President Donald Trump’s opposition to offshore wind crystallized long before he won re-election. But the justification for the administration’s abrupt halt to the Revolution Wind project on Aug. 22 has remained murky.
Until now.
New court filings from the U.S. Department of Justice reveal the rationale behind the U.S. Department of Interior’s (DOI) decision to shut down the 65-turbine project that was already 80% finished: Developers allegedly failed to turn in required plans on how the project off Rhode Island’s coastline would affect national ocean research and defense work.
“As of the date of this Declaration, still DOI not received any information that these requirements have been satisfied and given how long they remain pending, the department has concerns as to whether they will ever be met,” Adam Suess, acting assistant secretary for land and minerals management for the Interior Department, wrote in a Sept. 12 affidavit.
Suess’ written testimony counters the criticism from state officials and project developers accusing the Trump administration of arbitrary and unlawful abuses of power in a pair of federal lawsuits filed Sept. 4.
Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables, co-developers of the $5 billion wind project, filed their lawsuit against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and other federal agencies and directors in D.C., while attorneys general in Rhode Island and Connecticut took their legal challenge to Rhode Island federal court. The two southern New England states were under contracts to buy electricity from the 704-megawatt project starting next year. Now in limbo, thousands of labor jobs are on the line, along with both states’ abilities to meet their climate change mandates and the reliability of the regional electric grid.
The administration has yet to respond to the AGs’ lawsuit. But in documents submitted in the D.C. lawsuit filed by project developers, federal officials claimed Revolution Wind developers failed to submit required information about how the project might affect national security and scientific surveys.
The years-long, expansive federal review process for permitting new offshore wind projects typically requires developers to satisfy all mandates around construction, operations, environmental and economic operations before receiving final approval. But federal agencies allowed Revolution Wind developers to turn in a few details late.
The project received final federal approval in November 2023, with construction beginning shortly after. However, a May 2024 letter from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) Office of Renewable Energy Programs authorized an extension until July 2025 for Ørsted to submit a plan for how it would minimize interference with federal marine fisheries surveys.
A separate agreement signed in the fall of 2024 between the Department of Defense and project developers outlines the need to “deconflict the project with national defense interests.” Project developers agreed to coordinate work with at-sea defense contractors, acknowledging potential interference from fiber optic and acoustic monitoring equipment and “risk related to foreign investment.” However, no additional documentation had to be turned in to the Defense Department unless the layout or structures of the project changed, according to the agreement.
Suess suggests the administration is awaiting information, though.
“To date the Department of Interior has not received any information that any of these national security concerns referenced in this paragraph have been addressed by Revolution Wind,” he wrote.
Meaghan Wims, a spokesperson for Ørsted, declined to provide additional comment Tuesday. However, Ørsted executives in prior court filings painted a different picture of communication with federal agencies.
Since receiving federal approval in 2023, the developers have maintained an “ordinary course” of coordination and cooperation with a string of federal agencies, Melanie Gearon, head of northeast permitting for Ørsted North America, wrote in a Sept. 5 court affidavit.
That included twice-monthly meetings with the BOEM and the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to discuss construction updates, reports and efforts to reduce local harms. The groups met most recently on Aug. 20, Gearon wrote.
“Despite the fact that this latter meeting was held only two days before BOEM’s Director issued the Stop Work Order, at neither of these meetings — nor at any other recent Project meetings or in correspondence — did BOEM raise the possibility of a Stop Work Order or the need for any disruption of or conditions in the Project’s ongoing construction relating to any concerns regarding national security or interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas, or for any other reason,” Gearon wrote.
No objections five years ago
Amanda Barker, Rhode Island state committee lead for New England for Offshore Wind, echoed Gearon’s defense, calling the stop work order “illegitimate” in an emailed response Tuesday.
Barker pointed to the years of rigorous federal review, which included signoff from the agencies now questioning the project. The Pentagon voiced no objections to the location for the project when it was consulted in 2020 during Trump’s first term in office, Barker noted.
“From a big-picture perspective, this stop-work order sends a troubling signal to the offshore wind industry: if developers can invest years of work and resources to secure full federal approval, only to have the plug pulled afterward, it raises questions about the certainty needed to move projects forward,” Barker said.
From a big-picture perspective, this stop-work order sends a troubling signal to the offshore wind industry: if developers can invest years of work and resources to secure full federal approval, only to have the plug pulled afterward, it raises questions about the certainty needed to move projects forward.
Indeed, Ørsted has forecast major financial losses if the project is not completed on time, especially if utility companies that agreed to buy power from the wind turbines pull out of their contracts. A 2018 agreement between developers and Rhode Island’s primary utility supplier — then under the ownership of National Grid — offers an out if the project is not up and running by Jan. 15, 2027.
If construction work does not pick back up by the last week in September, the project might not be completed by the January 2027 deadline, Paul Murphy, senior engineering, procurement and construction director for Revolution Wind, wrote in a Sept. 5 affidavit.
“Revolution Wind currently has no mechanism for extending those deadlines, and the [agreements] would be subject to termination, significantly threatening the financial viability of the entire Project and posing an existential risk to the Project, and thus to Revolution Wind,” Murphy wrote.
Caroline Pretyman, a spokesperson for Rhode Island Energy, whose parent company PPL Corp. bought the state utilities from National Grid in 2022, confirmed the company is not presently contemplating ending its purchase agreement with the developers. However, Pretyman did not rule out the possibility in the future.
“This is a very fluid situation that we are watching very closely and do not have a date in mind — instead, we hope that there can be a solution reached in the near term,” Pretyman said in an email Tuesday.
In the meantime, project developers estimate they are losing more than $2 million per day, roughly $16 million per week, on installation and manufacturing contracts with specialty vessels needed to transport and construct the towering turbines, according to Murphy’s affidavit.
Take, for instance, the 3,000-ton White Marlin — specifically designed to lift the top of the offshore substation onto its support frame— and only under contract for the project until Dec. 15. There is no other substitute vessel or barge for storage, Murphy wrote. “Thus, the lack of contracted vessels, particularly when coupled with worsening weather conditions offshore during the winter, presents a significant risk to the Project.”
Elizabeth Peace, a Department of Interior spokesperson, declined to offer further comment Tuesday, citing the pending lawsuits.
The development companies have until Sept. 18 to respond to the written arguments submitted by the Trump administration. A preliminary court hearing is scheduled for Sept. 22 in D.C. before Senior Judge Royce Lamberth.
This story was originally published by the Rhode Island Current.
