Week of July 6, 2026

As summer moves into full swing, federal and state regulators continue to reshape key areas of energy infrastructure, environmental compliance, and climate policy. Below are several developments that caught my attention this week.

Whether you are navigating PFAS compliance obligations, tracking permitting and infrastructure developments, evaluating energy transition issues, or assessing how evolving federal and state regulations may affect your business or projects, I would be happy to discuss these topics and their potential implications. Please feel free to reach out if you would like to connect.

Trump Administration Narrows ESA “Harm” Definition

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) long-standing definition of “harm,” removing habitat modification and degradation from activities that may trigger ESA liability unless direct physical harm to protected species occurs. Supporters argue the change will reduce permitting burdens and protect property rights, while environmental groups have already indicated they intend to challenge the rule in court. Read more: DOE’s Press Release.

EPA Proposes to Roll Back Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Requirements

EPA has proposed revisions to federal emissions standards for new heavy-duty vehicles, including buses, garbage trucks, and tractor-trailers. The proposal would scale back certain warranty requirements and delay implementation of updated emissions compliance periods, continuing the Trump administration’s broader review of prior vehicle emissions regulations. Public comment period ends August 29, 2026. Read More: EPA’s Proposed Rule Webpage.

DOE Warns Growing Electricity Demand Is Straining the Grid

A draft study from the DOE found that rapid growth in data centers, AI adoption, domestic manufacturing, electrification, and other large loads is placing increasing strain on the nation’s electric grid. The report identifies significant transmission needs across several regions and underscores the growing importance of transmission expansion and grid modernization efforts. Read more: DOE’s Reliability Webpage.

Connecticut’s PFAS Product Labeling and Reporting Requirements Take Effect

Connecticut’s PFAS-in-products law reached a major milestone on July 1, with manufacturer reporting, notification, fee, and labeling requirements now in effect for a broad range of consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS. The law creates new compliance obligations for manufacturers today and sets the stage for a broader ban on many covered PFAS-containing products beginning in 2028. Read more: CTDEEP PFAS in Products Program.

FERC Targets Faster Grid Connections for Data Centers and Other Large Loads

FERC directed all six regional grid operators to justify or revise the tariffs governing how data centers, manufacturing facilities, and other large energy users connect to the grid. The initiative is designed to accelerate large-load integration while addressing reliability, cost allocation, and transmission planning challenges associated with rapidly growing electricity demand. Read more: FERC Press Release

Second Circuit Upholds New York’s Building Electrification Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld New York laws that effectively prohibit fossil fuel-burning appliances in new construction. The ruling creates a split with the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision involving Berkeley, California, increasing the likelihood that the issue could eventually be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Read more: June 30, 2026 Decision.

New York Files PFAS Lawsuit Against Chemical Manufacturers

New York filed suit against major chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont, and Corteva, alleging that the companies failed to disclose the health and environmental risks associated with PFAS in consumer products. The state is seeking cleanup costs, financial penalties, and product warnings, highlighting the continued expansion of PFAS-related litigation nationwide. Read more: NY Attorney General Press Release.

This post kicks off a new series that we hope to put out every Monday. The goal is to highlight a few notable environmental and energy stories from the past week that we found interesting and that you may have missed. As you will see below, this is truly meant to highlight the story with a high-level summary, while providing you with a link to source material

Week of June 29, 2026

While most of us were busy clearing our desks ahead of the long Fourth of July weekend, there were several noteworthy environmental and energy stories, many of them continuing the Trump administration’s push toward permitting reform, deregulation, and energy development.

These are just a few of the environmental and energy news stories that caught my attention this week. If you’d like to discuss any of these topics, or other emerging environmental or energy regulatory, permitting, or trends, feel free to reach out. I would be happy to connect.

EPA Looks to Streamline Air Permitting

EPA has proposed eliminating federal public notice and comment requirements for certain minor-source air permits, arguing that the change would speed permitting and give more authority to state and local agencies. Supporters see it as a permitting efficiency measure, while critics raise concerns about reduced public participation. Read more: EPA’s July 1, 2026 Press Release.

