Offshore wind was once expected to anchor America’s clean energy transition, with billions of dollars invested and ambitious state-level targets tied to projects along the East Coast. But the sudden halt of Ørsted’s Revolution Wind, a 700-megawatt offshore project located 15 miles off the coast of Rhode Island, shows how fragile that vision has become. Fully permitted, 80% complete, and already contracted to supply Rhode Island and Connecticut, Revolution Wind was ordered to stop work in August 2025 by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). In response, Ørsted filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the stop work order, arguing the decision is unlawful and puts billions of dollars of investment at risk. The legal battle reflects not only regulatory conflict but a larger political struggle over the direction of U.S. energy policy.
Revolution Wind is a joint venture between Ørsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables, with an investment estimated at $5 billion. The project had completed all offshore foundations and installed 45 out of 65 planned turbines before the stop work order was issued. BOEM justified the action in its Director’s Order by citing national security concerns and potential interference with maritime uses of the exclusive economic zone. Ørsted, while complying with the directive to suspend construction, immediately turned to the courts, seeking emergency relief and emphasizing the financial and contractual risks at stake. In its company announcement, the developer stressed it was “complying with the order and taking appropriate steps to stop offshore activities” while evaluating “all options to resolve the matter expeditiously.” Analysts warn that cancellation could impose over $1 billion in breakaway costs on the developer, while disrupting 20-year power purchase agreements that are already in place. The announcement triggered an immediate market reaction, with Ørsted’s shares plunging to an all-time low, underscoring how political risk now looms as large as construction or financing risk in the sector.
Although Revolution Wind has drawn the most attention because of its near-completion status, it is not an isolated case. Earlier in 2025, the 810-MW Empire Wind 1 project offshore New York was halted by a similar order, costing its developer Equinor an estimated $50 million per week. Only direct negotiations between New York Governor Kathy Hochul and federal officials revived the project. In parallel, the New England Wind project, with a planned capacity of 2.6 GW, faces permit revocation as the administration seeks to remand approvals already granted. Most recently, Maryland Offshore Wind, a 2.2 GW project led by US Wind, has seen its construction and operations plan approval targeted for revocation under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Together, these cases suggest a deliberate federal strategy of challenging offshore wind, even for projects that cleared multi-year reviews and spanned several presidential administrations.
The financial implications of these interventions ripple far beyond the developers themselves. Ørsted’s lawsuit filing over Revolution Wind underscores how developers are forced to defend not just their capital but also their legal rights to build projects they were assured could proceed. Equinor’s delays at Empire Wind highlight how sunk costs can escalate rapidly when construction is suspended. Investor confidence has been shaken: banks now weigh the risk that projects, even with all permits in place, can be halted at the eleventh hour. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis notes that uncertainty is raising financing costs across the board, not just for wind but also for gas pipelines and nuclear projects. On the policy side, ISO New England has already flagged reliability concerns, noting that its near-term grid planning assumes Revolution Wind will come online by 2026. Industry advocates, such as the Oceantic Network, argue that halting permitted projects undermines a $25 billion domestic supply chain, jeopardizing investments in U.S. shipbuilding, steel, and manufacturing while raising electricity prices for millions of consumers.
Underlying these decisions is a broader political struggle. Administration officials have tied offshore wind delays to natural gas infrastructure expansion, signaling a preference for fossil fuels and nuclear power. Developers and trade associations counter that the actions are arbitrary, politically motivated, and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Ørsted’s lawsuit directly challenges this approach, arguing that Revolution Wind met all requirements and received approvals from 15 federal and state agencies. States, meanwhile, are pressing forward: New York demonstrated its willingness to negotiate to salvage Empire Wind, while Maryland has awarded renewable certificates to its offshore projects despite federal reconsideration. The confrontation is now extending into the courts, Congress, and the energy markets, raising fundamental questions about America’s credibility as a clean energy investment destination.
Ørsted’s Revolution Wind has become the focal point of a wider standoff between politics and clean energy development in the United States. While Empire Wind, New England Wind, and Maryland Offshore Wind illustrate that this is part of a pattern, Revolution Wind’s near-completion and Ørsted’s lawsuit make it the most urgent test case. Whether the project proceeds or collapses will send a signal to investors, utilities, and global developers about the stability of U.S. energy policy. At stake are not only climate targets but also billions in private investment, the resilience of regional grids, and the future of America’s offshore wind industry.
California has passed a sweeping energy reform package that extends cap and trade through 2045, replenishes its wildfire fund, and accelerates regional grid expansion. The reforms aim to balance affordability, resilience, and decarbonization, reshaping how utilities operate and how large businesses manage Scope 2 emissions and long-term energy strategies.
