Is offshore wind energy policy ‘blowin’ in the wind?’

(Part 6 in a Series)

U.S. offshore wind energy projects had the wind knocked out of their sails with President Donald Trump’s attempts to pull the plug on the construction of offshore wind farms.

Ray Gronberg of Business North Carolina magazine reported on March 23, 2026, about the most recent “development.”

 

He wrote that TotalEnergies, based in Paris, France, “agreed with the Trump administration to give up its offshore wind lease off the North Carolina coast, along with a larger project near New York (at New York Bight).”

 

“The company says its studies showed ‘that offshore wind developments in the United States, unlike those in Europe, are costly and might have a negative impact on power affordability for U.S. consumers,’” Gronberg wrote. “Total is among the world’s largest energy companies.”

Gronberg said the settlement involves payment by the U.S. government of $928 million to compensate TotalEnergies for giving up rights to the Carolina Long Bay lease and another off the coast of New York state.

 

The Carolina Long Bay site, containing about 110,000 acres, lies roughly 22 miles offshore, south of Bald Head Island in Brunswick County. It was slated to produce enough energy to fuel about 300,000 homes.

 

Gronberg said “The New York Times reported that Total will get $133 million for giving up the North Carolina lease, with the New York project accounting for the balance.”

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum told reporters at a recent oil-and-gas industry conference in Houston: “The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecured energy is officially over.”

 

“Offshore wind is one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers,” Burgum asserted.

Gronberg noted: “President Donald Trump has shown repeated disdain for offshore wind.”

 

“The Chapel Hill-based Southeastern Wind Coalition criticized the settlement. Offshore wind is ‘a hedge against more volatile fuels like natural gas. Now is the time to be expanding our options, not taking them away,” said Katharine Kollins, the group’s president.

 

“U.S. Department of the Interior officials said the deal hinges on TotalEnergies putting the $928 million into a liquified natural gas (LNG) facility in Texas, offshore oil development nearby and into shale-gas production,” Gronberg added.

After those investments are made, the United States “will terminate the leases and reimburse the company,” they said.

Federal officials said the French company “has pledged not to develop any new offshore wind projects in the United States.”

Liz McLaughlin of WRAL News in Raleigh said the decision to cancel Carolina Long Bay drew “sharp reactions” from energy analysts.

 

She talked to Kollins as well. “I think folks are trying to figure out how to reconcile this with the fact that we do need more electrons on the grid,” Kollins commented. “Every state right now is looking at how we can develop more energy, not how we should be taking options off the table.”

“Using nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money to remove an option for North Carolina and then require that company to invest in LNG just doesn’t feel right,” Kollins added.

McLaughlin said that North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein criticized the Trump administration for “spending nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money to pay off a company to stop investments in the clean energy we need,” calling it “a terrible deal for the people of North Carolina and our country.”

“The debate reflects a broader divide over how to meet growing electricity demand while keeping costs down,” McLaughlin wrote. “The federal government and industry leaders backing the deal say natural gas offers a more dependable source of power, especially as the grid faces increasing strain.”

“Part of that shift now points to LNG, which is traded on a global market,” she said. “That means prices can rise or fall based on international demand, geopolitical tensions and export levels – dynamics that do not affect wind energy.”

“The cancellation also highlights uncertainty around offshore wind development in North Carolina,” McLaughlin said. “Duke Energy, the state’s largest utility, holds a neighboring lease in the same area as Carolina Long Bay but paused development last year as it reevaluated costs and policy conditions.”

To sum up, Kollins said: “When we limit our choices, we limit our ability to control costs.”

 

Trista Talton (shown above) of the Carolina Review, published by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which is based in Carteret County, interviewed Karly Brownfield (shown below), who is senior program manager with the Southeastern Wind Coalition.  

 

Brownfield said that the agreement “feels really counterproductive” at a time when people are closely watching their energy costs at home and at the gas pump.

“It’s also completely unprecedented to take a lease payment and then refund it in exchange for investment in the natural gas industry. That has never happened before,” Brownfield said.

