A long-time colleague is very familiar with Judge Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, and thinks highly of him. 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. Judge Lamberth ruled that the govt doesn’t have such a case. Per the judge:
The govt presented insufficient evidence to support alleged permit noncompliance and national security concerns.
The govt acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner.
“If Revolution Wind cannot meet benchmark deadlines, the entire project could collapse.”
“There is no doubt in my mind of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.”
Projects under development will be difficult to pause or stop. The Administration should focus on requiring sufficient decommissioning financial assurance, monitoring and mitigating project impacts, making incident data publicly available, issuing the report on the Vineyard Wind blade failure (finally!), and improving the availability of dispatchable power (i.e. natural gas and nuclear).
Judge Royce Lamberth granted an injunction allowing Orsted to resume work on the Revolution Wind project. BOEM halted work on the project one month ago.
Gov. Newsom and Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen
As is the case for most MOUs, the attached 8/22/2025 agreement between California and Denmark is long on promotion and short on substance. No funds are obligated and there are no work commitments.
The MOU made sense for Gov. Newsom in that he strengthened his green credentials by aligning with the country that is the spiritual leader for climate activists.
The benefits for Denmark were unclear, but the risks should have been apparent. The White House is fundamentally opposed to the climate and energy objectives identified in the MOU. Ørsted (50.1% govt owned) and other Danish business interests are very much dependent on decisions made by the US Federal govt.
Work on Ørsted’s Revolution Wind project has been halted by Interior Secretary Burgum. His decision is being challenged in court, but no matter what the outcome, offshore wind development will be difficult for Ørsted and other foreign companies going forward. The Secretary has broad regulatory authority under the OCS Lands Act, under which there is no such thing as “a fully permitted project.”
Meanwhile, California’s green status has taken a hit with the passage of S 237, which pragmatically authorizes new onshore drilling.
Lastly, as the chart below illustrates, Orsted’s problems didn’t begin in 2025.
“Ørsted is evaluating all options to resolve the matter expeditiously. This includes engagement with relevant permitting agencies for any necessary clarification or resolution as well as through potential legal proceedings, with the aim being to proceed with continued project construction towards COD in the second half of 2026.”
Ørsted’s stock price plummeted on Monday following the announcement of a $9.4 billion rights issue to fund the Sunrise Wind project. The share price has remained depressed (chart below).
Also, although Ørsted attributes its financial woes to the change in US policies, it’s apparent in the second chart (5 year trend) that the decline in Ørsted’s valuation has been ongoing since 2021.
In March, Fitch downgraded Ørsted’s rating to BBB from BBB+, and its subordinated rating to BB+ from BBB-. Further downgrades would seem to be a distinct possibility.
Meanwhile, decommissioning financing for the 3 Ørsted projects under construction in the US Atlantic is far from assured:
Revolution Wind:As they did for Vineyard Wind, BOEM approved Ørsted’s request to defer full decommissioning financial assurance until 15 years after the beginning of construction (see attached letter). This approval was prior to the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule (effective June 29, 2024), which eliminated the need for such waivers.
Sunrise Wind: Ørsted is now solely responsible for funding and constructing this project given the company’s failure to find investment partners. Presumably, decommissioning financial assurance was not required given BOEM’s latitude under the so-called “Modernization Rule.”
South Fork Wind: As is the case with Sunrise Wind, BOEM presumably allowed Ørsted to defer financial assurance for decommissioning as permitted by the “Modernization Rule.”
According to Ørsted, almost 70% of the turbines are installed at Revolution Wind and the first foundations have been installed at Sunrise Wind. South Fork Wind, 12 turbines and an offshore substation, is complete.
Given Ørsted’s strained finances, will BOEM now opt to require decommissioning assurance as provided for in 30 CFR § 585.517?
Ørsted’s situation is atypical in that the Danish government owns a majority (50.1%) stake in the company and Equinor, which is 2/3 Norwegian govt owned, holds a 9.8% stake. How will government ownership factor into BOEM decisions regarding decommissioning assurance? Note that Norwegian govt lobbying may have been one of the factors influencing the decision to allow the resumption of construction on Equinor’s Empire Wind project.
BusinessWire: “These turbines destroy our culturally sacred viewshed, destroy our traditional and historic fishing grounds, and threaten the continued existence of the North Atlantic right whale,” said William “Buddy” Vanderhoop, a member of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head.
“We are known as ‘The People of the First Light,’” said Tribal Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais. “The unobstructed eastern view of the ocean from our ancestral lands from Nantucket, Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard (‘Noepe’) and southeastern Massachusetts is inextricably intertwined with who we are as a people and our cosmology, and is essential to our spiritual beliefs and practices.”
“Defendant Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”), acting as lead federal agency, violated federal law when it approved an industrial-scale energy project known as Revolution Wind. BOEM approved this project without considering its adverse effects on National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) and other historic properties within one of the most historically and culturally significant communities in the country. BOEM also failed to take a “hard look” at Revolution Wind’s impacts on the environment, leaving unanswered questions even though the law required BOEM to inform the public about the project’s environmental benefits and costs.“
Those who have visited the Newport Cliff Walk and historic “cottages” are likely to appreciate the concerns of the Preservation Society. Their court filing is attached.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 