The wind and solar industries are experiencing divergent trends in the wake of President Donald Trump’s executive actions to unleash fossil fuel development and roll back his predecessor’s incentives for renewable energy.
The maturing domestic solar power industry is projected to continue gaining market share, with or without federal inducements and despite tariffs.
Meanwhile, Trump’s executive actions indefinitely pausing new offshore wind leases and permit reviews are already disrupting efforts to grow the nation’s wind energy capacity.
Within just 30 days of Trump’s order, several key investors have already curtailed commitments to offshore wind projects.
Solar energy is the fastest-growing component in the energy mix and is projected to remain so.
However, the past few years have not been as favorable for wind power in the United States after 25 years of sustained growth.
April 2024 represents the high-water mark for wind-generated utility-scale electrical power in the United States, contributing 11 percent to the nation’s grid, but since then failing to keep pace with expanding solar and natural gas generation, now constituting about 10.2 percent to the nation’s electric capacity.
The industry has struggled with high interest rates in financing new developments, along with supply chain issues that make offshore wind, in particular, the most expensive form of renewable energy, according to global energy analyst firm Wood Mackenzie.
“Last year, [U.S.] manufacturers supplied only about 30 [percent] of the country’s blade market, with Mexico accounting for 63 [percent] and Canada 6 [percent],” the company stated.
Costs associated with these imports from these countries could increase by at least 10 percent, and up to 25 percent, if Trump follows through with his proposed tariffs in early March, further impairing growth in the nascent domestic wind energy industry.
These headwinds were already swirling about the industry before Trump issued his executive actions halting new offshore leases and permit reviews for wind projects and vowing to end several federal subsidies for wind energy development.
Gone With the Wind
Trump’s order had an immediate impact, prompting global wind energy developer Holland-based Orsted to trim future U.S. commitments by 25 percent, and major European oil company Shell to withdraw from projects in New Jersey and elsewhere in New England and the Mid-Atlantic.
Dominion Energy also plans to plow on with its Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, the largest wind project under construction in the United States and projected to generate 2.6 GWs of electricity specifically earmarked by the utility giant to power data centers and supercomputers.
“It’s needed to power that growing data center market we’ve been talking about, critical to continuing United States superiority in AI and technology.”
These are exceptions, however.
He added that he hoped that “the Trump administration will partner with New Jersey to lower costs for consumers, promote energy security, and create good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs.”
“New Jersey’s decision today to cancel its offshore wind procurement is a direct consequence of the uncertainty created by the recently issued executive order. Each offshore wind project represents a multibillion-dollar investment in American infrastructure,” he said in a Feb. 3 statement.
“While the merits of each project must be evaluated based on the economic and energy needs of state and local interests, U.S. offshore wind represents critical investment necessary to maintain our nation’s competitive energy advantage.”
Grumet said restricting wind development in New England and the Mid-Atlantic will increase consumer energy bills and imperil up to 300,000 U.S. jobs in construction, manufacturing, shipbuilding, and plant operations.
“While we clearly have work to do, ACP embraces the task of working with the administration, providing insights and data to demonstrate the positive role that wind power is playing in our nation’s economic growth and security,” he said.
Differing Policy Views
Trump’s “windmill” enmity has been mimicked by many Republicans over the past three years, surfacing at Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s three-hour Jan. 16 nomination hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, when he heard pleas from Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) to include the 65 GWs of offshore wind capacity under development in the United States—enough to power more than 26 million homes—in an “all of the above” energy strategy that the former North Dakota governor had previously touted.
Noting that as much as 36 percent of North Dakota’s electricity comes from onshore wind turbines, King implored Burgum to “convince your boss that wind power isn’t all bad.”
“He is well known for his opposition to wind power, but you know that the benefits are there,” King said.
“I hope you can talk to the president about the fact that wind has its virtues and can contribute significantly, because we are, as you note, facing a huge energy challenge over the next 15 to 20 years to support the knowledge economy.”
