Late last month, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued an immediate stop-work order for Revolution Wind, 脴rsted鈥檚 $6.2 billion, 65-turbine offshore wind power project located 15 miles south of Rhode Island. The order, citing unspecified concerns relating to 鈥渘ational security鈥 and 鈥渋nterference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone,鈥 halted construction of the project, which was roughly 80 percent complete. The Attorneys General of Rhode Island and Connecticut filed suit on September 4, 2025, in the District Court in Rhode Island, challenging the stop-work order and alleging that BOEM exceeded its authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 脴rsted filed suit separately in the District of Columbia Circuit on similar grounds and sought a preliminary injunction to allow work to continue.
The Revolution Wind stop-work order is the latest in a string of actions by the Trump Administration targeting wind power, which began with the January 2025 suspension of new wind-energy leasing within the Outer Continental Shelf. The Administration has also issued a stop-work order for the Empire Wind 1 project in April 2025 (later reinstated in May), revoked approval for the Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho in August, and canceled $679 million in DOT port grants that were to support offshore wind development, as well as $716 million in DOE transmission loan guarantee for offshore wind.
This latest blow to renewable energy project development has the energy industry concerned about further federal actions or policies that may adversely impact renewable project development. However, offshore facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf are uniquely vulnerable to administration authority because BOEM retains direct siting and operating jurisdiction. In contrast, onshore wind, solar, storage, and distributed-generation projects, particularly those sited on private or state lands, are buffered against federal authority to some extent. Although, federal touchpoints (e.g., federal permits, species consultations, transmission rights-of-way across federal lands) may now be slower and more scrutinized, projects that avoid federal entanglements are less likely to be impacted by the current Administration鈥檚 policy positions. And, in an interesting twist, the current Administration鈥檚 skepticism toward regulatory review and environmental permitting could potentially work in favor of renewables projects seeking to limit interaction with the federal government. Escalating power demand, particularly from growing data centers, state renewable-portfolio standards, and corporate decarbonization targets indicated continued growth in renewable development.
