By Allen Brooks
Ed. Note: The government-enabled on-grid wind and solar industries are on the downside of a political business cycle. The lesson for sustainable entrepreneurship is to meet underlying consumer demand, not rely on special favor from temporary political majorities.
Last Friday, the Daily Caller News Foundation broke an exclusive story that the U.S. had ordered a halt to construction on the offshore Revolution Wind Farm project. The article, “Trump Admin Kills Massive Offshore Wind Project,” announced the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Department of Interior.
Revolution Wind is a 704-megawatt (MW), 65-turbine wind project located 15 miles south of Rhode Island’s Point Judith port and 32 miles southwest of Martha’s Vineyard. The capacity has been contracted under 20-year power-purchase agreements to utilities in Massachusetts (304 MW) and Rhode Island (400 MW).
A second project (Revolution Wind 2) was rejected by Rhode Island Energy (PPL Corporation) and Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission and U.S. Department of Energy staff as too expensive.
The project is located on the federal lease area (OCS-A 0486), which developer Ørsted acquired when it purchased Deepwater Wind LLC, the developer of the Block Island Wind farm and holder of various offshore wind leases, in late 2018 for $510 million.
The locations of significant offshore wind projects.
Construction began on Revolution Wind in 2023, with the installation of the first offshore wind turbine in September 2024. Completion and operation of the project is scheduled in early 2026. Ørsted reported Friday night that the project was 80 percent complete with 45 of 65 wind turbines installed. The project was hailed as the first multi-state offshore wind project in the United States.
The DOI Director’s Order was issued by Matthew Giacona, Acting Director. Compare and contrast his letter with the one issued by Walter Cruickshank on April 16, 2025, ordering stoppage of Empire Wind.
DOI Letters: Empire State vs. Revolution Wind
In the Empire Wind stop-work order, the DOI cited as its reason to freeze work
to allow time for it to address feedback it has received, including from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about the environmental analyses for that project. BOEM received this and other feedback regarding Empire Wind as an outgrowth of the review that the Department is engaged in related to offshore wind projects.
In contrast, the Revolution Wind order stated:
… BOEM is seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas, as described in that subsection of OCSLA.
There are two relevant facts and one supposition.
Fact 1: The fact we know about the Empire Wind stop-work order is that, in response to a freedom of information request, the DOI released a 36-page study related to its stop-work decision. The report was titled “Screening Analysis: A Summary of the Record for the Empire Wind Project-NMFS Fisheries Resources.” Twenty-seven of the pages were entirely redacted, a privilege due to the deliberative nature of the report and its role in the review process underway at the time. The public has learned that government agencies are entitled to protect internal studies from public release until final reviews are completed.
Fact 2: With respect to the DOI stop-work order for Revolution Wind, the issue is compliance with Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) provisions. Consulting firm PLANET A* STRATEGIES℠ studied the compliance of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) with the provisions of the laws governing the use of our nation’s oceans. The report was titled, “Cancelling Offshore Wind Leases” with a subheading of “Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Non-Compliance in Offshore Wind Plant Leasing and Permitting Programs.” Their report was completed in early May, and the findings were presented to the DOI.
Supposition: The supposition relates to the reported agreement between the Trump administration and New York Governor Kathy Hochul for her support in the issuance of previously blocked permits allowing the construction of two natural gas pipelines into the state. That would boost supply to both New York and New England, both of which are short of natural gas supply for generating electricity during the winter months when the gas is diverted to home heating. That shortage causes winter electricity prices in the region to be much higher than during the summer months.
Sunrise Wind Next?
At the time of the Empire Wind stop-work order in April, I predicted the summer would be an interesting period for offshore wind legal activity. So far, so true. Adding to the legal activity, a petition was recently sent to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum requesting a re-examination of the approval of Sunrise Wind, a 924 MW, 84-turbine project. It is located about 19 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, 30 miles east of Montauk Point, Long Island, and 17 miles from Rhode Island’s Block Island. This is another Ørsted project.
