Much like the turbines under threat, a legal saga around the offshore wind industry continues to spin in circles.
Attempts by the federal government to thwart the renewable energy business through stop-work orders or suspensions are repeatedly superseded by federal judges, only to be thrown for a loop over and over again. Progress on the projects in federal waters similarly rotates in start-stop fashion, and threats of cancellations by the Trump administration are compounded by the fact that projects are also under pressure by vessel contracts and finances.
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the 62-turbine Vineyard Wind 1, an offshore wind farm 15 miles off the coast of the Island, is allowed to resume construction, after a suspension by the federal government paused work for over a month.
In court documents, the developer argued that the suspension, ordered to last at least three months, would have eventually destroyed the $4.5 billion project, which is 95 percent complete and needs only to do more blade replacement and complete 18 turbines. Vineyard Wind received some relief from the court system, but remains on a time crunch to finish the project and reach commercial operation in the next two months.
The decision follows in the footsteps of three other victories for offshore wind projects — Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, and Empire Wind — also ordered to pause by President Donald Trump’s administration in a comprehensive attack on all wind farms under construction. One more project, Sunrise Wind, awaits a day in court.
Judge Brian E. Murphy, nominated by former President Joe Biden, granted “in part” Vineyard Wind’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and instead just stayed the stop-work order issued by the federal government on Dec. 22. It means that work can resume as the case continues. The suit was heard in Boston Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, after several delays and judge reassignments. Murphy asked the parties to file a schedule for the rest of the case by Friday.
“As the legal process proceeds, Vineyard Wind will continue to work with the administration to understand the matters raised in the order,” a statement from Vineyard Wind’s communications director Craig Gilvarg reads. “Vineyard Wind will focus on working in coordination with its contractors, the federal government, and other relevant stakeholders and authorities to safely restart activities, as it continues to deliver a critical source of new power to the New England region.”
Murphy ruled from the bench, after an hour of arguments and a brief recess, that the project would suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, and that the balance of harms weighs in Vineyard Wind’s favor, but didn’t go so far as to issue a preliminary injunction, which other projects received, because he felt a stay was “sufficient” and “a less drastic remedy.”
“The court finds that the plaintiff has demonstrated it is likely to succeed in showing that the order was arbitrary and capricious,” Murphy ruled.
The decision by Murphy is a win for the developer. But Jack Pirozzolo, an attorney for Vineyard Wind, said in his argument that the developer of the offshore wind farm never wanted to take this issue to court.
“Vineyard Wind really did not want to be here,” Pirozzolo said. “It’s not an accident that we were the last of the projects to actually file a lawsuit, and that’s because we tried. Once the order came down, we tried very, very hard to work with BOEM [the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management] and BSEE [the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement].” BOEM, which issued the suspension to all five projects, and BSEE are both defendants in the case.
The order, which suspended work for at least 90 days and even threatened cancellation of the project, was imposed because of publicly undisclosed national security concerns identified in classified reports by the Department of Defense (DoD), which the administration now refers to as the Department of War (DoW). It also said in those three months that BOEM and the developer would coordinate “to determine whether the national security threats posed by this project can be adequately mitigated.” But Pirozzolo said that wasn’t the case.
“We tried to work with them. We tried to work within the existing order to continue the construction of the project, to get whatever information that we could with regard to potential mitigation of the purported national security issue, and just no engagement whatsoever,” Pirozzolo said to the judge.
But in a move rare for Vineyard Wind officials, who had remained largely quiet most of the year so as to not attract any attention, good or bad, from the Trump administration, they issued a legal challenge against the federal government on Jan. 15.
In order to secure a decision that allowed construction to restart, Vineyard Wind’s attorneys had to prove irreparable harm from the suspension, which was laid out both in court documents and Pirozzolo’s argument. Pirozzolo said that the order was illegal, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and Fifth Amendment.
Completion of the project, Pirozzolo said, requires a specialized jack-up vessel called the Sea Installer, which is one of the few in the world able to install GE Vernova’s Haliade-X wind turbines. Pirozzolo said contracts for this type of vessel can take months or years, and the current contract expires on March 31.
“We have barely enough time to finish as it is,” Pirozzolo said.
Now that the order has been overturned by Murphy, there’s about a 60-day window for construction crews to complete the project, and based on historical weather data, Pirozzolo said that they’ll already lose days where high seas prohibit work. There are 18 turbines at issue still, he said, while 44 are completed.
Pirozzolo also referenced a supplemental declaration in his argument that said lenders informed the project that as of Jan. 23, financial viability of the project was under question. He said that failure to be commercially operational, which is when a resource generates electricity for sale, by the end of March, or the end of the necessary vessel’s contract, exposes the project to a full default, accelerated repayment of the loan, and foreclosure of the project.
