Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Colorado Apartment Association v. Ryan

Colorado Apartment Association v. Ryan ↗

1:24-cv-01093United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D. Colo.)6 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
06/18/2026
Notice of potential participation filed by United States.
Notice
08/29/2025
Complaint
06/10/2025
Motion filed by plaintiffs for leave to file first amended complaint.
Plaintiffs representing the real estate and hotel and lodging industries filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint in a lawsuit claiming that building performance standards adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and the City and County of Denver are preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The plaintiffs said their proposed amended complaint addressed standing issues identified by the federal district court for the District of Colorado when it dismissed the lawsuit in March 2025. The plaintiffs contended that their amended complaint demonstrated that the challenged standards “both concern and implicate the EPCA-preempted Covered Products in Plaintiffs’ members buildings.”
Motion
03/28/2025
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed without prejudice.
The federal district court for the District of Colorado concluded that four organizations with members that owned or managed buildings in Colorado lacked standing for their claim that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempted State of Colorado and City of Denver building performance standards. The plaintiffs alleged that the standards’ requirements for certain categories of large buildings to reduce energy use or greenhouse gas emissions “effectively require and force Covered Building owners to replace existing Covered Products (or in the context of new construction to choose Covered Products) that exceed current federal energy efficiency standards under the EPCA.” The court found that the plaintiff organizations failed to allege that their members would suffer a non-speculative injury caused by the challenged standards. The court cited an absence of “any specific allegations as to what provisions or compliance pathways of [the challenged standards] regulate Covered Products or any allegations as to what specific Covered Products must be replaced … in order to comply with” the challenged standards. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiffs were allowed 21 days to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint.
Decision