National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service

The federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that federal defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they approved a right of way or land transfer through the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to allow construction of a transmission line. The court said the transmission line could not be deemed compatible with the refuge under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The court also found that the federal defendants failed to comply with NEPA because the stated purpose for the project had been stated too narrowly so that it eliminated, for example, non-wire alternatives such as regional and local renewable electricity generation, energy storage, and energy efficiency. The court’s decision did not discuss the plaintiffs’ allegations that the federal defendants failed to adequately consider the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and potential climate impacts.

–

The federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a “narrowly tailored” preliminary injunction in a lawsuit challenging a 101-mile transmission line extending from Iowa to Wisconsin. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Rural Utilities Service did not adequately consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts in its environmental impact statement (EIS). The court found that the plaintiffs established at least some likelihood of success on the merits of their arguments that the Utility Regional General Permit (URGP)—the only contested permit under which construction could currently proceed—was invalid, that the EIS defined the project’s purpose and need too narrowly and therefore excluded alternatives such as solar energy and battery storage that would reduce the need for increased transfer capability, and that the consideration of cumulative impacts was inadequate. The court also found that the plaintiffs established “real and irreparable impacts,” that there would not be an adequate legal remedy to rectify those harms, and that the balance of equities favored an injunction. The court enjoined activities requiring permission under the URGP.

–

–

–