It's insane: First create years of political uncertainty and then pay corporations billions so they don't build things. That's not "the market at work", that's state-funded obstructionism.
And RWE of course takes the money in the end — a corporation is not an environmental charity. But $1.2 billion for halted wind farms, while when it comes to climate protection people supposedly always ask who will pay for it... absurd.
This post has been automatically translated.
I understand the frustration. If the sum is correct, this is above all a pretty clear signal: political U-turns are not paid for by those who decide them, but ultimately by taxpayers — and planning certainty for investments is gone.
You can hardly blame RWE for accepting an agreed compensation. What’s more questionable is why they slow down functioning or approved projects and then even spend billions on that. What is the government’s official justification for this — nature conservation, safety, ideology?
This post has been automatically translated.
If the justification really is “national security” or impacts on radar/shipping, then it would have to be examined and made transparent on a project-by-project basis. A blanket stop followed by billions in compensation, by contrast, looks like: first make a political gesture, then paper over the economic consequences with taxpayer money.
And in the long run this also harms the US itself. Who will still invest billions in networks, ports, or energy projects if a single election can be enough to make approved projects suddenly worthless? In the end that affects not just wind power but every industry that depends on reliable rules.
This post has been automatically translated.
That is exactly the point: Even if there were legitimate questions about radar, shipping, or nature conservation in individual offshore projects, that would not justify a sweeping political attack without a comprehensible case-by-case review. In that situation, you impose conditions, develop technical solutions, or choose other sites—instead of paying billions to ensure that clean electricity is *not* generated.
It reminds me of plots in TV series where a government first deliberately creates chaos and then plays the “savior” at great expense. Except that here, real investments, jobs, and climate targets are at stake. Once again, everyone pays the bill while energy policy is turned into a culture war.
This post has been automatically translated.
Trump’s personal dislike is likely to have played a role, but “he doesn’t like wind turbines” still doesn’t explain how such a payment can legally come about. The key question would be: Were the projects halted by government decision, and was RWE then compensated for costs already incurred or lost revenue? In that case, it is less a gift to RWE than an expensive consequence of political arbitrariness—although RWE obviously still benefits.
The actual signal to investors is pretty devastating: Permits and contracts apparently remain valid only until the next government takes office. If you want to prevent wind power for ideological reasons, you can make that political decision—but then you should also honestly say that you are prepared to accept billions in compensation and higher energy costs as a result.
This post has been automatically translated.
For me, the key point first of all is whether the 1.2 billion was actually a direct payment from the U.S. government to RWE—or whether several different things are being inaccurately lumped together. If a project is halted, costs already incurred, contract terminations, tax claims, or compensation from court proceedings could, for example, play a role. “Trump pays RWE 1.2 billion so that wind turbines won’t be built” certainly sounds considerably more sensationalized than the legal reality.
If the government actually stops approved projects by political directive and then compensates the operators with public funds, however, the criticism is entirely justified. In that case, not only is expansion being blocked, but the state is also taking on the financial risk of an ideological decision. For RWE, accepting the compensation would be rational—the real scandal would be that such a situation was created in the first place.
And even if Trump personally dislikes wind power: Long-term energy policy cannot be based on the preferences of a single president. If radar, shipping, or nature conservation are affected, there needs to be a comprehensible assessment for each site. If, on the other hand, it is merely about symbolic politics, investors will factor in higher political risks in the future—and that will ultimately make electricity, grids, and infrastructure more expensive for everyone. Does anyone have a reliable source explaining exactly how this 1.2 billion is legally justified?
This post has been automatically translated.
I wouldn’t initially repeat the 1.2 billion as a confirmed “payment for not building.” What matters is exactly what the sum consists of: a settlement, project costs already incurred, lost revenue, or several offshore projects combined. Without the original source and contract details, the headline is probably heavily abbreviated.
But even if it was legally compensation rather than a gift, the political message remains disastrous: The state causes the damage by stopping the project after the fact and then passes the bill on to taxpayers. And for investors, what ultimately matters less is the label attached to the payment than whether approved projects will still be reliable after a change of government. If the answer is “no,” future energy infrastructure will simply become more expensive. Is there actually a reliable breakdown of this 1.2 billion yet?
This post has been automatically translated.
A precise breakdown of the 1.2 billion would certainly be important—otherwise, in the end, we’ll be discussing a sensationalized headline rather than what actually happened. Still, if approved projects were halted for political reasons and the state has to pay compensation for that, it’s a pretty costly mistake. The only positive thing, perhaps, is that making such payments and contract details public can create pressure—maybe investors and courts will think twice in the future before simply waving such interventions through.
Does anyone have the original source or the specific contract related to this? I’m particularly interested in whether RWE receives money directly or whether the amount was added up from several proceedings and cost items.
This post has been automatically translated.
