Josh Greenzeig, Fordham Environmental Law Review Staffer, Class of 2027

On November 4th, 2025, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) can reconsider the Biden-era approval of SouthCoast Wind, a wind farm under construction off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts. The BOEM sought remand of its permitting decision it issued on January 17^th, 2025. BOEM permits are required under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to lease space on the Outer Continental Shelf, federally owned lands that lie seaward of state-owned coastal waters. Judge Chutkan granted the remand because of judicial deference to the BOEM’s intention to re-review SouthCoast Wind’s Environmental Impact Statement for compliance with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Judge Chutkan’s decision—despite its principled grounding in judicial deference to an agency’s authority to re-review its actions—provides insight into the strategies of the Trump Administration to undermine offshore wind energy development by reopening administrative records and increasing delay-related costs borne by developers.

The Trump Administration’s Strategy for Undermining Offshore Wind Development

 Although it fails to articulate a coherent reason why, the Trump administration views offshore wind development as a threat. Likely explanations might include political opposition to environmentalism or a desire to protect natural gas and coal-powered electricity production. In effectuating its goals, the Trump administration temporarily withdrew all lands on the Outer Continental Shelf from leasing for offshore wind energy development and directed the BOEM and other relevant agencies to re-review permitting decisions made for offshore wind during the previous administration. As a result of this leasing moratorium and re-review of agency action, developers are inhibited from acquiring the lands necessary to build proposed wind farms. Additionally, existing wind farms that are currently under construction like SouthCoast Wind are subject to additional, cumbersome BOEM re-review that will cause delays that undermine financing agreements and project completion.

The Downstream Effects of Re-Reviewing Permitting Applications Inhibit Offshore Wind Development

While the moratorium on leasing functions as an explicit barrier to future offshore wind farms, agency review of approved permitting has multiple downstream effects that will further inhibit development. First, the re-review of approved permitting will cause delays to the completion of any given project. These delays create concerns for developers and lenders alike. Lengthy regulatory processes might incentivize developers to abandon projects when any reasonable return on an investment is pushed too far into the future; lenders too could grow concerned about the ability of developers to repay their financial obligations. Second, reopening the BOEM’s record as to any given permitting decision creates opportunities for private litigants to challenge agency action as procedurally or substantively invalid. Some challenges may have merit; others may merely cause additional delays that frighten developers, utility companies, and lenders alike. Because mere delay enabled by lawsuits can prevent a proposed or under-construction offshore wind farm from becoming operational, private litigants often employ a “spaghetti” strategy—bringing as many claims as possible—in the hopes of winning on the merits or slowing down the process. Additional review of agency action will only broaden the scope of claims that adverse parties may bring.

Lenders Who Finance Offshore Wind Farms Are Less Willing to Deploy Capital When Confronted With Delays to the Purchase of Generated Electricity

The decision also implicates significant uncertainties that undermine private agreements between developers, utility companies, and lenders that are necessary for financing proposed and approved projects. Many offshore wind farms enter into Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with relevant utility companies, establishing the operational period of the facility, the amount of power it is expected to produce, and the rate at which it will be sold. Prospective returns on these PPAs signal to investors that the project will generate revenue, helping to minimize the risk that a developer would be unable to repay its obligations. Because the front-end construction and administrative costs are burdensome, project developers rely on these agreements to raise necessary capital. Delays to construction and future power generation impact the amount of revenue a facility might generate. Less revenue creates more risk for lenders, making investment in offshore projects more risky and less lucrative. The hostile posture of the Trump administration not only makes approvals and the leasing of federal lands more challenging, but it also undermines the financing and lending regime that facilitates most projects. In addition to these challenges, lenders, utilities, and developers are already reconsidering how to contractually allocate increased risks posed by agency re-review of permitting decisions, reflected by an at least 14% increase in the per-Megawatt hour price since January 2025.          

Developers and Lenders Must Precisely Define and Allocate the Risks of Delay and Project Failure Going Forward

The Trump administration’s efforts to undermine offshore wind farm development are effectuated through an Offshore Continental Shelf leasing moratorium, the agency rereview or granted permitting, and resulting delays that threaten the PPA-lending regime underpinning project financing. As Judge Chutkan’s decision demonstrates, federal courts will allow agencies to rereview their permitting decisions, even in the face of steep economic and environmental costs. In the absence of stronger judicial scrutiny, private parties are faced with the prospect of better understanding, defining, and allocating the risks of political instability in developing future projects.