TakingGreenEnergy

ProjectstoCourt:NEPA

ReviewandCourtChallengestoRenewableEnergy

ObstaclestoEnergyInfrastructureProject

ArthurG.Fraas,EmilyJoiner,BrielleLee,andKrystalLiu

Report25-15July2025

AbouttheAuthors

ArthurG.FraasisavisitingfellowatResourcesfortheFuture(RFF).Fraasworksonavarietyofissuesrelatedtoenergyandtheenvironment,includingprojectslookingatthedevelopmentofretrospectiveanalysesofmajorenvironmentalrules,thetreatment

ofuncertaintyinregulatoryanalysis,thepotentialregulationofgreenhousegases

undertheCleanAirAct,andissuesandtradeoffswithenergyefficiencyregulations.

EmilyJoinerisresearchassociateatRFFwhoworksonasuiteoftopicswitha

focusonwildfireriskimpactsandmitigation.Joinerobtainedbachelor’sdegreesin

sustainabilityandeconomicsfromArizonaStateUniversityandamaster’sdegreein

agriculturalandresourceeconomicsfromtheUniversityofArizona.

BrielleLeeisaJurisDoctorcandidateatLouisianaStateUniversity’sPaulM.Hebert

LawCenter.LeeworkedasasummerassociatethissummerinNewOrleans.Last

summer,LeeservedasaninternatRFF,wheresheexaminedobstaclestorenewable

energydevelopmentacrosstheUnitedStates,contributingdetailedanalyseson

regulatoryhurdlesanddelaysimpactingcleanenergyprojects.

KrystalLiuisajudicialinternattheUSDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,servingundertheHonorableRobynF.Tarnofsky.LiuiscurrentlyaJurisDoctor

candidateattheGeorgeWashingtonUniversityLawSchool.AsaninternatRFF,Liu

conductedresearchonthebarrierstorenewableenergydevelopmentintheUnited

States,producingin-depthanalysesoflegalchallengesandprojectdelaysaffecting

cleanenergyinitiatives.

AbouttheProject

TheRFFObstaclestoEnergyInfrastructureresearchprojectaimstoidentifyand

analyzecriticalbarrierstobuildingenergyinfrastructureintheUSandimprove

theirrepresentationinmodels.Theprojectbeganin2023withaseriesofexpert

workshopsconvenedtodiscussthemostsignificantobstaclestoinfrastructure

andpoliciesmeanttoaddressthem.Thesemeetingsinformedthedevelopmentof

aresearchagendatofurtherourcapabilitiestounderstandandmodelobstaclesto

energyinfrastructure.Theprojectidentifiedemergingopportunitiesforresearch

andcommissionedseveralstudies,includingtheonepresentedhere,toadvanceour

analyticalunderstandingoftheseobstacles.

ResourcesfortheFuturei

TakingGreenEnergyProjectstoCourt:NEPAReviewandCourtChallengestoRenewableEnergyii

AboutRFF

ResourcesfortheFuture(RFF)isanindependent,nonprofitresearchinstitutionin

Washington,DC.Itsmissionistoimproveenvironmental,energy,andnaturalresourcedecisionsthroughimpartialeconomicresearchandpolicyengagement.RFFis

committedtobeingthemostwidelytrustedsourceofresearchinsightsandpolicysolutionsleadingtoahealthyenvironmentandathrivingeconomy.

TheviewsexpressedherearethoseoftheindividualauthorsandmaydifferfromthoseofotherRFFexperts,itsofficers,oritsdirectors.

SharingOurWork

OurworkisavailableforsharingandadaptationunderanAttribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0International(CCBY-NC-ND4.0)license.Youcancopyandredistributeourmaterialinanymediumorformat;youmustgive

appropriatecredit,providealinktothelicense,andindicateifchangesweremade,andyoumaynotapplyadditionalrestrictions.Youmaydosoinanyreasonable

manner,butnotinanywaythatsuggeststhelicensorendorsesyouoryouruse.

Youmaynotusethematerialforcommercialpurposes.Ifyouremix,transform,orbuilduponthematerial,youmaynotdistributethemodifiedmaterial.Formoreinformation,visit

/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

.

