Wind

US waives response to Supreme Court petition to block Vineyard offshore wind

Move is latest indication that Trump's Justice Department may decline to offer vigorous defences of federal permits

US Supreme Court building
US Supreme Court buildingPhoto: JoshBerglund19/Flickr
US Offshore Wind Editor, Recharge

The Trump administration declined to weigh in on offshore wind opponents’ last-chance efforts to block US flagship array Vineyard with the Supreme Court, potentially signalling its reluctance to defend the sector from litigation.

Solicitor-General D. John Sauer in two separate filings to petitions to the nation’s top court wrote: “The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”

Rhode Island-based seafood processor Seafreeze Shoreside and civic group Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (Roda) have each waged years' long battles against the 800MW Vineyard Wind 1, the nation’s first permitted offshore wind array.

Owned by a joint venture of Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and Iberdrola's Avangrid, Vineyard is currently in construction in the Massachusetts wind energy area 15 miles (24 km) off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard.

While the suits differ in respects, they share the claim that federal regulators headed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) failed to adhere to major environmental and other laws when approving the project.

Their lawsuits were combined at both the federal district and appellate court levels, where they failed to persuade judges that regulators had erred in their consents.
Their petitions – formally, writs of certiorari – to the Supreme Court are their last chance to block the project. A third petition by a Nantucket-based group looking to void Vineyard's permits failed to gain the Supreme Court's attention.
Research consultancy ClearView Energy Partners noted it is not unusual for the federal government represented by the Department of Justice (DoJ) to waive its right to respond to a writ in anticipation that most will fail.
The Supreme Court receives some 6,000-7,000 writs annually and only hears about 100.

However, “we still would not discount the possibility that the current administration was not eager to file a brief defending the project approved by its predecessor,” ClearView wrote in a memo issued yesterday.

Former President Joe Biden galvanised offshore wind with a 30GW by 2030 goal. Under his administration, BOEM approved 19GW of capacity in 11 projects from Virginia to Massachusetts.

Trump’s disdain for offshore wind is legendary, however, and on his first day in office he signed a memorandum that stopped all leasing and permitting in federal waters, while also putting approved projects under review towards termination or amendment.

Critically, Trump’s order offered DoJ the option of staying or settling litigation against offshore wind arrays that could lead to existing projects losing their federal approvals.

“The Trump Administration could choose not to defend its predecessor’s agency orders approving offshore wind projects,” ClearView said.

Instead, BOEM “could use pending legal challenges to undermine those federal permits and approvals, leading to project cancellations.”

Recharge has reached out to plaintiffs, the developer, and the DoJ, and is awaiting comment.

Major US infrastructure development typically attracts litigation, and some ten lawsuits against six projects ongoing in federal courts have been vigorously defended by the previous government.

The Trump administration’s responses have so far has been mixed, though, with several moves indicating it may not offer a strong defence.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month remanded its Clean Air permit for EDF’s Atlantic Shores array after New Jersey plaintiffs filed suit in district court.
Plaintiffs fighting the approval of Orsted’s Revolution Wind to Connecticut and Rhode Island said that the federal government failed to file in defence of its own permits, leaving it up to the developer to fight for the project.
The DoJ likewise joined plaintiffs the Heartland Institute and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow suing over approval of Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) in calling for a stay in litigation.

The stay is aimed at allowing BOEM and other agency leadership to get more familiar with the case in light of Trump’s order.

On 31 March, though, BOEM filed a brief in District Court for the District of Maryland in support of its approvals of US Wind’s projects.

ClearView wrote that it regards the brief “as an important indication that the Trump Administration is likely willing to defend at least some offshore wind projects against specific claims, notwithstanding” the president’s hostility.

(Copyright)

Related

Published 10 April 2025, 20:55Updated 11 April 2025, 19:23
AmericasUSCopenhagen Infrastructure PartnersIberdrolaAvangrid