As the industry gathers for Global Offshore Wind 2025 on 17/18 June, offshore wind is now facing its toughest headwinds in over a decade. While it became more competitive in recent years, thanks to larger turbines, maturing supply chains, and investor appetite – offshore wind has never been the cheapest form of renewable energy. Its success was built on the growing demand for new power generation, public acceptance, its ability to enhance energy security and its industrial development opportunities.
Today, many of those foundations are shifting. Higher inflation, constrained supply chains, and political unpredictability are reshaping the risk profile of projects once seen as bankable. The cancellation of Ørsted’s Hornsea 4 project in the UK, and the halt of Atlantic Shores in the US, makes one thing clear: we’ve entered a different phase in the energy transition – one where policy and cost realities must be confronted head-on.
Ørsted’s decision to walk away from Hornsea 4 is not just a line in a press release – it is a signal. This is no fringe project. Hornsea 4 was a cornerstone of Britain’s offshore wind pipeline, and its cancellation is rattling confidence across the industry.
Faced with soaring supply chain costs, interest rate pressures, and limited revenue visibility (particularly around zonal pricing), even one of the market’s most experienced developers chose to step back. And it’s not about lack of ambition. It’s about working with a system that no longer reflects today’s market conditions.
Hornsea 4 is not the outlier. It’s the warning light on the dashboard. And that signal hasn’t gone unnoticed.
Across the North Sea, two governments are now actively rewriting the rulebook – each responding to developer pushback in different ways. While Denmark is sending a clear message that it wants offshore wind, but not at the expense of credibility or investor trust, the Netherlands is opting for a more cautious, delivery-focused approach that prioritises optionality and scaled-back ambition.
Both responses mark a significant shift from the zero-subsidy mindset of recent years. The emphasis now is not just on capacity targets, but on how to deliver them in today’s more complex environment.
Across the Atlantic, the US offshore wind sector continues to struggle with political unpredictability. The Empire Wind project, developed by Equinor and bp, was abruptly paused by the Trump administration over alleged permitting irregularities. But after strong pushback from New York State officials and the developer, federal authorities reversed the decision, allowing it to proceed. For Atlantic Shores, there has been no reprieve.
This episode reveals two things: First, federal uncertainty remains a serious risk for project timelines and investor confidence. Second, state-level leadership is becoming critical in keeping large-scale projects on track.
Yes, Empire Wind is back, but the back-and-forth exposes the fragility of US offshore wind policy. And for investors, contractors, and supply chain partners, uncertainty carries a cost.
Today’s projects are being asked to scale faster to deliver more, but under tougher conditions. Materials and installation costs remain high. Turbine manufacturers are under financial strain. Debt is now more expensive, equity is more cautious, and timelines are more uncertain than ever. In short: the industry is still expected to do more, but with less margin, less policy certainty, and more risk.
What’s the conclusion, then? Developers still want to build. Governments still want – and need – the energy. But the tools that worked five years ago won’t help us reach out targets. Or safeguard the energy security that recent blackouts in Spain and Portugal have shown we can’t take for granted.
The offshore wind market is asking for one thing: realism. In timelines. In how risk is shared.
The ambition is still there. The next phase must be shaped by frameworks that reflect today’s market, and that rebuild trust between governments, developers, and the supply chain.