ResourcesfortheFutureiii

Abstract

TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)isoftenidentifiedasamajorobstacletorenewableenergyprojectslocatingonfederalpubliclandsorseekingfederal

funding.OnceNEPApermitshavebeenissued,aprojectmayfaceadditionaldelays

ifafederalagency’sdecisionischallengedincourt.ThedelaysassociatedwithNEPApermittingforrenewablegenerationprojectshavebeenexploredbyFraasetal.(2023,2025),buttheeffectofenvironmentalcourtchallengestorenewablesprojectshas

receivedlessattention.ThispaperbuildsonFraasetal.(2023,2025),examiningthe

legalchallengesfacedbyeachprojectandpresentingthetimelineinmonthsfor

eachcase.NearlyathirdofsolarprojectsandhalfofwindprojectscompletingNEPAenvironmentalimpactstatementreviewsfacedcourtchallenges.Almostallcaseswerefiledafterthegovernmentagencieshadissuedtheirpermittingdecisions.Although

thecourtstypicallyruledinthegovernmentagencies’andprojectdevelopers’favor,themajorityofcaseswereappealed.Courtchallengesinbothfederalandstatecourtscausedorcontributedtotheterminationofthreeprojects,andsixadditionalprojectsexperiencedsignificantdelaysasdevelopersawaitedcourtappealdecisions.Wefindthatwindandsolarprojectsthatfacedcourtchallengestookanaverageofabout15monthslongertoreachoperationalstatusthanprojectswithoutcourtchallenges.

