President Trump Keeps Tilting at Wind Turbines

On August 29, 2025 the federal Department of Transportation officially withdrew the $426.7 million INFRA grant for the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District to develop an offshore wind heavy lift marine terminal. The grant money had not been spent yet because it was for the construction of the terminal and could not be spent until the environmental review was finished. The communication from the Department to the District indicated that the project was inconsistent with Federal priorities, including support for wind projects, the installation of solar panels, inclusion of EV charging equipment, and “support of society-wide decarbonization.”

This isn’t exactly surprising, coming from a president who at last week’s United Nations General Assembly referred to renewable energy as a scam and said that climate scientists are  “stupid people.” His Administration also received record-breaking donations from big oil companies that see renewables, like offshore wind, as a threat to their industry.  Not to mention, he has his own personal vendetta against offshore wind energy because the Scottish government built an offshore wind farm near one of his golf courses.

The Aberdeen Wind Farm that Scotland built next to Trump’s golf course. Photo credit Matt Simmons

While the loss of the grant is certainly a setback for Humboldt offshore wind, it is not a fatal one. The Harbor District has recommitted to the project and to the goal of supporting renewable energy. And after the federal grant cancellation, the California legislature still appropriated $228 million for offshore wind ports in this year’s budget. That money will be used in part to fund an $18 million California Energy Commission grant that was awarded to the Harbor District back in March. The grant funds technical, environmental studies that are necessary to design and permit the project. The grant also funds community outreach and engagement so that more members of the community can be made aware of the project and share their hopes and concerns with the District.

As the Harbor District continues to conduct technical studies and prepare environmental documents, we will gain a better insight into the potential environmental impacts of the project. That will culminate in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. I highly recommend the Schatz Energy Research Center’s report on permitting for port infrastructure to support offshore wind, which goes into great detail about all of the various other permits required. Perhaps having the next few years to focus on conducting an environmental review will benefit the project in the long term. Once that is complete, the harbor district can refocus on locating funds actually to construct the project, with permits in hand. Likewise, the offshore wind leaseholders, RWE and Vineyard Offshore, can wait out the current administration and apply for federal permits under a more favorable administration in the future.

The only factor that has really changed with regard to these projects is who is currently President of the United States - a factor that will change again in the future. The lease areas off of Humboldt’s coast were selected because of the presence of strong and consistent winds. Humboldt Bay was selected as a site for offshore wind port development because there is no obstruction at the mouth of the bay and the site is located close to current and potential future lease areas. The underlying fundamentals that made offshore wind an attractive investment under the Biden administration, including the need for more renewable energy and the prevalent winds off the North coast, will still exist in 2029 under a future presidential administration.

Nationally, the situation is looking better for offshore wind as well. On September 22nd, a federal district court judge lifted a federal stop-work order against the offshore wind company Ørsted for its Revolution Wind project located off the coast of Rhode Island. The stop work order was costing the company $2 million per day as they were paying crews to sit around, not building offshore wind turbines. This marks the first such time a Trump Administration stop-work order has been overturned by a federal judge, but several other similar cases are making their way through the courts. 

The Trump administration has argued at times that the project's impact on marine mammals (while wildly misstating the science) or could affect navy operations. That second argument was particularly surprising because the Navy had previously signed off on the project during the multi-year permitting process. Judge Royce Lamberth, who is a Reagan-era appointee, referred to the Trump stop-work order as “the height of arbitrary and capricious action.” Relatedly, the Trump administration has lifted the stop-work order on Equinor’s Empire Wind project off the coast of New York and has declined to issue one for Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project. Perhaps because Republican lawmakers there have defended the project.

One of the 5 floating offshore wind turbines that make up the Kincardine Offshore Wind Project. The tip of the blade at its highest point is 623 feet above the ocean.

Globally, the offshore wind industry is advancing as well. China unveiled a whopping 26 Megawatt turbine, Japan is developing floating offshore wind, and European countries are increasing their already significant amounts of offshore wind. I actually just returned from a trip to Aberdeen, Scotland, organized by the National Wildlife Federation, during which I got to visit the Kincardine offshore wind farm, the largest grid-connected floating offshore wind farm in the world. The project consists of five 9.5 megawatt floating wind turbines, which together power roughly 50,000 Scottish homes. 

Aberdeen, which has traditionally relied on offshore oil as its main economic driver, is betting big on offshore wind. Scotland currently has plans to develop 27 gigawatts of floating offshore wind, more than even California’s ambitious goals. Many of the folks I spoke to who are employed in the offshore wind industry had begun their careers in the offshore oil industry and were making the transition seamlessly. Others spoke to me about how they were hopeful that, as the offshore oil industry winds down, both because of environmental policy and because the North Sea oil basin is running out of oil, they see offshore wind as a path forward for their community. 

Although the wind turbines for the Kincardine wind project were constructed in Amsterdam and then towed to Scotland, Scotland is currently redeveloping a port just North of Aberdeen to serve as a Staging and integration facility for future floating offshore wind projects. The Scottish government believes doing so will allow Scotland to benefit more from jobs created by the offshore wind industry and to reduce the costs of towing the turbines from other countries.

While there, I had the chance to meet with representatives from the Scottish government, Scottish environmental NGOs, and offshore wind developers to discuss lessons learned from the project and their plans for the future. Although there are obviously concerns about the environmental impacts of offshore wind, I was struck by the spirit of cooperation demonstrated by the Scottish government, scientists, and developers. There were numerous examples of industry, government regulators, and environmentalists working together to conduct research and answer questions about offshore wind.

For example, the Kincardine project has provided an excellent opportunity for the Scottish government to learn more about the environmental impacts of floating offshore wind. The project is equipped with high-tech thermal cameras that track bird strikes. In the 5 years the project has been operating, the cameras have detected only 2 bird strikes. Far less than scientists had predicted would occur. At the same time, scientists learned that the chains used to tether the wind turbines to the seabed made more noise than they had expected. These kinds of lessons are absolutely essential to fully understanding the environmental impacts of offshore wind in order to avoid and mitigate them.

While the United States federal government isn’t likely to be a reasonable partner under the current administration, my hope is that Tribal Nations, California, the offshore wind industry, scientists, environmentalists, and all other stakeholders can work together in the same manner as is currently happening in Scotland. We can identify what research needs to be done over the next few years to better understand environmental impacts and how to avoid and mitigate them. We can develop community benefit agreements and project labor agreements that ensure that the projects benefit local communities. And then, we can move forward, together, to build projects we are all proud of.