Technicien/Technicienne en éolien

New York, California launch New lawsuits over Trump administration's Offshore Wind lease buyouts. Adrijana Buljan Offshore Wind 4 minutes read New York and California have filed separate lawsuits challenging two offshore wind lease buyout agreements reached by the Trump administration, with New York leading a coalition of eight states in two cases targeting deals with Bluepoint Wind and Invenergy, while California is challenging the administration's agreement with Invenergy over a lease off its coast. New York Attorney General Letitia James and attorneys general from New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont filed two lawsuits on 22 September over agreements under which the US Department of the Interior (DOI) would pay a combined USD 1.4 billion (around EUR 1.2 billion) to cancel four offshore wind leases. One case concerns Bluepoint Wind and a USD 765 million (around EUR 670 million) payment, while the other lawsuit challenges a USD 653 million (around EUR 571 million) payment linked to three Invenergy leases in the Northeast. The states argue that the agreements unlawfully use money from the federal Judgment Fund and violate the Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Judgment Fund Act and other federal spending laws. The lawsuits are asking the courts to declare the agreements unlawful, void the lease cancellations and prevent further implementation of the deals. The agreement between the DOI and Bluepoint Wind, a partnership comprising Ocean Winds and Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), covers the offshore wind lease in the New York Bight that was awarded in the 2022 federal auction, and has been developed to house a 2.4 GW fixed-bottom offshore wind farm. "Instead of building the offshore wind farm New York was counting on, Bluepoint will use the money to build a liquefied natural gas facility and has committed not to pursue future offshore wind developments in the United States", a press release from the New York Attorney General's office reads. The second New York lawsuit is for three of the four leases covered by the agreement between the DOI and Invenergy, announced in June. These include Invenergy's New York Bight lease, where the company and energyRe have been developing the Leading Light Wind project, and two lease areas in the Gulf of Maine. The fourth Invenergy lease, in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area, where Invenergy was developing a 2 GW floating wind farm, is being challenged separately by California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Energy Commission (CEC) also filed the state's lawsuit on 22 September, saying the agreement with the Trump administration would provide Invenergy with more than USD 111 million (around EUR 97 million) from federal taxpayer funds in exchange for abandoning the lease, while requiring an equivalent investment by its corporate affiliates in fossil fuel or geothermal projects outside California. California says that the agreement violates the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Judgment Fund Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The state is asking the court to strike down the agreement and stop its implementation. "At a time when we need more reliable, clean energy, President Trump is trying to send $111 million to his fossil fuel industry friends and wants taxpayers and working families to cover the tab. This outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars will damage the offshore wind industry and create unnecessary obstacles to clean and reliable energy powering our homes and economies," said Attorney General Rob Bonta. The California case follows a Notice of Intent to Sue issued to DOI and Invenergy on 16 July, which was filed after the State issued a Notice of Intent to Sue in June over the USD 120 million (around EUR 105 million) Golden State Wind lease buyout. California launched a lawsuit challenging the Golden State Wind deal on 28 August. California has also issued a Notice of Intent to Sue over the 1.6 GW Canopy floating wind project in the Humboldt Wind Energy Area, affected by the USD 1.22 billion (around EUR 1.05 billion) agreement between the DOI and RWE, which covers RWE's leases off California, Louisiana and New York. The latest cases also follow a lawsuit filed in June by New York and six other states over the Trump administration's agreement with TotalEnergies to cancel offshore wind leases in exchange for reimbursement of lease payments and a commitment to redirect investment towards US oil and gas projects. The US offshore renewable energy industry organisation, Oceantic Network, welcomed the announcements of the latest lawsuits filed by New York and California, and pointed out that cancelling offshore wind projects has far-reaching consequences for the US economy. "When a 1-gigawatt offshore wind project is cancelled, we don't just lose a project, we lose an estimated $8.5 to $9.5 billion in U.S. economic output. That means roughly 3,350 construction jobs disappear across the country, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in wages that would have gone to American workers and their families. And the impact doesn't stop at the project site. It reaches businesses, workers, and communities throughout a nationwide supply chain", said Liz Burdock, President & CEO at Oceantic Network. "These are real economic losses, being felt by American workers when the cost of living is soaring. Oceantic commends California, New York and other East Coast states for standing up once again to challenge actions that threaten jobs, investment, and the nation's ability to meet growing electricity demand with a proven, affordable, and reliable energy source." Reach the Offshore Wind industry in one go! Offshore Wind is read by thousands of professionals every day. Increase your visibility with banners, tell your story with a branded article, and showcase your expertise with a full-page company profile in its business directory. Follow Offshore Wind on:

