Trump’s Victory To Save Ratepayers From Expensive Offshore Wind

President-Elect Trump has made it clear that he is not a supporter of offshore wind energy, a stance he reinforced during his interview with Joe Rogan. Offshore wind, according to Trump, disrupts fishing zones, threatens wildlife such as birds and bats, damages large sections of the ocean floor, jeopardizes the North Atlantic Right Whale’s survival, and burdens Americans with high electricity costs that are unreliable—operating at less than half capacity. Wind power, he argues, requires backup from fossil fuels, nuclear plants, or costly batteries to be integrated into the grid, meaning consumers are paying not only for the wind energy itself but also for its backup capacity. Offshore wind exists largely due to massive subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act, passed by Democrats, which are funded by U.S. taxpayers. Additionally, the Biden-Harris administration has pushed to build 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 to meet commitments made under the UN’s Paris Agreement. Warren Buffett has famously pointed out that wind energy would not exist without tax credits, many of which his own company benefits from. In essence, Americans are paying twice for offshore wind: once as consumers and once as taxpayers.

A recent incident off Nantucket on July 13 highlights further concerns about the industry. A large blade from the Vineyard Offshore Wind facility broke off, scattering debris along the coastline and creating hazards for boats. The manufacturer, GE Vernova, identified the root cause of the failure as a manufacturing error at its Canadian factory, revealing that other blades with the “manufacturing deviation,” had been found. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued a suspension order for Vineyard Wind, halting all turbine operations, blade installations, and other activities until the problem could be addressed. GE Vernova has since announced plans to replace some of the faulty blades and reinforce others at the site. This is not the first blade failure for the company—two blades also broke at the Dogger Bank offshore wind farm in the UK.

For years, fishermen, marine conservationists, and ocean advocates have voiced concerns about the expedited approval processes for offshore wind projects. Jerry Leeman, founder & CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, said, “It is now obvious that foreign mega developers and their political allies cut corners to bring their flagship project online. Despite the compounding safety concerns at Vineyard Wind, lease auctions loom for wind farms in the Gulf of Maine, the culmination of a rushed regulatory process. There is no doubt that speed has taken precedence over safety and conservation for offshore wind.”

In Oregon, tribal leaders were forced to take legal action to slow the pace at which the Biden-Harris administration was pushing for an offshore wind lease sale for a costly floating wind farm. A lawsuit alleges that during a June 6 meeting with tribal representatives, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Elizabeth Klein revealed that she had been given specific political directives from the White House to fast-track offshore wind projects. The administration ultimately canceled the Oregon lease sale, citing concerns from Native American tribes about its potential impact on their communities and the environment, as well as limited interest from potential bidders.

The situation in the Gulf of Maine mirrors the trend of limited interest in offshore wind development. In a recent lease sale, only four out of eight lease areas received bids, and those came from just two developers. The low level of interest is likely due to the high costs associated with floating wind technology, which remains less developed than traditional bottom-fixed wind installations, as well as inflation and market uncertainties. Offshore wind is significantly more expensive than natural gas combined-cycle generation—about 4.5 times more costly to build and 2.3 times more expensive to operate—even with the substantial federal subsidies, and without factoring in the additional costs for backup battery systems.

In Europe, Sweden has dropped plans for 13 wind facilities in the Baltic Sea due to security concerns as wind turbines could interfere with radar and slow Sweden’s missile response. Sweden shares a coast on the Baltic Sea with Russia. A study found that an additional minute could be added to the country’s missile response time as wind turbines could impede the country’s ability to detect incoming cruise or ballistic missiles. The towers and their blades produce radar echoes and interference both in the air and underwater, making missiles and submarines in their vicinity harder to detect.

Conclusion

Biden’s Executive Order 14008 issued on February 1, 2020–only two weeks after his Inauguration– launched the offshore wind program in the United States. This is an executive order that President-Elect Trump could easily rescind on his first day in office by just issuing a counter-executive order, which would stop the onslaught of this very expensive energy being added to the U.S. grid. Another way is to remove the excessive tax credits that encourage its adoption, which would take new legislation and add time to the process. Regardless of the avenue, it is not in the best interest of the American public to be hit with this double whammy—being taxed for lucrative tax credits for wind and the much higher energy costs that result from its construction and operation.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.