The Trump administration has officially gone after a key permit for SouthCoast Wind, a 141-turbine project planned for 26 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard.
A motion filed Sept. 18 said that the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) seeks a remand of the approval of SouthCoast Wind’s Construction and Operations Plan (COP), a necessary step and one of the final federal permits required to start construction.
The COP for the project was approved by BOEM on Jan. 17 of this year, just three days before President Donald Trump came into office and issued an executive order to withdraw the outer continental shelf from offshore wind lease development. The plan was originally submitted on Feb. 15, 2021, and it took almost four years to receive the approval.
Earlier this month, the government revealed plans to revoke SouthCoast’s permit in a document that asked a federal court to pause a lawsuit filed by the town of Nantucket against the wind farm.
In Thursday’s motion, BOEM said the agency determined that its COP approval may not have complied with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a law from 1953 that allows federal authority over submerged lands in federal waters, and “may have failed to account for all the impacts that the SouthCoast Wind Project may cause.” The document continues, “‘BOEM also found that the Environmental Impact Statement and other record documents may have ‘understated or obfuscated impacts that could have subsequently been improperly weighed in making the determinations’” under the act.
In a statement to the New Bedford Light, officials of SouthCoast Wind said the approval “reflected an extensive public process that incorporated feedback from federal and state government agencies, commercial ocean users, Tribal Nations, and many other stakeholders. Stable permitting for American infrastructure projects should be of top concern for anyone who wants to see continued investment in the United States.”
The project already anticipated a years-long delay in construction due to federal policies and needed to secure power purchase agreements at the state level.
This is an attempt by the oil/coal/nuclear industry to protect their profits. Billionaires want to stay billionaires. The writing is on the wall: wind and solar are here to stay because the electricity they generate is nearly free.
Three nuclear reactors are slated to be active in Utah by July next year.
Hmmmm…….are Wind Industrial companies mom and pop shops? Avangrid Renewables is a publicly traded subsidiary of Avangrid Inc., which had a market capitalization of approximately $13.94 billion as of February 2025 and has an Enterprise Value around $28.71 billion. Like you say, billionaires want to stay billionaires.
Really? Has your electric bill gone down since our fisheries and ocean have been taken?
Will electric rates go down if the plug is pulled on Vineyard Wind?
Who will pay for turbine removal?
There won’t be any turbine removal. They will be left to rot.
Yes.
No.
Mary do you understand that the fossil fuel industry is made up of equity companies on the stock market and millions of people own those stocks and depend on their profits for dividends that provide income for living. Widows, orphans, retirees and 401k holdings. These are not billionaires, they are ordinary people. As for free electricity, wait until you get charged for it. It is not free. Yes Nuclear would be a good thing and that isnt free either.
Andrew do you understand that the wind industry is made up of equity companies (GE and supplier companies) on the stock market and millions of people own those stocks and depend on their profits for dividends that provide income for living – yada, yada, yada.
Electricity is a market product, it’s cost is a function of demand, production cost and government. control.
Nuclear has been of spending for years and years,.
Yes I do understand that and I am not denouncing them but simply saying they are not profitable without subsidy. Mary is denouncing fossil fuel “billionaires”” see the difference?
Solar power (the whole thing: panels, inverters, and batteries) costs about 10 cents a kw to purchase, then it’s free for a lifetime. Nuclear costs 40 cents per kw to produce, and the soft costs like cancer are never included in the calculations. Nor are the costs to store and protect nuclear waste for 100,000 years. The lifetime cost of nuclear is astronomical and immoral to pass down to future generations. It’s also immoral to pass down the risks of serious accidents or attacks, like putin bombed Chernobyl in February.
NEARLY free? I would say your ALMOST right
South coast (and others) took advantage (voluntarily)of the FAST-41 act that was meant to streamline non governmental projects.
This”streamlining” was intended to push these projects along at a more rapid pace than the traditional permitting process and with this much much data/review is not performed , or (in my opinion) ignored completely.
Now , they are being reviewed after the fact and determining that these FAST-41 act Permits were indeed flawed in process,therefore, revocation is being strongly considered.
South coast voluntarily took the risk and now may suffer the consequences from having done so.
The mess keeps getting bigger!
Everyone knows Trump hates windmills because he thinks they “ruined” the view from his golf course in Scotland. He claims China dosent use windmills, yet they just finished the biggest windfarm in the world. Windmills take up ALOT of real estate in his head….
“Three nuclear reactors are slated to be active in Utah by July next year.”
Your statement about three nuclear reactors in Utah being active next year sounds bold, but let’s match it to the facts. Utah has zero reactors operating today, and the most notable project in the state, Blue Castle, hasn’t broken ground and still lacks final approval from federal regulators. TerraPower’s Natrium is still in research and evaluation stages, and Utah’s collaboration with smaller experimental ventures like NuCube is still at the memorandum-of-understanding stage. None of these come close to ‘active’ status by July next year. Nuclear power in Utah someday? Possibly. Three reactors in operation next summer? Not so much.
Your comment sounds suspiciously like real facts. How refreshing.
so, what is the logic behind “cancelling” a multi billion dollar project that will provide thousands of jobs and provide nearly carbon free electricity ? let’s remember trump was for wind power before he wasn’t — and the reason he changed his mind was because he lost a lawsuit about windmills in Scotland that he could see from his golf course– simple — he lost, and he pooped in his diaper and has been whining ever since. So, Jason, can you show us the flaws in the permitting process ? I know I am asking a loaded question, as you are up on the details– I respect that, so show me. And I will have a place to start with my rebuttal .. or I will go cowering away —I like an informed discussion– thanks
The logic is that stopping something that was doomed to failure before it started is logical. Are you really blaming this on Trump’s view from his golf course?
“Nearly free” means “not free”. It is like saying something is nearly true, which of course means it is false.
When people ask “Where’s the logic in canceling a multi-billion dollar project that creates jobs and clean power?” the logic lies in the risks. These projects often run billions over budget, and regulators fear saddling ratepayers with skyrocketing bills. They also face years of lawsuits and permitting delays, plus political pushback from communities and environmental groups. On top of that, cheaper alternatives like solar with batteries or natural gas can make the big project look uncompetitive. So while the benefits are real, the logic of cancellation is about avoiding runaway costs, legal battles, and political fallout—not rejecting carbon-free energy.
“let’s remember trump was for wind power before he wasn’t”
LOL
Trump was never really “for” wind power to begin with, so the claim that he flipped only after losing a lawsuit in Scotland is misleading. As early as 2006, he was objecting to turbines near his Aberdeen golf project, and by 2012 he was testifying before the Scottish Parliament against wind farms, calling them harmful and unsightly. The 2015 UK Supreme Court loss simply capped a fight he had already been waging for nearly a decade—it wasn’t the cause of a sudden policy shift. At most, he once said there’s “a place for” wind, but even then he emphasized that turbines depend on subsidies, kill birds, and shouldn’t be prioritized. In short, his opposition long pre-dated the court case, and the idea that the lawsuit alone changed his position doesn’t line up with the facts.
He never cared about wind farms one way or the other, he objects to anything built near his properties. He would be against oil drilling near his properties if that was happening. It’s not that complicated.
Comments are closed.