A federal judge has found that efforts by Donald Trump’s administration to suspend authorizations for wind farms are illegal.
Connecticut and Rhode Island were among a coalition of 17 states that filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in May over a presidential memorandum issued on Trump’s first day in office that indefinitely halted federal approvals for all wind power projects.
Separately, Connecticut attorney general William Tong and Rhode Island attorney general Peter Neronha filed a preliminary injunction in September against a stop work order for the Revolution Wind project.
The project is located 15 miles south of the coast of Rhode Island in federal waters. Project components were being staged at New London’s state pier. When a federal stop work order came down from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on August 22, the project was about 80 percent complete.
A federal court ordered work to resume on the project in September. BOEM’s stop work order cited Trump’s memorandum on wind projects and “concerns” about “the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas.”
Monday’s federal ruling from Hon. Patti B. Saris at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that the Trump administration’s larger program ordering a pause on issuing or approving all permits, leases or other authorizations for wind energy projects (the Wind Order) was illegal.
The order alleged there were “various alleged legal deficiencies” in the federal government’s leasing and permitting processes for both onshore and offshore wind projects and directed the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the “heads of all other relevant agencies” to halt issuing permits or approvals for wind projects. The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce were directed to review federal wind permitting through the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of the EPA.
The judge found that the states suing the administration had “produced ample evidence demonstrating that they face ongoing or imminent injuries due to the Wind Order” through reduced tax returns as a result of project delays, plans to produce energy through them and to lower energy costs when the projects go online.
A lack of a timeline from the federal government indicating how long its review of wind project authorizations would last also influenced the finding.
“More than ten months after the Wind Order instituted a “temporary” pause on the issuance of wind energy authorizations, no end to the Comprehensive Assessment appears to be in sight. The Agency Defendants neither included a timeline for that assessment in the administrative record nor provided an anticipated end date during the course of this litigation.” Judge Patti Saris wrote.
The states, as well as plaintiff Alliance for Clean Energy New York, argued the Wind Order was “arbitrary and capricious,” and therefore in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), an argument the court agreed with.
Under the APA, which subjects administrative agency decisions to judicial review, arbitrary and capricious is a legal standard courts can use to review an administrative agency’s actions and invalidate them.
The federal government argued that the standard did not apply because they were following orders from the president outlined in the Wind Memo, but the court rejected that argument. The agencies at issue in the case entered only two documents into the record: the memo and a written order from the Department of the Interior suspending renewable energy authorizations, which factored into the court’s decision.
“This scant administrative record makes clear, and the Agency Defendants do not meaningfully dispute, that the Agency Defendants have not “reasonably considered the relevant issues and reasonably explained the[ir] decisions” to implement the Wind Order.” Saris wrote. “Indeed, the Agency Defendants candidly concede that the sole factor they considered in deciding to stop issuing permits was the President’s direction to do so.”
“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Wind Order is arbitrary and capricious. The Wind Order therefore must be set aside.” Saris concluded. She added that it was “contrary to law” because it allows federal agencies to violate two provisions of the APA, including a requirement that agencies reach conclusions in a reasonable time period.
Saris’ decision vacated the Wind Order.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
It’s obvious the project was almost complete; the dastardly deed 80% complete; the money 80% burned away. How could it be denied. The turbines are expensive, built by China, money sent to China. The turbines are an eye sore, upset the natural waters, effective the aquatic life, and threaten the clear water with the contingency of massive lubrication oil leaks. The turbines produce electricity and either store it in batteries ( DC) or serve it directly via AC. If they are on line with AC then the loss on transmission is prohibitive and inefficient. From DC to AC is also inefficient. The Engineering Economy is negative. The project feels good but does no good