TotalEnergies Ends U.S. Offshore Wind Projects
March 23, 20267 min readStandard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
TotalEnergiesoffshore windU.S. energyBOEMrenewables
TotalEnergies signed an agreement with the U.S. Interior Department on March 23, 2026 to terminate its development activities for U.S. offshore wind projects, the companies reported in contemporaneous releases and media coverage (Seeking Alpha; Interior Department statement, Mar 23, 2026). The development closes a chapter on the French major’s direct pursuit of federal offshore leases in U.S. waters, and it arrives against a backdrop of an industry where leased capacity in U.S. federal waters exceeds 25 GW by BOEM accounting (BOEM report, Dec 2025). The decision will be parsed by institutional investors for balance-sheet implications, political signaling and the operational footprint trade-offs between U.S. renewables and TotalEnergies’ global energy portfolio. Market observers will compare this pivot with peers who have doubled down on offshore commitments in Europe and Asia, and with the operational reality that the U.S. presently has limited large-scale operational offshore capacity — e.g., Vineyard Wind 1 at ~804 MW began commercial operation in recent years (developer release). This article unpacks the context, data, sector implications and the risks for capital allocators and then offers a Fazen Capital perspective on what the move signals about the evolving global renewables playbook.
The agreement executed on March 23, 2026 formalizes TotalEnergies’ exit from its U.S. offshore wind initiatives, according to the Interior Department announcement and the subsequent Seeking Alpha coverage. The decision follows extended regulatory and permitting cycles in U.S. federal waters, alongside state-level pushback in certain jurisdictions and rising capex expectations for floating and fixed-bottom offshore projects. For majors like TotalEnergies, the calculus combines onshore and offshore renewables returns with legacy oil & gas cash flow, and this exit reallocates managerial bandwidth and capital toward markets that the company views as higher-return or less policy-fractured.
U.S. offshore wind has long been characterized by a sizable lease pipeline but limited operational fleet. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) data through December 2025 indicates leased areas that could support roughly 25.8 GW of installed capacity, though conversion of lease potential into operational megawatts has proven uneven and multi-year in execution (BOEM, Dec 2025). By contrast, Europe’s installed offshore fleet is measured in tens of gigawatts already online, and incumbent European developers retain deeper supply-chain integration and project delivery track records. For TotalEnergies, the decision reflects both sector-specific implementation risks in the U.S. and the company’s global capital allocation priorities.
Operationally, the U.S. market remains at an earlier stage compared with Europe: Vineyard Wind 1 (approximately 804 MW) is one of the first utility-scale projects to reach commercial operation in U.S. federal waters, and it serves as an important benchmark for project timelines and cost dynamics for market entrants. TotalEnergies’ exit therefore removes a potential large-scale developer from an environment where distributed regulatory, community and supply-chain issues still drive schedule risk and cost escalation. Institutional investors must parse whether this is a reallocation consistent with long-term strategy or a tactical retreat that signals persistent U.S. onshore/offshore investor friction.
Key dates and numbers frame the immediate implications. The Interior Department and press reports confirm the agreement on March 23, 2026 (Seeking Alpha; Interior Department statement). BOEM’s summary of active leases and planning areas at the end of 2025 quantified the U.S. federal lease-scale pipeline at approximately 25.8 GW of potential capacity, underscoring the theoretical resource base even if the conversion rate to operational capacity lags. Separately, project-level milestones such as the commercial commissioning of Vineyard Wind 1 at ~804 MW provide an operational anchor for assessing cost curves, turbine supply chain performance and grid-integration challenges in the U.S. market (developer release, 2023-2024).
From a portfolio exposure standpoint, while TotalEnergies’ U.S. offshore development activities represented a modest portion of its global renewables development backlog, the strategic value to the company was more than just MWs: access to a large end-market, relationships with U.S. utilities and optionality to scale. The company’s formal exit thus reduces optionality and could free capital for other opportunities — for example, expanded investment in solar, battery storage or hydrogen in geographies where permitting and market designs are more mature. The concrete magnitude of freed capital is not disclosed in the Interior Department or company statement, but investors can use run-rates of development spend and historical capex disclosures to model potential reallocations.
Comparative data points sharpen the picture: European developers such as Ørsted and Equinor retained aggressive offshore pipelines with multi-gigawatt commitments in 2025, and corporate disclosures show those firms deploying capital into construction and long-term offtake arrangements. By contrast, TotalEnergies’ U.S. decision widens a divergence in geographic risk tolerances and project delivery capabilities among global majors. For fixed-income investors gauging counterparty and project risk, the comparison matters: default risk and construction risk profiles for U.S. offshore projects will be recalibrated with fewer large integrated developers involved.
