Coalition Exploring Lawsuit to Challenge CVOW

The following news release has been issued by the Thomas Jefferson Institute along with other coalition partners. 

A coalition of public interest groups – The Heartland Institute, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the American Coalition for Ocean Protection (ACOP) – announced in late September that it has hired counsel to explore a lawsuit protecting the right whale from Dominion Energy Virginia’s efforts to place an offshore wind (OSW) project directly in their habitat off the coast of Virginia.

Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy is participating in the American Coalition for Ocean Protection (ACOP). “While the Jefferson Institute’s concerns are more focused on the unreasonable ratepayer cost and ratepayer risk the project imposes on Dominion’s 2.5 million Virginia customer accounts,” noted Institute president Chris Braunlich, “we share the concern that environmental laws be applied uniformly and transparently, and not be ignored for politically-driven proposals.”

“Too much of the Dominion application is shrouded in secrecy,” Braunlich continued, “including the effect on wildlife in the area of the proposed windfarm. All the facts should be put on the table before a project of this magnitude is approved.”

Approval of the project at the state level by the State Corporation Commission, or the Virginia Supreme Court if aspects of the SCC decision are appealed, is not the final green light for construction of the $10 billion project.

The coalition has retained as counsel the law firm of Gatzke, Dillon and Ballance (GDB) of Carlsbad, California to represent them in evaluating the upcoming draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is producing for Dominion’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Energy Project.

GDB has extensive experience representing plaintiffs pursuing litigation to defend whales and a strong track record of success in challenging proposed U.S. offshore wind projects.

“Unless BOEM requires extensive, effective, unprecedented protection measures for the North Atlantic right whale immediately, this species is almost certainly headed toward extinction,” said David Stevenson, president of ACOP. “With only a little more than 300 individual right whales alive today, this endangered species is in dire need of protection, and the Virginia Wind Project lies directly in their annual migration path. The project will require extensive daily maintenance by multiple service ships, and the potential for whale fatalities due to ship strikes is indisputable.”

Initially, GDB will provide the coalition with advice and counsel to determine if BOEM has undertaken the legally required “hard look” at the OSW Project in order to provide necessary protection for Virginia’s environment and for the state’s electricity consumers, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, the firm will advise the coalition as to whether or not the EIS draft meets the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other relevant federal and state statutes that govern the construction and maintenance of the project.

“We are very pleased to have retained the services of a law firm with such extensive expertise in the requirements of federal laws such as NEPA and ESA,” said CFACT President Craig Rucker. “We are not only very concerned about the future of the right whale, which extensively uses the ocean waters affected by the wind-power project, but also concerned as to how BOEM will address the fact that this project, despite its alleged benefits regarding carbon dioxide and climate change, will actually cause the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than it will consume.”

BOEM anticipates that the draft EIS for the Virginia Wind Project will be released for public review and comment later this year. Dominion Energy is proposing to build 176 wind towers, which would stand more than 700 feet tall 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach. The company has announced that it expects to begin generating electricity from the project by the end of 2026.

“The Virginia Wind Project is a risky, costly, waste of resources and a pitiful way to generate electricity for a state which claims to be business and consumer friendly,” said Heartland Institute President James Taylor. “Before construction commences, the project should be given the same level of scrutiny for environmental protection by the courts and the federal authorities as has been provided for fossil fuel projects in Virginia, such as the Mountain Valley Pipeline.”

GDB has represented plaintiffs who have brought suits against BOEM, the Department of the Interior, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other federal agencies with respect to the New York Bight offshore wind project off the coast of New York and New Jersey, as well as the Vineyard Wind project off the southern shore of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. These suits seek declaratory and injunctive relief and are currently pending in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia and the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, respectively.

“We are equally troubled that Virginia ratepayers could be exposed to huge rate increases resulting from intermittent, unreliable wind generation,” added Rucker. “Should litigation become necessary to remedy deficiencies in BOEM’s final EIS, we are grateful to have experienced counsel for advice as we move forward.”

