The new rules are the latest and most significant move by the Trump administration to reshape the nation’s energy landscape by stopping new offshore wind projects. First and foremost, this move underscores President Trump’s devotion to all things fossil fuels. Yet he is rewarding oil, gas, and coal while starving programs promoting renewable energy projects. Under the direction of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the administration has reversed many policies that favored wind and solar energy development.
In January of this year, just days after his inauguration, President Trump signed a series of executive orders. These orders primarily sought to increase production in the fossil fuel industry. These orders represented a dramatic shift in U.S. energy policy, especially with respect to renewable energy projects. The administration’s attempt to carry out its agenda has resulted in tremendous pushback and court challenges. Attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia have already sued to block the executive orders that stopped leasing and permitting for offshore wind energy projects.
Changes to Wind Energy Policies
On the Trump administration’s approach to renewable energy in general, I would note that there has been very open and evident hostility to offshore wind projects. After his inauguration, Trump got to work undoing onerous regulations that had led to a boom in this industry. Her administration stopped issuing approvals, permits and loans for any wind project. This ruling virtually shut down multiple large projects that were already well underway.
In May, construction on a large offshore wind farm for New York restarted after a short freeze. This was the exception and not the rule. At the same time, the administration continued to take steps to roll back large-scale offshore wind development in federal waters. These areas had long ago been established as wind energy project zones. Previous policies carved out over 3.5 million acres of public lands for wind energy development. Now, these critical landscapes are under threat again as the administration shifts energy policy towards renewed extraction.
“It’s hard to believe these projects ever got this far because of the immensity, scale, scope and expense, compared to relatively cheap and reliable forms of onshore power.” – Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey.
Legal Challenges and State Responses
The Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement policies have prompted legal fights with dozens of state attorneys general. Blocking these projects they claim is bad for the environment as well as bad for economic opportunity. Attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia to sue. Their intention is to use these lawsuits to fight the executive orders that stop wind energy development.
Environmentalists and clean energy advocates have lamented these actions as manifestations of the administration’s agenda. Pausing or stopping offshore wind projects stops thousands of additional jobs that will be created in the renewable sector. It’s dangerous for more reasons than just human lives—it imperils our fight against climate change.
“No matter how much they want to bolster their buddies in the dirty fossil fuel industry, we will continue to push for the cleaner, healthier, and greener future we deserve.” – Xavier Boatright, Sierra Club’s deputy legislative director for clean energy and electrification.
Industry and Political Reactions
The reaction from affected industry stakeholders has been varied. While some have applauded the Trump administration’s focus on fossil fuels, others recognize the potential benefits of offshore wind development. So much so that under Trump’s presidency, European companies opened so many offshore wind farm projects on America’s East Coast. This trend is emblematic of a growing global demand for clean energy solutions.
Fossil fuel producers, such as Robin Shaffer, adamantly oppose stopping new offshore wind projects. This position is especially remarkable given the intense debate that’s raged across the country over these policies. They claim that the costs needed to build and maintain such expansions far exceed their advantages.
