A new federal court decision on Monday is being seen as a victory for the offshore wind industry, which has faced strong opposition from the Trump administration in recent months through a series of efforts to thwart the industry of renewable energy.
The ruling affirms the rights of states and developers to create a path for new wind projects to move forward, and potentially add to the number of turbines that are seen from the Island’s south shore. While offshore wind companies may view this as a victory, it remains uncertain how the ruling will impact the Cape and Islands, where there are strong supporters of renewable energy and also fierce critics who believe the turbines negatively impact the local commercial fishing industry and the once-pristine seascape off the Vineyard.
President Donald Trump issued an executive memorandum on Jan. 20 that directed federal agencies to suspend all new leases for wind projects before a large assessment of the approval process. The same day, Walter Cruickshank, then acting secretary of the interior, issued a written order that suspended for 60 days, though that period is long over, the authority for federal agencies to issue wind approvals. A federal judge overturned that action taken pursuant to Trump’s memo Monday, and ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Massachusetts and several other states that challenged the current administration.
Judge Patti B. Saris, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, called the order that barred approval for new wind projects “arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law” in a decision Monday, and ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought in May by 18 attorneys general, including Massachusetts’ AG, and the Alliance for Clean Energy New York. The suit challenged the order under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
The agency defendants, which include the Department of the Interior and subagencies, the Department of Commerce and subagencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have said an assessment is underway, but haven’t provided an anticipated end date, Saris wrote.
The 47-page decision, though still at risk of appeal by the administration, effectively overturned the order. It won’t have a major effect on leases that already exist and are under development, but the indefinite pause on new leases is now overturned, which could encourage further development, multiple lawyers said. However, next steps on how to make federal agencies issue new approvals remain unclear.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell called the decision a “critical victory.” “Massachusetts has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into offshore wind, and today, we successfully protected those important investments from the Trump administration’s unlawful order,” Campbell said.
The court decision doesn’t require any particular result, and doesn’t express a view on whether or not the federal agencies should issue or withhold a particular permit, but said the agencies can’t “adjudicate applications altogether, for an unspecified time, pending the complement of a wide-ranging assessment with no anticipated end date.”
“The proof is in the pudding: No permits have issued since the Wind Order was promulgated, and the Agency Defendants acknowledge that they will not issue any permits at least until they complete the Comprehensive Assessment, for which there is no timeline,” Saris wrote.
And not only has the memo paused further wind development, it has caused numerous ripple effects — such as stop-work orders and reconsiderations of permits — for projects already federally permitted or under construction.
“We need offshore wind to meet demand, create jobs, and lower costs,” Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said in a statement. “I’m grateful to AG Campbell and her team for their work to defend this crucial energy source, protecting jobs and economic activity across the country and here in Massachusetts.”
Lawyers knowledgeable about the issue say next steps remain unclear, but added that Saris ordered a status conference for Dec. 15 that could clear up some confusion.
Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the Conservation Law Foundation, said that what is unusual about this situation is that normally lawsuits “stop something,” but “suing to make the agencies process permits” is different.
And Sinding Daly doesn’t anticipate that the administration plans to just move forward to process new applications for lease areas. If anything, she said she hopes that “having the courts repeatedly affirm that what the administration is trying to do is unlawful” can give the industry the confidence to continue the development of offshore wind, even under a future administration.
John Duff, a lawyer and professor of environmental law and policy at University of Massachusetts Boston, said that the decision affirms to both states and developers that they have the right to be heard and bring these types of action to the courts. It also says that temporary suspension doesn’t mean indefinite suspension, he added. “That’s really what’s at the heart of the court’s opinion,” he said.
Duff said in his 30 years in the field, he’s never seen so many federal actions litigated. “This is a unique period of time,” he said. “It disrupts a stability of expectations about how the law is supposed to apply,” and that can throw industry activities into chaos.
Amy Boyd Rabin, vice president of policy and regulatory affairs for the advocacy group Environmental League of Massachusetts, said that wind developers that need federal permits can now rejoin the queue for approvals, which could include further development off the coast of the Island. Boyd Rabin said New England Wind would possibly benefit most from Saris’ order.
South of Martha’s Vineyard
Over the past year, the industry, and several projects off the coast of the Island, have felt the impacts of Trump’s directive for federal agencies to conduct a comprehensive review on permitted projects. It was felt most recently by New England Wind, which includes two offshore wind farms, New England Wind 1 and 2, that together could consist of up to 129 turbines, and is planned for development by Avangrid, owned by the Spain-based energy company Iberdrola.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) filed a motion on Dec. 2 that seeks a voluntary remand as a part of a separate lawsuit filed by ACK for Whales, a Nantucket-based group against offshore wind. The motion revealed that the federal government plans to reconsider New England Wind’s construction and operations plan, a necessary permit approved by the bureau more than a year ago.
