A Massachusetts federal judge has stated that he would deny a motion set forth by the Trump administration to dismiss a lawsuit against the order to shut down offshore wind projects.
A total of 18 attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court in May challenging US president Donald Trump’s order to stop leasing and permitting for wind energy projects.
They stated that such a move was “unlawful and can jeopardise the continued development of a power source critical to the states’ economic vitality, energy mix, public health, and climate goals”, and that Trump has no authority to make such a decision.
The lawsuit, led by New York attorney general Letitia James, names New York, Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington State as the plaintiffs.
The judge in charge of the case, William G. Young, stated during a hearing that he would allow the case to proceed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. However, actions against Trump and cabinet secretaries, who are also named as defendants, would be dismissed.
Young believes that the states can proceed with claims that the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
He did add that the president’s agenda was to “bet the country’s energy future on fossil fuels”, but that it was not “for this court to question that.”
The Wind Directive has stopped most wind-energy development despite it creating billions of dollars in economic activity and tax payments and supplying more than 10% of US electricity.
The attorneys general want the administration to resume permitting under applicable laws and existing standards and timelines.
The government representatives and the attorneys general are clashing over what the halt means. While the Trump administration claims it is just a pause and not a halt, and that it would last until secetary Burgum reviews the environmental impact of those permits. However, no timeline was given.
The attorneys general claimed that anything without an end date should be considered a “categorical and indefinite halt.”
