Latest news with #OuterContinentalShelfLandsAct
Business Wire
7 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
Green Oceans Report Reveals Systematic Non-Compliance in Offshore Wind Development
LITTLE COMPTON, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Green Oceans, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, today released its comprehensive report entitled, Cancelling Offshore Wind Leases. The report, by Planet A Strategies, analyzes the legal frameworks underlying federal agency decision-making for offshore wind (OSW) development in six offshore wind projects located in the Rhode Island and Massachusetts Wind Energy Areas (RI/MA WEAs), which encompass nearly a million acres of ocean territory on the outer coastal shelf. It outlines potential violations of statutory and regulatory requirements under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and finds that the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) decisions to promulgate these contracts not only exceed its statutory authority but also violate procedural law to justify projects that are causing irreversible environmental, cultural, and economic consequences. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) decisions to promulgate these contracts violate procedural law to justify projects that are causing irreversible environmental, cultural, and economic consequences. Share 'This Report demonstrates that BOEM's review of these projects was fraught with omitted, misrepresented, and arguably false information regarding its ability to provide reliable electricity,' said Green Oceans President Lisa Quattrocki Knight. 'The projects also have significant adverse environmental, economic, and national security consequences. The Trump Administration has sufficient executive authority and reason to cancel the Rhode Island and Massachusetts Wind Energy Areas leases.' Critical data and legal criteria in the report reveal possible omissions or misrepresentations by OSW project developers and government decision-makers. This is shown by citing OCSLA provisions, environmental protection statutes, state obligations to serve, Federal Power Act electricity system reliability rules, and federal requirements from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These include misrepresentations about: Bulk transmission system reliability Actual installed capacity requirements for fully decarbonized electricity generation Actual amount of electricity generated by OSW operations versus ratepayer demand Illegal segment-by-segment lease issuance Encroachment on national security operations and training Dire economic impacts on maritime activities like fishing and navigation The North Atlantic right whale population resides in the RI/MA WEA. The region also encompasses one of the last remaining spawning grounds for Southern New England cod. Offshore wind development permitted by these leases could lead to the extinction of both species. Federal documents also confirm that offshore developments will compromise the East Coast's only Early Warning Radar system operated by Cape Cod Space Force Stations, underwater threat detection capabilities, military readiness, and Coast Guard search and rescue operations. BOEM's studies acknowledge long-term, major adverse and irreversible impacts on fishing and regional fisheries, and the historical and cultural resources of the Wampanoag Nation of Gay Head/Aquinnah. The Wampanoag Nation has inhabited Massachusetts and Eastern Rhode Island for more than 12,000 years. BOEM did not adequately consider the cumulative impact of all proposed development on the entire lease area, a legal requirement of their authority. The Green Oceans report aligns with the ongoing comprehensive federal review of wind leasing and permitting practices, as directed by the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, and makes the case for immediate intervention overwhelming, both on legal and policy grounds. The six offshore wind projects referenced throughout this announcement are: Revolution Wind, Vineyard Wind, South Fork Wind, Sunrise Wind, SouthCoast Wind, and New England Wind. You may access the full report here: About Green Oceans Green Oceans is a nonprofit, non-partisan group of community members dedicated to the preservation and protection of our nation's marine ecosystems and coastal communities. For more information or to get involved, visit:
Epoch Times
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge to Wind Energy Project off Massachusetts Coast
The Supreme Court decided on May 5 not to hear a challenge to the federal government's approval of a major offshore wind project off the Massachusetts coast. The court's decision came without comment in an unsigned The project, known as Vineyard Wind 1, is located 15 miles off the coast of Nantucket Island. The case goes back to 2021, when the Biden administration approved dozens of wind energy generation projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts 'in a rush to replace fossil fuels as this nation's primary source of electricity,' according to the The shelf refers to all submerged land and seabed that belongs to the United States and is outside the jurisdiction or authority of individual U.S. states. The departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Defense jointly issued the environmental impact statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which led to approval of Vineyard Wind 1. This was 'the first of many such large-scale, industrial offshore wind energy projects slated for the OCS,' the petition said. Related Stories 9/25/2024 3/19/2024 The petitioners challenged the project, saying it was not allowed under the NEPA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). 'The record showed the project would result in momentous adverse impacts on marine navigation, public safety, the environment, and national security,' the petition said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed the project to move forward. The petitioners, who are represented by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said in the petition that this decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's landmark 2024 The First Circuit did not follow established precedents and 'impermissibly deferred' to the federal government's interpretations of the NEPA and OCSLA, which created a conflict between its ruling and previous Supreme Court decisions, the petition said. The circuit court has 'unlawfully sanctioned the federal government's approval of the first of many such planned, enormous wind energy projects scheduled to industrialize the pristine waters of America's outer Continental Shelf … a decision that has grave adverse consequences for marine safety, the environment, and national security,' the petition said. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Axios
28-04-2025
- Business
- Axios
UN group fires back over Trump's deep-sea mining plan
The U.N.-affiliated body that governs the seabed in international waters came out swinging — by diplo-speak standards — against White House efforts to spur deep-sea mineral mining. Why it matters: The International Seabed Authority's statement circulated Saturday is a fresh sign of geopolitical and legal conflict that could greet new commercial efforts outside its purview. Driving the news: " Any endeavor undertaken outside the recognized and consensual international framework, or in an attempt to circumvent international law, may incur legal, diplomatic, economic, security, financial and reputational risks," the group said. It adds that "circumventing" the ISA's regulatory authority would breach international law and "silence" the voices of poor and developing nations. The big picture: The ISA, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, is tasked with overseeing deep-sea mineral harvesting in international waters. But long-delayed regulations have yet to be completed. The U.S. has never ratified the treaty but has historically participated as an observer. Deep-sea regions could hold major deposits of manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt bound up in nodules. But many scientists fear major damage to fragile ecosystems and species. Catch up quick: The weekend statement adds to criticism of President Trump's executive order last Thursday. China, a dominant player in mineral supply chains, called the U.S. move a violation of international law. The country holds five ISA exploration licenses. No country or company has begun commercial extraction of mineral-rich nodules. The other side: The White House order's section on international waters cites authority under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. It also envisions regulating exploration and extraction in U.S. waters under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. But the industry's greatest focus to date has been in remote international tracts. "Both of these laws require comprehensive environmental impact assessments and compliance with strong environmental protection standards," Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, tells the NYT. What we're watching: Center for Strategic and International Studies analysts have a lucid primer on the whole topic and White House moves.