Short-term, the exit reduces competition for certain U.S. project rights and could slow the pace of large-scale project announcements that rely on multinational developer balance sheets. That dynamic may temporarily benefit smaller developers or increase the role of partnerships between U.S. utilities and specialized offshore firms. For equipment suppliers and turbine OEMs, the shift marginally alters demand visibility in the U.S. market; firms that had factored TotalEnergies into multi-year demand forecasts will need to reprice and reallocate inventory commitments.
Medium-term, the move amplifies the importance of policy clarity and streamlined permitting frameworks to attract and retain global energy majors. If the U.S. seeks to realize BOEM’s ~25.8 GW lease potential, it will need clearer transmission strategies, predictable tax and subsidy regimes and community engagement pathways. The exit may spur policy responses at state and federal levels to shore up investor confidence — or it may be one data point in a broader market correction if capital shifts to faster-growing or less-fragmented renewables markets.
For equity investors in the oil & gas and integrated energy sector, the decision underscores diverging strategic paths. TotalEnergies’ pivot may be interpreted as a re-weighting toward higher-return or lower-execution-risk opportunities, potentially boosting near-term free cash flow available for dividends or buybacks. Conversely, the pullback cedes technological and market experience in U.S. offshore to peers and may leave TotalEnergies less positioned should U.S. policy and supply chains accelerate in the decade ahead.
Execution risk in U.S. offshore wind remains material: permitting delays, local opposition, grid connection bottlenecks and supply-chain constraints have lengthened construction timetables and driven cost inflation. For lenders and project financiers, the reduced presence of large integrated developers like TotalEnergies increases counterparty concentration risk — fewer deep-pocketed backers for late-stage projects. That has implications for credit pricing and the structure of non-recourse project finance deals.
Policy risk also looms. The U.S. federal-state regulatory patchwork means that even with federal lease zones, onshore approvals, transmission siting and state-level procurement policies are decisive. If the policy response to developer exits is to accelerate approvals and incentivize rapid build-out, that could restore developer interest; if not, the pipeline will contract. Investors must therefore build scenarios that stress-test cash flow durations against multi-year commissioning schedules.
Reputational and strategic risk is another dimension. Major energy companies manage a portfolio of climate-related and transition-related objectives; exiting a visible U.S. offshore footprint could be criticized by certain stakeholder groups as deprioritizing renewables, while others may view it as prudent capital discipline. For fiduciaries and ESG-screened funds, the exit will require updated exposure assessments and a re-evaluation of scenario analyses tied to company decarbonization roadmaps.
From the vantage point of long-horizon institutional investors, TotalEnergies’ exit is neither an unequivocal negative nor a simple capitulation. It is a disciplined reallocation of scarce development capital away from a market that, to date, has shown high execution friction. The contrarian insight is that capital redeployment by a major can create higher-return pathways elsewhere in the energy transition — for example, in onshore solar-plus-storage projects that offer shorter permitting cycles and bankable merchant or contracted cash flows. Investors should therefore evaluate whether the reallocation improves expected portfolio IRR and reduces sunk-cost tail risk.
Moreover, the exit could accelerate market consolidation in U.S. offshore wind: remaining incumbents and specialist developers may capture higher margins if they can internalize delivery risk. That consolidation could, paradoxically, improve project completion probabilities if it produces a smaller group of developers with deeper U.S.-focused capabilities. For active allocators, this is a secondary alpha source — the ability to underwrite winners from a smaller opportunity set and to exploit valuation dislocations created by strategic exits.
Fazen Capital recommends that institutional investors adjust scenario models to reflect three practical pivots: 1) materially stress longer construction timelines in U.S. offshore projects when modeling cash flows; 2) re-weight the probability of policy-driven acceleration toward an outcome distribution rather than a single-point forecast; and 3) identify suppliers and contractors whose revenues are robust to developer churn. For further reading on transition investment frameworks, see our insights hub and prior work on supply-chain and policy implications for renewables topic and topic.
Q: Will TotalEnergies’ exit materially reduce the U.S. offshore pipeline?
A: Not immediately. BOEM’s leased pipeline (~25.8 GW as of Dec 2025) remains a large theoretical pool. However, the exit reduces the number of global majors directly underwriting development risk and may slow conversion of leased capacity to operational megawatts unless other developers step in or policy incentives increase.
Q: How does this decision compare with peer actions globally?
A: Several European majors continue to invest heavily in offshore wind and have multi-gigawatt operational fleets and pipelines. TotalEnergies’ move contrasts with that approach and signals a differentiated geographic and execution-risk tolerance. For capital allocators, the comparison matters when building cross-company exposure to offshore deployment and supply-chain concentration.
TotalEnergies’ March 23, 2026 agreement to exit U.S. offshore wind reduces developer competition in a market with ~25.8 GW of leased federal potential and highlights the execution and policy frictions that still shape investor returns. Institutional investors should reprice execution risk in U.S. projects and consider where redeployed capital could generate higher risk-adjusted returns.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.