SOMERSET — The now-defunct Brayton Point power station looks like a relic from another time, a collection of aging industrial warehouses ringed by parking lots with cracked pavement and rusty chain-link fences. Yet here is where the future of energy in Massachusetts is poised to take its next big step, as SouthCoast Wind’s offshore wind project gears up to make landfall on nearby shores, and the Prysmian manufacturing company prepares to launch a new facility for the undersea power cables.
But this future is clouded by uncertainty following President-elect Donald Trump’s threats to curb renewable energy and impose tariffs on imported components necessary for these projects. If realized, these policies could sharply drive up costs, compromising not only the projects but also hundreds of jobs tied to Massachusetts’ climate goals.
The green energy sector has faced similar challenges before, enduring tariffs instituted by past administrations, including Obama and Biden, on solar panels from China. According to experts, those earlier measures frequently missed their mark, failing to boost domestic production as companies sidestepped levies through relocation to countries such as Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
A study from Cornell, Yale, NYU, and Duke economists concluded the tariffs had minimal positive impact on U.S. manufacturing but caused significant declines within the installation sector. “Tariffs did increase manufacturing labor slightly, but they led to substantial job losses in installation,” stated Robert Stavins, professor of energy and economic development at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
Trump already raised concerns within the clean energy community by pledging to impose considerable tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China. Energy professionals warn this could negatively disrupt the transition away from fossil fuels by increasing costs for everything from solar panels to batteries.
The impact of potential tariffs could be particularly detrimental to Massachusetts, which already grapples with some of the highest electricity costs nationwide. “For Massachusetts, it’s going to be unambiguously bad,” Stavins remarked, adding, “Slowing down renewable energy expansion is likely to increase rates for consumers.”
During his visit to Brayton Point last year, President Biden expressed support for clean energy jobs, emphasizing plans to build “a different future” for the region. Yet, under Trump’s proposed tariffs, industry experts such as Kyle Murray from Acadia Center believe Massachusetts might struggle to fulfill its goal of creating 34,000 clean energy jobs by 2030. “We’ve got to think creatively and work quickly to mitigate any potential harms,” he said.
Currently, the clean energy sector employs nearly 44,000 individuals throughout Massachusetts, including over 12,000 directly related to renewable energy. These positions span from solar panel installers, of whom there are more than 1,800, to electricians involved with offshore wind projects.
The potential of losing jobs has already been highlighted by Jeff Plaisted, business agent for IBEW Local Union 223, who emphasized the importance of the upcoming SouthCoast Wind project. “If Trump does what he said he was going to do, it’s going to hurt. It’s going to crush hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs,” he remarked, stressing how federal permits would determine the future for workers anticipating projects.
Despite some negativity, some industry veterans remain cautiously optimistic. Shugar, founder of solar tech company Nextracker, believes the existing inventory of solar panels could cushion against immediate impacts from rising costs. Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, similarly noted resilience within the industry, citing increased solar deployments over the past two years.
On the wind front, Harvard professor Stephen Ansolabehere indicated there might be setbacks for offshore wind developments through the next decade. Nevertheless, he believes projects like SouthCoast Wind could continue due to their advanced permits. “These are local jobs keeping our economy vibrant amid fossil fuel phase-outs,” Plaisted suggested.
Turning attention toward geothermal energy, industry insiders argue they may be less affected by tariffs. The chief executive of HEET, Zeyneb Magavi, noted the geothermal sector’s production facilities are situated well outside political battlegrounds. “We make our own drills and geothermal heat pumps,” she said, showing potential for local manufacturing growth.
Another angle for geothermal industry resilience rests on its collaborative efforts with natural gas firms, who might still garner Trump’s favor. The industry is projected to see significant expansion, with analyses showing about 25% of the building sector adopting geothermal solutions by 2050.
While concerns remain, those invested within clean energy maintain optimism about the market's resilience. “No executive order can fully halt its progress,” suggested Harry Godfrey of Advanced Energy United, yet he recognized the vulnerabilities within different sectors.
Numerous East Coast states, particularly Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, have embraced offshore wind as pivotal to transitioning away from fossil fuels. But as Trump takes office, these regions face potential delays and setbacks. Sen. Jamie Eldridge of Massachusetts pointed out, “This is going to create problems meeting emissions goals and energy needs.”
Lawmakers from various states have pledged to continue their pursuit of offshore wind mandates and existing projects, meanwhile focusing on enhancing electrical grid infrastructure to expedite future developments. “We’ll continue to support this transition until we’re pressured to find alternatives,” Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian indicated.
On the other hand, Trump’s administration could choose to deny permits or even retract existing approvals made under Biden. Industry analysts have suggested the ramifications could be severe for numerous projects aiming to establish themselves within federal waters.
Reflecting on the greater picture, stakeholders contend it’s reasonable for state lawmakers to pursue other renewable sources—such as geothermal and solar—to meet short-term goals. “States will need to adapt depending on federal direction, as negotiations on offshore wind continue,” Dylan McDowell of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators asserted.
Virginia’s law has established offshore wind targets but highlights the uncertainty felt nationwide: “If the administration wants to halt our offshore energy, they have the capability,” cautioned state Sen. Creigh Deeds. Accordingly, the clean energy future remains uncertain, pending on who will lead the charge within the federal government and whether it’s aligned with state efforts to develop new energy sources.