Abbreviations

Agencies

BIA:BureauofIndianAffairs

BLM:BureauofLandManagement

BPA:BonnevillePowerAdministration

DOD:DepartmentofDefense

DOE:DepartmentofEnergy

DOI:DepartmentofInterior

FWS:FishandWildlifeService

RUS:RuralUtilitiesService

USACE:USArmyCorpsofEngineers

USDA:USDepartmentofAgriculture

USFS:USForestService

WAPA:WestenAreaPowerAdministration

Defendants

Backcountry:BackcountryAgainstDumps

BRW:BasinandRangeWatch

CARE:CaliforniansforRenewableEnergy

CBD:CenterforBiologicalDiversity

CC:CarzioCommons

CEC:CaliforniaEnergyCommission

CURE:CaliforniaUnionsforReliableEnergy

DoW:DefendersofWildlife

DPC:DesertProtectiveCouncil

EIS:EnvironmentalImpactStatement

FCG:FriendsoftheColumbiaGorge

FSDM:FriendsofSearchlightDesertandMountains

TakingGreenEnergyProjectstoCourt:NEPAReviewandCourtChallengestoRenewableEnergyiv

KNSC:KeeptheNorthShoreCountry

LaCuna:LaCunadeAztlanSacredSitesProtectionCircleAdvisoryCommittee

LIUNA:Laborers’InternationalUnionofNorthAmerica,LocalUnionNo.783

MCWD:MammothCommunityWaterDistrict

NRDC:NaturalResourceDefenseCouncil

NVW:NorthValleyWatch

POCF:ProtectOurCommunitiesFoundation

Quechan:QuechanTribeoftheFortYumaIndianReservation

RFRA:ReligiousFreedomRestorationAct

SC:SierraClub

SCVAS:SantaClaraValleyAudubonSociety

SOSA:SaveOurScenicArea

SPV:SavePanocheValley

VCE:VermontersforaCleanEnvironment

WWP:WesternWatershedsProject

Energy

CSP:concentratedsolarpower

PV:photovoltaic

MW:megawattage

NEPA

EA:environmentalassessment

EIS:environmentalimpactstatement

FEIS:finalenvironmentalimpactstatement

FONSI:findingofnosignificantimpact

NOI:noticeofintent

NTP:noticetoproceed

ROD:recordofdecision

Statutes

APA:AdministrativeProcedureAct

BGEPA:BaldandGoldenEagleProtectionAct

CAPSL:CaliforniaProtectedSpeciesLaws

CESA:CaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct

CEQA:CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct

EPAct:EnergyPolicyAct

ESA:EndangeredSpeciesAct

FLPMA:FederalLandPolicyandManagementAct

MBTA:MigratoryBirdTreatyAct

NAGRPA:NativeAmericanGravesProtectionAct

NEPA:NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct

NHPA:NationalHistoricPreservationAct

RFRA:ReligiousFreedomRestorationAct

Projects

CESLucerneValley:ChevronEnergySolutionsLucerneValley

ResourcesfortheFuturev

Contents

1.Introduction1

2.Takeaways2

3.Background3

4.Methodology4

4.1.MissingData4

5.BLMandFast-TrackCourtChallenges4

6.CourtChallengestoSolarProjects7

7.CourtChallengestoWindProjects10

8.CourtChallengestoGeothermalProjects11

9.AnalysisofCourtTimelines11

10.Conclusion15

References16

Appendix1:CourtCasesInvolvingNEPAReview19

Appendix2:CourtCaseDescriptions24

A2.1.CourtChallengestoSolarProjectsThatCompletedNEPAEISReview24

A2.1.1.ImperialValleySolar24

A2.1.2.IvanpahSolar25

A2.1.3.BlytheSolar26

A2.1.4.ChevronLucerneValley27

A2.1.5.GenesisSolar27

A2.1.6.CalicoSolar28

A2.1.7.RiceSolar29

A2.1.8.StatelineandSilverStateSouth30

A2.1.9.ModifiedBlytheSolar30

A2.1.10.PanocheValley32

A2.1.11.TopazSolar33

TakingGreenEnergyProjectstoCourt:NEPAReviewandCourtChallengestoRenewableEnergyvi

A2.2.CourtChallengestoSolarProjectsThatCompletedNEPAEAReview34

A2.2.1.CaliforniaValleySolarRanch34

A2.2.2.CoggonSolar34

A2.3.CourtChallengestoWindProjectsThatCompletedNEPAEISReview35

A2.3.1.SearchlightWind35

A2.3.2.WhistlingRidge35

A2.3.3.CampoWind37

A2.3.4.TuleWindI38

A2.3.5.DeerfieldWind39

A2.3.6.TuleWindII40

A2.3.7.OcotilloExpress41

A2.3.8.NaPuaMakani43

A2.4.CourtChallenges:Utility-ScaleWindProjectsCompletingaNEPA

EnvironmentalAssessment43

A2.4.1.SpringValleyWind43

A2.5.CourtChallengetoGeothermalProjectThatCompletedNEPAEISReview44

A2.5.1.CasaDiabloIV44

AppendixReferences46

TakingGreenEnergyProjectstoCourt:NEPAReviewandCourtChallengestoRenewableEnergy1

1.Introduction

Renewableenergyprojectsareatthecoreofeffortstoreducegreenhousegas

emissionsfromtheelectricitysector,butdevelopershavelongexpressedfrustrationwiththemyriadobstaclestobuildingnewgenerationprojects.Beginningwiththe

2005EnergyPolicyAct(EPAct),thefederalgovernmenthassoughttoopenfederal

publiclandstorenewableenergyprojects.However,theNationalEnvironmental

PolicyAct(NEPA)requiresfederalagenciestoassesstheenvironmentaleffectsof

proposedmajorfederalactionspriortomakingdecisionssuchasapprovingaleaseforinfrastructureprojectsbuiltonfederallandsorprovidingfinancingfortheseprojects.

FederallawmakershavebeenexploringadjustmentstoNEPAreviewstomakethem

moreexpeditiousandencouragedevelopmentonfederallands.Thoseadjustments

includerestrictingwhatqualifiesasa“federalaction”subjecttoNEPA,expanding

categoricalexclusions,narrowingthesetofactionsthatrequireanenvironmental

impactstatement(EIS),imposingshorterdeadlinesforEISandenvironmental

assessment(EA)compilationandreview,andimposingastrictstatuteoflimitations

onNEPA-relatedlitigation.Butthetrade-offsassociatedwithsuchreformsare

unclearwhenitcomestorenewableenergyprojects.Fraasetal.(2023,2025)findthatrenewablesprojectsmovethroughNEPAreviewmorequicklythantheaverageprojectintheCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ)database,andthatmuchoftheprojectdevelopmenttimelineoccursoutsidetheformalNEPAprocess.