Katie Harris, vice president of federal affairs with the BlueGreen Alliance based in Washington, D.C., was quoted in Talton’s article, saying: “Donald Trump truly can’t leave a good thing alone. His never-ending vendetta against offshore wind shows that he either doesn’t understand the affordable energy crisis or that he just doesn’t care….”

 

Déjà vu. This whole political scenario spins us back to 1963 when legendary singer/songwriter Bob Dylan released his magical song “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

 

Philosophers suggested at the time that the tune was an expression of “frustration over humankind’s inability to achieve lasting harmony and stability.”

The Trump administration argues that offshore wind structures pose national security threats as their turbines could interfere with radar signals,” reported Rachel Frazin of TheHill.com, a unit of Nexstar Media Group.

 

Frazin said President Trump has voiced a longstanding disdain for wind power, saying repeatedly that “he does not want to see new wind energy projects built during his tenure.”

Clearly, Trump’s actions, including the cancellation of future leases for offshore wind farms, have significantly hampered the industry, wrote Gareth McGrath of the Wilmington Star-News.

 

 

Delays, uncertainties and political maneuvering could seriously destabilize the entire industry, especially here in North Carolina, according to some energy experts.

Building offshore wind farms is incredibly capital intensive, so investors are nervous and are likely to sit tight on the sidelines until the turbulence subsides.

 

 

The North Carolina State Ports Authority has been looking to get into the wind turbine business. In 2024, it “floated a plan to build a multi-use terminal that would support the state’s offshore wind and automotive industries at its Morehead City port,” McGrath added.

“According to an economic study, a large-scale offshore wind project could generate nearly $3.7 billion in net economic impact for North Carolina,” he said.

“With federal support for renewable energy sources looking shaky at best, it isn’t known what that might mean for states that had planned on integrating lots of offshore wind into their future energy grids as a way of increasing their clean energy footprint and reducing their greenhouse gas emissions,” McGrath wrote.

Jake Bittle of Grist, an independent media organization in Seattle, Wash., said the Trump policies related to offshore wind have had a dizzying effect on major renewable energy developers.

 

“At the same time, developers encountered a wave of opposition from fishermen’s groups…and shoreline residents concerned about their ocean views,” Bittle wrote.

It’s like the offshore wind industry was frozen in-place during 2025. “There are no large-scale projects in the pipeline,” Bittle wrote.

He shared an interesting tidbit from an energy consultant who advises offshore wind developers: “In order for someone to get a commercial gleam in their eye, you need alignment with the federal government, the state government and the market. That’s gone, and it makes projects literally impossible.”

“Industry insiders say global firms like Ørsted (of Denmark) and Equinor (of Norway) have little desire to make further investments in the U.S. market, though they’re still holding on to their federal leases in windy sections of the ocean,” Bittle wrote.

 

Is Radio Island ‘on hold’ for port development?

(Part 5 in a Series)

In 1964, the North Carolina State Ports Authority acquired a large chunk of Radio Island in Morehead City for future development.

 

Port officials have been waiting, waiting, waiting for the right opportunity to come along.

In February 2024 – some 60 years later – the Ports Authority published a plan to proceed with a project described as a “Multi-Use Terminal” for Radio Island. Details were contained in the State Record of Decision (ROD) document. The price tag was listed as $250-285 million.

As background, Radio Island was created in the 1930s by “spoils” – the sand, silt, soil and organic matter that is removed from the bottom of waterways during dredging, which is a process that clears channels for navigation.

A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ dredging project at the Morehead City port in 1936 increased the channel depth to 30 feet.

The man-made, 253-acre island is situated between the mainland municipalities of Morehead City and Beaufort.

 

Originally known as Inlet Island, it was renamed Radio Island after the Carteret Broadcasting Co. built a radio tower for station WMBL there in 1947.

 

 

 

Today, the Ports Authority owns about 200 acres on the west side of Radio Island, and the bulk of this property remains undeveloped.

The main port terminal on the Morehead City mainland sits on about 128 acres, and officials say it is operating at nearly 100% warehouse capacity, so Radio Island is perceived as the best alternative for any expansion of port operations.

