More than a week has passed since President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at the nascent offshore wind industry, and there is still some uncertainty as to which projects are in the crosshairs of the new administration, and which ones will likely skate by.
The uncertainty could impact hundreds of turbines planned for the Island’s coastal waters.
Trump’s decision is also uncorking a mix of criticism and applause on the Vineyard, with some Islanders — noting they are no fans of President Trump — saying they are appreciative of his efforts to slow the industry down, even if he is in it for the wrong reasons.
“Although I am no Trump supporter in any way, I’m happy that he has stopped, for now, any future [offshore wind] leases for the next four years,” said Jason Gale, a Vineyard fisherman. “I feel these projects were extremely fast-tracked, and many studies were either not done or done hastily.”
Others on the Island believe the executive order represents a sad state of affairs as the country shifts away from solving the climate crisis and becomes more reliant on fossil fuels.
Regardless, the administration is just a week into power, and is already making sweeping impacts within the industry.
Trump’s executive order halts the approval of new permits at new lease areas, and requests that federal officials conduct environmental and economic reviews of offshore wind projects in “existing lease” areas.
Experts in the field believe that offshore wind developments that are already under construction, like Vineyard Wind, or are fully completed, won’t be under further scrutiny; or at least, they won’t be shuttered.
That might not be the case for a number of projects on the Vineyard coast, even one that received last-minute approvals from the Biden administration earlier this month.
On the last day of the Biden administration, officials approved a construction and operation plan for South Coast Wind, a project 26 nautical miles south of Martha’s Vineyard that is expected to power 840,000 homes. Despite its being the final approval needed from the federal Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, the project could still need further federal permitting, casting some doubt on its future for at least the next four years.
“It’s a very complex process,” said Kelt Wilska, offshore wind director for the Environmental League of Massachusetts, an advocacy group. “SouthCoast Wind is fully permitted, but I can’t speak to how else this order would impact the project.”
Wilska said that the Environmental League is still reviewing how extensive the executive order can be, and how broadly it applies to these projects. While the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management gave its final approval for SouthCoast Wind, Wilska said there is still a question about whether Trump’s new order would extend to authority over permitting from other federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Officials with the development say that they are still trying to understand the impacts, but they aren’t throwing in the towel.
“We will continue to assess the scope and implications of the executive orders on our three U.S. projects,” said Michael Brown, CEO of SouthCoast Wind and Ocean Winds North America. “Offshore wind farms are long-term development projects, and we will keep on finding a path forward in coordination with all relevant authorities.”
Other projects off the Island’s coast that will likely be impacted include Starboard Wind, an 1,184-megawatt Orstead project about 30 miles south of the Islands that is still in the surveying phases. Wilska said it’s unclear how the executive order would impact projects still undergoing surveying. Vineyard Wind 2, which is still in the permitting stages, will likely be impacted.
For projects like Revolution Wind and Vineyard Wind, which are currently under construction, and South Fork Wind, which is completed, Wilska said that prevailing knowledge is that the administration’s action would not impact those projects.
“The economic impacts of tampering with a project under construction, even for this president, would be very severe, and I don’t think he would want to mess with that,” Wilska said. “At this point, barring some kind of emergency, projects under construction are very hard to be stopped and dismantled.”
Still, Wilska notes that the order not only upends efforts to curb climate change, it will have economic consequences. “We are disappointed and perplexed about the Trump administration’s executive order, given that $25 billion have been invested in manufacturing, vessel construction, and port development,” Wilska said.
On the Island, residents like Gale say that Trump’s order can give pause to the industry they say is having an impact on their livelihood. Gale said that it is frustrating that researchers are looking at the impacts of offshore wind off the coast in real time, including scientists in Woods Hole who are reviewing the effects of monopile driving on marine species. “This studying as we go isn’t the best approach, in my opinion,” he said.
He suggests letting Vineyard Wind finish its project, and use it as a control in this experiment for the next five to 10 years. “Then we will have a good idea of the power supplied and the damage (or not) it has done to the surrounding environment,” he said.
Lisa and Buddy Vanderhoop in Aquinnah are also pleased with Trump’s decision, although noting that the president isn’t in it for the right reasons.
“We hate Trump. We like clean energy,” said Buddy Vanderhoop, an Island fisherman who has pushed back against wind farms off the coast of Aquinnah. “These wind turbines are out of control. I look out my bedroom, living room, kitchen, and the only thing I see is blinking red lights. It’s hideous.”
