Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

New England coalition files suit challenging the New England Wind 1 & 2 approvals

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on May 29, 2025| Leave a Comment »

ACK For Whales, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head / Aquinnah, Green Oceans, a coalition of charter fishing groups and seven individuals filed suit in federal court asserting that the Departments of Interior and Commerce violated the law when they approved the Record of Decision (ROD) for the New England Wind 1 and 2 projects.

Construction has not yet begun on the New England Wind 1 and 2 projects. The leases abut Vineyard Wind’s troubled lease 0501 (see above map), site of last summer’s turbine blade failure.

Per ACK for Whales President Vallorie Oliver:

“In offshore wind project after offshore wind project, from Revolution Wind, Vineyard Wind and New England Wind to the others, the government was so desperate to rush these projects that it cut corners and violated the law,” Oliver said. “The government didn’t care if it trampled on the Wampanoag sacred beliefs and rites, hurt the charter boat, fishing and lobster industries or wiped out the Right whales. The only thing that mattered was to get these environmentally destructive turbines built, costs to the rest of us be damned.”

Court filing summary:

Plaintiff:ACK FOR WHALES, INC., VALLORIE OLIVER, AMY DISIBIO, VERONICA BONNET, DOUGLAS LINDLEY, STEVEN AND SHARYL KOHLER, DANNY PRONK, WILLIAM VANDERHOOP, GREEN OCEANS, RHODE ISLAND PARTY AND CHARTER BOAT ASSOCIATION, CAPE COD CHARTER BOAT ASSOCIATION, INC., CONNECTICUT CHARTER AND PARTY BOAT ASSOCIATION, INC., MONTAUK BOATMEN AND CAPTAINS ASSOCIATION, INC. and WAMPANOAG TRIBE OF GAY HEAD AQUINNAH
Defendant:UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, WALTER CRUICKSHANK, in his official capacity as the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, HOWARD LUTNICK, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Commerce and EUGENIO PIEIRO SOLER, in his official capacity as the Assistant Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service
Case Number:1:2025cv01678
Filed:May 27, 2025
Court:U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Read Full Post »

Tell us what you really think Congressman Van Drew!😉

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , on May 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Congressman Jeff Van Drew doesn’t mince any words in commenting on New Jersey’s participation in the lawsuit against the offshore wind pause:

“You cannot make this stuff up. The Murphy administration already burned through billions of your tax dollars on offshore wind projects that never worked. They pushed it on us even when towns were saying no, fishermen were saying no, and the tourism industry was saying no. They looked the other way while whales washed up on our beaches. They ignored the Pentagon when it said it was a national security risk. The NJ Ratepayer Advocate said it would raise utility bills. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the cons outweighed the pros. They did not listen to anyone. And now, after all that, they want to throw even more taxpayer dollars at it in court. It truly is a slap in the face to every taxpayer and every family struggling to pay their energy bill.”

Read Full Post »

W&T sues insurers and related decommissioning comments

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on December 17, 2024| Leave a Comment »

W&T (lease and facility map above) claims that insurers have colluded to damage the company by jointly demanding additional collateral and premiums.

Comments on excerpts from the W&T press release follow:

“At the heart of the dispute are rules from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – BOEM – which require energy producers in the Outer Continental Shelf to provide a bond to pay for well, platform, pipeline and facilities cleanup if the operating company fails to do so.”

Comment: Despite disagreeing with aspects of the BOEM financial assurance rule, this blog has defended the rule against unfair criticism. Better solutions are achievable, but that will require industry leaders from all factions to come to the table with a commitment to reach a balanced agreement that protects the public interest.

“These insurance companies and their unreasonable demands for increased collateral pose an existential threat to independent operators like W&T.”

Comment: If insuring offshore decommissioning is so risk-free and lucrative, why aren’t other companies entering the market?

“Several states, including Texas, are challenging the BOEM rule and in one case they specifically cite W&T as an example of how the rule could be misused to irreparably harm energy producers.“

Comment: As previously posted, the concerned States should propose alternative solutions that would promote production while also protecting taxpayer interests. Arguing that decommissioning financial risks are not a problem is neither accurate nor a solution.

“In over 70 years of producer operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government has never been forced to pay for any abandonment cleanup operations associated with well, platform facility, or pipeline operations.”

Comment: Shamefully, from the standpoints of both the offshore industry and the Federal government, that statement is no longer true. The taxpayer has now funded decommissioning operations in the Matagorda Island Area offshore Texas (BSEE photo below) and more significant decommissioning liabilities loom.

Other thoughts:

Read Full Post »

Offshore wind: Oregon tribes say “Not so fast!”

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2024| Leave a Comment »

The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (“Tribe”) filed a lawsuit against BOEM in Oregon Federal District Court.   The lawsuit (attached) challenges BOEM’s cursory environmental review for the development of private offshore wind energy facilities in two areas off the Oregon Coast near Coos Bay and Brookings.  

