The statements and views expressed in the postings on the Ocean & Offshore Energy Projects and Policy Blog are my own and do not reflect those of Nixon Peabody LLP. This Blog does not provide specific legal advice. Reading or visiting this Blog does not create an attorney client relationship. This Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Court Orders Reconsideration of FAA Approvals for Cape Wind Offshore Wind Project

On Friday October 28, 2011, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating and remanding the Federal Aviation Administrations’ ("FAA") 130 identical Determinations of No Hazard which were issued with respect to the proposed Cape Wind 130-turbine offshore wind farm. See Town of Barnstable, et al, v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 10-1276 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

Summary of the Decision

The lawsuit, filed by long-standing opposition group Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (the “Alliance”) and the town of Barnstable, MA (together, the “Petitioners”), alleged that the FAA “violated its governing statute, misread its own regulations, and arbitrarily and capriciously failed to calculate the dangers posed to local aviation.” The FAA, along with intervening party Cape Wind Associates, LLC, responded by alleging that the petitioners had no Article III standing to challenge the FAA determinations. Id. at 3. Although the Court’s decision is likely to lead to additional delays for Cape Wind, the ruling does not per se negate the validity of the submerged land lease issued by the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to Cape Wind in October 2010.

With respect to the threshold question of standing, the FAA argued that even if the Petitioners could allege harm, the fact that “FAA’s hazard determinations, by themselves, have ‘no enforceable legal effect’” means that reversal of the FAA hazard determinations would not redress the grievance. Id. at 5. Although the Court agreed that the FAA hazard determinations were not enforceable on their own, the DOI incorporated a provision into the submerged land lease requiring that Cape Wind abide by “any future mitigation measures that the FAA might deem necessary to reduce or eliminate a hazard on Cape Wind.” Id. at 6. Accordingly, the Court held that the DOI’s inclusion of the FAA hazard mitigation provision is sufficient basis to find it “‘likely as opposed to merely speculative,’ that [DOI would cancel or retract the Cape Wind lease] if faced with an FAA determination that the project posed an unmitigatable hazard.” Id. at 10 (additional citations omitted).

The Court then considered whether FAA properly issued its No Hazard Determinations. Although the petitioners’ alleged that the FAA violated both its governing statute (49 U.S.C. Sec. 44718(b)) and its own internal guidelines (“Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters”, FAA Order 7400.2G (April 10, 2008)), the Court’s ultimate ruling regarding the FAA’ hazard determinations rests solely on the FAA’s application of its internal guidelines. Id. at 10. Importantly, the Court did not issue a declaration stating that the Cape Wind turbines present a hazard – mitigatable or otherwise. Rather, the Court merely remanded the determinations to FAA “to require the FAA to address the issues and explain its conclusion.” Id. at 13-14.

What Happens Next?

There are at least two possibilities as to what will happen in the wake of the Circuit Court’s decision. First, the FAA and Cape Wind Associates could appeal the decision by submitting a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, if the Supreme Court does not grant certiorari, the decision of the Appeals Court will stand. Moreover, even if the Supreme Court does choose to hear the matter, a Supreme Court affirmation of the lower court ruling could further dampen the perception that the U.S. offshore wind industry has the support of the U.S. government.

The alternative is for FAA to follow the Circuit Court’s order. FAA would be within its authority to re-issue all 130 Determinations with a “No Hazard” finding provided FAA includes further explanation of its conclusions. Under principles of administrative law, the FAA’s hazard determinations must not be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In other words, the agency must “adequately explain its result…." Public Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 300 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Nevertheless, even if FAA finds that it must issue one or more determinations indicating a hazard, the Circuit Court decision indicates that FAA may make recommendations for mitigation measures to overcome these hazards. Accordingly, the only circumstance under which DOI may need to reconsider Cape Wind’s lease is in the event that FAA finds that there are unmitigatable hazards associated with the Cape Wind turbines.

Litigants’ Statements About the Case

Given the longstanding enmity between Cape Wind Associates and the Alliance, both parties issued public statements regarding the decision of the Circuit Court.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound issued a press release stating that the decision is "a resounding victory for the Cape and Islands community and the citizens of Massachusetts" and that the "FAA case is the first of multiple federal lawsuits challenging this poorly sited and expensive project and is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems the courts will consider relative to the Nantucket Sound location."

Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers issued Cape Wind's official response to the decision: "The FAA has reviewed Cape Wind for eight years and repeatedly determined that Cape Wind did not pose a hazard to air navigation," he said. "The essence of today's court ruling is that the FAA needs to better explain its Determination of No Hazard ruling."


    This ruling can only be taken one way by those that have flight experience in Nantucket Sound.
    Cape Wind is now in what pilots refer to as the death spiral.
    This lawsuit was brought by the town of Barnstable and objected to by all three airport commissions, local airline owners and rescue helicopter pilots that have to transit this already dangerous airspace between the islands.
    The Federal Court ruling has basically closed any future options for the FAA to ignore the real life dangers of putting a 44 story, 25 square mile facility in the middle of 400,000 low elevation flights a year. Remember, this facility is in the middle of 3 airports in some of the foggiest airspace on the eastern seaboard. In fact, Nantucket is the second busiest airport to Logan International in Boston. This fact was not lost by the Federal Court decision.
    Cape Wind and the FAA were able to play the “see no evil-speak no evil” method prior to this decision.
    For Cape Wind to think that they will benefit from this decision in any way is like telling Bernie Madoff to show up at his job at Solyndra next week.
    Issues such as VFR routes, compression of commercial and private flight paths, and yes the increased risk of collision to name just a few will now have to be fully addressed by the FAA.
    The simpleton approach of just because they will address it, it will be fixed , could not be further from reality unless the FAA is planning to testify in front of the Senate Oversight Committee with the rest of the Federal Agencies that have put politics over science and safety.
    Unless Cape Wind can move the 3 airports and convince the FAA to change the national regulations governing all airspace, while at the same time building the only wind plant in the world that does not create radar interference…..this badly conceived project is toast.
    Cape Wind and Solyndra have damaged the renewable industry enough. It is time to clean these projects off the slate and move on to important projects that will actually benefit the tax and rate payers of the U.S.
    I would not spend another penny on this project as the developer or an investor. It is time for what little remains as subsidies to be shared with those that truly deserve them for their well thought out and beneficial projects.
    Let’s face it. Cape Wind will never be built.
    It is time for the wind industry to move on to legitimate projects with an actual chance.

  2. From comments submitted on January 3, 2012 by ISO New England to FERC re; qualification for Forward Capacity Market: p 18 - "The Cape Wind Associates LLC project requested to be qualified with a summer Qualified Capacity of 94.170 MW....." This represents approximately 20% of the project's nameplate capacity, not the 38% - 39% stated by MMS in their project permit approval.

    Also on p18: "In addition, the ISO and its consultants evaluated the information contained in the critical path schedule submitted by the Project Sponsor and have determined that it is unlikely that the project will achieve Commercial Operations by the start of the 2015-2016 Capacity Commitment Period.

    SO - We now have in writing an expert opinion from ISO New England challenging Cape Wind's rosey promises about schedule and capacity. It is about time the facts came to light.

    Peter Kenney
    Yarmouth, Massachusetts