups, employers, labor unions, professional associations and public-interest organizations alike.
My research focuses on Indiana’s juvenile-justice system rather than utility regulation. But it has shown me how procedural design determines who can meaningfully participate in government. Young Hoosiers are encouraged to organize and contribute to civic institutions, even though most of us lack the resources to pursue legal challenges individually.
The court need not agree with Citizens Action Coalition and Vote Solar on the merits of Duke’s project to recognize their standing. It must decide only whether affected members lose access to collective representation when they organize through an association.
Indiana should adopt the Hunt framework. It preserves concrete-injury requirements while recognizing the practical way citizens and businesses advocate for shared interests.•
__________
Kamal is a senior at Homestead High School in Fort Wayne and a student researcher examining Indiana juvenile justice under university faculty mentorship. He has also served as a legal intern, filed an amicus curiae brief with the Indiana Supreme Court and researched commentary considered by the United States Sentencing Commission.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.