 

According to the ROD document published more than two years ago, the Multi-Use Terminal was envisioned to support manufacturing operations associated with the offshore wind energy and the automotive industries…adding a minimum of 150 jobs.

Plans include creation of a 60-acre wind energy laydown area and construction of a 300,000-square-foot manufacturing/office facility.

To serve automotive customers, Radio Island would also be the site of a 40-acre asphalt parking lot to accommodate the storage of 4,000 imported finished vehicles as well as a 100,000-square-foot combination automotive warehouse/office.

Additional project components included modifying the existing pier to accommodate roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) vessel operations, construction of a 1,600-foot berthing facility to accommodate larger or multiple vessels, new rail spurs and sidings for car carrier vehicles.

Here is a collection of photos of Ro-Ro ship activities from other ports, to provide a point of reference:

 

During the past two years, there’s been a lot of turmoil within the industries that were targeted by the Ports Authority. Much of this can be attributed to the changing of the guard in the White House in Washington, D.C.

In review, North Carolina has invested heavily in two mega-site automotive projects. 

One is the Toyota electric vehicle battery plant near Liberty in Randolph County. North Carolina granted the company a $435 million economic development incentives package.

The new Toyota facility was formally dedicated on Nov. 13, 2025. Toyota executives said the $13.9 billion investment will create more than 5,100 jobs to produce lithium-ion batteries for hybrids and electric vehicles (EVs).

 

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein participated in the dedication ceremonies.

 

With 14 battery production lines, the plant is viewed as “a cornerstone of Toyota’s North American production.”

The Toyota logo has three ovals. “The overlapping inner ovals exhibit the mutual, trustful and beneficial relationship between the customer and company.”

“Moreover, the overlapping ovals form a stylized ‘T’ for the first letter of Toyota, and the outer oval represents the brand’s global presence.”

Meanwhile, VinFast Auto Ltd., a Vietnamese automaker, was recruited by North Carolina, with the state coughing up nearly $1.2 million in economic development incentives, to build a $4 billion electric vehicle assembly and battery manufacturing plant near Moncure in Chatham County. 

It was initially forecast to potentially employ about 7,500 people.

 

However, this project has had rough sledding from the get-go. Construction has been delayed several times, and the target date for the plant opening has been pushed back to 2028.

Company officials say they’ve prioritized expansions in India and Indonesia, deferring large-scale entry into U.S. and European markets.

 

Complicating matters is the fact that VinFast consistently struggles to turn a profit, according to Reuters. This is causing a lot of anguish for economic developers in North Carolina.

Most recently, Ray Gronberg of Business North Carolina magazine reported on March 16, 2026, that VinFast has reduced its employment forecast to about 1,400 jobs.

“That’s 81% lower than previous expectations of 7,500 jobs, reflecting a more sober outlook for EVs now than four years ago,” Gronberg wrote.

The company reported a $3.9 billion net loss for the 2025 calendar year, according to Gronberg.

Terms of its agreement with the State of North Carolina require VinFast to start construction by July of this year.

 

“In addition to state incentives, legislators also allotted $450 million to pay for related infrastructure,” Gronberg wrote. “The state has deployed part of that money to pay for site prep, roads, and water and sewer upgrades, reasoning that if the EV factory falls through, a fully prepared industrial ‘mega-site’ will remain.”

“Demand for EVs in the U.S. has declined sharply after the elimination of the $7,500 federal tax credit on Sept 30, 2025. Many automakers are pulling back on EV investments or shifting to hybrid models combining gas-combustion and electric powertrains,” Gronberg said.

 The VinFast logo is “a sleek, stylized letter ‘V,’ representing Vietnam, Vingroup (the parent company) Victory, Vigor and Velocity.”

 Next, we’ll see how the wind is blowing with offshore wind turbines.

 

 

 

 

State ports study presents opportunities for sustainability

(Part 4 in a Series)

 In 2023, the conservative John Locke Foundation in Raleigh released a report titled “Gateway to the World: A Dive into North Carolina’s Ports.”

 

It was compiled by Jay Derr, a transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation of Los Angeles, Calif. It opens the door for a discussion on port sustainability.

