The Always On Energy Research report is attached. Conclusion:
“In other words, dispatchable generation saves New England hundreds of billions of dollars and avoids blackouts. In the end, the idea that New England can run its electric grid on wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries is a dangerous and unserious proposition.“
Orsted has a lease contract, and no matter where you stand on offshore wind, you have to have a compelling case to halt a project that is in the advanced stages of development.
The SAS data indicate that the number of wind turbine incidents has risen sharply in recent years (see chart below). The increased number of turbines worldwide, and perhaps better news coverage of incidents, presumably contributed to the sharp increase. Nonetheless, the growing number of incidents is disconcerting, as is the absence of industry and government summaries and reports.
SAS acknowledges that their list, which is dependent on publicly available reports, is merely the “tip of the iceberg.” For example, the list does not include the June 2, 2025, Empire Wind project fatality.
The SAS list does capture the 2008 collapse of the Russell Peterson liftboat, which was collecting data offshore Delaware for a wind project. One worker died and another was rescued. The Coast Guard never issued a report on this tragic incident. Serious questions remain about the positioning of a liftboat in the Mid-Atlantic for several months beginning in March when major storms are likely, the liftboat’s failure mechanisms, the operator’s authority to be conducting this research, and the actions that were taken in preparation for storm conditions.
The Russell Peterson toppled in May 2008 while gathering data for a proposed offshore wind project.
Attached is the supplemental complaint in the lawsuit Revolution Wind, LLC v. United States Department of the Interior, Case No. 1:25-cv-02999-RCL, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The December 28 court ruling is consistent with the Department of the Interior’s position that the TRO request be converted to a request for a preliminary injunction. Interior had argued that a preliminary injunction motion could likely be resolved by mid-to-late-January.
The Government also asserted that more time is needed to submit the classified information that is central to the dispute.
Thoughts on this case: A respected colleague recalled this advice from Don Hodel, a widely admired Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration: “For all its faults, a contract is a contract, great men and great nations keep their word.”
Another colleague reminded me of the offshore North Carolina oil and gas leases that were suspended in the 1990s. The companies sued the Federal government for breach of contract, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on June 26, 2000, in Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast Inc. v. United States, that the government must repay the lessees.
If the suspended Atlantic wind leases are cancelled, the govt would presumably have to compensate lessees for lease purchase and development expenditures. The costs to the Federal govt would be enormous – in the tens of $billions.
Summary: “BOEM’s order sets forth no rational basis, cannot be reconciled with BOEM’s own regulations and prior issued lease terms and approvals, is arbitrary and capricious, is procedurally deficient, violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), and infringes upon constitutional principles that limit actions by the Executive Branch. This Court must therefore vacate the Order and enjoin BOEM from taking further action with respect to that Order.”
Key points raised by Dominion:
Dominion Energy Virginia (DEV) has spent approximately $8.9 billion to develop CVOW to date, which is over two-thirds of the total projected cost of $11.2 billion.
BOEM and Interior afforded DEV no advance warning or due process regarding the Order for CVOW.
The Order alleges no CVOW violation or deficiency.
The Order points to unnamed “national security threats” based on a November 2025 “additional assessment regarding the national security implications of offshore wind projects” by DoD, “including the rapid evolution of relevant adversary technologies and the resulting direct impacts to national security from offshore wind projects” generally.
The Order deems this information “new” and “classified” without any justification or detail. Moreover, as BOEM and DoD should know, certain DEV officials have security clearances to receive and review classified information, yet never were afforded such an opportunity prior to issuance of the Order.
DEV is suffering more than $5 million per day in losses solely for costs relating to vessel services associated with the Order. DEV is also incurring losses related to additional storage costs for the significant amount of equipment, idle workforce, contractual penalties, and additional costs.
Agencies are required to consider costs and benefits in their decision-making
Agencies are required to consider alternatives in their decision-making.
The CVOW Order unlawfully deprives DEV of a property interest without due process.
Dominion’s weakest argument follows (bad State legislation shouldn’t dictate Federal energy policy):
CVOW is critical to Virginia’s legislative clean energy directive and DEV’s commitment to achieving net-zero emissions. The VCEA requires the transition of Virginia’s electric grid to 100 percent non-carbon producing energy generation by 2045. Va. Code § 56-585.5. The VCEA also states that the construction of Virginia offshore wind facilities is in the public interest. Va. Code § 56-585.1:11 (C)(1).
Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) is no ordinary renewable project. It was created by legislative command. The 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) declared Dominion’s 2.6-gigawatt wind farm “in the public interest,” effectively tying the hands of the State Corporation Commission and guaranteeing Dominion full cost recovery and profit. The risk doesn’t sit with shareholders — it sits with Virginia’s ratepayers.
The Thomas Jefferson Institute opposed that structure from the start. We warned that forcing captive customers to underwrite an unproven, high-cost project located in a hurricane prone region would expose Virginians to escalating bills with little accountability. Yet when a group recently asked the federal government to shut CVOW down, we declined to join. Why? Because government shouldn’t pick winners and losers — not when it mandates projects, and not when it stops them. Especially when a project is in its final stretch and no economic analysis of such a decision has been completed (or shared).
Virginia’s offshore wind story shows how risky it is when government drives energy decisions by decree. One administration mandates a massive buildout; the next halts it over security fears. Businesses can’t plan around that. Ratepayers shouldn’t have to pay for it.