Federal lawsuit to stop solar farm dismissed
A federal lawsuit filed earlier this year with the aim of stopping NextEra Energy Resources’ plans to place a 5,000-acre solar farm in southwestern Jackson County has been dismissed by a federal judge who said that the plaintiffs in the case lacked the standing to sue, it has been reported.
But one of the attorneys representing the suit’s plaintiffs — Jackson County landowners Thomas Hoffman, Joseph Strong, Vincent Shibler and David Shibler and the city of Rossville — said Monday that since the suit was dismissed without prejudice, it could be refiled, and the plaintiffs are looking at doing just that.
“The plaintiffs are disappointed in the dismissal,” said attorney Austin Nimocks of the PNT law firm of Austin, Texas. “It’s certainly something that the plaintiffs intend to appeal, and we’re also considering the possibility of refiling.”
The suit, filed this past January by Hoffman, Strong and the Shiblers and joined in February by the City of Rossville, disputed whether NextEra could receive federal tax credits for the solar project under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) without undergoing environmental review as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and claimed that the project would have negative environmental impacts on the area.
On Tuesday, July 1, U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter dismissed the suit without prejudice, stating a “mismatch” between the plaintiffs’ environmental concerns about the Jeffrey Solar Project and tax credits for the project, as well as a failure by plaintiffs to make a valid claim “because they do not plausibly allege the substantial federal control and responsibility necessary to trigger NEPA review.”
Teeter’s ruling also denied a request by the plaintiffs for an injunction to halt the project until a full environmental assessment could be conducted as “moot.”
In the memorandum for dismissal, Teeter cited plaintiffs’ concerns about “the environmental impact of the project on their land and town” while noting that the project was still in its preliminary stages and that permits for a solar farm have not yet been issued since county zoning regulations on solar projects have not yet been finalized.
“The Court realizes this is a hotly contested case where each party feels strongly about its positions,” Teeter wrote. “But there are several fatal disconnects between Plaintiffs’ claims and the governmental analytical framework. These disconnects mean Plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim.”
In the original filing, plaintiffs alleged that the Jackson County Commission — listed alongside the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Council on Environmental Quality as co-defendants in the case — had created draft solar resolutions without considering environmental impacts on properties owned by the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also alleged that federal agencies did not provide an environmental impact report as required by NEPA for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
To read the rest of the article, please subscribe to The Holton Recorder.
