In the summer of 2019, Massachusetts was poised for a big moment: Any day, the federal government would be issuing a final environmental permit for what was sure to be a game changer: the first industrial offshore wind project in the United States, Vineyard Wind.
Momentum had been building for years, which was why it was surprising when Governor Charlie Baker pulled his new energy and environment secretary, Katie Theoharides, aside to deliver some bad news.
Instead of issuing the permit as expected, the Trump administration was hitting the brakes to launch a broad study of the potential cumulative impacts of planned offshore wind projects. “We weren’t expecting it,” Theoharides said, remembering the day. “Everything had looked really smooth up until that point.”
It was the beginning of a “hinder and delay” strategy that came to define the Trump administration’s approach to offshore wind, said Jeremy McDiarmid, general counsel at the clean trade group Advanced Energy United.
Now, people in the clean energy industry are bracing for a much more overt effort from the second Trump administration to slow or stop wind power.
Last go-around, the interruption seemed plausible; a cumulative impact study could be justified by some as a responsible step. Except, that’s not been required of the oil and gas industry. “It seemed pretty clear that they were doing it just to derail this offshore wind train,” said John Rogers, senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
It appeared a new double standard was being applied — one that would set back clean energy just as Massachusetts and other states were committing to slashing their greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the climate crisis, relying heavily on offshore wind.
After President Biden took office in 2021, permits got back on track, though projects were well behind. Vineyard Wind, for example, was initially scheduled to be completed in 2023; instead, it only began construction last year and has since been interrupted after a blade on one of the turbines broke this summer.
Now, among the potential threats the industry is anticipating from Trump are new tariffs or shrinking tax incentives that could drive up the costs to unsustainable levels, or even a halt in permits or new leases.
“This regulatory uncertainty increases the cost of development, it increases financing costs, it probably reduces the number of investors that are interested in accepting this risk,” said McDiarmid. “The offshore wind developers don’t start to earn money until the electrons flow.”
The stakes are high: Wind farms provide a huge boost to the state reaching its clean energy goals. When Vineyard Wind 1 is fully online, for instance, it will provide enough electricity for more than 400,000 homes and meet 5.5 percent of the state’s annual electricity demand. Another project, known as New England Wind 1, would have a similar effect.
Developers lay out billions of dollars to bring an offshore wind project to fruition, and are ultimately paid back when they sell the electricity to utilities. Because offshore wind projects have lower operating costs relative to fossil fuels when completed, supporters say wind should eventually bring costs down for ratepayers.
There are some key differences between now and eight years ago, when Trump first entered office: The industry is far more developed, with multiple projects up and down the coast, projects being built, planned, or in various stages of permitting.
While much of this is happening in coastal blue states, the industry is bringing an economic boom to red states too. Louisiana, for example, is a pivotal part of the supply chain, supplying the equipment and vessels used in building wind farms. Those jobs and contracts in Republican-held states might make it tougher to stop progress entirely.
Nonetheless, Trump these days is more vocal in his antipathy to wind turbines, claiming in May that “they destroy everything, they’re horrible, the most expensive energy there is.” He has embraced discredited antiwind claims about how wind affects whales, birds, and the environment, and vowed on his first day in office to issue an executive order halting offshore wind projects.
Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
There are other threats, too. Blades for the Vineyard Wind turbines, for instance, are manufactured in Canada, which Trump has threatened with a 25 percent tariff. Smaller parts of the offshore wind supply chain could also be affected by tariffs on China and Mexico, adding significant costs.
In addition, tax credits included in the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act — which Trump has vowed to roll back — have helped support offshore wind supply manufacturers. JSW Steel, for instance, is expanding a plant in Mingo Junction, Ohio, to produce steel slabs for offshore wind pole towers, backed by $43.5 million in federal tax credits.
Manufacturers rely on those incentives, and Washington needs to keep them in place “to ensure this industry thrives,” said Stephanie Francoeur, senior vice president at Oceantic Network, a trade group for companies in the offshore wind business.
Though some steps — namely tariffs — can be done via presidential executive order, it’s not clear if Trump’s other threats to offshore wind can be as easily realized.
Industry experts say Trump may not have the authority to revoke federal permits that are already issued. If so, then four permitted projects off the Massachusetts coastline — Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, and New England Wind 1 and 2 — should be safe. Of those, Vineyard Wind and Revolution Wind are already under construction. New England Wind 1 is further behind, having only recently been selected via a state procurement process, and New England Wind 2 has not been selected, but is available for future procurements.
The fate of other offshore wind projects planned for New England is less clear. SouthCoast Wind and Vineyard Wind 2 are on track for federal permits over the next two years. Another project, called Starboard Wind, also has not received all its federal permits.
“These are the projects that I think face the biggest risks, because that creates the most latitude and areas for engagement with the federal government,” said Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association.
Together, those three would produce a total of 3.67 gigawatts of clean energy, enough power for an estimated 1.8 million homes. Massachusetts has already contracted for 1.9 gigawatts from SouthCoast Wind and Vineyard Wind 2, and Rhode Island has contracted a small amount from SouthCoast Wind.
In Massachusetts, each project has an integral role in getting the state to its legally mandated target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. While offshore wind isn’t the only way the state plans to convert from fossil fuels for electricity, it “moves the needle the most,” said Larry Chretien, executive director of the Green Energy Consumers Alliance.
“Frankly, it’s very hard to get Massachusetts to net zero without offshore wind,” said Theoharides, the former energy secretary who worked for the offshore wind industry for a year after leaving office.
Any delays to the industry are coming at a particularly bad time, too. Demand for electricity in New England has been rising with the adoption of heat pumps and electric vehicles. At the same time, fossil fuel power plants are shutting down. “It’s simply not sustainable to take capacity off without replacement in a rising demand environment,” Dolan said.
Still, even if the industry hits major delays during the next four years of the Trump administration, “it’s not going to erase the offshore wind industry by any means,” said McDiarmid. “I think the industry is way too mature for that.”