“The reality is the project is now at a grave risk of failing to meet its construction schedule, and in turn, its financial obligations under both the power purchase agreements and its financing arrangements,” Pirozzolo said in his argument before Murphy.
Unlike the other four projects issued suspensions, while construction stopped, Vineyard Wind 1 was allowed to continue to produce power despite national security concerns. The concerns are in classified reports, not even known by developers, but a press release from BOEM alludes to the potential issue of radar interference, or “clutter,” caused by the movement of the turbine blades and towers. Murphy was able to review the classified information for ex parte in camera review, where a judge can evaluate evidence in private.
The fact that this project was allowed to operate at 75 percent power even under the suspension was cited by John Adams, attorney for the federal defendants, as a reason that the project isn’t irreparably harmed by the suspension.
But Pirozzolo said that the current level of power production, through 44 turbines, isn’t sufficient to meet the project’s financial obligation, which is to produce 800 megawatts of power (at full capacity).
This project also suffered a blade failure in July 2024, which stalled construction for the latter half of that year. The federal government used that instance to assert that the project wouldn’t suffer irreparable harm should work be suspended for longer. But Pirozzolo said that two years ago, time wasn’t as much of an issue, and there was also an immediate response to create a plan to complete work.
Nathaniel Haviland-Markowitz, assistant attorney general for Massachusetts, also spoke in court in favor of the project. He said that the power purchase agreement, a contract signed by state electricity distribution companies and Vineyard Wind, provides a stable price for energy, which isn’t available until the project reaches commercial operation.
“The electricity that is currently being generated by Vineyard Wind is being sold and purchased on the wholesale open market, and those prices are much, much higher than the stable price that would have been guaranteed by the power purchase agreement,” Haviland-Markowitz said. He estimated that the suspension would cost ratepayers in Massachusetts $11 million in energy between January and March of this year.
Adams used Haviland-Markowitz’s argument about the importance of the project to Massachusetts to assert, “Given the fact that the commonwealth so vigorously supports this project, it’s unlikely that if Vineyard Wind happens to miss full power at March 2026 the utilities would suddenly pull the rug out from Vineyard Wind, with whatever consequences might come with that.” He suggested that state officials would likely negotiate the power purchase agreements while the suspension order played out.
Adams added that a court can’t set aside an agency’s decision because a judge thinks the decision was influenced by political considerations or the administration’s policies. Both can be true, Adams said.
“Our senior government officials may think that offshore wind energy is inefficient and is not a good policy for this nation to be investing in, and the offshore wind projects, specifically Vineyard Wind, create national security risks,” he said.
Murphy said he had not considered statements made by other officials in the executive branch in any way.
Well, there you have it folks Good ol’ trump has cost Mass ratepayers 11 million dollars.– nearly 4 million a month for the next couple of months. And the lights will stay on for another few months. Then we of course have the cost from the federal government to pay the lawyers to constantly bring up frivolous suit after frivolous suit, only to lose every time. I don’t know about everyone here, but quite frankly, I am getting a bit tired of my taxpayer money going to lawyers who can’t even present a case. Really– think about it — they shut down a 5 billion dollar project that is 95% complete and the taxpayer funded lawyers can’t do anything but stand in court and try to convince a judge to fall for the “dog whistle” of “national security” without providing any details. I’m sure the 11 million that we the ratepayers are having to fork over because of this ridiculous stop order pales in comparison to the legal fees incurred by the government to appease a baby that holds a grudge because he lost a case about windmills in Scotland years ago.
Don, I don’t share your certainty, and your comment skips over what actually matters!
This ruling did not “lose the case.” It issued a temporary stay while legal and national-security issues remain unresolved. That distinction isn’t semantic — it’s the point. A stay allows construction to resume while the court decides whether the government acted lawfully; it is not a finding that Vineyard Wind is sound.
I’m not willing to dismiss national-security concerns as a “dog whistle.” The judge reviewed classified material in camera — information neither you nor the developer has seen. Declaring those concerns frivolous without access to the evidence isn’t skepticism; it’s assumption.
What strikes me is how selectively risk is treated. Investor deadlines and financing exposure are treated as urgent, while environmental impacts, navigational safety, radar interference, and long-term precedent are brushed aside.
If this project were truly settled, it wouldn’t require repeated emergency court intervention to survive. The start-stop cycle doesn’t inspire confidence; it signals a project pushed forward before its consequences were fully addressed.
I oppose Vineyard Wind not out of spite or politics. Once built, its consequences are permanent, and the people living with them won’t be the ones arguing deadlines in court.
Will removing Vineyard Wind lower out electric rates?
Curb housing cost inflation?
Improve the Island economy?