SomecriticsofNEPAhavepointedtolitigationasanimportantadditionalbarrier

beyondtheadministrativeandpublic-facingprocessesassociatedwithNEPA(Chiappaetal.2024;Rutzick2018).However,thereislimitedinformationontheeffectof

litigationoninfrastructureprojects.ThispaperbuildsonpreviousworkfromFraas

etal.(2023,2025),whocatalogedthevariousutility-scalerenewableprojectsthat

completedtheNEPAprocessovertheperiod2009to20231Inthisreport,weexaminethelegalchallengesfacingeachprojectandpresentthetimelineforeachcase.NearlyathirdofsolarprojectsandhalfofwindprojectscompletingNEPAEISreviewfaced

courtchallenges.Innearlyeveryinstance,thesecaseswerefiledafterthegovernmentagencieshadissuedtheirdecision.Thedefendants—governmentagenciesandprojectdevelopers—prevailedinmostcases.However,courtchallengescausedorcontributedtotheterminationofthreeprojects,andsixadditionalprojectsexperiencedsignificantdelaysasdeveloperswaitedforfinalcourtapproval.Wealsofindthatwindand

solarprojectsthatfacedcourtchallengeshavelongeraverageprojectdevelopment

timelinesthanwindandsolarprojectswithoutcourtchallenges,amountingtoabout

15monthsforprojectsthathavereachedoperationanddecreasingtoaboutthree

monthswhenincludingprojectsthatwerestillpendingoperationasofDecember2023.

1Weuseadefinitionofutility-scaleprojectsasprojectswithacapacitygreaterthan20

megawatts(AC).FERChasadopted20megawattsasthecut-offforlargemerchantgen-erators.Projectswithacapacitygreaterthan20megawattswouldgenerallycompeteinthewholesalepowermarkets(NARUCandUSAIDn.d.;UrbanGrid2019).

ResourcesfortheFuture2

2.Takeaways

Takeaway1:WeidentifiedcourtcasesraisingNEPA-relatedconcerns(orsimilarviolationsofstateorlocalrequirements)forthefollowing:

?12solarprojects(of32)thatcompletedEISsandtwoprojects(of19)thatcompletedEAs.

?Eightwindprojects(of16)thatcompletedEISsandoneproject(ofnine)thatcompletedanEA.

?Onegeothermalproject(ofthree)thatcompletedanEIS;nolawsuitswerefiledforgeothermalprojectsthatcompletedEAs.

Takeaway2:RegionalorlocalenvironmentalgroupsandTribalrepresentatives

werethelargestsourceofcourtchallengestosolarandwindprojects.National

environmentalgroupsfiledcourtchallengesforfivesolarprojects(of14)andone

windproject(of9).2BLMwastheprimarydefendantinamajorityofthefederalcases.Inthestatecourtcases,thedefendantswerestateorlocalagenciesresponsibleforpermittingtheprojects.

Takeaway3:Apreponderanceofthesecourtchallengeswerefiledinfederalcourts.

Caseswerefiledforsomeprojectsinbothstateandfederalcourts;threeprojects

facedachallengeonlyinthestatecourts.Typically,plaintiffsfiledcasesafterfederal,state,orlocalagenciesissuedadecisiononaproject.Forcasesbroughtinfederal

court,theinitialfilingfor10of27caseswasmadewithin60daysofthedatethe

federalagencyissuedtherecordofdecision(ROD)orothercriticaldecisionandwithin120daysfor22of27cases.3

Takeaway4:Infederalcourts,thegroundsforthechallengeswerebasedonviolationofNEPAandmultipleotherfederalstatutes.Inthestatecourts,thechallengeswerebasedonviolationsofstateenvironmentalstatutes(e.g.,state-levelenvironmental

policyacts)andstateorlocalzoningandplanningrequirements.

Takeaway5:Defendantsprevailedinmostcases,butafewcourtcasescausedorcontributedtotheterminationofthreeprojects.Sixadditionalprojectsexperiencedsignificantdelaysasdeveloperswaitedforfinalcourtapproval.

