Court Blocks Trump’s Ban on Wind Power, but Other Anti-Renewable Policies Remain

President Donald Trump’s crusade against renewables was dealt a blow on Monday when a federal judge vacated a January executive order that halted wind energy development on public lands.

In May, 17 states and the District of Columbia filed suit against Trump over the order, which directed federal agencies to “not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects,” as the government reviewed leasing and permitting practices for these sources. The order, along with other directives, resulted in the cancellation of several permitted wind projects, including one that was approved under the first Trump administration. At the time of the lawsuit, ClearView Energy Partners Managing Director Timothy Fox told The New York Times, “he expected the lawsuit to face an uphill climb in convincing the court to block the executive order.”

The prediction was ultimately proved wrong. In her Monday decision, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts called the order “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law” before vacating it “in its entirety.”

While the plaintiffs hailed the decision as a “major victory,” it’s unclear whether it will actually improve the outlook for wind under the current administration. As the Times points out, “Courts typically cannot compel federal agencies to approve new projects.” So even though federal agencies can no longer deny permits for wind power solely because of the January executive order, they can still find other creative ways to shutter these projects. This might resemble Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s August order to prohibit permits for wind and solar power unless they produce as much energy per acre as fossil fuels or nuclear power.

The Justice Department has yet to say if it will appeal the decision. In a statement to the Times, Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, justified the executive order by blaming the Biden administration for giving “unfair, preferential treatment” to offshore wind “while the rest of the energy industry was hindered by burdensome regulations.”

Rogers’ statement gives the public a peek behind the curtain of the White House’s energy policy and shows the obvious problems of allowing the executive branch to have an outsize influence on the nation’s energy strategy.

For years, presidents have leveraged their power to influence the energy sector. This includes Barack Obama, who used regulations to make coal less economically viable, and Joe Biden, who shuttered fossil fuel projects while doling out billions of dollars in green energy subsidies. But instead of changing the pattern, Trump has stayed the course of picking winners and losers. The winners—coal, natural gas, and nuclear—have received government bailouts and reduced regulations, while the losers—wind and solar—haven’t been given a fair chance to compete.

Meanwhile, the constant flip-flopping of policy between administrations has reduced certainty for energy developers. Why pour millions of dollars into a project and spend years navigating the maze of federal permitting, when the president can nix the project at the eleventh hour (or even after the project has begun construction)?

Courts have begun to intervene against some of Trump’s legally dubious actions. Unfortunately, Monday’s decision is unlikely to stop Trump or future presidents from picking energy winners and losers, which will leave consumers and markets worse off.