Description: Challenge to approval of at least 3,535 applications for permit to drill (APDs) for oil and gas in the Permian Basin in New Mexico and in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
-
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/31/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed by Franklin Mountain Energy, LLC. 08/16/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed by Anschutz Exploration Corporation. 08/15/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene as defendant-intervenor filed by New Mexico Oil and Gas Association. 08/05/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene as defendant filed by Peak Powder River Resources, LLC. 08/02/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Memorandum filed by State of Wyoming in support of its motion to intervene. 07/28/2022 Motion to Dismiss Download Proposed motion to dismiss filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 07/28/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion for leave to intervene as a defendant filed by the American Petroleum Institute. 07/28/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene as a defendant filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 07/20/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene as a defendant and statement of law in support filed by Petroleum Association of Wyoming. 07/01/2022 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene in support of defendants and memorandum of law in support filed by OXY USA Inc., OXY USA WTP LP, and Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC. 06/15/2022 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Conservation Groups Challenged Approval of Applications for Permit to Drill in Permian and Powder River Basins. Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging approval of at least 3,535 applications for permit to drill (APDs) for oil and gas in the Permian Basin in New Mexico and in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The plaintiffs asserted climate change-related violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Under NEPA, the plaintiffs alleged a failure to take a hard look at cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting climate impacts and to use available tools for assessing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from production and combustion of mineral resources authorized by the APDs. They also alleged a failure to consider environmental justice implications of increased greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative climate impacts. Under the Endangered Species Act, the plaintiffs asserted a failure to consult and reinitiate consultation on climate-threatened species. Under FLPMA, they asserted a failure to “take action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation in the context of climate impacts.”