01-29-2025

Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf From Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government's Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects

MemorandumView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: A Presidential Memorandum that immediately halts all new federal leasing and permitting for both offshore and onshore wind energy projects. [Sec. 1, Sec. 2(a)]

Money: While the memorandum does not appropriate funds, it freezes billions of dollars in planned private-sector investment in renewable energy. The action suspends potentially lucrative federal lease sales and could jeopardize the $87 billion in economic output the offshore wind industry was projected to generate by 2030.

Your Impact: The development of new, large-scale renewable energy projects will stop. This could slow the transition to clean energy, potentially impacting future electricity costs and the mix of power sources available to consumers. The action provides immediate relief to communities and industries, such as fishing, that oppose specific wind farm developments.

Status: This Presidential Memorandum is an executive action that became effective on January 21, 2025. [Sec. 1] It is not a bill and does not require congressional approval.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Presidential Memorandum uses executive authority to pause the expansion of wind energy on federal lands and waters pending a comprehensive review. [Sec. 1, Sec. 2] It directs federal agencies to stop advancing wind projects due to stated concerns over environmental impacts, economic costs, and alleged legal flaws in the approval process. [Sec. 2(a)]

Core Provisions:

  • Offshore Wind Moratorium: Withdraws all unleased areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from wind energy leasing, effective January 21, 2025. This withdrawal is indefinite and lasts until the memorandum is revoked. [Sec. 1]
  • Onshore & Offshore Permitting Freeze: Halts the issuance of new federal permits, rights-of-way, leases, or loans for both onshore and offshore wind projects nationwide. [Sec. 2(a)]
  • Review of Existing Leases: Orders a review of all existing offshore wind leases to identify legal grounds for their termination or amendment. [Sec. 1]
  • Lava Ridge Project Halted: Imposes a specific moratorium on all activities related to the Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho and orders a new analysis of its environmental impacts. [Sec. 2(b)]
  • Comprehensive Assessment: Mandates a government-wide review of the environmental effects of wind projects on wildlife (birds, marine mammals) and the economic costs related to subsidies and intermittent power generation. [Sec. 2(a)]
  • Study of Defunct Turbines: Requires a report on the environmental and community costs of abandoned or inactive wind turbines and recommendations for requiring their removal. [Sec.2(c)]

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The memorandum states its goal is to exercise "responsible public stewardship" by re-evaluating the federal government's approach to wind energy. The stated objectives are:

  1. To address alleged legal and environmental review deficiencies in the federal permitting process. [Sec. 2(a)]
  2. To assess the full impact of wind development on marine life, ocean currents, and wind patterns. [Sec. 1]
  3. To protect the U.S. fishing industry for future generations. [Sec. 1]
  4. To evaluate the effect of wind energy on electricity costs for American consumers. [Sec. 1]

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Renewable Energy, Electric Utilities, Manufacturing, Commercial Fishing, Construction.
Timeline: The moratorium began on January 21, 2025. The reviews and studies ordered have no set deadline. [Sec. 1]
Scope: The action applies to all federally managed lands and all waters of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Push for Offshore Wind (2021-2024):

The prior administration made offshore wind a cornerstone of its climate and energy policy, setting a national goal to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030—enough to power 10 million homes. This initiative spurred a series of massive lease sales off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, attracting major investment from domestic and international energy companies. However, the rapid push faced growing resistance from coastal communities, the fishing industry, and some conservation groups concerned about impacts on ocean ecosystems, whale migration, and fishing grounds.

The Lava Ridge Controversy (2023-2024):

In Idaho, the proposed Lava Ridge Wind Project became a flashpoint. The project, planned for federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, faced intense opposition over its visual impact on the Minidoka National Historic Site, a former Japanese American incarceration camp during World War II. Ranchers, conservationists, and local residents also raised concerns about impacts on sage grouse habitat and grazing lands. Despite opposition, the Department of the Interior issued a Record of Decision on December 5, 2024, approving a smaller version of the project, setting the stage for a policy reversal. [Sec. 2(b)]

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Fulfilling a Mandate: The memorandum was issued on the first day of a new presidential term, signaling a clear and immediate reversal of the previous administration's energy policies.
  • Capitalizing on Opposition: The action aligns with a growing movement skeptical of the pace and scale of wind energy development, uniting concerns from local activists, the fishing industry, and those ideologically opposed to renewable energy subsidies.
  • A Symbolic Reversal: Halting the recently approved Lava Ridge project serves as a high-profile example of the new administration's different approach to land use and energy development.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly halts the growth of the U.S. wind energy industry and has long-term, indirect effects on the nation's energy mix and electricity costs.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Project-Specific Relief: Communities fighting specific wind projects, like those near the Lava Ridge site or along the Atlantic coast, will see development paused.
  • Protection for Fishing/Tourism: The commercial fishing industry and coastal tourism businesses that feared disruption from offshore wind construction will not face those immediate threats.
  • Policy Reassessment: Proponents argue the pause allows for a more thorough and "sober second thought" on the true costs and benefits of wind power before further development.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (Next 1-2 years):

  • Thousands of planned jobs in manufacturing, port operations, and construction for the wind industry could be eliminated or fail to materialize.
  • Companies that have invested billions in leases and supply chains face significant financial losses and uncertainty.

