Offshore wind projects are in jeopardy in the wake of President Donald Trump’s initial Executive Order (EO) to halt wind energy leasing projects. With massive monetary investments on the line, lawsuits are certainly forthcoming.
“The Trump administration took a more aggressive step against wind in April when it ordered the Norwegian company Equinor to halt construction on Empire Wind, a fully permitted project located southeast of Long Island, New York, that is about 30% complete,” reports broadcasting organization NPR. “Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said it appeared the Biden administration rushed the approval.”
The administration’s review revealed “information that raises serious issues with respect to the project approvals for the Empire Wind Project,” Burgum wrote in a letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, according to energy news site Utility Dive.
“Equinor went through a seven-year permitting process before starting to build Empire Wind last year to provide power to 500,000 New York homes,” the NPR article says.
In day one EOs, Trump directed EPA heads and the attorney general to “withdraw from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS). This withdrawal temporarily prevents consideration of any area in the OCS for any new or renewed wind energy leasing for the purposes of generation of electricity or any other such use derived from the use of wind. … Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas. With respect to such existing leases, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Attorney General as needed, shall conduct a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”
Why does Trump oppose wind power?
During his campaign, Trump promised “to end the offshore wind industry” if he was reelected. This stance was confusing to many because it’s the polar opposite of his pro-industry platform; a “build, baby, build” mentality; and a stated desire to create American energy dominance.
Apparently, Trump’s aversion to wind power began for aesthetic reasons when he bought property on the coast of Scotland in 2006 for the development of a golf course, business magazine Fast Company purports, only to find out later there were plans for an offshore wind farm in the area.
The magazine continues, “Worried about the view, he filed a complaint with the government, describing the wind farm as ‘an ugly cloud hanging over the future of the great Scottish coastline,’ and arguing that the wind farm should be relocated or shouldn’t be built at all.”
“At the time, Trump wasn’t yet a vocal opponent of climate science. In 2009, two years before he started fighting the wind farm, as the world gathered for climate talks in Copenhagen, Trump signed an open letter calling for climate action that ran as an ad in The New York Times,” Fast Company continues. “It said, ‘If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.’”
As his battle with the Scottish government continued, Trump began to criticize the wind energy industry.
“In hundreds of tweets, he talked about how wind turbines are ‘bad for people’s health,’ ‘ruining the beautiful parts of the country,’ and ‘disgusting looking,’” the magazine adds. “In Scotland, the wind farm near Trump’s golf course was completed and started running in 2018, producing enough energy for 80,000 homes. The country now has so many wind farms that by 2022, it was generating more renewable electricity than it used.”
New York climate law
New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was enacted in 2019 and sets increasingly more ambitious goals to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 60% (from a 1990 baseline) by 2030. The CLCPA also sets procurement mandates for renewable resources:
- 70% renewable energy by 2030
- 9,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind by 2035
- 3,000 MW of energy storage by 2030
- 6,000 MW of solar by 2025
The Act calls for 100% zero-emission energy by 2040, which requires the timely completion of the Empire Wind Project to achieve the mandates set out in the Act.
EPA “Administrator Lee Zeldin slammed New York’s Climate Act, advanced by Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York Democrats, Sunday as ‘delusional’ and a ‘left-wing recipe for an energy and economic catastrophe,’” the New York Post notes. “New York’s lofty climate goals don’t come equipped with any feasible plan to actually achieve them. The consequence is that the people who can least afford the economic pain are the ones who get targeted and harmed the most,” Zeldin said.
Critics of the CLCPA believe the legislative mandates weren’t realistic even before the Trump administration halted wind projects.
“We can flap our arms. It doesn’t mean we’re going to fly,” John Howard, former interim chairman of the Public Service Commission, said, according to the New York Post. “Let’s face reality.” He added, “The circumstances have changed. Let’s figure out what we’re going to do.”
Residents in New York state are predicted to see hefty rate hikes on their monthly utility bills.
“Utility giant Con Edison recently proposed double-digit rate hikes for gas and energy bills, blaming the hikes partially on the cost of complying with green mandates.”
Wind energy projects in jeopardy
Wind energy supplies about 10% of electricity generated in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). It’s the largest source of renewable energy used in the nation.
For states like New York and New Jersey, where there isn’t much land, ocean-based wind farms are the centerpiece of state plans to incorporate renewable energy sources.
“Eight of the ten states that rely most on wind power voted for Trump; Iowa, for example, gets around 60% of its electricity from wind,” Fast Company says.