Takeaway6:AllthecourtchallengesfiledcontestingNEPAreviewsbytheBureauofLandManagement(BLM)addressedtheObamaadministration’s“FastTrack”

candidates.NocourtcaseschallengingBLM’sNEPAreviewswerefiledafterJanuary2014.

Takeaway7:Onlythree(of41)courtcaseschallengedrenewablesprojectsthathadcompletedEAs.4

2Thecourtcasesalsotypicallylistedindividualsasplaintiffstoestablishstanding.

3Typically,defendantsinboththefederalandthestatecasesincludedindividualsfromtheagenciesandtheprojectdevelopers.

4The41totalcomprises19solarprojects,ninewindprojects,and13geothermalprojects.

TakingGreenEnergyProjectstoCourt:NEPAReviewandCourtChallengestoRenewableEnergy3

3.Background

Tworecentstudies—AdelmanandGlickman(2017)andRupleandRace(2020)—

assembleddataonNEPAcourtcasesforallNEPAdecisions(categoricalexclusions,5EAs,6andEISs)foralltypesofprojectsacrossallagenciescoveringtheperiodfrom

2001tothemid-2010s.Bothstudiesconcludedthatoverall,fewNEPAdecisionswerechallengedincourt(onelitigationcaseper450NEPAreviews),butthatconclusion

restedonthetotalnumberofNEPAdecisions,roughly100,000peryear,includingthelargevolumeofcategoricalexclusions.BothstudiesrecognizedthatEISsconstitutedasmallfractionofthetotalNEPAdecisionsintheirsamples.RupleandRace(2020)

reportthatEISsaccountedforlessthan1percentofthefederalactionsintheirsample,forexample.

AlthoughNEPAEISreviewsaccountforonlyasmallfractionoftotalNEPAactions,

theyaccountforamajorfractionofNEPAcourtchallenges.BennonandWilson(2023)presentdataoncourtchallengestoEISscompletedfrom2010tomid-2018,7focusingonsubsectorsoftheenergyandtransportationsectors.Theyreportthatutility-scalesolarprojectshadalitigationrateof64percent,thehighestrateoflitigationacrossthe38energyandtransportationsubsectorscoveredbytheirstudy.8Windprojectshadalitigationrateof38percentatthehighendoflitigationratesacrossthe38subsectors.

RupleandRace(2020)reportaninverserelationshipbetweenthetimerequiredto

completeEISreviewandthelitigationrate.BennonandWilson(2023)suggestthere

maybeanincentivefordevelopersfacingsubstantialprivatefinancingrequirements—forexample,utility-scaleenergy-relatedprojectslikesolarandwind—toaccepta

higherdegreeoflitigationriskratherthanspendtimeworkingthroughanextendedNEPAprocess.9Thisconjecturepointstothepotentialtrade-offbetweenalonger

agencyreviewprocess,includingtheapplicationreviewprocesspriortoformalNEPAreviewthatallowsnegotiationwithinterestedgroups,andahigherriskoflitigation

afteragencieshavecompletedan“expedited”NEPAprocess.

5Categoricalexclusionsarecategoriesofactionsthatdonotindividuallyorcumulativelyhaveasignificanteffectonthehumanenvironment(CEQ2018;18CFR§380.4–5).

6Environmentalassessmentsprovideascopingprocesstodeterminewhetheraproject

mayhaveasignificantadverseenvironmentaleffect.TheEAprocessiscompletedwhentheagencyeitherissuesafindingofnosignificantimpact(FONSI)orreachestheconclu-sionthatanEISisrequired(BLMn.d).

7BennonandWilson(2023)reportthat7percentoftheirsampleinvolvedanotherfederalstatute(butnotNEPA),and4percentinvolvedstateenvironmentalstatutes.

8Pumpstoragehadthehighestrate,at100percent,buttherewasonlyoneprojectintheBennonandWilson(2023)dataset.

9Asopposed,forexample,totransportationprojectsthatarelargelyfundedbythefederalandstategovernments(BennonandWilson2023).