EPA Eases Timing for Emission Offset Requirements

EPA also issued guidance allowing permits for major new industrial facilities to be issued before required emissions offsets are secured, provided facilities cannot begin operating until offsets are obtained. The agency says the move reduces permitting delays while maintaining Clean Air Act protections. Read more: EPA’s July 1, 2026 Guidance.

EPA Revisits PFAS Biosolids Policy

EPA released draft guidance on managing PFOA and PFOS in biosolids, signaling a departure from a prior risk assessment that suggested significant health concerns. The proposal is likely to reignite the debate over how to balance PFAS risk management, agricultural reuse of biosolids, and wastewater utility operations. Read more: EPA’s June 29, 2026 Draft Guidance Memorandum.

EPA’s 2026 Regulatory Agenda Takes Shape

EPA’s latest regulatory agenda confirms the agency will continue working through a broad set of deregulatory initiatives, including permitting reforms, PFAS rule revisions, vehicle emissions standards, and energy-sector regulations. The agenda offers an early look at key environmental policy issues likely to dominate the remainder of 2026. Read more: EPA’s 2026 Regulatory Agenda.

NRC Targets Longstanding Radiation Guidance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced plans to replace its decades-old “ALARA” (as low as (is) reasonably achievable) radiation guidance with a framework focused on existing federal dose limits. The proposal is intended to simplify regulation and support new nuclear technologies, though critics argue it could weaken longstanding worker protections. Read more: NRC’s July 1, 2026 Press Release.

This is the tenth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

At long last, the RBCRs are here! With a March 1, 2026, effective date, the RBCRs are now live. In this post, we will provide a brief refresher on what that means and share where things stand in in the first week of March as the regulations are just taking effect.

Where Things Stand

As of March 1, the law has changed in several important ways, including:

  • New transfers of businesses and real property no longer trigger the Transfer Act.  Transfers of businesses and real property after March 1, 2026, no longer trigger the Transfer Act. That said, Transfer Act “certifying parties” that have not yet finished their work will be required to finish site-wide investigation and remediation under the Transfer Act. An information sheet available on DEEP’s website provides additional detail on the interplay of the Transfer Act and RBCRs.
  • Identification of contamination can lead to the “discovery” of a pre-existing release, and trigger obligations to investigate and remediate it.  As we discussed an earlier post, the “discovery” of a pre-existing release can occur through environmental sampling or the observation of “multiple lines of evidence” that a release has occurred. DEEP has now provided a guidance document explaining when a release can be discovered through multiple lines of evidence.
  • New releases are still reported under the March 2022 spill reporting regulations, and response can sometimes be managed by Permitted Environmental Professionals (PEPs).  As discussed in a prior post regulations were promulgated in March of 2022 (R.C.S.A. § 22a-450-1 et seq.) that require reporting of certain new releases. Those regulations remain in effect.  Now, after such releases are reported, certain immediate actions are required (as discussed previously) and some of those response actions can be managed by PEPs.

What’s New

In the last few weeks DEEP has provided a number of training sessions on various aspects of the RBCRs.  Information on training sessions, and an opportunity to sign up, are available on DEEP’s website. 

DEEP has also recently released its long-awaited Release, Environmental Assessment and Cleanup Tracker or REACT database.  The REACT database provides a wealth of information on remediation sites statewide, and it will become more detailed over time as it is populated with new submittals under the RBCRs and other programs. 

What Happens Next

In the coming weeks, we expect DEEP to continue to release additional guidance and other information on the RBCRs. The working group convened under Public Act 20-09 had its last meeting on February 26, but a new working group will be convened soon to advise DEEP on the implementation of the RBCRs. 

As the RBCRs are implemented, please stay tuned to the Environmental Law + blog as we continue to share updates and insight.

Echoing recent rulings from the District Court for the District of Columbia, on January 16, 2026, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Dominion Energy’s request for a preliminary injunction, lifting the Trump administration’s suspension of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project. Earlier that same week, two other judges in same district  granted similar requests made by Equinor for its Empire Wind project and Ørsted for its Revolution Wind project. Work on the three projects has resumed and, in the case of Revolution Wind, construction is nearing completion.

