It's been an interesting week for wind foes, with one big case getting a big boost in federal court and another just getting started.
The first is an offshore wind project in Maryland that's been one of Fabulist Governor Wes Moore's crown jewels...or was supposed to be.
US Wind and project opponents in the DelMarVa area have been going toe-to-toe at each other since I've been writing about it, and that's three years now. With the Biden administration's full what might be called collusion rather than mere cooperation, the offshore farm plowed ahead despite resistance that grew in numbers and determination, and crossed state borders. During the waning days of the POTATUS reign and where a Harris victory looked to be far from assured, some hurried hanky-permit-panky forced the hand of the Ocean City, MD, city council, and others, who filed a federal lawsuit against the administration, alleging dirty deeds done Davey Jones deep.
...The Biden administration and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) fast-tracked approval for the projects despite overwhelming local objections and detailed arguments presented against it. Ocean City let no seagrass grow under their feet and, within two months of that decision, filed a federal lawsuit.
...But Maryland opponents were prepared for such an answer. In less than two months, the city of Ocean City, MD, and its partners had filed a 92-page federal lawsuit alleging the federal government had violated any number of federal regulations and statutes in their rush to approve the plan.
Despite direct personal threats and intimidation tactics against Worcester, MD, county commissioners who'd also gotten involved in foiling US Wind's onshore plans, the company filed its own federal counterclaim.
Ocean City's case survived a first attempt to crush it and was cleared for takeoff.
In anticipation of Burgum making a move on their existing permits, the wind developer then filed a 'cross-claim' in conjunction with Ocean City's lawsuit against the federal government for attempting to kill off the wind industry for 'political purposes.'
US Wind files a crossclaim against the Trump administration over its intent to withdraw permits for a Delaware-Maryland offshore wind project.
The Trump administration’s announcement to revoke the permits follows a federal executive order signed in January that directs the temporary halt of all offshore wind energy leasing within the Offshore Continental Shelf.
...US Wind’s offshore wind project off the Maryland coast was one of those projects to have been permitted prior to the executive order, under the Biden administration, but with the Trump administration signaling it intends to revoke the permits, US Wind is cross-suing.
The crossclaim filed in early September argues the federal government’s intent to "vacate and undermine the federal approvals” are tied to “a wider plan to hinder or kill outright offshore wind projects for political purposes.”
Then the Trump administration lent a helping hand by pausing all offshore development already approved for permitting on five other wind farms. US Wind was not one of those, but the government did petition a judge in September to vacate a crucial permit in order to review all the paperwork and documentation, precisely for the sort of misdeeds Ocean City was suing over.
The Trump administration has officially asked a judge to vacate a crucial federal permit issued for the wind farm proposed off the coast of Ocean City.
The move was expected, originally signaled by Justice Department attorneys in late August, but Friday’s filing provided more details on the government’s justification for reconsidering the project’s “construction and operations plan” that was approved late in President Joe Biden’s (D) presidency.
In the filing, Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam R.F. Gustafson cited a Jan. 20 directive from President Donald Trump (R) that ordered a review of all federally permitted wind projects, in addition to halting the issuance of new permits.
Additionally, US Wind saw a chance to cover its butt and protect itself from further administration interference. Last October, the company filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Doug Burgum and his Department of the Interior from stopping its project, as they had done to the others.
It was also looking to the injunction to help protect it as the Ocean City lawsuit moved forward.
In mid-December, a federal judge told the company, 'You can't seek relief from something that hasn't happened.' If US Wind was worried about the DoI, they were told they could make adjustments like any other business, depending on how worried they were.
Offshore energy company US Wind’s request for a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration from taking any action to undermine their proposed project off Delmarva has been denied, according to court documents acquired by WBOC.
US Wind first filed their motion for a preliminary injunction in October, arguing the Trump Administration would take any avenue necessary to revoke the project’s Construction and Operations Plan, previously greenlit by the Biden Administration, if the court did not intervene. The proposed injunction would have been in place until Ocean City’s lawsuit challenging the offshore project had been resolved.
The project would see the construction of 114 wind turbines off the coast of Worcester and Sussex Counties, with undersea cables bringing power to a substation near 3Rs Beach.
