Offshore wind offers a reliable, market-driven energy solution—if policymakers allow it to compete on cost rather than politicizing its potential.
U.S. energy policy suffers from whipsaws back and forth with changes in administration. With Congress often in gridlock, administrative actions can result in big swings in policy. Policymakers should be advocates for innovation, competition, the consumer, and the taxpayer. Federal policy should open access to investment and development rather than override the decisions of industry.
Take the seesawing on energy development on federal lands, for instance. In one of his first actions, Joe Biden signed an executive order suspending new oil and gas leases on federal lands and reviewing existing operations. Four years later, President Trump’s day-one executive order halted new renewable energy leasing on federal lands and waters.
Just as previous Democratic administrations have dismissed domestic oil production as a solution to lower gas prices, policymakers should not have the hubris to assume offshore wind will always be a bad bet. The United States has favorable conditions for offshore wind development, with strong and consistent winds along much of its coastline, particularly in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and along the West Coast. These areas offer not only a steady energy source but also the possibility of generating large-scale electricity that can feed into regional grids.
Granted, there are legitimate reasons for offshore wind skepticism. It’s currently expensive and may not be built without the assistance of tax credits and state renewable portfolio standards. Making the case against any energy project on the grounds that it’s a bad bet for ratepayers and taxpayers is a more honest conversation than dismissing a technology outright. However, those decisions should be driven by market factors and price signals, not bureaucrats in Washington.
Offshore Wind’s Promise Shouldn’t Be Politicized
The reality is offshore wind could offer compelling potential benefits that make a categorical ban shortsighted and counterproductive. They harness stronger, more consistent winds than their land-based counterparts, generating clean electricity at scale while avoiding land-use conflicts. Offshore wind has a higher capacity factor than onshore wind and solar power.
Offshore wind turbines often perform better and more consistently than their onshore counterparts, generating energy day and night, even during the winter months when solar generation dips. With most of America’s population concentrated along our coasts, offshore wind provides electricity generation near demand centers. And the United States is building its supply chains. Nucor Steel, for instance, has invested $1.7 billion in a new plant in Kentucky to manufacture steel plating for turbine towers.
Policymakers must provide regulatory certainty for businesses and investors, ensuring that America remains a global leader. If the Trump administration wants to solidify America’s energy dominance, it must embrace an all-of-the-aboveand below approach. Prohibiting any potential viable energy technology unnecessarily restricts options in an uncertain future. Technological advancements and economies of scale can result in significant cost declines, as it has with onshore wind, solar, and batteries. But policy lags far behind the pace of the private sector.
One of President Trump’s greatest strengths is cutting red tape. That’s exactly what the entire energy sector needs—not more government-imposed barriers. By minimizing political and bureaucratic obstacles, we can expedite the adoption of innovative energy solutions that drive economic growth and environmental progress.
Market Competition Will Drive Progress
Streamlining permitting processes would reduce development timelines and associated carrying costs. Establishing clear, consistent rules for leasing federal waters would provide regulatory certainty without direct financial assistance. The Jones Act, which requires that offshore wind turbines be manufactured with American-made and crewed vessels, increases the cost and complexity of building and servicing offshore wind facilities.
Energy projects shouldn’t arbitrarily be closed off by government dictate, but they shouldn’t be endlessly propped up by the taxpayer, either. The solution lies in establishing a level playing field where offshore wind must compete with other energy sources on cost and performance. This approach benefits consumers while preserving the technology’s role in our energy future.
To that end, policymakers should aim to eliminate subsidies for all energy sources and technologies. Taxpayer-funded support distorts markets and shields technologies from competitive pressures that drive innovation and cost reduction. When costs don’t matter because the government guarantees returns, the incentive to improve diminishes. Businesses spend more time chasing handouts than cost reductions.
Consumers would be the ultimate beneficiaries of this approach. Rather than subsidizing higher-cost electricity, they would only pay for offshore wind when it offers comparable or better value than alternatives. This ensures that the industry develops in response to genuine market signals rather than policy directives.
The offshore wind industry itself recognizes the imperative of cost reduction. European projects have demonstrated dramatic cost declines when competitive pressures are applied. The U.S. industry must follow this path, but it can’t if policy closes the doors.
The offshore wind industry’s future should be determined by its ability to deliver affordable, reliable electricity, not by government prohibition or protection. A vibrant, competitive industry developing genuinely cost-effective projects would create jobs and economic benefits and diversify America’s energy portfolio. With growing electricity demand and concerns of rising prices and grid reliability, energy policy is too critical to politicize.
Nick Loris is the Vice President of Public Policy at C3 Solutions. He writes and regularly testifies before Congress on energy, climate, and environmental issues.
Image: Fokke Baarssen/Shutterstock
