The U.S. offshore wind industry felt a malaise even before President Donald Trump returned to office in January and signed an order that froze development of new projects.

This halt to new offshore wind leases followed a multi-year stretch in which the industry struggled with high interest rates, difficulty obtaining parts and an accident last year in which a turbine blade broke at the Vineyard Wind 1 project and dropped debris into the ocean south of Martha’s Vineyard.

To help understand this moment and what may be next, I spoke with Barbara Kates-Garnick, a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University outside Boston and the former Massachusetts undersecretary of energy in the administration of Gov. Deval Patrick.

I’m going to set the table with some research from BloombergNEF, which said in January, after Trump’s order, that the offshore wind industry was “down but not out” and had some opportunities to make progress.

The Biden administration issued 11 permits for offshore wind farms; four of those projects are under construction but not completed, including the 806-megawatt Vineyard Wind 1. Three projects have been completed, the largest of which, the 132-megawatt South Fork Wind off of Long Island, finished construction last year.

The offshore wind industry can look forward to completing the projects under construction, barring some other obstacles, including the possibility of additional challenges from the administration, said Oliver Metcalfe, a BloombergNEF analyst. The remaining projects that have permits are going through the process of obtaining financing and other planning, which could be more complicated with a federal government that is hostile to development.

The Trump administration has taken several actions in support of its moratorium on offshore wind leases, including a decision this month by the Environmental Protection Agency to pull back its previously approved air-quality permit for the 1,500-megawatt Atlantic Shores project off of New Jersey. The agency cited the executive order as a reason to reevaluate the project, which was still in a pre-construction phase.

My conversation with Kates-Garnick follows. It has been edited for length and clarity.

DAN GEARINO: How is the U.S. offshore wind industry doing right now?

BARBARA KATES-GARNICK: Very broadly speaking, I would say the offshore wind industry in the United States is in a period of concern given these [executive] orders and given some of the other economic pressures that they faced even before these orders from Trump came into being. So I think it’s in a difficult phase right now, but I do have to tell you that long term, I think that there is really an important role for offshore wind, particularly in the northeastern states.

GEARINO: I covered this stuff all through the first Trump administration, and at that time they did plenty to slow down development of offshore wind without this kind of executive order. Are there any lessons from both the challenges and the progress that happened during that time that are helpful now, or is this just a whole new ballgame? 

KATES-GARNICK: The Trump administration is understanding better the role of the bureaucracy and the role of the agencies in the permitting process. So I think this is, and I use this word in quotes, a “wiser” Trump administration, understanding the levers of power that they have now at their disposal to slow down the industry. They have made a policy choice with this energy dominance theme that they have moving in the direction of fossil fuel. So I look at it sort of holistically as part of their broader energy policy.

GEARINO: So as they understand these levers of power, have they done about as much as they can to just really shut this down?

KATES-GARNICK: I don’t think they have shut it down, because, first of all, we have the role of the states, which have these commitments for a cleaner energy future in 2030, 2050. In many states, this is even codified into state law. So the states need to find these renewable resources to make them reach their goals, and I don’t think that the states, particularly the coastal states, are going to move away from those goals and aspirations. So there is going to be a role for offshore wind in the future, but it is hobbled in its current situation. And the other comment to make is that offshore wind is not a science experiment. It is a known industry in the rest of the world. So we do have a potential industry out there waiting for the Trump administration to leave, and I think the states will play a role in keeping it going.

GEARINO: In a practical sense, what can states do?

KATES-GARNICK: I think that the states can do all sorts of things. They can encourage research. Massachusetts has great research universities that are undertaking research into offshore wind. Maine has created, or is interested in, floating offshore wind. And there are some projects up there that are moving, you know, under consideration. I think that the states can do all sorts of things to make a more hospitable opportunity when offshore wind comes back to be a viable resource. This is a tough period now, but the future is not bleak.

GEARINO: The accident at Vineyard Wind 1 obviously got a lot of attention and was a concerning situation. To what extent do you think it will be an enduring problem for public acceptance of offshore wind?