The three developers successfully argued that the work stoppages would result in imminent and irreparable harm. Justice Department officials countered by claiming that the national security concerns that putatively justified the December 2025 stop work orders outweighed the developers’ economic interests. Thus far, reviewing courts have held that those security concerns, which allege a generalized risk of interference with radar systems, have not been sufficiently articulated. 

While the preliminary injunctions allow the projects to continue, the cases will continue to be litigated on their merits. Concerning the remaining two projects subject to the stop work order, Vineyard Wind is challenging the stop work order in Massachusetts federal court and Sunrise Wind filed for an injunction in the District of Columbia. 

In response to the Trump administration’s latest suspension of offshore wind development, three of the five affected developers have filed lawsuits in federal court seeking to overturn the stop work orders: Dominion Energy on behalf of its Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project; Ørsted on behalf of its Revolution Wind project; and Equinor on behalf of its Empire Wind project. All three projects are under construction, with Revolution Wind nearly 90% complete and Empire Wind over 60% complete. Consistent with prior legal actions opposing the administration’s efforts to halt offshore wind development, the complaints allege that the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) order of December 22, 2025 (which the plaintiffs claim is costing them millions of dollars for each day the projects are on hold), is illegal and that the DOI’s alleged national security justification for the orders is baseless and pretextual. The developers are backed by the Attorneys General of Connecticut and Rhode Island, who filed their own actions to block the shutdowns. Those cases are now consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

To date, federal courts have been receptive to arguments raised by both developers and the states that are relying on offshore generation. Ørsted successfully brought suit in the District of Columbia challenging the DOI’s prior efforts to block Revolution Wind, and on December 8, 2025, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the administration’s blanket ban on permit application review of wind projects was illegal. Ørsted’s prior action in the District of Columbia was heard by Judge Royce Lamberth, who will preside over the newly consolidated cases.  An initial hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 12, 2026.

This is the ninth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

The final task in the remediation process is documenting that remediation is complete, and no further action is required. This post discusses the documentation requirements under the RBCRs, and how they differ from documentation requirements under the Transfer Act.

Verification Under the Transfer Act

First, a review of current procedures under the Connecticut Transfer Act will set the stage. The Transfer Act requires a site-wide investigation and remediation effort. Through this process, all “areas of concern” where a release occurred or may have occurred are investigated and, if needed, remediated. When that is done, a Licensed Environmental Professional, or LEP, prepares a document called a Verification. Typically, the Verification attests that the entire parcel has been investigated in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines, and that the establishment has been remediated in accordance with the remediation standards. When work is complete at a specific geographic portion of the site (but remains underway at other portions) an LEP can prepare a Verification for just the completed portion of the site and save the remainder of the site for later Verifications. Ultimately, efforts at all portions of the Transfer Act establishment parcel must be closed through Verification reports.

After the Verification is submitted, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) may initiate an audit of the Verification within one year after it is submitted. If there is no audit, or if DEEP is satisfied after the audit, then the Verification stands and the Transfer Act process is complete. 

Release Remediation Closure Reports

In contrast to the Transfer Act, the RBCRs do not require a site-wide effort. Instead, the RBCRs require that releases be investigated and remediated as they are discovered (see our prior post on Discovery of an Existing Release). Consequently, documentation will be developed and submitted on a release-by-release basis. 

Under the RBCRs, documentation that a release has been remediated to the extent required will be provided in a “release remediation closure report.” The RBCRs provide a list of the information the release remediation closure report must include, and further detail is provided in the companion blog post. Release remediation closure reports may be prepared by either a LEP or, for less-impactful releases, a Permitted Environmental Professional or PEP. We discussed PEPs in a prior blog post on Immediate Actions.

Release remediation closure reports, and other records (like the tier checklist form discussed in a prior post on Oversight Tiers), will be subject to audit by DEEP, as Verifications are now. The audit process will look a little different under the RBCRs, however. Under the Transfer Act, DEEP audits the final Verification report submitted at the end of the remediation process. DEEP does not audit interim documents like Completion of Investigation reports, although the audit of the final Verification may bring to light issues with those interim documents. By contrast, under the RBCRs, DEEP can audit the release remediation closure report and any other reports required to be signed off by an LEP or certified by a PEP. In other words, interim documents like tier checklists can be audited.