ResourcesfortheFuture4

4.Methodology

WeusedtherenewableenergyprojectsidentifiedinFraasetal.(2025)asthebasis

forthiswork.Theprojectsweassessedwerelimitedtogenerationfacilitiessubject

toformalNEPAreview.WeusedLexisNexis,Westlaw,andGoogletolocaterelevant

courtcasesaddressingtherangeofissuestypicallyassociatedwithNEPAlitigation.OnLexisNexisandWestlaw,weconductedgeneralsearchesusingtheprojectname

andidentifiedlitigationwithsimilarnamesoccurringwithinthesametimeframeand

geographicregionastheproject.Weexcludedcasesfiledaftertheoperationaldateoftheproject.Googleservedasasecondarychecktoensurethatnorelevantcasesweremissed.BecauseLexisNexisisnotavailabletothegeneralpublic,wealsousedGoogletosearchsecondarysources—variousfederalandstateagencysources,newspaper

andtradepressarticles,andpublicationsfromNGOgroups—forseveralcases.Sitesrunbyplaintiffs’organizations,suchasFriendsoftheColumbiaGorgeandBasinandRangeWatch,aidedinidentifyingcasedecisiondates.Inaddition,BennonandWilson(2023)generouslysharedtheirspreadsheetidentifyingprojectssubjecttoNEPAandstateenvironmentallawsuits.OnlyprojectsthatunderwentfederalNEPAreviewor

similarStatelevelreviewofthepowerplantwereincluded10

Inoursummariesofthecasesfiledforindividualprojects(Appendix2),wepresentthebasicoutlinesofthecases—plaintifforganizations,governmentdefendants,statutorybasis,initialfilingdate,anddatesofcourtdecisions.Wehavenotcapturedthefull

detailsofeachcase,suchasvariousmotionsandfilings.Weprovidecitationsforsourcesbyprojectinasupplementaldocument.

4.1.MissingData

LexisNexisandWestlawarenotcompleteorcomprehensivesourcesofcaselaw.In

addition,asmentionedabove,LexisNexisandWestlawareavailabletothegeneral

publiconlythroughapaywall.Asaresult,wefacedchallengesinfindingothersourcesassubstitutesforthesetwokeysources.Whileweweregenerallyabletofindthe

decisionsofthefederalappealscourts,wewerelesssuccessfulinlocatingUSdistrictcourtopinions.Informationonstatecourtdecisionspresentedanevengreater

challenge,andweoftenhadtorelyonsecondarysourcesforbasicinformation.

5.BLMandFast-TrackCourtChallenges

Attheendof2009,BLMhadmorethan200activeapplicationsforrenewableenergyprojectsonBLMlands,including128solarprojectsand24windprojects.Tomanage

10ThisrestrictionexcludesprojectslikeCalifornia’sNorthSkyWindRiverEnergyProject,

whichunderwentfederalNEPAreviewonlyforitsinterconnectioninfrastructure(ChiappaandMcCarthy2024).

TakingGreenEnergyProjectstoCourt:NEPAReviewandCourtChallengestoRenewableEnergy5

thiscaseload,theDepartmentoftheInterior(DOI)andtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)launchedafast-trackinitiative:

Tofurthermakeourgoalsareality,wehaveannounced34

“fasttrack”renewableenergyprojects.Fast-trackprojects

arethosewherethecompaniesinvolvedhavemadesufficientprogressintheenvironmentalreviewandpermitting

processthattheycouldpotentiallybeclearedforapprovalbyDecember2010,thusmakingthemeligibleforeconomicstimulusfundingundertheAmericanRecoveryand

ReinvestmentAct(ARRA)of2009(DOI2010).11

Inearly2010,DOIidentified14solar,sevenwind,andthreegeothermalprojectsasfast-trackcandidatesundergoingenvironmentalreview(SustainableBusiness2010).

Betweenthefallof2010andmid-2011,BLMcompletedNEPAEISandEAreviewsfor15solarprojects—mostwerefast-trackcandidates.ManyoftheseprojectswereabletostartconstructionbeforetheSeptember30,2011,deadlineandthereforew