The coalition intends to comment on the draft EIS within 45 days of its issuance by BOEM, unless BOEM provides for a longer public review and comment period.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

18 responses to “Coalition Exploring Lawsuit to Challenge CVOW”

  1. they need to reach out the Seachange Foundation in California as it’s a Russian backed non-profit which fights US energy expansion efforts… SF spent money in Virginia to file challenges to the MVP and gave money to local grass roots groups too.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Thanks, but we’ll pass on cooperating with them. I’m thinking the lawsuits over the New England and New York projects will plow the ground (part the waters?) quite a bit before the Dominion permits are ripe for court challenge. But having some true expertise to help dissect the coming environmental impact assessment is a public service, IMHO. Way beyond my wheelhouse.

      1. the SF suggestion was mostly in jest and to inform of the Russian role in anti-US energy independence efforts — but it is very true!

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          The Russians have happily started the first Green New Deal War, with energy as their principal weapon, so it is hardly surprising they would be seeking to discourage US energy independence.

      2. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        The migration threat does not occur in New England and is not mentioned in their filing, which in my view is far too vague. New York is a possibility but I have not looked at the data.

        As to timing the Virginia OSW draft EIA is presently scheduled for release in December so immediate action may be required. However, the noises we are making may cause BOEM to pause.

        That the Dominion environmental analysis is secret may be an issue in itself. Another wrinkle is that the planned GE turbines may be kaput because GE just got found guilty of patent infringement on them. So we may have no noise data. Dis ain’t simple.

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    ” … BOEM will address the fact that this project, despite its alleged benefits regarding carbon dioxide and climate change, will actually cause the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than it will consume.”

    Really?

    How does that work?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not the clearest statement, but manufacturing and operating the project will not be zer0-carbon. I guess someday all the delivery, installation and service boats might be run on battery, but not now. Natural gas is used to make the components. Recently was reading about how much electricity is actually used by the turbine itself, a significant amount of its output when running (and creating a need to actually run power OUT to the project for when it is not.)

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Was not aware that BOEM would look at these issues. I thought they were primarily looking at impacts.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not the clearest statement, but manufacturing and operating the project will not be zer0-carbon. I guess someday all the delivery, installation and service boats might be run on battery, but not now. Natural gas is used to make the components. Recently was reading about how much electricity is actually used by the turbine itself, a significant amount of its output when running (and creating a need to actually run power OUT to the project for when it is not.)

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Note that the threat from OSW is not mentioned. So far no whale protection organization has even mentioned the OSW threat that I know of. Being greens they love wind so are conflicted. We look like the whales best hope.

  3. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Here is the science on the biggest threat:
    https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/27/how-to-kill-whales-with-offshore-wind/

    Push them into heavy ship traffic.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is great. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Now, it is going to be difficult for TJI to complain in the future about environmental laws being used to hold up any energy projects it favors.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Soon we’ll have Manchin’s permitting reform bill, right? You’re for that, right? No? 🙂

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I have to admit that I am not all that familiar with his bill. I don’t like the idea of using legislation to “court shop”.

  5. Does anyone remember the justification for the two “experimental” turbines now operating at immense expense? One was to see how well they stood up to hurricane wind conditions. Er, there haven’t been any hurricanes yet, so we don’t know the answer. But Dominion and the General Assembly seem determined to plow ahead anyway.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      It does look like they have not been tested. The closest recent major storm was Claudette in 2021 and that was a tropical storm when it went into open waters beyond the Virginia coast.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) puts Virginia on a path towards a future that is clean, affordable, and reliable, utilizing Virginia’s resources and advancing energy independence. Unfortunately, much of the Energy Plan released today would have the Commonwealth do a U-turn. Youngkin’s plan relies on fossil fuels whose costs are going through the roof and discourages new economic investment and innovation.

    “Governor Youngkin’s objectives of reliability, affordability, innovation, competition, and environmental stewardship are all achievable within the framework of the VCEA. It’s unfortunate that the 2022 Energy Plan spends so much time disparaging the VCEA when that law offers a clear path to achieving the Administration’s purported goals.”

    https://www.aee.net/articles/2022-energy-plan-statement

Leave a Reply