Still, the couple understands the need for renewable energy, and Lisa Vanderhoop said that she is conflicted, knowing that Trump is targeting offshore wind to provide a boost to the use of more fossil fuels when the planet is at a tipping point. “He’s not taking on wind because of Vineyard residents’ concerns. He’s Big Oil. He’s ‘Drill, baby, drill.’”
Kate Warner, an advocate for green energy on the Island, says she’s saddened by Trump’s decision. Renewable energy will need to be part of a solution to fight climate change, and to make sure the Earth continues to be a habitable place for humanity.
“Trump is a setback. It is really a shame.”
I appreciate that some of us on this island we love don’t always agree, however it’s really important that the places we receive our news are able to accurately report news and information that the public needs to make informed decisions. I ask that the MV Times examine the efforts they have put into informing the public about off shore wind. Most often the Times leads with a headline with always the same islanders problems with offshore wind and buried at the bottom of the articles are passing references to more accurate facts about the the issue being discussed. One of my issues is the constant connection the Times makes between whales, the dropping numbers of whales and off shore wind. None of the facts in this case support any correlation between the development of off shore wind the dwindling numbers of particular species of whales in our waters. In fact some of those people you quote as against off shore wind are engaged in practices that have been shown as directly harming those same whales they seem to care about….if only they cared before this.
I ask island residents take a look at this page and become more informed:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale
Watch this video about wind turbines negative effects. If you need more information then research it yourself.
https://mvau.lt/media/52f8235f-7260-4093-8874-067859810d49
I’m not sure the video you linked to shows negative effects. Building something to produce power and last 20 years requires actual construction. Magic doesn’t make them. As we become more and more of a carbon-free economy the scale of energy production without pollution will grow. We have to start somewhere. 400,000 people will have power from just the Vineyard Wind turbines. That means not having to build a fossil fuel plant in someone’s backyard, polluting their environment and their children. The lights on the horizon are tiny price to pay to try to effect change.
If the red lights are a small price for the people who have to look at them, why are they not all over the land where the carbon footprint for installation and maintenance would be much smaller and everyone else could look at them as well?
We should put in the ocean because wind turbines are much more efficient at sea. Much more efficient.
That video is most humorous as it demonstrates how turbines are built in some soft soil areas on the planet. The video has little to do with how turbines are installed at sea beyond the name of “turbine ” remaining the same.
Roy– I watched your video, took your advice and researched this issue myself. I have posted articles and studies many times about the different aspects of the carbon footprint of wind vs. other forms of energy generation. Every single one shows a dramatically reduced carbon footprint for wind. In fact, every study I have seen shows wind as the lowest emitter of carbon. Here’s just one https://impactful.ninja/the-carbon-footprint-of-wind-energy/ . Scroll down a few pages and take a look at the graph. You mention the difficulty of recycling the blades, but , the towers are worth $68 million as 100% easily recyclable scrap steel. So let me compare building a wind farm to a nuke. https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2012/aug/11/how-build-nuclear-power-plant-video I see lot of cement . And tell me about how easy it is to recycle one– and store the waste. Or the consequences of catastrophic failures. Any type of power generating plant requires a huge amount of resources.
Thank you Chris!
Offshore wind will not save us from climate change but it is very costly, requires repairs and maintenance and despite the increasing use of offshore wind, global CO2 levels are still rising. The plan currently covers only 13 percent of US homes, but also the service is intermittent, and on average current gaps are not propelling blades about one-third of the time. These gaps mainly employ fossil fuels to maintain continuity. There are transportation, mining construction, and other costs to consider and according to AI, some estimates suggest a timeframe of around 7-11 years for full construction and operation to reach energy payback. If we take a middle figure estimate of 10 years to reach 13 percent of homes minus one-third of time due to no wind and substituting fossil fuels for that one third of the 13 percent of US homes some 10 years after installation, then we can see why emissions are not falling. Trump is wrong to shut them down for his reasoning, but I cannot find a reason to quarrel with his poor reasoning in this case.
Windmills sometimes pay for themselves
in about six months.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/13/wind-turbine-never-generate-much-energy-cost-build/8423146002/#:~:text=From%20construction%20to%20demolition%2C%20the,a%20bit%20under%20six%20years.
https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJSM.2014.062496
Below is an except from NJ Congressman Chris Smith on January 30, 2025 regarding the wind farm failure with a loss of one billion dollars to Shell and a loss to Orsted. See the link below to read the full article.