The approval process for Sunrise Wind is being challenged by the former members of the Rhode Island Fishermen’s Advisory Board (FAB), established under legislation regulating the state’s Department of Environmental Management’s review and approval of offshore wind projects that impact the state’s waters.
The complaint demonstrates
… misapplication of section 8(p)(4) of OCSLA and misapplication of NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act), attest to the illegal impacts to the fishing industry that were ignored in permitting the project, attest to the environmental impacts that were ignored in permitting the project, and request that all approvals of the project be rescinded.
Looking Ahead
There is much to come with the above projects given the plight of Ørsted, which is trying to raise $9.4 billion of additional capital to support its ongoing developments.
Offshore wind developers are speaking out about violations of the legal approval process, which have and will continue to harm other legitimate users of the ocean shared with the wind project. As summer winds down, the legal battles over offshore wind are heating up.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Turnabout is karma. Being as willing to use procedure to block offshore wind as The Green Blob is in blocking nuclear is only fair.
I agree that projects should rely on government subsidies at their own risk. I do not support the government intervening to prevent people spending their own money to build wind turbines to feed into the grid.
The government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. It should keep its thumb off the scales and let energy sources succeed or fail on their own merits.
I don’t know whether the government is withdrawing subsidies (good) or saying the project can’t proceed regardless of who is paying for it (bad). Anyone know?
The Federal government has long asserted authority over migratory birds, so anything impacting them is covered. There are somewhat newer laws covering marine mammals, also adversely affected by
offshore wind.
Plus, wind power in general creates issues with the electric grid, also
federally regulated. As the Green Blob is the antithesis of libertarian politically, using their own politics against them is the point:
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
It is politicians doing this in the name of the government.
Without ranting further, I agree with one exception: The people most affected should have the greatest say is what is or is not allowed.
“The public has learned that government agencies are entitled to protect internal studies from public release until final reviews are completed.”
Why? How would their public release prejudice agencies’ decision-making processes? The taxpayers have paid for those public studies and they should be covered under FOIA.
Are they kept secret so that they can be “revised” based on the final decision? Non-national security or proprietary secrets undermine our Republic.
Why? Because it can change during the reviews.
It really is a double edged sword.
All of your points are valid, but they address one side of it.
Once made public, a study takes on a life of its own and even legitimate, positive corrections cannot affect that trajectory.
If you are reliant on government special favours for your economics then beware sovereign risk.
These decisions are having an impact in Australia. Grid scale wind and solar are not willing to spend their money. They will build projects if the government funds them on a guaranteed return and money up front for feasibility. Unless it is all up front, there is still sovereign risk.
The current review of Australia’s NEM is focused on Virtual Power Plants. This is where your rooftop and battery becomes a key generating component of the grid. Rooftops are now the only growing source of generation in Australia. The wholesale market is in decline. Grid scale wind and solar are fighting over reduced volume as rooftops serve any new demand. Failed industry are also removing demand from the wholesale market.
If the people understood that “wind power” isn’t nameplate capacity and in reality only gets 15-20% of that, at unpredictable times, their view of it would definitely change.
“ their view of it would definitely change.”
I wouldn’t be too sure about that.
Wind is unreliable, erratic, destroys grid stability, destroys avian life and bush habitats.
Waste products from toxic materials in the manufacturing causes huge environmental damage in northern China..
Require huge volumes of landfill at end of short life (or just left to rot….
The wind shills that occasionally visit here know all that…
… but for some reason they think all the environmental pollution and damage is a good thing…
… so they just shill even harder. !
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone. Their ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.
Offshore wind, producing electricity at 15 c/kWh (after 50% subsidies), plus 11 c/kWh to reflect the full cost of electricity, FCOE, owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty
.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar, and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth GDP is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
Remove your subsidy dollars using your vote, none of these projects would be built, your electric bills would be lower.
Ban Corrupt Mail-in Ballots and corruptible Voting Machines; No Valid ID, No Vote.
When did the English language lose the word ;”NO”?
But, but, but, our most vulnerable….
Tired am I of reading that phrase.