In another change from the Transfer Act, the RBCRs set forth different levels of DEEP review and audit.

  • A screening audit is an administrative review by DEEP performed within 180 days after a release record (like a release remediation closure report, tier checklist, or other document) is submitted. This screening audit may commence and be conducted without notice to the LEP, PEP, or other responsible party.  DEEP may reject a release record after a screening audit and notify the LEP, PEP, or other responsible party that a new release record is required.
  • A focused audit is the review of a single release record and may address the entire record or focus on specific areas.  These may be selected at random or identified through screening audits. Notice is provided, which must include identification of additional information necessary for DEEP to determine compliance. A focused audit may result in acceptance of the release record, the order for a more detailed full audit, or outright rejection of the release record.
  • A full audit is a review of several or all of the release records associated with a release. This also involves notice and identification of additional information needed. Such a full audit can result in DEEP rejecting one or more of the release records and requiring resubmission.

Transfer Act Sites After March 1, 2026

For sites that are enrolled in the Transfer Act before March 1, 2026, the site-wide investigation and remediation process discussed above will still be required after March 1. As noted above, Transfer Act Verifications typically apply to the entire parcel, but Verifications may be filed for a portion of the parcel if that portion has been fully investigated and remediated. A statutory change in the 2025 legislative session broadens this “portion verification” concept to permit remediation of a Transfer Act site to be documented in a release-by-release manner.

Public Act 25-54 provides that any Certifying Party (i.e., the person responsible for completing work on a Transfer Act site) may complete site-wide investigation as required under the Transfer Act and submit to DEEP a report that catalogues each release identified by such site-wide investigation. Once all releases at a site have been catalogued, they can be closed one by one through submission of release remediation closure reports. After all releases have been closed, the Certifying Party may then request from DEEP a letter confirming that all releases have been closed and that Transfer Act work is complete. While this pathway may not be of interest to all Certifying Parties, it might be useful at sites with multiple Certifying Parties who want to more clearly define which party is working on which release areas.

On December 22, citing security concerns, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced that it was pausing leases for all offshore wind projects currently under construction. The stop-work order blocks further construction of Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind 1. All five projects had obtained leases during the Biden administration. Vineyard Wind 1 is already partially operational, with nearly half of the project’s 62 turbines generating electricity. Both Empire Wind and Revolution Wind were the subject of prior stop-work orders, but following negotiations with the Trump administration in the case of Empire Wind and litigation in the case of Revolution Wind, both projects had resumed construction. Currently, only two small wind farms in U.S. coastal waters are fully operational – Block Island Wind off the coast of Rhode Island with five turbines and South Fork Wind off the coast of New York with twelve turbines.

In announcing the work stoppage, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum claimed that “recently completed classified reports” by the Department of Defense (DOD) identified possible radar interference as a potential security risk. Project proponents have noted that the project permitting process included review and approval by the DOD.

This latest stop work order will likely be challenged. Earlier this month, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the administration’s ban on the review of offshore wind permits, a policy announced when President Trump took office, was illegal. There, the court determined that in the absence of a clearly articulated rationale beyond the President’s personal contempt for wind turbines, the offshore ban was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While the DOI’s new stop work order cites emerging national security concerns, a federal court may ultimately need to determine whether it, too, violates the APA. In the meantime, approximately $25 billion worth of projects and an estimated 10,000 jobs face an uncertain future.

This is the eighth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

As remediation projects are planned and performed, the big question is: “How clean is clean enough?” This post discusses remediation standards under the RBCRs, and how those standards will change from the standards in use today.

Sites being remediated under the Transfer Act must achieve compliance with the Remediation Standard Regulations or RSRs set forth at R.C.S.A. § 22a-133k-1 et seq. The RSRs set forth the concentrations of various substances that are permitted to be present in soil and groundwater. 

These standards vary depending on context. For example, at a site that is limited to industrial or commercial use, soil contamination is permitted at higher levels than would be the case for a site that might be in residential use. This is because soil standards are set based on exposure assumptions, and a child playing in the yard would have greater exposure to soil than an adult at work. Similarly, when a site has groundwater that is used or may be used as drinking water, the standards are more stringent than when the groundwater has already been deemed not suitable for drinking.