“Just like Orsted, Shell has determined that despite huge taxpayer subsidies and discussions of massive increases to ratepayers, they will still lose money,” said Smith.
“This is now another domino to fall, exposing the gross negligence throughout the offshore wind approval process which has failed to address the economic unsustainability, environmental degradation, and national security risks presented by the reckless offshore wind buildout,” Smith continued.
“Shell’s pull out, along with President Trump’s executive order will help shine a light on the Green New Deal whitewash and hopefully permanently halt all projects off New Jersey’s coast,” Smith said.
“Offshore wind development will disrupt critical national security radar, destroy commercial and recreational fishing, harm tourism that local economies rely on, and impede Coast Guard search and rescue activities near wind farms,” said Smith, who has for years pointed out the lack of serious scrutiny, economic unsustainability, and legal deficiency of these projects and has led multiple efforts to secure answers from the Biden Administration on offshore wind.
https://chrissmith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=413493
His statements are entirely hyperbole and lack any real facts. Nothing he says is true. The fishing industry in Europe adapted to the wind farms without much disruption, the turbines provide a lifeline to endangered mariners with the ability of the companies to monitor the situation around their turbines and respond to dangers.
Chris ,
The fishermen (some – others went belly up)adapted in Europe back in the day but knowing what they know now , they would probably have put up a bigger fight to stop OSW development before it began.
They are now finding high levels of Zinc, Aluminum and indium in their shellfish and fish around the turbine areas , also higher levels fiberglass/micro plastics in the same species due to blade shedding. The Zinc, aluminum and indium are all used for corrosion protection of the Mono pile and blade shedding is something that cannot be avoided.
The OSW picture isn’t as Rosie as many believe it is.
I like my shellfish fiberglass free and just the right amount of zinc that mother nature intended it to have.
Offshore wind farms could cause significant ecosystem, economic and human health risks https://phys.org/news/2025-01-offshore-farms-significant-ecosystem-economic.html
Nuclear power is actually much more dangerous. Nuclear waste has to be heavily guarded and protected for for about 10,000 years or even longer.
Nuclear waste is stored in 35 states, including Massachusetts.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-03.html#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20it%20takes%20about%2010%2C000,ore%20never%20have%20been%20mined.
I was fortunate enough to know Paul Pimentel, an Island resident and global engineer who over 15 years ago and probaby closer to 20 years ago believed that we needed to develop an alternative energy source as our environment continued to be challenged. Paul established a community organization to investigte the potential benefits of wind energy and we had the opportunity to became members for $50. Paul also personally funded much of the research as he truly believed in his concept. The healthy dialog concerning wind power is appropriate but lets get our facts correct. This is not a fast track project. It took many, many years to develop, get Island support and then a great deal of hard work at the State and Federal level to get this to happen. We need it; lets work togther to adjust the flaws it and make it work.
Elaine, biodiversity studies were done in Europe 20 years prior to any OSW development done there, here in the U.S that has not been the case.
These were absolutely fast tracked and yes they are studying as they go, if that’s not the case , then why is WHOI just now studying Mono pile driving effects on many species?
Why are there “gaps” in data , or “at this time we’re using the best available science”
The truth is the green new deal rushed to get this going without out doing due diligence to find out the affects on the surrounding environment or species that live there or migrate through the leased sites.
NOAA has a similar situation going on at the moment with the New England Fisheries Management council, as the describe a “fundamental breakdown” of their science.
NOAA and BOEM have admitted not enough research has been done for these projects.
https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/article/14170380/us-offshore-wind-industry-has-advanced-rapidly-says-boem-chief
Firstly, the link you posted is for a fossil fuel mag. Do you really think that drilling off the east coast, as that publication promotes, a better solution for solving our energy problems? What would be the effects on marine life and our environment to have oil rigs off our coasts?
As for “gaps” in data, I suspect that there will always be a “gaps” in the data as far as those who for whatever reason don’t want offshore wind turbines. As for WHOI studying the effects of mono driving and squid feeding. Given the choice of short term effects (very minor BTW) of the pile driving compared to the long term effects of fossil fuel drilling and burning on the environment the choice is clear. Spin Baby Spin!
Comments are closed.