Burgum responded: “Certainly, you’ve got great wind resources in Maine. We’ve got good wind resources in North Dakota.
“Not every state is lucky to have the resources that we do where the wind is blowing; maybe that flat ground helps us on that, very few trees to stop the wind.”
King and others, including some Republicans, countered that the “intermittent” claim makes little sense, arguing that the grid, like a river, is a sustained ribbon of power with solar and wind energy companies, like natural gas and coal operators, selling their generation to regional transmission operators and utilities.
The key criticism in this regard is that too much investment in “intermittent” energy providers without matching it with fossil fuels could create an imbalance that could raise energy costs.
“If they make sense, and they’re already in law, then they’ll continue,“ Burgum said. ”I think the key is, and I think President Trump’s been very clear in his statements, that he’s concerned about the significant amount of tax incentives that have gone toward some forms of energy.”
The orders essentially reversed all Biden-issued offshore leasing programs for wind development and did away with the Biden administration’s Jan. 6 withdrawal of 625 million OCS acres spanning the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, Gulf of America, and northern Bering Sea characterized as “one of the most brazen retreats from long-term American energy security in U.S. history.”
The Gulf of America OCS accounts for nearly 14 percent of United States oil production and supports approximately 370,000 jobs. Gulf of America reserves include 26.77 billion barrels of oil and 197 trillion cubic feet of gas from 1,325 oil and gas fields.
The Alaska OCS contains a potential of 24 billion barrels of “undiscovered, extractable oil,” with the possibility of 34 billion barrels, according to the hearing memo.
The estimated gas potential stands at 126 trillion cubic feet, with the possibility of surpassing 230 trillion cubic feet.
“Politically, you know, a nation can trend one way or the other, dependent upon the executive,” Higgins said. He said the Biden administration’s regulatory bias against oil and gas clearly and unfairly favors renewable energy development and called it counter-productive in achieving climate change goals, an economic disaster, and a threat to national security.
“[Energy] consumption is not going away. So if you care for your planet, which I do, then you should embrace the American energy industry, which produces the cleanest energy product in the entire world,” Higgins said.
“Threatening the future of energy production is exactly what happens when you close 625 million acres, hampering states like Louisiana and undermining local economies that are tied to offshore production.
“My bill, HB 513, reverses these withdrawals and implements a stable, predictable framework for future leasing, ensuring that we remain the global leader that we’re called upon to be in responsible energy production.”
Democrats disagreed, noting that under the Biden administration, U.S. domestic oil and gas production reached record production.
“It’s my understanding that almost every Republican on this committee boasted of supporting an ‘all of the above’ energy portfolio, which included wind and solar,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said.
“But as clean energy began to threaten the fossil fuel market’s dominance, it seems the fossil fuel industry has gone on the offense because, when you threaten the fossil fuel industry, they tend to wage war. They have long bankrolled disinformation about renewable energy and climate change.”
She said the FBI investigated Exxon lobbyists for an alleged “‘hack and leak operation’ that targeted hundreds of oil industry critics.” Now, these lobbyists are targeting offshore wind, Ansari said.
“Fossil fuel interests are afraid they could lose market dominance, so in a last ditch attempt to hold on to their power, Big Oil is now funding groups that claim to be grassroots and for the environment, but in reality, these groups are working hard to convince people that wind turbines cause cancer and kill whales,“ he said. ”It’s shameless, it’s desperate, and it’s dishonest work.”
“[Trump is] betting on dominating the shrinking market of fossil fuels,” Ansari said. “It’s like betting everything on being the world’s biggest typewriter manufacturer in the 1990s.”
The Republican-controlled panel instead blamed the previous administration for current capacity concerns.
“We find ourselves at a critical juncture in America’s energy future,” Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.) said.
“Offshore oil and gas production has long been a pillar of our national energy security, supporting jobs, revenues, conservation, and economic growth.
“Yet recent trends paint a troubling picture—the result of misguided policies and regulatory uncertainty from the last four years that has threatened the future of American energy dominance.”