Construction hasn’t started yet on the project planned 20 miles off the coast of the Island, and still awaits state power purchase agreements, a contract where the state agrees to buy electricity from a developer. Visually, the project is sited between two projects under construction and visible from the Island: Revolution Wind and Vineyard Wind 1.
There are several other federal agencies’ actions stemming from Trump’s wind memo. In mid-September, SouthCoast Wind, a 141-turbine project planned for 26 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, was delivered a blow similar toNew England Wind’s. A stop-work order was issued to the Revolution Wind project, 12 miles off the coast of Aquinnah, by Matthew Giacona, acting director for BOEM, in late August. One of the project’s developers, the Danish energy company Ørsted, however, fought back in a lawsuit, and was joined through subsequent litigation by Connecticut and Rhode Island attorneys general. Exactly a month after the stop-work order was enacted, a preliminary injunction by a district court judge for the District of Columbia allowed construction to resume on the 65-turbine project.
But Sinding Daly said this court order doesn’t have jurisdiction over these types of actions, and would likely have to be separately challenged.
Ørsted, which also owns the 84-turbine Sunrise Wind, which is slowly under construction, declined to comment on Saris’ decision to vacate the wind memo. Avangrid and Vineyard Offshore also declined to comment, and other developers in the waters off the Island didn’t respond for comment. Beacon Wind, owned by BP, recently announced that it pulled the plug on the 155-turbine project because of “the present environment” around offshore wind in the U.S.
In a statement after Saris’ decision, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers called the Biden administration’s approval of offshore wind projects a “green new scam” that gave preferential treatment compared with the rest of the energy industry.
“President Trump’s day one executive order instructed agencies to review leases and permitting practices for wind projects with consideration for our country’s growing demands for reliable energy, effects on energy costs for American families, the importance of marine life and fishing industry, and the impacts on ocean currents and wind patterns,” Rogers said in the statement. “President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy, and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.”
I know that you can’t fix stupid, but apparently the courts can keep it in check once in a while.
The 20-year cost per kw of solar or wind energy approaches zero cents. Nuclear (being built by the oil industry) will be about 50 cents per kw.
Which would you rather pay?
And the fisheries are going to flourish, just like the fish surrounding the wind turbine towers.
The picture is a little fuzzy.
Are those oil production platforms?
Such mixed emotions. For one. The islanders have been against the ugly wind farms. But so is Trump. Time for the hypocrisy to end.
Are there mixed opinions about ugly oil drilling rigs/production platforms?
Islanders are not against the wind turbines.
Some islanders are against them because
they haven’t paid for the new nuclear reactors yet.
Once the nuclear reactors have been built, and society
is committed to paying for them, all of the islanders
will beg for the free electricity from wind turbines
and solar. Just put up your solar panels now before
they aren’t available. The nuclear barons don’t want you
to buy solar panels or wind turbines because it cuts
into their profits (second homes, yachts, expensive jewelry, etc).
people should do a simple Google search for “groups that spread misinformation about offshore wind ” and do some looking into the mang results that Google returns. Some of the groups have already created websites loaded with their false information. Even the group labeled ACK4WHALES is loaded with people who live far away and a paid to spread misinformation.
This ruling is being framed as a clean “win” for offshore wind, but that oversimplifies what the court actually decided — and what it did not.
Judge Saris did not rule that offshore wind projects are environmentally sound, economically prudent, or appropriate for the Cape and Islands. The decision addressed a procedural issue under the Administrative Procedure Act: federal agencies cannot impose an indefinite permitting freeze without clear timelines.
That is a narrow administrative finding, not an endorsement of turbine build-out. Importantly, the ruling does not require permits to be issued, does not revive halted projects automatically, and does not override environmental review, fisheries impacts, or visual or ecological concerns. Agencies retain full authority to deny permits based on substantive findings.
Claims about job creation and lower energy costs also deserve scrutiny. Multiple offshore wind projects nationwide have been renegotiated, delayed, or canceled due to escalating costs, supply-chain problems, financing withdrawals, and ratepayer impacts — realities this article does not address.
For Island communities, unresolved issues remain: effects on commercial fishing, navigation, marine habitat, and lasting changes to the seascape. A procedural court ruling does not resolve those concerns and should not be treated as policy validation alone.
Comments are closed.