States pile Revolution stop-work order on Trump lawsuit

Connecticut and Rhode Island regulators submitted testimony condemning the sudden stop-work order for Revolution Wind to a 17-state lawsuit against Trump’s sweeping anti-offshore wind memorandum.

In affidavits, the commissioners of the Connecticut Department of Energy Resources (DOER) and the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources (OER) both stressed that cancelling the project would risk near-term grid reliability and drive rates skyward.

“Wind energy helps prevent fuel shortages, helps combat volatile pricing, and strengthens reliability on the grid,” said Rhode Island OER acting commissioner Christopher Kearns.

“The Revolution Wind contracts are expected to act as a successful hedge against rising electricity rates in the future,” said Connecticut DOER’s Katherine Dykes.

The project’s cancellation would result in “tens of millions of dollars in higher electricity costs on average for Connecticut ratepayers each year,” she added.

The project, split between Connecticut and Rhode Island, is nearly complete, with 45 of 65 turbines installed in the lease site some 15 miles (24 km) south of Point Judith, Rhode Island.

The stop-work order was issued under authority of President Donald Trump’s anti-offshore wind Inauguration Day memorandum that stopped all leasing and permitting and put approved projects under new review.

The memorandum has all but stopped offshore wind development, with the only projects advancing are the five – including Revolution – already into advanced at-sea construction.

Loss of planned offshore wind projects will deprive states “of the ability to plan for reliable and affordable energy and implement their energy and climate policies,” jeopardise “investments in wind-energy-related infrastructure”, and delay “greenhouse-gas-emission reductions,” plaintiffs said in a motion submitted today.

Offshore wind has generated some $25bn in supply chain investments including port upgrades and a major boost to shipbuilding, according to industry group Oceantic Network.

These demonstrate the harmful impacts of the President’s “arbitrary decision” to “stop wind-energy development in our States,” plaintiffs said.

The court is expected to rule on the case in the coming month.