Cook Inletkeeper v. U.S. Department of the Interior

The federal district court for the District of Alaska ordered federal defendants to prepare a supplemental EIS for an offshore oil and gas lease sale in the Cook Inlet of Alaska. As a threshold matter, the court rejected the State of Alaska’s argument that the defendants could not have violated NEPA because the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) required that the sale be held; the court agreed with plaintiffs that the IRA did not limit the defendants’ discretion “so as to render NEPA inapplicable.” The court also agreed with the plaintiffs that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) improperly restricted its alternatives analysis based on its analysis of the purpose and need statement, together with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, to require or warrant inclusion in the lease sale of all or nearly all of the northern portion of the Cook Inlet Program Area. The court also found that BOEM failed to take a hard look at vessel noise impacts on Cook Inlet beluga whales. The court remanded the EIS and record of decision without vacatur and suspended the lease pending the preparation of the supplemental EIS. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that BOEM failed to take a hard look at greenhouse gas emissions from the lease sale, but the court found that the plaintiffs waived this argument by failing to raise it in their opening brief.

A lawsuit filed by environmental groups in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenged the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) final EIS and record of decision for an oil and gas sale in federal waters of Cook Inlet, Alaska. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 required that the sale be conducted by the end of 2022. The final EIS’s alleged shortcomings included that the greenhouse gas emissions analysis “was based on flawed modeling and failed to provide a meaningful assessment of the significance of the emissions in the context of the global climate crisis.” Among other things, the final EIS “failed to meaningfully assess how the projected greenhouse gas emissions … affect the ability to limit global warming to 1.5℃.” The complaint also alleged that BOEM failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including an alternative that would offer less area for sale or reduce the level of oil and gas activities.