This nonsense again? The firm paid the US government a billion dollars to rent the property that the wind turbines would sit on, then the US withdrew permission for the project. Should the government simply have gypped them and kept the money?

Was there a good reason not to build there?

It seems at a glance like we should have just built the turbines, not paid off or stiffed them.

Since we seem to desperately need more energy, currently expanding with every other short term high polluting source we can.

You might want to reconsider using "gypped" in that way.