On September 4, the Portland Press Herald published an article titled “Offshore wind could have saved New England ratepayers millions last winter.” Like many headlines in the renewable energy space, this one is misleading and contradicts the real-world economics of offshore wind development. Let’s set the record straight.
Claim: Offshore wind “would have” saved money last winter.
Reality: Offshore wind has never saved ratepayers money—anywhere.
Despite decades of generous subsidies and mandates, no country in the world has seen consumer electricity prices decrease due to offshore wind. Germany and the UK, leaders in offshore wind deployment, now suffer among the highest electricity rates in Europe. In New England, a 2024 Maine Policy Institute report found that complying with offshore wind-heavy energy mandates would cost ratepayers an additional $815 billion compared to today’s grid, even after accounting for fuel savings from reduced natural gas use.
Claim: Offshore wind is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Reality: Wholesale price comparisons ignore the full cost.
While some offshore wind bids may appear competitive at the wholesale level, this does not reflect the actual costs imposed on ratepayers.
First, offshore wind is intermittent. Because the wind doesn’t always blow and can’t be dispatched on demand, grid operators must maintain a whole parallel fleet of reliable generation, typically gas or nuclear, to keep the lights on. That redundancy is a direct cost caused by wind, but the article ignores it.
Second, transmitting electricity from offshore sites to population centers requires massive infrastructure buildout. Ratepayers, not developers, will pay for high-voltage lines and grid upgrades.
Third, state and federal policies heavily favor wind and solar in regional capacity auctions, distorting the market and discouraging investment in thermal generation. Over time, this results in fewer gas or nuclear plants to provide backup power, which means future scarcity and higher costs. Texas is already dealing with this problem, offering subsidies to restart investment in thermal generation.
Finally, offshore wind projects in the region depend on long-term power contracts that shift risk from developers to ratepayers. These contracts insulate project owners from market fluctuations while leaving consumers exposed to escalating costs.
Claim: Offshore wind can make New England energy independent.
Reality: It would industrialize our coastline and still fail to meet peak demand.
ISO-New England’s own modeling indicates that meeting state-mandated 2050 net-zero targets would require more than 6,600 offshore wind turbines, covering a marine area larger than Connecticut. Even if that were built, it still wouldn’t be enough to ensure reliability. Using real 2023 wind and solar data, the 2024 MPI report linked above found that even with a buildout of 225 gigawatts of renewable capacity–more than six times today’s capacity–the region would face repeated and prolonged blackouts during the winter.
Claim: The Trump administration is responsible for the failed rollout of offshore wind in Maine.
Reality: It was the Biden–Buttigieg Department of Transportation that killed Maine’s offshore wind port funding.
While the Portland Press Herald stops short of directly blaming former President Trump for Maine’s lack of offshore wind infrastructure, the implication is clear. The article suggests that if not for past federal resistance, Maine could already be benefiting from large-scale offshore wind projects. But the facts tell a different story.
In 2024, the State of Maine applied for a $456 million federal grant to construct a floating offshore wind port on Sears Island, a critical piece of infrastructure if the state hoped to support industrial-scale offshore wind development. That application was rejected by the Biden administration’s Department of Transportation, led by Secretary Pete Buttigieg. The denial, reported by multiple outlets including the Bangor Daily News, WGME, and even the PPH itself, effectively derailed the state’s most viable pathway to support offshore wind fabrication and assembly. This was not a Trump-era decision—it was made under President Biden’s watch, less than one year ago.
As MPI noted at the time, “Secretary Buttigieg did not approve the almost half‑a‑billion dollar federal price tag that this project requested.” Despite the state’s high-profile pitch, the federal government turned down the proposal, leaving Maine with ambitious mandates but no means to meet them.
To be clear, former President Trump has taken positions critical of offshore wind. In January 2025, he signed an executive order suspending new offshore wind leasing and rescinding millions of acres previously designated for development in federal waters. But this action came after the Biden administration had already blocked Maine’s port funding. In other words, the denial of Maine’s $456 million infrastructure request can’t be pinned on Trump—it was a decision made squarely under the Biden administration.
What offshore wind really means for Maine families
If Maine follows through on the Governor’s energy roadmap and ISO-NE’s decarbonization strategy, the cost burden will be substantial. Annual residential electricity bill costs are projected to rise by $2,574 by 2050. Additionally, industrial users will see costs spike by more than $5,000 per year. These estimates do not include the added costs from emissions reduction mandates, forced electrification of heating and transportation, or the investment losses from Environmental, Social, and Governance-driven state pension policies.
Conclusion: Wishful thinking is not a policy strategy
Articles like the one published by the Press Herald make for compelling headlines but are based on counterfactual modeling and selective assumptions. Offshore wind has never reduced prices for consumers, and there is no evidence to suggest it will in the future. The cost of maintaining grid reliability, building infrastructure, and sustaining politically-favored but unpredictable energy sources falls squarely on ratepayers.
Maine lawmakers and regulators must rethink these mandates and prioritize affordability and reliability over slogans and speculative benefits. If we want to reduce emissions without sacrificing energy security, nuclear energy should be allowed to compete on a level playing field. That starts with repealing the state moratorium and ending preferential treatment in power auctions. New England’s working families and businesses deserve an energy policy rooted in evidence, not ideology.