A hearing on US Wind’s motion was held on Dec. 10 with U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Stephanie Gallagher. Attorneys for US Wind argued that delays and setbacks incurred from the administration’s clear hostility to offshore wind had already caused irreparable harm to the project. With a preliminary injunction, the company’s attorneys argued, the project could move forward while the lawsuit continued and without fear of hindrance from the federal government.
...“US Wind may continue to develop the project under the approved COP that remains in force,” Gallagher went on to say. “It simply has made a business decision not to do so in light of the political headwinds it perceives.”
Two days ago, the city of Ocean City announced in a press release that it had been notified that the judge in the case had dismissed US Wind's cross-claim.
A federal judge has dismissed a key legal claim tied to the offshore wind dispute involving Ocean City, Maryland. The Town has been notified that on Friday, February 13th, Judge Gallagher of the United States District Court granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss US Wind’s cross-claim in its entirety. The Court determined that US Wind’s cross-claim will not move forward. While the dismissal was issued “without prejudice” — meaning the Court did not rule on the underlying merits of the claims — the cross-claim, as presented, has been rejected and will not proceed. Ocean City has raised concerns regarding the offshore wind project and its impacts on the local community, economy, tourism, and coastal environment. Town officials say they will continue defending the community’s economic and environmental interests.
Naturally, they are all ecstatic.
...Ocean City officials called the ruling a significant procedural victory in the broader legal fight over the offshore wind project.
“This ruling reinforces what we have maintained from the beginning: Ocean City has raised legitimate concerns regarding the offshore wind project and its impacts on our community, economy, tourism industry, and coastal environment,” town leaders said in a statement. “Attempts to shift responsibility or complicate these proceedings through additional claims have now been dismissed by the Court.”
The case includes more than 30 plaintiffs, including Ocean City, Fenwick Island, fishing businesses, tourism companies and advocacy groups. They are seeking to halt construction of the US Wind offshore wind project, arguing that federal agencies violated environmental laws when approving plans for wind turbines in the Atlantic Ocean.
The lawsuit names the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and US Wind Inc. Plaintiffs contend the project threatens endangered species, could damage marine habitats and harm the coastal tourism economy.
US Wind and federal government lawyers have sought to dismiss the case, arguing the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and failed to state valid claims under federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
But they are all well aware there's still a long road to go. At least they have allies now in Washington.
The other case is so much smaller, but it is going to pit a recently enacted state law against local commissioners and a property owner in El Paso County, Colorado.
A property owner has contracted to put two 75-foot wind turbines on his land, and it's been approved by the local commissioners. Signed, sealed and delivered.
Where the problem arises is that these towering structures will be in close proximity to a pretty popular (the state's largest, in fact), privately owned regional airport that is also a practice and divert field for Air Force Academy flight cadets.
Naturally, the Academy and the airport see the turbines as a flight hazard as they'll be directly due north of the runway.
There's a big fight breaking out.
The Meadow Lake Airport is suing El Paso County and a private landowner over wind turbines that U.S. Air Force Academy and Federal Aviation Administration officials say would be hazardous to air traffic.
The county approved plans for the two 75-foot turbines last summer.
In December, the Meadow Lake Airport board filed an injunction in El Paso County District Court seeking to block construction of the turbines.
Airport Manager Dave Elliott said he was surprised to see that the county approved the plans.
“They’re going to kill someone,” he said.
Meadow Lake is the state’s largest privately owned airport, according to its website. The airport near Falcon is designated as a “reliever” for Colorado Springs Airport as an alternate destination for traffic.
...In a motion to dismiss the airport’s lawsuit, an attorney for landowner Daniel Ferguson wrote that the airport had no legal authority to block the turbines since plans were approved and the land does not fall under any aviation easements.
“Neither the FAA, nor any other state or federal government agency, possess land use authority, which exclusively rests with the local government,” the motion read.
The airport responded by citing Colorado Statute 43-10-113, a law designating certain airports “a matter of state interest” and requiring local governments to protect surrounding lands.
Elliott said he believed that the conflict over the turbines was a “test case” in application of the law.
It's going to be interesting to see who wins this one.
All in all, important news.
Beege ADDS: I found this after I posted, but it seems as if turbines in general are wearing out their welcome in El Paso County, even as rural as it is.
