Here is the complaint in Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (D. Or.):
Oregon Tribes Sue Interior over Wind Auction
wind energy
Federal Court Dismisses Kickapoo Member’s Challenge to Federally Approved Wind Energy Project
Here are the materials in Mattwaoshshe v. United States (D.D.C.):
38-1 Soldier Creek Wind Motion to Dismiss
39-1 Nextera Energy Motion to Dismiss
40-1 Westar Energy Motion to Dismiss
Not that it would matter much in this issue, but I can’t help but point out of the more anomalously interpreted Indian law statutes of all time is briefly discussed in this opinion. Here is the law, 25 U.S.C. sec. 175:
In all States and Territories where there are reservations or allotted Indians the United States attorney shall represent them in all suits at law and in equity.
Seems pretty clear, eh? No chance. 🙂 Yet another example of the word “shall” being interpreted as the exact opposite of its meaning. . . .
Ninth Circuit Decides Protect Our Communities v. LaCounte [Wind Energy and Eagle Protection]
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Loudermilk
NEPA Challenge to Tule Wind Project Fails
Here are the materials in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Black (S.D. Cal.):
Federal Court Dismisses Suit to Force BIA to do More to Protect Eagles affected by Wind Energy
Here are the materials in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Black (S.D. Cal.):
34-1 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Motion
43 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Reply
EWI Protect Our Communities Order Granting Motion for Judgment on Pleadings_3-29-16
An excerpt:
This case concerns the construction of the second phase of an industrial-scale wind farm and the well-being of eagles who nest in or pass through the same general area. More particularly, Plaintiffs, with the noble goal of protecting these eagles, challenge a federal agency’s approval of the project despite its potential to harm eagles. The issue in this case and for these Motions is not whether the agency and those involved in building the wind farm may simply disregard the eagles’ well-being. Harming or killing eagles is a serious offense that subjects offenders to civil fines, criminal fines, and even imprisonment. That is not in dispute. Rather, the question in this case and for these Motions is whether the agency that Plaintiffs sued—BIA—was obligated to take further steps to protect these birds under federal law. Because BIA did not have a legal obligation to proactively ensure that Tule would not violate other federal laws and because, after BIA issued its decision, there was no remaining major federal administrative agency action that would require supplemental environmental analysis, the Court GRANTS Tule’s, the Tribe’s, and BIA’s Motions.
Federal Suit against Osage Wind LLC Fails
Here are the materials in United States v. Osage Wind LLC (N.D. Okla.):
24 US Motion for Partial Summary J
26 Osage Wind Motion for Summary J
Complaint here.
The previous tribal suit against Osage Wind is here.
Complaint Opposing Wind Energy Project Involving Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
Here is the complaint in Hamrick v. GSA (C.D. Ill.):
Federal Govt. Sues Osage Wind over Wind Energy Turbine Excavations
Here is the complaint in United States v. Osage Wind LLC (N.D. Okla.):
An excerpt:
In this civil action, the United States seeks a preliminary and a permanent injunction and a declaratory judgment that the ongoing excavation activities of Osage Wind, LLC, Enel Kansas, LLC, and Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) in Osage County, Oklahoma, are unlawful and must be suspended until Defendants have obtained all requisite federal regulatory approvals and have entered into appropriate leases approved by the Secretary of the Interior (“the Secretary”).
Wind Energy Blog Commentary on New Eagle Permit Rule
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.