The U.S. government has agreed to pay nearly $1 billion to the French energy company TotalEnergies to cancel major offshore wind projects planned on the East Coast. The deal was announced by the Department of the Interior and represents a major shift in federal energy policy.
TotalEnergies will give up its lease holdings and invest in fossil fuel development instead. Meanwhile, the U.S. will reimburse the company for lease fees it has already paid.
This move comes as offshore wind was expected to become a key part of America’s renewable energy future. Now, it raises new questions about the future of offshore wind, the role of the federal government, and broader energy and climate strategies.
The Deal: What Happened and What It Means
Officials from the Department of the Interior and TotalEnergies announced that the company will abandon two planned offshore wind projects. These leases were located off the coasts of New York and North Carolina.
TotalEnergies will get back up to $928 million. This amount covers the money it spent on lease rights.
In return, the energy giant plans to redirect that capital toward fossil fuel development. This includes investing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure in Texas. It also covers expanded oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. shale regions.
TotalEnergies Chair and CEO Patrick Pouyanné said:
“TotalEnergies is pleased to sign these settlement agreements with the DOI and to support the Administration’s Energy Policy. Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States, in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees.”
The government framed the deal as a way to reduce federal exposure to expensive and “unreliable” offshore wind projects. The Interior Department described the agreement as an efficient way to shift resources toward energy sources they view as more cost‑effective.
US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum noted:
“We welcome TotalEnergies’ commitment to developing projects that produce dependable, affordable power to lower Americans’ monthly bills while providing secure US baseload power today—and in the future.”
On Hold: Offshore Wind’s Place in U.S. Energy Plans
Offshore wind power has been part of U.S. climate and energy planning for years. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated that the United States has a technical potential of:
- 1,476 GW of fixed‑bottom offshore wind resources
- 2,773 GW of floating offshore wind resources
These resources could be developed off the coasts of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico.
Despite this potential, the industry is still in its early stages. As of early 2025, the U.S. had just 174 megawatts (MW) of installed offshore wind capacity.
Several major projects were in development and construction before the recent policy shift. These included:
- Vineyard Wind 1, near Massachusetts
- Empire Wind 1, near New York
- Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW)
- Revolution Wind
- Sunrise Wind
These projects were expected to add several gigawatts of clean energy to U.S. grids in the coming years. The federal government considered this one way to help meet broader climate goals. This was part of U.S. commitments under the Inflation Reduction Act and other climate legislation.
Now, the cancellation of TotalEnergies’ projects marks a notable change in that trajectory.
Costs, Risks, and Market Headwinds
Offshore wind is capital‑intensive and technically complex. The industry has faced cost pressures in recent years. Offshore wind development in the U.S. has high costs. Often, these expenses are several times greater than those for onshore wind installations.
In a 2025 study, fixed-bottom projects cost about $72 to $140 per MWh, while floating wind often exceeds $150 per MWh. Capital costs range from $3,000 to $6,000 per kW, with early floating projects higher. Over time, costs may fall to $50 to $100 per MWh by 2050.
In addition to costs, developers have faced supply chain issues, regulatory delays, and scaling challenges. These factors have slowed project timelines and increased financial risk.
However, offshore wind has continued to be a key part of long‑term clean energy forecasts. A 2023 U.S. Department of Energy outlook estimates up to 30 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030. By 2050, this could reach 110 GW if policies support growth.
These capacity levels would help support decarbonization efforts in the power sector and contribute to electricity market diversification. Offshore wind resources are generally strongest and most consistent offshore, offering high capacity factors compared to some onshore renewables. But now that wind projects are cancelled, these clean energy goals are under strain.
Is This a Fossil Fuel Pivot?
Offshore wind is just one piece of a larger clean energy landscape. The U.S. has significantly expanded onshore wind and solar capacity in recent years, driven by federal tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Offshore wind infrastructure includes large turbine components, subsea cabling, and port facilities. These elements have economic multipliers that can support regional supply chains and workforce development.
At the same time, fossil fuels remain a significant part of the U.S. energy mix. The Trump administration’s deal with TotalEnergies reflects federal policy that prioritizes traditional energy sources, such as natural gas and oil, alongside efforts to support domestic energy security.
U.S. fossil fuel production remains high. In 2025, the U.S. was the world’s largest producer of crude oil and natural gas liquids combined. The country’s energy exports, including LNG, also rose sharply in recent years as global markets shifted.
Natural gas accounts for a large share of U.S. electricity generation, usually around 40% of net generation, providing a flexible baseload power source for grids.
Global Offshore Wind Snapshot
Offshore wind development continues globally, particularly in Europe and Asia. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and Taiwan have deployed substantial offshore wind capacity.
Europe, for example, exceeded 30 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by the end of 2025, with continual growth projected. The global pipeline includes tens of gigawatts under development, driven by policy support and falling technology costs.
Cost reductions in turbine technology, floating wind platforms, and installation methods are expected to continue. Global forecasts project offshore wind capacity reaching 234 GW by 2030 and 2,000 GW by 2050 under the 1.5°C scenario.
These figures indicate that offshore wind could play a major role in the energy transition worldwide — even as policies vary by region.
America’s Clean Energy Goals in Flux
The TotalEnergies deal marks a clear shift in federal energy policy. It reflects a calculated decision by the current administration to redirect capital and incentives away from offshore wind.
This decision could affect investor confidence, supply chains, and future project pipelines. Offshore wind developers have warned that a lack of federal support and policy uncertainty may hinder industry growth.
Elizabeth Klein, former director of the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under the Biden administration, remarked in a CNN interview that the move:
“…will actually cause a further energy deficit in our country and increase the cost of energy certainly along the East Coast… For the current administration to be cutting that off makes no sense at all.”
For states with clean energy goals, reliance on offshore wind as part of a diversified renewable portfolio may now require adjustments.
The broader climate context remains focused on reducing emissions from the power sector. Renewable energy deployment, grid modernization, and clean energy innovation continue to be key strategies for long-term decarbonization.
As the energy landscape evolves, market participants and policymakers are watching closely. What unfolds next will shape not only the offshore wind sector but the broader clean energy transition in the United States.
The post Trump Admin Pays TotalEnegries $1B to Scrap Wind Projects, Putting a Hold on America’s Clean Energy Plans appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits