California and New York have sued the Trump administration to block federal buybacks that would pay companies to abandon approved offshore wind projects, arguing the deals will raise electricity bills and weaken states' clean-energy plans. The administration announced an Invenergy lease repurchase covering four projects, and federal commitments tied to project exits could approach $4 billion nationwide. State attorneys general say two deals alone would cost about $1.4 billion and have sought court injunctions to preserve approved projects and federal oversight of leasing policy.
California and New York Sue Trump Administration Over Offshore Wind Buybacks, Warn of Higher Power Bills
Photo Credit: iStock
California and New York have filed high-profile lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's plans to pay energy companies to abandon approved offshore wind projects, arguing the buybacks will raise household electricity costs and undermine states' clean-energy goals.
What Happened
In June, federal officials announced they would repurchase offshore-wind lease holdings from Invenergy tied to four projects on both U.S. coasts. Prosecutors general from California and New York say the administration has also proposed or signaled nearly $4 billion in commitments nationwide to firms exiting other approved projects. Two specific deals alone would direct roughly $1.4 billion in taxpayer funds to developers whose projects would be canceled.
Who Is Suing
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James lead the legal challenge. James also coordinated a coalition of seven states in filings that seek to block two proposed cancellations: the Invenergy repurchase and a separate agreement tied to Bluepoint Wind, which agreed in April to halt a planned wind farm off New York and New Jersey.
Key Arguments
State officials contend the buybacks are unlawful, were negotiated behind closed doors, and would deprive states of approved clean-energy capacity they counted on to meet rising electricity demand without increasing pollution. They say the costs will ultimately fall on consumers and that federal funds are being diverted away from state priorities.
"Americans are facing increasing energy costs because this administration would rather pay off energy companies than let us build the new power sources we need," said Attorney General Letitia James.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta added that the state has faced "avoidable and unnecessary battles with our own federal government" as it pursues climate action and the transition to cleaner energy.
Why It Matters
Offshore wind generates electricity without greenhouse-gas emissions from burning oil, coal, or natural gas. If approved projects are canceled after securing permits, states lose a tool for meeting demand while avoiding added pollution. The lawsuits could also shape future federal leasing policy and how the Interior Department negotiates with developers.
What Comes Next
The matter is now in court as states seek injunctions to block the buybacks while litigation proceeds. The outcomes could affect federal payouts, the future of several offshore projects, and broader U.S. energy policy.
Related reporting has noted a $928 million payout described by some attorneys general as a "sham deal," as well as earlier Interior Department discussions about a roughly $1 billion payout to TotalEnergies before pursuing legal cover.
Help us improve.
