## Facts

- Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC proposed an LNG import terminal in Fall River, Massachusetts, requiring a berth and dredging in nearby Rhode Island coastal waters, including a federal navigation channel.
- In 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) generally approved the project subject to conditions, including state coastal-zone review under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and obtaining necessary state authorizations for dredging in Rhode Island waters.
- Weaver’s Cove filed with the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) for (1) CZMA consistency concurrence and (2) a “Category B Assent,” a state coastal alteration/dredging authorization under Rhode Island’s coastal program.
- CRMC notified Weaver’s Cove that the applications were “incomplete” because Weaver’s Cove did not provide a letter of acceptance from an approved upland disposal site for dredged material, as required by a provision of Rhode Island’s coastal program.
- Weaver’s Cove contended the disposal-site letter requirement was inapplicable because the dredged material would be disposed of in Massachusetts, and CRMC did not issue a final decision on either request.
- After more than six months elapsed from submission of the CZMA materials, Weaver’s Cove sought a federal declaration that CZMA concurrence was presumed by operation of law; federal agencies declined to issue such a declaration.
- Weaver’s Cove sued in federal district court seeking declarations that (1) CZMA concurrence was conclusively presumed due to CRMC’s failure to act within six months and (2) the Category B Assent requirement, as applied to block federally approved dredging, was preempted by the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Weaver’s Cove; CRMC appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Article III jurisdiction existed (including ripeness) to adjudicate the dispute arising from CRMC’s asserted authority and inaction affecting a federally approved LNG project.
2. Whether CRMC’s failure to concur or object within six months triggered “presumed concurrence” under 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A), notwithstanding CRMC’s claim that the application was “incomplete” under state rules.
3. Whether the NGA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, preempted CRMC’s use of a separate Category B Assent requirement to impede dredging necessary to implement the FERC-approved LNG project in a federal navigation channel.

## Decision

- The First Circuit held Article III jurisdiction existed because CRMC’s position created a concrete regulatory barrier with immediate practical consequences for the project.
- The court held Rhode Island’s CZMA concurrence was conclusively presumed because CRMC did not act within the CZMA’s six-month period and could not avoid the deadline by relying on state-law “completeness” objections while withholding a substantive decision.
- The court held the NGA preempted CRMC’s Category B Assent requirement as applied to block the federally approved dredging, because it functioned as an additional state veto point beyond the state roles Congress preserved (including CZMA review).
- The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment granting declaratory relief on both the CZMA presumed concurrence and NGA preemption.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may resolve federal–state regulatory conflicts affecting a federally authorized energy project when the dispute is concrete and has present operational consequences.
- Under the CZMA, once a facially adequate consistency submission is made, the state must concur or object within six months; failure to act results in a conclusive presumption of concurrence under 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A).
- A state coastal agency may not use state-law “incompleteness” determinations to indefinitely suspend or toll the CZMA’s federally prescribed six-month review period.
- The NGA centralizes LNG terminal siting authority in FERC while preserving limited state participation through specified mechanisms (including CZMA and certain environmental permitting); additional discretionary state licensing regimes that operate as a second veto over federally approved activities are conflict-preempted.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld declaratory relief for Weaver’s Cove, concluding that CRMC’s failure to act within the CZMA deadline triggered presumed state concurrence and that the NGA preempted CRMC’s attempt to use a separate coastal dredging assent as an extra barrier to FERC-approved dredging for the LNG project.


Weaver's Cove Energy, LLC v. R.I. Coastal Res. Mgmt. Council, 589 F.3d 458 (1st Cir. 2009)