 

 

Derr observed that the two North Carolina state ports are “geographically close” – separated by only 105 nautical miles – but they “serve different purposes.”

The larger port at Wilmington is equipped to handle on- and off-load containerized cargo.

 

Morehead City, on the other hand, only handles general cargo, Derr wrote.

 

 Typically, “general cargo” refers to goods that are packed, bundled or loaded individually – such as in crates, bags, cartons or on pallets – rather than in bulk. Frequently, the term used is “breakbulk.”

Financially, the Wilmington port contributes some $14.8 billion in “annual economic impact” to North Carolina, while Morehead City’s share is about $1.3 billion.

Combined, the North Carolina State Ports Authority operations support more than 88,200 direct, indirect and induced jobs and generate approximately $660 million in state and local tax revenue annually.

Derr commented that North Carolina’s two ports have a longstanding track record of significance as “critical gateways for U.S. goods to enter the global market.”

Furthermore, the Ports Authority “has managed its seaport assets well overall to accommodate increased economic output for North Carolina,” he said.

 

Brian E. Clark, executive director of the N.C. State Ports Authority

 

Generally, volumes are up, but it must be noted that a financial review from the N.C. State Auditor concluded that during the fiscal year ending July 1, 2025, the Ports Authority recorded a $6.3 million operating loss, compared to a loss of $4.4 million the year before.

But to keep positive trade flows, given the projected rising demands, expanding the capacities of the state ports will be necessary, Derr said. The challenges and obstacles in doing so are befuddling, at best.

“Dredging is especially relevant for North Carolina,” Derr remarked. “The two ports are not naturally deep enough.”

 

“The need for maintenance dredging is relatively constant for both Morehead City and Wilmington.” 

He said the Wilmington port needs to be deepened from 42 feet to 47 feet to accommodate the new Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs), and “Morehead City could still use a deeper draft to help accommodate larger breakbulk cargo ships.”

 

Dredging activities always stir up enormously complex environmental concerns, but there’s also the “painful expense” associated with repeated dredging. 

All this is compounded by restraints associated with the existing, ancient federal dredging law, Derr said.

The Heritage Foundation, a pro-free enterprise think tank based in Washington, D.C., agrees. It reports: “The Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 prohibits any foreign-built or chartered ships from dredging in the United States. The result is to exclude the world’s largest dredging companies that could provide better and cheaper service.”

 

This needs fixing. The United States, with the largest economy in the world, has “subpar shipping ports because of this 120-year-old law that prevents their ability to expand,” according to the Heritage Foundation. 

“A lack of maintenance on dredging has left U.S. harbors functioning at full-channel depth and width only 35% of the time.”

The Heritage Foundation stated: “At times, port authorities say they have asked for bids on dredging projects, but no American dredgers can respond because they are operating at full capacity. Foreign competitors have demonstrated the ability to complete projects in less time at lower costs.”

Derr recommends that North Carolina lawmakers get fully engaged and lobby to change the federal dredging statutes.

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has championed four bills to repeal the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 and remedy the “nation’s supply chain difficulties.”

 

“Dredging is a fundamental tool to maintain American economic competitiveness,” Sen. Lee said. “Our protectionist laws have hamstrung our shipping and port infrastructure. “These bills would allow us to expand ports, help secure our supply chain and move our economy into the future.”

Looking forward, Derr said the nation’s ports will need to explore innovative funding solutions that can harness the private sector’s resources and expertise to deliver major infrastructure projects on time and on budget.”

He said that public-private partnerships “can help alleviate or solve outright many of the capital funding concerns with major, costly projects such as port and harbor infrastructure expansion.”

 

 

These contractual agreements…can take various shapes and sizes, Derr commented. The key is opening access to private capital, instead of relying solely “on the politicized appropriations process within the North Carolina state legislature.”

“While the North Carolina Ports Authority is effectively run as a business, because of its reliance on state appropriations, it can be slower to adopt cost-saving techniques and technologies, since it will likely be funded at a certain level anyway,” Derr said. 

“Private firms can be incentivized to bring innovative solutions to the table.”