KATES-GARNICK: I think that that accident was significant and important. I am not part of the industry. I cannot speak to anything that the companies did. I don’t know the technology. But we know that when there is a situation like what developed with the blade, it is incumbent upon the industry that is affected to do a really good job with the community and everything like that, and I think that becomes critical and important. So I think that is where the impact of the blade per se can be dealt with, but how you approach the community and gain support is complicated and difficult and needs to become a very high priority for the offshore wind industry going forward. And that’s an opportunity during this hiatus period to give information, share information and get themselves better known to the community.

GEARINO: There are a lot of reasons to be pessimistic right now. How optimistic are you that the country is going to be able to deal with energy challenges and the need for an energy transition?

KATES-GARNICK: I’m a long-term believer that the energy transition is an inevitable force. I am a believer that we will have technology options and opportunities. But I get very concerned when we make short-term decisions that delay the movement forward to a cleaner energy future.

Other stories about the energy transition to take note of this week:

Repealing the IRA Would Cost Jobs and Hurt Innovation, Report Says: The think tank Energy Innovation has a new report that seeks to quantify the harm that would be done if the Trump administration was to repeal most or all of the Inflation Reduction Act, as Ethan Howland reports for Utility Dive. A repeal of the law’s tax credits and funding programs would increase household energy costs by $6 billion in 2030 and about $9 billion in 2035, and it would cost about 790,000 jobs by 2030. The Trump administration has indicated a desire to repeal much of the IRA, but it’s not clear if enough House and Senate Republicans agree, which would be needed to change the law’s provisions.

Massachusetts Is on the Leading Edge of Turning EVs Into Grid Batteries: The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, a state-run economic development group, has a pilot project that will give out 100 free EV chargers that will be set up to allow a flow of electricity from vehicles to the grid, as Jeff St. John reports for Canary Media. The project is trying to gain data and experience to help figure out the best ways that large numbers of EV batteries sitting in garages could be used to support the grid at times of high demand.

EPA Slashes Grant Program that Aims to Reduce Construction Material Emissions: Among the many budget cuts the Trump administration has implemented at EPA is the cancellation of grants under a program that sought to measure and reduce emissions from construction materials, as I wrote for ICN. The EPA listed $116 million in cuts in an internal document obtained by the Sierra Club through a record request, but the grant recipients, including universities and trade associations, haven’t been formally notified.

A Company Accused of Wrongdoing Has Responded by Trying to “Blow Up FERC”: American Efficient of North Carolina made claims of energy savings that turned out to not be true and now the company faces severe penalties from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The company’s response is a court challenge that seeks to curb FERC’s authority and independence, as my colleague Lisa Sorg reports.

Hyundai Announces a $21 Billion U.S. Investment: Hyundai, the South Korea-based automaker, has said it will spend $21 billion to expand its manufacturing presence in the United States, including $5.8 billion for a steel plant in Louisiana, as Seema Modi reports for CNBC. The investment will help the company to reduce the effects of tariffs and it offers a signal that Hyundai intends to continue to increase its market share in the United States. The EV portion of Hyundai’s lineup has been on the rise and the company is likely to be a major part of a shift to electric transportation. And as I was finishing this week’s newsletter, I saw that the Trump administration has announced a 25 percent tariff on imported autos, which will take effect on April 2, a policy that gives an advantage to companies such as Hyundai that aim to build most of their cars for the U.S. market within this country.

Inside Clean Energy is ICN’s weekly bulletin of news and analysis about the energy transition. Send news tips and questions to [email protected].

Dan Gearino

Reporter, Clean Energy

Dan Gearino covers the midwestern United States, part of ICN’s National Environment Reporting Network. His coverage deals with the business side of the clean-energy transition and he writes ICN’s Inside Clean Energy newsletter. He came to ICN in 2018 after a nine-year tenure at The Columbus Dispatch, where he covered the business of energy. Before that, he covered politics and business in Iowa and in New Hampshire. He grew up in Warren County, Iowa, just south of Des Moines, and lives in Columbus, Ohio.

• 
  @dangearino.bsky.social
  
• 
  [email protected]