The RSRs also provide a number of pathways to compliance that serve as alternatives to achieving the numerical standards set forth in the regulations. For example, soil that is contaminated above the numerical criteria is permitted to remain in place, subject to a restriction recorded on the land records called an environmental use restriction (or EUR), when it is under a building and therefore protected from human exposure and movement caused by rain.

These familiar features of the RSRs will remain in place after March 1, 2026. In fact, substantially all of the text of the RSRs will be moved from where it currently resides in R.C.S.A. § 22a-133k-1 et seq. to the new RBCRs at R.C.S.A. § 22a-133tt-1 et seq. The existing RSR sections will be replaced with a cross-reference to the new location in the RBCRs where substantially the same text will reside.  In other words, sites being remediated under the Transfer Act, and releases being remediated under the RBCRs, will be working toward the same set of standards.

Changes to Remediation Standards and Approaches

There are a few changes being made to the remediation standards as we transition from the RSRs to the RBCRs. In addition to the familiar residential and commercial/industrial categories, the RBCRs provide numerical soil standards for two new land use categories:

  • Managed Multifamily: The managed multifamily criteria will be available for parcels with 4 or more dwelling units, provided such dwelling units are managed by an association or a professional property management company. The idea is that such a professional management company can provide rules (like no vegetable gardening for example), intended to keep people safe from residual soil contamination.
  • Passive Recreation: The passive recreation criteria apply to sites subject to an environmental use restriction or conservation easement prohibiting any residential use except passive recreation. Currently, recreation is considered to be a residential activity. Therefore, a property traversed by a bike trail would not be eligible for industrial/commercial standards, because the bike trail would be said to constitute a residential use. Passive recreation is recreation that uses trails or roads for activities such as running, hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Use of specific areas for a sustained period of time, like sports fields and beaches, are not considered passive recreation. Once again, the idea is that these sorts of low-touch activities are less risky than true residential use of property. 

The RBCRs also provide a streamlined process for allowing certain impacted soil to remain in place if it is inaccessible under a building, or a concrete or asphalt surface. If specified criteria are met, such soil can remain in place provided the property owner maintains the covering in good condition, regularly inspects it, provides reports on its maintenance, and properly manages soil that might be exposed during a maintenance activity. An affidavit explaining the situation must be recorded on the land records, but this is expected to be a simpler process than the process required to secure an environmental use restriction. A similar streamlined pathway is available to allow on-site management of historically impacted material, i.e., soil that has been historically intermixed with coal ash, wood ash, coal fragments, coal slag, coal clinkers, or asphalt paving fragments.

With that context, we can clear up a common source of confusion. Many have wondered if the RBCRs are applicable to Transfer Act sites. While certain provisions of the RBCRs are not applicable to Transfer Act sites (like reporting and tiering), the remediation standards of the RBCRs, including the new provisions, are applicable to Transfer Act sites.

In our next posts, we will discuss closure documentation.

On December 5, 2025, Craig J. Pritzlaff, Acting Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), issued an internal memorandum instituting a “Compliance First” approach, immediately effective for all civil enforcement and compliance activities. This memo claims to introduce a policy shift: prioritizing timely and effective compliance over punitive enforcement and expansive regulatory interpretations. EPA’s goal is clear, swift, and efficient compliance, achieved by the “clearest, most defensible interpretations of our statutory and regulatory mandates.”