Long-term:

  • The nation's transition to renewable energy will be significantly delayed, potentially making it harder to meet climate goals.
  • Utility providers may need to rely more heavily on natural gas, coal, or other power sources, which could affect long-term electricity prices and energy reliability.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Wind energy developers, turbine manufacturers, union construction workers, and port operators in coastal states (especially in the Northeast). The commercial fishing industry.
Secondary Groups: Electric utility companies, investors in renewable energy, and states with ambitious clean energy goals like New York, New Jersey, and California.
Regional Impact: The moratorium has a major impact on Atlantic coast states where offshore wind development was most advanced, as well as Western states like Idaho with large-scale onshore projects.

Bottom Line: This executive action freezes the expansion of a key renewable energy source, which will delay the country's clean energy transition in favor of addressing local and economic concerns about wind power's impact.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "A Needed Pause for Responsible Stewardship"

Core Stance: The federal government's rapid promotion of wind energy has overlooked serious economic costs and environmental consequences.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The pause is necessary to properly study the impacts on marine life, military radar, and the fishing industry.
  • ✓ It protects communities from projects like Lava Ridge that were pushed through despite local opposition.
  • ⚠️ Wind energy is not reliable without massive government subsidies and expensive battery backup, the costs of which are passed on to consumers.
  • ✗ The previous administration's "rush to green" prioritized climate goals over the well-being of American industries and consumers.

Legislative Strategy: To defend the President's executive action in court and use the findings from the mandated reviews to justify a permanent policy shift away from prioritizing wind energy.

Democratic Position: "Sabotaging America's Clean Energy Future"

Core Stance: This action is a destructive reversal of America's progress on climate change, job creation, and energy independence.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Wind power is a critical tool for reducing carbon emissions and creates thousands of high-paying manufacturing and construction jobs.
  • ⚠️ While local concerns should be heard and mitigated, an indefinite, nationwide moratorium is an extreme and destructive overreaction.
  • ✗ This decision benefits the fossil fuel industry at the expense of American energy leadership and a healthier environment.
  • ✗ Halting development undermines U.S. credibility and kills investment, sending clean energy jobs overseas.

Legislative Strategy: To challenge the legal basis of the memorandum in court, use congressional oversight to critique the administration's review process, and build a public campaign with environmental, labor, and industry allies to pressure the administration to reverse course.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The memorandum explicitly cites Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) for the offshore moratorium. For the onshore freeze and reviews, it relies on the President's general executive authority to direct the actions of federal agencies.

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(a)): "The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf."

Constitutional Implications:

[Legal Principle]: Congress explicitly granted the President the authority to withdraw unleased OCS lands from development. This power has been used by presidents of both parties, most often to block oil and gas drilling.
[Precedent]: The Supreme Court has historically interpreted the President's authority under OCSLA broadly. The legal arguments are more likely to focus on the onshore permitting freeze, which is based on a more general authority to oversee federal agencies.
[Federalism]: The action applies to federal lands and waters, not state territory, so it does not directly infringe on states' rights. However, it severely impacts the ability of coastal states to implement their own energy and climate policies that rely on offshore wind.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Renewable energy companies and environmental groups are expected to file lawsuits immediately. They will likely argue that the indefinite, nationwide moratorium is an "arbitrary and capricious" agency action that violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They may also claim the action is an abuse of presidential discretion intended to halt a specific industry, rather than a good-faith review.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call The White House: Contact the White House comment line to express support for the President's memorandum pausing wind development.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's pause on wind energy projects. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support this action."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact leadership of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to support the comprehensive review.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the Heartland Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and some local fishing alliances have been critical of large-scale wind projects.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call The White House: Contact the White House comment line to urge the President to reverse this memorandum.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to publicly oppose the President's memorandum and vote NO on any effort to make it permanent."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper about the importance of clean energy jobs and climate action.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the American Clean Power Association, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the League of Conservation Voters advocate for wind energy.