Analysis: US offshore wind industry in a race against time

By Bruce Beaubouef, Managing Editor

Developers of the five major offshore wind projects in US federal waters are in a race against time, hoping that they can complete construction before the next stop-work order is issued by the Trump administration, or adverse appeals court ruling forces them to stop work again.

These projects—all aimed at providing power to East Coast markets—include Revolution Wind, Empire Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW), Vineyard Wind 1, and Sunrise Wind.

These projects were all subject to a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) stop-work order issued on Dec. 22, 2025. That order suspended construction activities for 90 days citing national security concerns related to potential radar interference from turbine blades.

The Dec. 22, 2025, BOEM stop-work order explicitly targeted and affected only these projects, which represented the totality of all large-scale US offshore wind farms that were under construction as of late 2025. Together, these projects are worth an estimated $25 billion and are designed to be capable of powering roughly 2.5 million homes once complete.

The project developers, including Orsted, Equinor, Dominion Energy, Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, quickly filed suit against the stop-work order in various federal courts.

These developers argued that the orders were arbitrary, capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as the projects had already undergone extensive multi-year reviews by agencies including the Pentagon and FAA. Courts agreed at the preliminary stage, emphasizing irreparable harm, public interest and “likelihood of success on merits.” 

From mid-January through early February 2026, these US district courts granted preliminary injunctions. These preliminary injunctions now allow each project to resume work while underlying lawsuits proceed. The injunctions have prevented (or at least contained) the immediate economic fallout—estimated at up to $7 billion per project in some cases—and allowed resumption without waiting for full trials, which could take months.

To place the suspension costs in context: the brief suspensions (3-6 weeks) imposed significant daily costs—estimated at $1–5 million per project, with some citing over $1 million per day—and logistical pressure from vessel contracts, but developers have now resumed with timelines still targeting first power in 2026 where feasible and full operation by 2027.

However, these injunctions do not resolve the core disputes. Final rulings on the merits could still uphold the stop-work orders, though the unanimous preliminary decisions suggest a strong precedent for developers.

If courts ultimately side with the government, developers could face dismantling costs or lease revocations. However, with projects nearing completion, this becomes politically and practically challenging—dismantling operational turbines would be costly and potentially unpopular. The administration’s broader anti-wind stance (e.g., pausing new leases) adds uncertainty, potentially deterring future investments, but current projects benefit from sunk costs and contracts.

Preliminary injunction mechanics

But how much time can the developers expect from a preliminary injunction? And what are the risks of resuming construction under a preliminary injunction, which is by definition temporary? Let’s look at the (typical) mechanics of a preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm while a case is litigated. Unlike a temporary restraining order, which typically lasts no more than 14 days (or up to 28 with an extension for cause), a preliminary injunction remains in effect until the court issues a further order, which could happen after discovery, motions practice or a full trial on the merits. This means that a preliminary injunction can last for months or even years, depending on the complexity of the case, court docket and any appeals.

For example, in high-profile litigation like these offshore wind cases, the underlying merits challenges could take six to 18 months or longer to resolve, but the preliminary injunction holds until then unless dissolved earlier (e.g., if new evidence emerges or the government prevails on a motion to dismiss).

Resuming construction under a preliminary injunction carries risks, since it is inherently temporary and could be reversed by a final ruling. A preliminary injunction is granted based on a preliminary assessment where the court finds that the plaintiff (in this case, the wind developers) is likely to succeed on the merits; faces irreparable harm without relief; and that the balance of equities/public interest favors them.

However, such a ruling is not a final determination. The full case on the merits (e.g., whether the Trump administration’s national security claims hold up) will come later, potentially after discovery and trial.

If the developers lose at that stage, the preliminary injunction could be dissolved, leading to another halt. In these specific cases, that could mean billions in sunk costs (e.g., one developer cited $4 billion already invested in a project, plus $1.2 billion in termination fees if canceled), layoffs of thousands of workers and abandoned infrastructure. Some projects are already 90% complete, amplifying the stakes.

For Sunrise Wind, the judge noted daily losses exceeding $1 million during the pause, plus there was the risk of losing a key installation vessel to the international market. For all five projects, delays could cascade, pushing completion dates back years and potentially making projects unviable financially.

Thus, resuming construction under a (temporary) preliminary injunction was a “no-brainer” for developers in time-sensitive industries like offshore wind, where delays compound costs exponentially. In these rulings, judges repeatedly cited “irreparable harm” from losing access to specialized installation vessels. Key examples include crane ships and cable-layers that are booked globally and could depart the US market if idle for too long.

With these cases, courts sided with developers on preliminary injunctions precisely because the harm from stopping is immediate and unrecoverable (e.g., vessel departures, contract breaches), while the government’s “national security” claims remain unproven and classified (and thus hard to rebut quickly).

A pragmatic gamble