Green Oceans v. U.S. Department of the Interior

The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part defendant-intervenor Revolution Wind, LLC’s motion to dismiss federal approvals for an offshore wind farm and wind export cable project off the coast of Rhode Island. The court concluded that subsets of plaintiffs had standing to proceed with claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (which included allegations of failure to take a hard look at climate change impacts), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Clean Water Act. But the court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing and failed to state a claim under the Coastal Zone Management Act; failed to state a claim under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and did not have standing, failed to state a claim, and failed to provide sufficient notice under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

In a lawsuit challenging federal approvals for the Revolution Wind Farm off the coast of Rhode Island and the related cable project, the federal district court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiffs’ second request for a stay of the approvals or a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of standing for either their Clean Water Act or their Endangered Species Act claim.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs’ motion to stay federal approvals for the Revolution Wind Farm off the coast of Rhode Island and the related cable project. The court concluded that the motion failed because the plaintiffs failed to comply with a local rule requiring that parties meet and confer with their opponents prior to filing a nondispositive motion.

A lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenged the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) approvals of two wind energy projects off the coast of Rhode Island: (1) the South Fork Wind Project, approved in January 2022, and (2) the Revolution Wind Project, approved in August 2023. The plaintiffs asserted that the approvals violated the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. Under NEPA, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the environmental impact statements did not sufficiently evaluate the projects’ impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change because they included only “limited qualitative descriptions of emissions generated from construction” and did not compare the projects’ climate benefits with the benefits of other alternative renewable energy sources or alternative project locations or designs. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that BOEM failed to conduct “cumulative-level analysis of climate impacts (positive or negative) associated with the proposed scale of offshore wind development.”