Federal lawsuit seeks halt to NV Energy's Greenlink transmission lines in Nevada
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A lawsuit filed on Wednesday aims to stop NV Energy's Greenlink West transmission line project, arguing government approvals failed to recognize what the project would mean for wildlife and pristine desert ecosystems.
In essence, conservation groups are saying the government can't see the forest for the trees. By approving the power line, government agencies are ignoring the impact of massive solar farms that will follow.
Two groups, Friends of Nevada Wilderness and Basin and Range Watch, are seeking a court injunction over approvals issued by the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. NV Energy, owner of the $4.2 billion project, is not named in the lawsuit.
SEPT. 9, 2024: Greenlink West gets federal OK; construction will go into Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument
'The fact that the final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) completely ignored the future impacts of a proposed industrial solar field complex the size of Las Vegas is simply a dereliction of duty,' Friends Executive Director Shaaron Netherton said. 'The transmission line and the new complex are inextricably linked, and the impacts of both should have been thoroughly analyzed. They were not.'
Greenlink-ComplaintDownload
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nevada, also cites decisions on the route that Greenlink West will follow. Conservationists say better routes were available.
The approved route cuts through the southern end of Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. Scans that penetrate into the ground have determined the presence of prehistoric fossils where NV Energy plans to put in 11 new power poles — each with a 100-foot square concrete pad — along the north side of Moccasin Road in the north valley. The poles will be across the street from an existing 400-foot wide utility corridor that NV Energy said is no longer wide enough to accommodate an additional power line.
Alternative routes — none of which went into the fossil beds — were all rejected.
Kevin Emmerich, co-founder of Basin and Range Watch, pointed to a decision by the Interior Department to avoid a conflict with a speculative gold mining claim near Beatty while sticking with the plan to intrude on the fossil beds.
2023 REPORT: Greenlink power poles on collision course with treasures at Tule Springs Fossil Beds, Protectors say
'The massive construction footprint from the Greenlink West Transmission Project will destroy delicate fossils that are legally mandated to be protected for the future,' Emmerich said.
If fossils are encountered, it could mean project delays while they are extracted and protected.
The lawsuit cites federal guidelines under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. In addition to wildlife habitat, construction of Greenlink West and solar farms would also impact Native American cultural sites.
'Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to consider the potential environmental impact of all agency actions,' the lawsuit said.
Greenlink West will extend from Las Vegas to a site just north of Yerington, connecting to Greenlink North, which will extend across the state along U.S. 50 into White Pine County. More solar development is planned along that route. From Yerington, the transmission line extends toward Reno with a branch that goes to Storey County, home to the Tesla Gigafactory.
The lawsuit asks the court to set aside decisions made by the three federal agencies that authorized the project, as well as attorneys' fees. Conservationists cite violations of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and legislation that created Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. They also cite violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.
If successful, the lawsuit would put the Greenlink project back to square one.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Las Vegas home prices stable; market shifting toward buyers, LVR says
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Home prices held steady in May, remaining within $5,000 of the all-time highs recorded in the first three months of 2025, according to a Friday report from Las Vegas Realtors (LVR). With single-family homes going for a median price of $480,000, buyers for condominiums and townhomes saw a $5,700 increase that put the median price at $307,000, the report showed. The median price is the one in the middle — half are higher and half are lower. 'Home prices have been very steady so far this year, with more homes on the market,' LVR President George Kypreos said. 'This increase in inventory and slower sales pace is giving buyers more options and negotiating power. This is a shift from the highly competitive seller's market we experienced in recent years.' LAST MONTH: Las Vegas home prices drop from record highs; more homes for sale That observation was confirmed by a Thursday report from online real estate company Redfin. Nationally, pending home sales declined to their lowest May level since 2020, and mortgage applications declined week-over-week. 'Prospective buyers are backing off because housing costs are near record highs, with the median home-sale price up 1.2% year over year and the weekly average mortgage rate approaching 7%, and because the U.S. economy is unpredictable,' the report said. Redfin listed Las Vegas among the five markets where pending sales have dropped the most year over year, at -15.4%. Miami topped the list at -19.6%. LVR's figures, based on its Multiple Listings Service (MLS), show sales down 13.1% for homes and down 19.0% for condos and townhomes. The median price of a single-family home in Las Vegas is still 1.5% higher than it was a year ago, LVR said. And condos/townhomes are up 4.1%. The record high for condos came seven months ago (October 2024) at $315,000. Another measure of the slowing market is inventory, which has grown to a 3½ month supply. By the end of May, 6,646 homes were listed for sale without no offers — up 71.8% from one year earlier. The 2,510 condos and townhomes listed without offers in May represent an 89.6% jump from one year earlier, LVR reported. In May, 81.6% of all existing local homes and 76.5% of all existing local condos and townhomes sold within 60 days. That's down from one year earlier, when 85.6% of all homes and 85.6% of all condos and townhomes sold within 60 days. Sales of distressed homes amount to less than 1% of all property sales, LVR said, adding that cash buyers had dropped to around 23% of all sales. Total sales for single-family homes totaled more than $1.2 billion, with condos/townhomes reaching more than $182 million. Bankrate listed 30-year fixed mortgages available at 6.625% in Nevada as of Thursday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Fast Company
9 hours ago
- Fast Company
Supreme Court rewrites NEPA rules—changing the game for environmental reviews
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways, and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions —until now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewer's perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permitting—the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. Taking a big-picture look NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy, and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular children's book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requests—for a glass of milk, a napkin, and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls, and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the court's ruling, federal agencies' days of uncertainty are over. Biggest NEPA case in decades On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court (minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself) decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect 'upstream' effects of constructing the rail line—such as spurring new oil drilling—and the indirect 'downstream' effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far-flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ 'some degree of forecasting' to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evaluate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. A resounding declaration Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a ' legislative acorn ' that has 'grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' He bemoaned the 'delay upon delay' NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered 'on the Kafkaesque.' In his view, 'NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents.' He called for 'a course correction . . . to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.' His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agency's NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are 'fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry . . . (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.' Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have jurisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a 'no harm, no foul' rule, under which 'even if an [environmental impact statement] falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency's ultimate approval of a project.' The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the board's decision that it could not reliably predict the rail line's effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the board's required review. A split court Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaugh's 'course correction' applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider, and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agency's regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agency's required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
DHS waives environmental laws to start Arizona border wall construction
The Brief DHS says it waived environmental laws to get started on filling in border wall gaps in Arizona and New Mexico. The Center for Biological Diversity is firing back, calling it a "disastrous project." PHOENIX - The U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing three new waivers to expedite 36 miles of new border wall construction in Arizona and New Mexico. What we know This waives environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, so construction can move forward faster. The Arizona projects include closing seven gaps between 40 and 240 feet in Yuma, and about 27 miles in the Tucson sector. DHS says closing these gaps will enhance border security operations. The other side The Center for Biological Diversity is responding to the decision. "Trump is recklessly casting aside the foundational laws that protect endangered species and clean air and water to build a wildlife-killing wall through pristine wilderness," said Laiken Jordahl, Southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Throwing taxpayer money away to wall off the Santa Cruz River and San Rafael Valley would be a death sentence for jaguars, ocelots and other wildlife in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. This is happening while border crossings are at the lowest level in decades. We'll fight this disastrous project with everything we've got."
