VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Offshore wind advocates are closely monitoring and vigorously lobbying Congress to assess and shape potential changes to the Inflation Reduction Act and its budget, speakers said at the International Partnering Forum 2025.

Key among the issues outlined at the IPF — which ran from April 28 to May 1 — is the fate of investment tax credits, as Congress seeks to pass a budget that will extend President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, speakers said.

Trump’s dislike of offshore wind has resulted in a freeze in permitting of projects and a halt placed on the Empire Wind project in New York mid-construction. Those actions suggest an uncertain fate for the IRA. But many benefits from the act have gone to Republican states, and wind advocates hope to sway legislators in key districts to keep the credits in the president’s proposed $4.5 trillion budget.

“It’s fair to say that defense of the tax credits is the first, second and third priority for ACP federal affairs team,” said Anne Reynolds, vice president of offshore wind for the American Clean Power Association (ACP), in an April 29 panel.

On the same panel was Shawn Daray, a tax attorney for Jones Walker, who specializes in renewable energy tax credits. He said one of Trump’s first executive orders — known as Unleashing American Energy — “is attempting to pause the disbursement of funds for the Inflation Reduction Act, that includes grants, loans, contracts and any other financial disbursements,” by declaring a national emergency.

“It’s important for all of us to just keep a close eye on the inner workings of Congress and see what comes out of these coming months,” he said.

Driving Economic Development

The IRA discussion emerged from a conference focused on efforts to reenergize the OSW sector amid a host of economic and political challenges. (See IPF25 Attendees Plan Future OSW Resurgence.)

The energy investment tax credit can be used to pay 6% of the cost of a project starting construction before Jan. 1, 2026, rising to 30% if the project pays prevailing wage levels and meets apprenticeship requirements. A project can earn another credit of 10% if it meets requirements for domestic content, such as the iron and steel used and certain other components. Domestic manufacturers of wind components — such as blades, nacelles, towers, and offshore wind platforms — can get a 10% tax credit.

In recent weeks, 21 Republican Congressmen signed a letter supporting the tax credits. Four senators have publicly expressed support too, speakers at the conference said. OSW advocates are working hard to solidify that support and make sure it is reflected in the budget talks.

“Our message in Congress is that these tax credits are driving economic development, job creation and increases in household incomes all across the country,” said Reynolds, whose organization represents wind, solar, storage and other clean energy companies. “They’re doing that disproportionately in Republican states and Republican districts, and they’re doing it in a way that will address the surging demand for electricity across the country. So that’s the message that we’re trying to say six different ways.”

ACP’s campaign includes “television ads and online ads and events in strategically selected congressional districts across the country,” she said. “It includes grassroots activation, patch calls, email alerts, text alerts, and it includes direct meetings with Congress,” Reynolds said. On April 30, ACP organized 400 people to conduct congressional visits, including “front line workers, so real people whose jobs are depending on these tax credits continuing” could present their position, she said.

The challenge is to try to make sure the Republicans expressing support for the credits maintain that view through budget negotiations, said Catherine Belmán Goggins, the policy director of Turn Forward, a nonprofit organization that supports OSW. She said the first deadlines for passage, Memorial Day and then July 4, may change again.

“Time is of the essence,” she told the audience of about 100 people. She urged them to stress not only the local benefits of offshore wind but “the broader priorities” held by federal legislators, such as “domestic energy security, energy resilience, domestic manufacturing.”

“These are common interests across both sides of the aisle,” she said.

Persuading Opponents

That strategy of looking for common ground with opponents is key, said speakers at a panel called “Bridging the Divide: Engaging Republican Lawmakers on Offshore Wind and Renewable Energy.”

In general, OSW has strong support, said Hillary Bright, executive director of Turn Forward. Surveys conducted by the organization show that 73% of voters overall approve incorporating renewable energy into the state’s mix, including 53% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats, she said.

Those figures rise when the people surveyed are told “offshore wind can support good paying jobs, but don’t all require four-year degrees” and when the survey takes place in states like Texas or Virginia, where the benefits of wind energy development are in evidence, she said.

To persuade skeptics, advocates need to talk about OSW “in a more inclusive way that really brings everyone to the table,” she said.

A key strategy is to remove climate change from the discussion, said Jennifer Mundt, assistant secretary of clean energy economic development for the North Carolina Department of Commerce, which helps develop offshore wind energy resources in the state. They don’t mention the “other environmental co-benefits, like improved air quality because we’re replacing fossil fuel generation and all the emissions — we don’t touch any of that,” Mundt said.

But they will emphasize “the opportunities that come with growing, really a nascent industrial supply chain,” she said. “What we found to be the most successful strategy in communication has just really been to depict innovative and sustainable energy solutions like offshore wind as a part of a portfolio, as the drivers of economic growth, as the drivers of good jobs creation, and as the driver of energy security that North Carolina needs.”

Confronting New Regulatory Terrain

For other speakers, the key challenge facing the industry is how to adjust to the fact that “regulatory certainty has been turned on its head,” as Josh Kaplowitz, senior counsel for Troutman Pepper Locke, put it.

The changes triggered by Trump’s executive orders, and their potential impact on OSW projects, the supply chain, states and the industry, have been dramatic, according to speakers on a panel called “Unpacking the New Presidential Directives on Offshore Wind.”

Key among the initiatives highlighted was the Unleashing American Energy order, which declared the nation under an energy emergency and enabled the White House to take action to create more energy. That was followed by a separate — and contrasting — order that effectively froze all OSW federal permitting and leasing pending a review of existing leases, for which no timeline has been set, speakers said.

The administration’s decision to halt New York’s Empire Wind project mid-construction, with all permits in place, was close to unprecedented, said Kaplowitz, who moderated the “Unpacking” panel. The decision, enshrined in a presidential memorandum, did not cite any “particular legal authority” to justify the move, and it potentially could deter investors from backing any major energy project, he said.

“You have a situation where a project that has been fully financed, all the contracts are not just signed, but being executed,” he said. “It does beg the question about what message it sends to any industry, when receiving a final federal permit doesn’t mean anything, because it can be pulled away at any time, literally, including in mid-construction.”

Brian Krevor, senior director for offshore environmental and permitting at ACP, said Empire Wind was one of nine projects in various stages of construction that all had permits.

The Trump administration has set up a “dichotomy” of dramatic contrasts between its treatment of renewable energy projects versus other types of energy, Krevor said. To say that there is a national energy emergency and then exclude renewable energy as a source to meet it “doesn’t quite make sense,” he said. Nor does the fact that the U.S. Department of the Interior on April 23 said it would review non-renewable energy projects in 28 days if they require an environmental impact statement, and 14 days if they simply need an environmental assessment, he said.

“So on one hand, they’re making a critique of reviews that have taken two plus years each for these offshore wind projects, and even longer, to get there and do planning,” he said. “But for all other energy resources, they’re saying 28 days or 14 days is sufficient.”

On the same panel, Janice Schneider, an attorney at Latham & Watkins who specializes in environmental, energy and infrastructure, said she expects the administration’s moves to create “create some market chill.”

“In a perfect world, a lender would prefer to not lend until there are final and non-appealable permits on projects,” she said. The new environment is likely to mean “folks are sort of asking themselves, can we be confident that this shovel-ready project is actually going to be buildable and we get a return on investment?”