Key Elements of the “Compliance First” Policy

  1. Compliance Assistance Toolkit
    Enforcement is not the only tool. Proactive outreach, technical assistance, voluntary audits, and self-reporting are highlighted as means to encourage regulated entities to “find and fix” issues before enforcement becomes necessary.
  2. State and Tribal Coordination
    The EPA is committed to deferential, collaborative engagement with authorized states and tribes. Civil enforcement activities will avoid duplication and promote consistency by coordinating closely with local agencies, providing them with technical support, and ensuring states lead where they have primary jurisdiction.
  3. Transparent Communication and “No Surprises”
    Open, transparent dialogue is mandated throughout inspections and enforcement. The EPA pledges a “no surprises” approach and wants regulated entities to proactively identify and address potential compliance issues, building trust, and avoiding unexpected enforcement escalation.
  4. Clarity and Legal Precision in Findings
    Findings of violation must be “clear and unambiguous” and based on the “best reading” of statutes and regulations. Expansive or creative interpretations that create uncertainty or deviate from precedent are expressly rejected, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. Material legal ambiguities must be elevated to national EPA leadership for resolution, ensuring consistent application across regions.
  5. Timely and Efficient Compliance
    EPA staff are directed to focus on rapid resolution of violations, with compliance – not punishment – as the North Star. Prolonged or punitive strategies are deemphasized to avoid delaying environmental protection and economic operations. Formal enforcement and injunctive relief (such as administrative or judicial action) will be used only when informal or compliance assistance measures are insufficient or in emergencies. Remedies must be narrowly tailored, directly tied to specific violations, and based on clear legal requirements. EPA’s April 26, 2021 memorandum (Using All Appropriate Injunctive Relief Tools in Civil Enforcement Settlements), which focused on expansive injunctive measures and supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), is also rescinded, pending new guidance. OECA Assistant Administrator approval is required for non-standard remedies like third-party audits.
  6. Reasoned, Transparent Decisions Using LEAPS
    The memo introduces the LEAPS framework for enforcement decisions:
    • Law: Use the clearest statutory/regulatory interpretation;
    • Evidence: Rely on solid, unequivocal facts;
    • Analysis: Apply logic and connect facts with law;
    • Programmatic Impact: Consider effects on EPA programs; and
    • Stakeholder Impact: Assess how actions affect states, tribes, and regulated entities

The memo states that EPA is aiming for transparent, reasoned decisions anchored in LEAPS to make enforcement predictable and defensible.

Practical Implications for the Regulated Community

  • Potential for more opportunities for rapid, voluntary compliance and proactive technical assistance.
  • Legal disputes over novel or ambiguous regulatory interpretations should be elevated to national leadership, potentially providing regulated entities with a new escalation pathway.
  • Formal remedies such as SEPs and wide-ranging monitoring should be restricted, and enforcement actions should now be both more predictable and tied tightly to statutory requirements.
  • EPA will soon issue a single guidance document to harmonize enforcement practices agency-wide, offering more clarity and consistency for regulated parties.

Final Thoughts

While this “new” policy shares similarities with prior EPA enforcement guidance and does not create legally binding rights, the intent appears to portray a shift in EPA enforcement philosophy to prioritizing clarity, efficiency, and cooperation over adversarial posturing or creative statutory interpretations. While it is too early to know what practical implications this will have for enforcement actions, EPA’s memo is a helpful reminder for regulated entities to review their compliance programs, prepare for inspections, and document legal positions carefully to align with the “best reading” standard now embedded in EPA practice.

On December 8, 2025, a Massachusetts federal court ruled that the Trump administration’s ban on permit application review for offshore and onshore wind projects was illegal.  While the ruling will not necessarily result in the issuance of new permits, it lifts the moratorium on review and processing of applications. In May 2025, a coalition of 17 states, the District of Columbia, and the Alliance for Clean Energy filed suit in federal court to overturn an executive order announced in the early days of the administration that placed all federal permitting of wind projects on hold. In granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Patti Saris agreed that the executive order was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 

The administration had argued both that the executive order was a lawful action within the President’s authority to set energy policy and the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The court was not persuaded.  Defendants overcame the administration’s standing challenge by providing adequate evidence of ongoing or imminent injuries due to the moratorium, including project delays and the states’ inability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With a “scant” administrative record to review, Judge Saris then determined that because “the sole factor the defendants considered in deciding to stop issuing permits was the president’s direction to do so,” the Government had not reasonably considered all relevant issues or reasonably explained its decision, as required by the APA. The administration may appeal the decision.

Even if the ruling withstands a challenge, it will not result in fast tracking or green-lighting new permit applications. While the administration can no longer decline to consider wind projects pursuant to the executive order, nothing compels federal agencies to approve them.