“Restricting wind development in these regions is certain to increase consumer energy bills,” according to a statement released by the American Clean Power Association.
Under the Biden administration, the future of wind energy in the United States looked promising.
However, according to The New York Times, “Now industry executives assume no new offshore projects will start up under the Trump administration. There are questions over whether the handful of giant projects now underway, which include two by Orsted, called Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Sunrise Wind off Montauk, N.Y., will be completed.”
Rasmus Errboe, CEO of Denmark-based global wind developer Orsted, notes that these projects were already well underway. “Orsted took $180 million in write-offs on the value of these wind farms because of the impact of the 25 percent tariff imposed on imported steel and aluminum by the Trump administration,” he says, according to the Times.
“Massachusetts has invested in offshore wind to ensure residents have access to well-paying green jobs and reliable, affordable energy, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said,” NPR says. “The state has three offshore wind projects in various stages of development, include Vineyard Wind. The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied to hear a case brought by fishermen’s organizations challenging the approval of Vineyard Wind.
“The Trump administration has also suspended federal funding for floating offshore wind research in Maine and revoked a permit for a proposed offshore wind project in New Jersey.”
Other projects in jeopardy, according to weekly news magazine The Week, are “burgeoning wind power projects” in Delaware and Maryland.
Pending litigation
A coalition of attorneys general have filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts against the Trump administration for its interference in ongoing and planned wind energy projects.
“They say Trump doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally shut down the permitting process, and he’s jeopardizing development of a power source critical to the states’ economic vitality, energy mix, public health and climate goals,” NPR says. “They’re asking a federal judge to declare the order unlawful and stop federal agencies from implementing it.”
“This arbitrary and unnecessary directive threatens the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments, and it is delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition, said in a statement, according to NPR.
States and districts involved in the lawsuit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Washington, D.C.
These states “say they’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to develop wind energy and even more on upgrading transmission lines to bring wind energy to the electrical grid.”
The benefits and drawbacks of wind energy
While Trump has claimed to be an expert on “windmills,” according to analysts, his stated reasons for his aversion to wind turbines aren’t based in reality, Fast Company notes.
Wind energy is an integral part of meeting growing energy demands within the United States.
However, “Trump has ignored the benefits to the grid, repeatedly claiming that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer (not true), that they ‘ruin the environment’ (definitely not true), and that if the wind stops blowing, you won’t be able to watch Trump on TV (not true: renewable energy is part of a mix on the grid, and batteries can also store power for use when it’s needed),” Fast Company adds.
Another complaint voiced by Trump includes the harm caused to migratory birds. While this is true, only a tiny percentage of birds are harmed by wind turbines compared with those harmed by cats and collisions with vehicles and tall buildings, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Trump has also said that emissions created from the manufacture of wind turbines are harmful to the planet, which MSNBC says is puzzling due to his support for increasing emissions from fossil fuels.
“Trump has also repeated unproven claims spread by groups funded by the oil industry that wind turbines harm whales,” the Fast Company article adds. “Meanwhile, the new administration is pushing for more offshore drilling, which does harm whales.”
According to solar company comparison website SolarReviews, the following lists represent the positives and negatives of wind energy:
Pros of wind energy
- Clean energy source
- Renewable energy source
- Space-efficient
- Cheap energy
- Promotes jobs
Cons of wind energy
- Intermittent
- Environmental impact
- Noise pollution
- Aesthetics
- Limited locations
Wind industry predicts clear skies ahead
There’s a growing demand for power generation because of data centers, artificial intelligence (AI), and infrastructure to support electric vehicles.
Wind energy is a logical choice because it’s renewable and inexpensive and a clean energy source. Other nations are finding it’s a reliable alternative that reduces dependance on fossil fuels and their harmful emissions. While wind can’t be used exclusively, it’s an important resource to include in a balanced mix of energy generation.
“Experts say that ‘consistent public policy’ is needed for private companies to make big investments in turbines, leases and other items necessary to expand wind power’s potential,” according to The Week. “The wind industry ‘abhors uncertainty,’ said Ken Alex, the director of Project Climate at the University of California, Berkeley. Developing a wind farm ‘takes time, it takes resources, and it takes consistency.’
“But other renewable energy producers are ‘relatively sanguine’ about Trump’s anti-wind order, said CNBC,” The Week continues. “The global market is already moving toward cheap sources of power like wind and solar, while the demand for electricity … is only increasing. The market is in the ‘best moment for electrification,’ said Ignacio Galán, the executive chairman of Iberdrola. The transition away from fossil fuels is ‘absolutely unstoppable.’”