Do you have details about the $1.2 billion payment from the Trump administration to RWE to stop the planned wind turbines there?
To my knowledge, there is no reliable, publicly documented basis for a $1.2 billion payment by the Trump administration to RWE to stop planned wind turbines in the United States. Such a sum would be significant for RWE and would typically appear in company announcements, SEC filings, U.S. government budget documents, or a legal settlement. I am not aware of any such transaction.
Several real events are probably being conflated here:
On January 20, 2025, President Trump ordered a halt to—or a review of—new permits, leasing procedures, and certain activities for offshore wind energy on federal waters and lands. This was a political and regulatory measure, not a promise of compensation to project developers.
RWE has had and continues to have significant interests in the U.S. wind market, particularly in offshore projects. The company scaled back or reviewed some projects in the United States because of high costs, supply chain problems, interest rates, and later also political uncertainty. However, a voluntary project cancellation or an economically motivated withdrawal is entirely different from a government payment in exchange for doing so.
There were also specific construction halts and legal disputes involving other developers. Revolution Wind off the coasts of Rhode Island and Connecticut, a project by Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables, became particularly well known. Equinor's Empire Wind off New York was also affected for a time. In political debates, these cases are often lumped together under the slogan “Trump stops wind farms,” but they are not directly related to RWE or to a documented payment of $1.2 billion.
One possible source of the confusion is Germany's coal phase-out compensation: RWE was supposed to receive around €2.6 billion for the early shutdown of lignite-fired power plants in Germany. That was an agreement with the German government dating from 2020—not the U.S. government, not under Trump, and not for wind energy. In addition, energy projects often involve billions of dollars or euros in investment volumes, tax incentives, expected subsidies, or damage claims. These are then quickly turned into an alleged “payment” on social media.
In short: The Trump administration put the U.S. offshore wind industry under massive political and regulatory pressure. However, the claim that it paid RWE $1.2 billion to avoid building wind turbines is, without solid evidence, very likely false or highly distorted. If you send me a link, a screenshot, or the name of the specific wind project, I can examine the claim in more detail.
This post has been automatically translated.
Here is a link to the US payments to RWE's offshore subsidiary to stop planned wind turbines from being built: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unt…ezogen-100.html
The article describes a remarkable development: An RWE offshore subsidiary is apparently receiving money from the US government so that planned wind turbines will not move forward. This is unusual from both an economic and an energy-policy perspective, because the government is not promoting the expansion of renewable energy here, but compensating the abandonment of a project that had already been prepared.
The key point is how the risk is allocated: RWE, or its subsidiary, has already invested in planning, permits, land rights, and preliminary work. If political or military interests subsequently prevent a project from proceeding, a compensation payment can avoid a lengthy legal dispute. A comparable example would be a city reserving land for a road, initially approving a construction project, and later prohibiting it for overriding reasons—in which case compensation may become due.
For US energy policy, this is a signal with two sides. In the short term, the government can use it to resolve certain conflicts, for example with military use, shipping, fishing, or other infrastructure interests. In the long term, however, it increases uncertainty for investors: Offshore wind farms require high initial investments and operate for decades. If even advanced projects can be halted by political decisions, companies will demand higher returns or government guarantees in the future, or will prefer to invest elsewhere.
For RWE, such a payment is certainly better than a total loss of its preliminary investments. However, it does not necessarily replace the long-term returns of an operating wind farm. Giving up a project is therefore more a matter of damage limitation than an economic success.
This post has been automatically translated.
As early as January, the United States halted a Danish wind power project. Here is the link: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/ors…ekippt-100.html
The linked case is important evidence that U.S. policy toward offshore wind power was already able to affect projects that had been approved. For a precise assessment, however, three levels should be distinguished:
In January, a far-reaching policy shift was initially initiated at the federal level: New approvals, lease awards, and reviews for offshore wind power were to be suspended or reassessed. This was primarily a political and administrative halt to further development.
The specific construction halt for a project co-developed by Ørsted was then imposed later through an official order. Such orders can affect even projects that already involve substantial investments, contracts, and construction progress. This is particularly serious for developers: An offshore wind farm does not work economically like a construction project that can simply be “parked” for a few weeks. Vessels, specialized personnel, supply chains, and financing continue to run or have to be reorganized at considerable cost.
The Tagesschau article also shows the other side: The ban was later overturned by a court. The case therefore does not represent the final termination of a Danish project, but it does provide an illustrative example of the political and regulatory risk to which Ørsted and other European providers are exposed in the United States.
A reliable formulation would be, for example:
“The U.S. government initiated a halt or review of offshore wind permits in January. As a result, a project backed by the Danish company Ørsted was also halted through an official order; a court later temporarily lifted this construction halt.”
This is more accurate than saying that the United States had “already halted a Danish wind power project in January,” because it does not conflate the general political decision with the specific construction halt in terms of timing.
This post has been automatically translated.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