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Multiple groups prep for court battles that will decide fate of millions of acres of ocean — here's what's happening
Several environmental protection groups are suing the Trump administration after its executive order to increase offshore oil drilling off of Alaska. Up until recently, millions of acres of open ocean were protected, including in the North Bering Sea, as detailed in a Center for Biological Diversity press release. Within President Donald Trump's first 100 days, he signed an executive order reversing Biden-era policy. In response, multiple lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration, calling the order illegal, as reported by EcoWatch. In January 2025, the Biden administration legally protected the North Bering Sea through a 1953 law called the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This law allows presidents to decide to ban offshore drilling in certain waters off of the U.S. coastline without needing approval from Congress. Earthjustice, one of the environmental groups suing Trump, claims that while it is within any president's power to increase protections over the ocean, it is up to Congress to vote to reduce or remove them and that system of checks and balances must be kept intact. Millions of people rely on clean, healthy oceans to survive. Offshore drilling threatens both human and sea life by disrupting complex ecosystems in the intertidal zone and the continental shelf. Communities around the country rely on thriving oceans to promote strong economies through fishing and tourism. This executive order threatens a cleaner, safer future for all. Additionally, the Alaska coastline is home to more than 20 endangered or threatened species, including beluga and bowhead whales and polar bears. More than 1 million seals, whales, and walruses travel through the Bering Strait to feed and breed in the Arctic, according to the World Wildlife Fund, making it one of the world's largest centers of marine mammal migration and one of the most productive marine ecosystems. Environmental disasters can be caused by offshore drilling, affecting the ecosystem as well as the health of families on the coastline. Not to mention, oil spills threaten carbon-capturing projects that work to reduce climate change. Fortunately, when this situation happened before, the courts favored protecting the environment. In 2016, Trump once again sought to open up waters for drilling; reversing a Barack Obama-era ban on offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean. The courts found this measure unlawful in 2019, stating that only Congress can vote to open waters for offshore drilling, per New York Times reporting. Do you think America has a plastic waste problem? Definitely Only in some areas Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Even when the ruling was appealed in 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yet again affirmed that 128 million acres of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans were permanently safeguarded from increased drilling. Not to mention, "nearly 400 municipalities and over 2,300 elected local, state, Tribal, and federal officials across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts have formally opposed the expansion of offshore drilling in these areas in view of its severe environmental, health, and economic threats," Biden's White House stated in 2025. Senators and governors from both Republican and Democratic parties oppose offshore drilling — and according to the Pew Research Center, most Americans feel the same way. This is why environmental agencies are working hard to protect the democratic process and conserve the ocean and pristine coastline. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Reuters
12-03-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US judge declines to block Biden-era oil well decommissioning rule
March 11 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Louisiana has rejected a bid by three Republican-led states to block a rule adopted during Democratic President Joe Biden's administration that requires the offshore oil and gas industry to provide nearly $7 billion in financial assurances to cover the costs of dismantling old infrastructure. U.S. District Judge James Cain in Lake Charles on Monday declined, opens new tab to issue a preliminary injunction sought by Republican state attorneys general from Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and four oil and gas industry groups blocking the policy. The 2024 rule was issued by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and required oil and gas lessees in the body of water known internationally as the Gulf of Mexico that was recently renamed the Gulf of America by Republican President Donald Trump to obtain financial assurance bonds. The Republican-led states and industry groups in a lawsuit filed in June say the rule if enforced would expose small- and mid-sized companies to "potentially existential consequences" as they would be unable to obtain such bonds. But Cain, who was appointed by Trump during his first term in office, said that potential harm was mitigated by the fact that the rule's requirements were being phased in over three years. He said companies were not expected to receive demands to post supplemental financial assurance until mid-2025 at the earliest and only needed to post a third of the required amount at that time. The rest would be due over three years, he said. "While these harms may be likely, a preliminary injunction can only be issued if the threatened harm is also imminent," Cain said. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment. The plaintiffs argue that the Biden administration lacked authority to adopt the rule under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a 1953 law that gave the U.S. Department of Interior, which oversees BOEM, the authority to lease areas of the outer continental shelf for oil and gas development. While the judge on Monday declined to issue an injunction at this time, he said he would expedite the case so he could reach a final decision on the merits before companies receive letters demanding they post financial assurance. The case is State of Louisiana v. Haaland, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, No. 2:24-cv-00820. For the plaintiffs: Tyler Green of Consovoy & McCarthy and Zachary Faircloth of the Louisiana Department of Justice
