Impact of Political Shifts on U.S. Offshore Wind Development and Infrastructure

A swirling wind of Trump administration orders continues to batter the U.S. offshore wind power industry from all sides, punctuating growing concerns about the future of the power source.

President Trump’s apparent visceral dislike of wind power is translating to assaults on not only projects on the drawing board, but also those partially operational or near completion. With federal support in the form of funding and permitting vital for most projects — and now under threat — signs of ultimate retreat may trigger existential fears for those invested in a key pillar of renewable energy technology.

By one recent estimate, from a wind energy expert with analyst BloombergNEF, “five projects being built representing $28 billion of committed capital face severe delays and even cancellation.”

The latest administration broadside hits projects that have already been granted federal funding. On Aug. 29, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced it was withdrawing or terminating funding for elements of 12 offshore wind projects totaling $679 million. Calling them “doomed,” and residue of the discredited Biden-era “Green New Scam,” the agency said the funding pullback was needed because a review determined they “were not aligned with the goals and priorities of the administration,” ones being reset to focus less on renewable energy and more on conventional sources.

The DOT funding pullback largely targets complex port development work, the less visible but essential component of all offshore wind projects. Spanning utility interconnection, waterway dredging, materials staging and other supporting and enabling infrastructure, the effort folds in numerous construction trades and extensive up-front engineering, design and logistical expertise.

The order withdraws funding for seven projects, the largest of which is Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Heavy Lift Marine Terminal. The northern California project had been awarded $427 million through the federal Infrastructure for Rebuilding America program. The money was earmarked for project design and project construction, including access roads, onsite utilities, a 40-acre upland staging site, a 1,200 linear foot wharf, and a several acre berth. (See graphic)

Among five terminated projects, the largest at $33 million is the Salem Wind Port in Massachusetts, a logistics and operations hub designed to support New England offshore wind developments. It and the other four were funded from the DOT’s Port Infrastructure Development Program, one the agency said will continue to focus on “core infrastructure needs,” that presumably now exclude offshore wind.

            Given the importance of port and other on-shore infrastructure, the administration’s explicit targeting of it may be a strategic move to head off offshore wind development. A 2023 report Building a National Network of Offshore Wind Ports - Oceantic Network from Oceantic Network, an offshore wind advocacy group, details the central importance of ports to realizing the potential of the energy source.

A report overview notes that “port infrastructure is one of the most significant bottlenecks impeding the advancement of the United States offshore wind industry,” and that insufficient port capacity will significantly constrain wind energy’s growth. Part of the solution, it says, rests on “additional government funding and policy supports that incentivize private investment into U.S. offshore wind port infrastructure.”

At the September 2023 issuance of the report 35 such projects were underway, a third of the way, it said, to the some 110 port development sites needed to achieve full build-out of offshore wind off U.S. coastal waters, defined as 30 GW of offshore wind power by 2030 and 110 GW by 2050, a goal advanced by a once renewables-friendly U.S. Department of Energy. That development, needed to support component manufacturing and project deployment, would require expenditure of about $36 billion, almost 20 times the $2.5 billion already invested.

While seemingly working to cut offshore wind development off at the legs by targeting critical port development, the administration has also been delivering shots to the body of offshore wind: projects well along in development, broadly defined.

In quick succession recently, the administration has revoked permits or issued stop-work orders on four major projects. Before the latest – a Sept. 3 announcement that a key permit for the New England Wind project in the final pre-construction stage would be cancelled – the administration on Aug. 22 ordered work stopped on Revolution Wind, an 80% complete project off Rhode Island, and initiated a plan to block the Maryland Offshore Wind project. Predating that, the administration ordered work to be stopped on Empire Wind, a project under construction off New York.

The frenzy of administration orders, threats and legal challenges at the very least spells uncertainty for offshore wind, which might be the ultimate goal, critics say. Quoted in a New York Times story, Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said while investors must embrace uncertainty, too much changes the math.

Quoted in the story, Gerrard said, “This action is a flashing red light for capital investment in clean energy projects. If you’ve gotten all your permits and spent billions of dollars, and even then they can pull the plug, well, who is going to want to put their money up?”

Among five terminated projects, the largest at $33 million is the Salem Wind Port in Massachusetts, a logistics and operations hub designed to support New England offshore wind developments. It and the other four were funded from the DOT’s Port Infrastructure Development Program, one the agency said will continue to focus on “core infrastructure needs,” that presumably now exclude offshore wind.

Given the importance of port and other on-shore infrastructure, the administration’s explicit targeting of it may be a strategic move to head off offshore wind development. A 2023 report from Oceantic Network, an offshore wind advocacy group, details the central importance of ports to realizing the potential of the energy source.

A report overview notes that “port infrastructure is one of the most significant bottlenecks impeding the advancement of the United States offshore wind industry,” and that insufficient port capacity will significantly constrain wind energy’s growth. Part of the solution, it says, rests on “additional government funding and policy supports that incentivize private investment into U.S. offshore wind port infrastructure.”

At the September 2023 issuance of the report 35 such projects were underway, a third of the way, it said, to the some 110 port development sites needed to achieve full build-out of offshore wind off U.S. coastal waters, defined as 30 GW of offshore wind power by 2030 and 110 GW by 2050, a goal advanced by a once renewables-friendly U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). That development, needed to support component manufacturing and project deployment, would require expenditure of about $36 billion, almost 20 times the $2.5 billion already invested.

While seemingly working to cut offshore wind development off at the legs by targeting critical port development, the administration has also been delivering shots to the body of offshore wind: projects well along in development, broadly defined.

In quick succession recently, the administration has revoked permits or issued stop-work orders on four major projects. Before the latest — a Sept. 3 announcement that a key permit for the New England Wind project in the final pre-construction stage would be cancelled — the administration on Aug. 22 ordered work stopped on Revolution Wind, an 80% complete project off Rhode Island, and initiated a plan to block the Maryland Offshore Wind project. Predating that, the administration ordered work to be stopped on Empire Wind, a project under construction off New York.

The frenzy of administration orders, threats, and legal challenges at the very least spells uncertainty for offshore wind, which might be the ultimate goal, critics say. Quoted in a New York Times story, Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said while investors must embrace uncertainty, too much changes the math.

Quoted in the story, Gerrard said, “This action is a flashing red light for capital investment in clean energy projects. If you’ve gotten all your permits and spent billions of dollars, and even then they can pull the plug, well, who is going to want to put their money up?”