Revolution Wind LLC launched legal action against the Trump
administration Thursday, following the government’s decision to suspend construction on their nearly complete offshore wind project near Rhode Island. The lawsuit, filed by the joint venture between Orsted and Global Infrastructure Partners, challenges last month’s construction halt ordered by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which cited national security issues.
The legal challenge was quickly followed by separate lawsuits from Connecticut and Rhode Island’s attorneys general, both filed in Rhode Island’s U.S. District Court. The lawsuits aim to overturn the stop-work order on the $5 billion, 65-turbine project, which was designed to provide power to approximately 350,000 households.
Revolution Wind’s legal filing argues that the stop-work order lacks statutory authority and violates both agency procedures and
constitutional due process rights. The company warns of potentially catastrophic financial consequences, noting they could face over $1 billion in breakaway costs if the project is terminated, putting their entire $5 billion investment at risk.
The BOEM’s directive, stemming from a January 20 Presidential Memorandum, initiated a comprehensive review of renewable projects in the Outer Continental Shelf. The bureau’s primary concerns center on environmental protections and national security considerations, particularly regarding potential interference with naval operations in various maritime zones.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong strongly criticized the administration’s decision, describing it as an “utterly unlawful and baseless” attack on wind power. However, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers defended the action, explaining that Trump’s executive order mandated agencies to evaluate wind project leases and permits considering factors such as reliable energy needs, consumer costs, marine life protection, fishing industry impacts, and effects on ocean and wind patterns.
UBS analyst Dominic Ellis interpreted the legal action as a sign that private negotiations between Orsted and the administration are not progressing well. Ellis contrasted this situation with Equinor’s earlier experience with Empire Wind, where a lawsuit was threatened but never filed before the suspension was lifted. Despite strong shareholder support for Orsted’s rights issue, with over 68% indicating approval, the company’s ability to resolve its U.S. challenges remains uncertain.
The development has contributed to significant market turbulence for Orsted, whose shares in Denmark recently experienced substantial declines due to multiple factors, including the rights issue announcement, the construction halt, and general pessimism in the renewable energy sector.
The Trump administration’s position appears to prioritize conventional power sources, emphasizing reliable fossil fuel generation and nuclear power development planned for the late 2020s and early 2030s. This strategy aligns with the administration’s view that stable power generation is crucial for supporting nationwide grid stability, particularly given the increasing energy demands from AI data centers.
The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between renewable energy development and traditional power generation priorities, with significant implications for the future of offshore wind projects in U.S. waters. The outcome of these legal challenges could set important precedents for the renewable energy sector’s development under the current administration.