“The Tribe has consistently urged that BOEM delay moving forward with wind energy development until a better understanding is made of the impacts to fish, wildlife, the marine environment, and cultural resources important to the Tribe,” said Tribal Council Chair Brad Kneaper.  “No one, including BOEM has an understanding on how wind development will impact the fragile marine environment.  BOEM developed an environmental assessment document that narrowly focused on the impacts of the lease sale and completely turned a blind eye to the inevitable impacts that construction and operation of these private energy facilities will have on Coastal resources, the Tribe, and other residents.”

“The timeframe for wind development appears to be driven by politics, rather than what is best for Coastal residents and the environmental,” said Chair Kneaper.

This suit and the Aquinnah Wampanoag tribe’s call for a moratorium on offshore wind development have to be uncomfortable for Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland given her Native American heritage.

BOEM’s front-loaded 5 year wind leasing plan (graphic below) may have been influenced by (1) the possibility that the upcoming elections could affect offshore wind policy, and (2) the legislative prohibition on issuing wind leases after 12/20/2024 unless an oil and gas lease sale is held prior to that date.

Given that the next oil and gas lease sale will be in 2025 or later, BOEM was perhaps motivated to hold wind sales prior to the 12/20/2024 deadline (with a bit of a buffer to issue the lease documents). Indeed, the wind leasing plan proposed 4 sales between August and October of 2024 and only a single 2025 sale. That 2025 wind sale is in the Gulf of Mexico, where industry interest in wind leases is, at best, tepid.

ComplaintDownload

Read Full Post »

The opinions of State and local govts and tribes are fully considered ….

Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on July 11, 2024| 3 Comments »

….as long as they are aligned with the preordained political decision. 😠

No where has this been more apparent over the years than in Alaska. Most recently, the North Slope Borough filed suit to challenge the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule making the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) off limits to oil and gas development.

Mayor Josiah Patkotak of the North Slope Borough

“The rule would significantly and irrevocably harm the North Slope’s right to self-determination and ability to provide essential services for residents. This suit is filed alongside the complaints of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat and the State of Alaska, demonstrating the unity of North Slope communities and Alaskans in opposing the BLM’s unjust and unilateral action to harm the livelihoods of the residents of the North Slope,” the borough explained in a press statement.

“When I was sworn in as Mayor of the North Slope Borough, I made a solemn promise to protect and provide essential services for the people of the North Slope Borough. The BLM claims to act on our behalf but what they are truly doing is undermining my ability to fulfill that fiduciary obligation,” said Mayor Josiah Patkotak. “We on the North Slope don’t have the luxury of keeping quiet and waiting for a new industry to swoop in and replace our largest economic driver. We have to speak up for our future as a people.”

Other important points raised in the Must Read Alaska article:

  • NPR-A is entirely within the boundaries of the North Slope Borough (NSB).
  • The NSB represents the ancestral homelands of the Inupiat people.
  • The NSB is the largest employer in the region and provides the majority of essential services depended upon by residents.
  • Taxes on infrastructure account for 95% of the Borough’s revenue.
  • Members of the North Slope Inupiat Tribes, Village Corporations, Regional Corporations, and their elected leaders have been unanimous in their opposition to the rule.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper, which removed the Chevron Deference, restricts the authority of Federal agencies to take regulatory actions without clear legislative authority.
  • The State of Alaska also filed a lawsuit claiming that the Fed govt had not consulted with affected parties, and that the BLM had exceeded its congressional authorization.

This should be an easy win for Alaska and the NSB.

Read Full Post »

Suit to block BOEM’s financial assurance rule – why no press releases?

Posted in California, decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on June 25, 2024| Leave a Comment »

None of the plaintiffs issued a press release or otherwise announced the lawsuit on their websites.

How often do Attorneys General from 3 States sue the Federal government without broadly publicizing their actions? Neither the AG for Louisiana, Texas, nor Mississippi issued a press release to announce their suit to block BOEM’s financial assurance rule.

The limited media coverage of the lawsuit originated from a single Reuters article. Apparently Reuters learned about the suit and reached out to the litigants. Their article quoted Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill as follows:

“This is a really egregious direct assault on intermediate level producers of oil and gas, and that affects a lot of business in our state,” Murrill told Reuters in an interview.

That quote is all we have from the AGs. Why the absence of announcements:

State of Louisiana et al v. Deb Haaland et al

Plaintiff:State of Louisiana, Louisiana Oil & Gas Association, State of Mississippi, State of Texas, Gulf Energy Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America and U S Oil & Gas Association
Defendant:Deb Haaland, U S Dept of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Elizabeth Klein, Steve Feldgus and James Kendall
Case Number:2:2024cv00820
Filed:June 17, 2024
Court:US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Presiding Judge:James D Cain
Referring Judge:Thomas P LeBlanc
Nature of Suit:Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action:28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Jury Demanded By:None

Read Full Post »