Interior asks to reopen New England Wind approval, leaving it in force

The Interior Department asked a federal judge in Washington on October 20, 2026 to send its 2024 approval of the New England Wind construction and operations plan back to the agency for a new decision, without vacatur, so the approval stays in force while Interior reconsiders it. The cross-motion for summary judgment, filed by Justice Department lawyers in ACK for Whales v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No. 1:25-cv-01678, D.D.C.) before Judge Amir H. Ali, covers Avangrid's two-phase project off Massachusetts, immediately southwest of Vineyard Wind 1: up to 804 MW in Phase 1 (Park City Wind) and at least 1,232 MW in Phase 2 (Commonwealth Wind), according to the government's memorandum.

It is the latest in a run of these requests: Interior asked for remand of Revolution Wind's approval on October 9, without saying whether it should stay in force in the meantime, and for remand without vacatur of US Wind's Maryland approval on October 13. Interior said it was "complying with a briefing schedule, not announcing a policy change," Canary Media reported. The schedule part checks out: the court's May 5 order set October 20 as the government's deadline, per the docket.

The government wants the case narrowed along with the remand. With the approval sent back, it says, the court need not reach the plaintiffs' historic preservation claims against it, and should rule for the National Marine Fisheries Service on the marine mammal and endangered species claims. "Upon remand, Interior would make a new decision regarding the COP," the memorandum says. Avangrid declined to comment, and construction has not begun, the Associated Press reported.

Why Interior wants a do-over, again

The case for reconsidering rests on a declaration signed October 19 by Lanny E. Erdos, Interior's acting assistant secretary for land and minerals management. He says BOEM's 2024 decision treated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's requirements for offshore renewable projects as flexible "goals" to be weighed against one another, when, in his reading, the statute requires each one to be met. "I believe this was an error," he writes.

His example is the sea itself. The law requires approvals that prevent interference with reasonable uses of the waters offshore, and the agency's own environmental impact statement and record of decision describe potential "major adverse" impacts on other users of the waters. "BOEM's prior decision documents do not adequately explain how such major adverse impacts are consistent with OCSLA's requirement to approve activities in a manner that prevents interference with reasonable uses," Erdos says.

Interior has tried this before with New England Wind. On December 2, 2025, the government moved for voluntary remand and a stay of the case, and Avangrid opposed. At an April 23, 2026 hearing, the government told the court the motion might no longer be justified on its original briefing and asked for 30 days to consider it. Ali held the motion in abeyance, then denied it without prejudice on June 4, noting that the government had sent no update.

The pause followed an April 21 preliminary injunction in RENEW Northeast v. U.S. Department of the Interior in Massachusetts federal court. The new memorandum argues, citing an August ruling in another Washington case, that the injunction, as modified, "is not an impediment to Interior's reconsideration of the COP approval here on remand."

Three projects, one argument

The October 9 request, in Green Oceans v. U.S. Department of the Interior (No. 1:24-cv-00141, D.D.C.) before Judge Royce C. Lamberth, concerns a project at a very different stage. BOEM approved Revolution Wind's plan on November 17, 2023, for up to 65 turbines about 15 nautical miles southeast of Point Judith, Rhode Island, with an estimated capacity of 704 MW, according to BOEM's project page. In its cross-motion, Interior agrees that remand of that approval is warranted, on reasoning set out in a declaration from Michael D. Olsen, acting director of the Marine Minerals Administration, which replaced BOEM, that follows Erdos's declaration nearly word for word: "I believe this to have been an error." Unlike the New England Wind and Maryland filings, neither the motion nor the memorandum says whether the approval should stay in force in the meantime.

The same memorandum, defending the Army Corps of Engineers' permit for the project, tells the court that "the construction is complete" and that "a new review of the approvals for completed construction will do nothing to ease Plaintiffs' alleged problems with navigation, fishing, or wildlife viewing." A few pages earlier, it asks for a new review of Interior's approval of that same construction.

The October 13 brief over US Wind's Maryland approval asked for remand without vacatur, after a 2025 request with vacatur was denied. Both Washington memoranda cite two judges in that court who have already granted voluntary remands of offshore wind plan approvals, and the AP reports that judges let the administration reconsider the permits for New Jersey's Atlantic Shores in August 2026 and for SouthCoast Wind off Massachusetts in 2025.

Coverage has called the filings moves to "revoke" permits, as in Utility Dive's account. What the filings ask for is a new decision; for New England Wind and Maryland, the government asks for remand "without vacatur," that is, that the approval not be vacated while Interior makes one.

Outlook

Under the court's schedule, Avangrid's response and cross-motion are due November 3, 2026, the plaintiffs' reply December 1, the government's reply December 22, and Avangrid's final reply January 12, 2027. The government's motion to dismiss Avangrid's crossclaims "has been fully briefed and remains pending," the memorandum says. If Ali grants remand without vacatur, the approval would stay in force while Interior writes a new decision, and by the reasoning Judge Stephanie Gallagher applied in the Maryland case in December 2025, a developer may be able to challenge the outcome only once that decision carries legal consequences. Neither declaration says what the new decisions will be; Erdos says only that the Marine Minerals Administration is reconsidering whether the plan fully complies with the statute's requirements.