Much like the turbines themselves, this project continues to spin in circles — not because of politics, but because its underlying problems have never been resolved.
This ruling doesn’t settle the issue; it merely allows construction to resume while a deeper legal and national-security fight continues. A stay is not a green light. With the administration signaling it will press its case, Islanders are again asked to accept irreversible changes amid ongoing uncertainty.
What strikes me is how often “irreparable harm” is defined almost entirely in financial terms. Contract deadlines, vessel availability, loan covenants, and investor exposure dominate the argument, while environmental risk, navigational safety, radar interference, and long-term impacts on the Vineyard remain secondary — or classified and unavailable for public scrutiny.
If this project were truly sound, it would not require repeated emergency court interventions to survive. The start-stop pattern itself suggests a process that was rushed rather than resolved.
Given ongoing litigation, national security reviews, and prior construction failures, it is reasonable to expect another pause ahead. Calling this progress doesn’t make it so. It simply means the circle continues — and the Island remains stuck inside it.
Murray, as is often the case, I can agree with most of what you say. But you and I both know that we have a petty resident in the White House who demands unreasonable things. The fact that he keeps dreaming up new ways to sue people has nothing to with substantive issues and realities. The radar issue was addressed — nothing has changed, and hiding behind “classified documents “and “national security” is a joke. It’s all about his ego. Of the more than 600 cases that the administration has been sued over ( an extraordinary number) 126 have had final rulings– 2 were mixed , 71 were dismissed, the administration won 5 and lost 48. 161 have had the policies halted. 359 cases are active. If the clowns at the justice department were qualified lawyers rather than sycophantic grovelers they would do their fiduciary duty and not bring thousands of frivolous cases at the taxpayer’s expense. I doubt many people are “tired of winning” given the numbers of losses and dismissals by the courts. But I for one am tired of paying for it. .
Don, none of what you wrote again addresses the substance of my point.
This ruling was procedural, not a decision on the merits, following review of classified material the public hasn’t seen. The case is ongoing.
Citing unrelated lawsuits, case tallies, or political motives doesn’t change the basic reality before the court in this matter. Those numbers have no bearing whatsoever on whether this project’s legal and security issues are resolved.
The project continues under temporary court relief while unresolved legal and security questions remain. Once built, its impacts are permanent.
That’s the issue I raised, and I don’t see a need to take this further.
Murray– you might have noticed that the court ruled that Sunrise wind could resume construction today (Feb 2 ) that’s the 5th “procedural” ruling against the administration. What would make you think that somehow the administration is going to have the courts suddenly see the light and put a permanent stop to all windfarms ? If trump is serious about this, he should show us some actual information. He says “countries are going broke” because of windmills, but he doesn’t say which ones —you seem pretty good at researching stuff— perhaps you could show us some documentation about at least 2 countries “going broke” because of windmills.
Don,
Nothing in what I wrote depends on how many other projects have received temporary relief, or how often courts have paused agency action elsewhere. Repeating “procedural” five times doesn’t turn a stay into a merits ruling.
What would change my view isn’t another judge allowing construction to resume under deadline pressure; it would be disclosure that actually resolves the underlying concerns. So far, that hasn’t happened. The court acknowledged unresolved national-security questions, reviewed classified material the public cannot see, and chose a narrower remedy rather than a full injunction. That distinction matters.
I’m not arguing that the administration will suddenly stop all wind farms. I’m arguing that this particular project has advanced through repeated emergency relief while key risks — radar interference, navigational safety, and defense concerns — remain unanswered for the people who live with the outcome.
As for rhetoric about countries “going broke,” I don’t rely on campaign statements to make my case, and I’m not interested in defending them. My position doesn’t rise or fall on Trump’s motives or lawsuit tallies. It rests on process and permanence. Once this is finished, there is no undo button.
That remains the issue — and it is still unresolved.
Murray, your comments are reasonable and appreciated. National security is the first priority of our country. Energy security is at the top of the security concerns. Wind and solar energy has failed as a baseline supply this winter in many states and across Europe. It is intermittent and unreliable. Check out ERCOT (TEXAS) AND GERMANY’S FREDRICH MERZ comments regarding closing nuclear plants since 2007 is a disaster that is destroying the industrial economy and excessive costs to residents.
Was closing Plymouth Nuclear a bad idea.
It was shut down under Trump.
Has Vineyard Wind shut down power this winter, due to to too much wind.
“Jan 8, 2026 · According to the most recent monthly wind production data from the EIA, Texas produced 25.6% of the nation’s wind energy”
“Nov 16, 2025 · In 2023, wind represented 28. 6% of Texas energy generation, second to natural gas (41. 8%). The state has 239 wind-related projects and more than 15, 300 wind turbines,
Comments are closed.