NY, NJ sue Trump admin over deals to scrap offshore wind projects. Published Sep 22, 2026 at 2:45 p.m. ET Never miss a story We rely on your support to make local news available to all Make your contribution now and help Gothamist thrive in 2026. Donate today Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations New York and New Jersey have joined a multistate coalition suing the federal government over a pair of settlements that redirected more than $1.4 billion away from offshore wind development and toward fossil fuel projects. A total of eight states filed two separate lawsuits against the Trump administration and the companies Invenergy and Bluepoint Wind on Tuesday. The states argue that the deals, each struck earlier this year, are an illegal use of taxpayer dollars that have resulted in canceled projects that could have delivered badly needed electricity to the Northeast while creating thousands of jobs in the region. "These illegal backroom deals take money that should have gone toward lowering New Yorkers' bills and hand it to fossil fuel projects in other states, all while our energy demand continues to grow," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. "At a moment when every available resource should go to keeping the lights on and prices down, this administration is choosing corruption over communities." Charlotte Taylor, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of the Interior, said the department would not comment on litigation. But she noted that the Trump administration, which has staunchly opposed offshore wind, determined the projects posed national security risks, and that the companies voluntarily agreed to the deals, which were reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice. The administration will not "sit back and let reckless projects" create higher utility costs, a weakened energy system and unnecessary harm to the environment, Taylor said in a statement. The lawsuit challenging the Bluepoint settlement was filed in federal district court for the Eastern District of New York. Bluepoint Wind had been planned for federal waters 38 miles south of Long Island and 53 miles east of the Jersey Shore, and was designed to produce 2.4 gigawatts of electricity. That's enough to power more than 1 million homes, according to the company. The Trump administration and Bluepoint reached a settlement to cancel the project's lease in April, in a portion of the ocean that the company previously bid $765 million for. The project was still in its early stages and construction had not started. The settlement pays $765 million to the company, and that money will be spent on oil and gas development. Bluepoint plans to use that money to build a liquified natural gas facility, according to James' office. Bluepoint Wind did not respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, the lawsuit against the Invenergy settlement was filed in federal court in Maine. Invenergy held a lease to build offshore wind 35 miles off the Jersey Shore and 69 miles south of Long Island, as well as two leases in the Gulf of Maine. Invenergy had bid a total of $653 million for all of those leases. They were canceled through a settlement with federal authorities in June, in a deal that pays the company $653 million to be reinvested in oil and gas projects. Invenergy plans to use that money to build natural gas power plants across the Midwest, according to James' office. Invenergy did not respond to a request for comment. The federal government is paying out the settlements from the Department of Justice's Judgement Fund. Gov. Kathy Hochul called the arrangement a "pay-not-to-play scheme" in a statement, adding the Trump administration's move "is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars that hurts our ability to meet our energy needs, reduce emissions, create good paying jobs and help secure American energy independence." Both lawsuits seek court orders declaring the settlements unlawful and voiding the lease cancellations. The Trump administration has reached similar deals to cancel other offshore wind projects, and those deals have faced similar challenges. New York and New Jersey sued over a similar deal with TotalEnergies in June. States in the Northeast are grappling with soaring electricity prices driven by a supply crunch as demand for power, especially for new data centers, grows. Both New York and New Jersey had invested heavily in recent years to support the local offshore wind industry, but that work has largely ground to a halt since President Donald Trump returned to the White House. New York has one offshore wind facility, South Fork Wind, which began sending power to Long Island in 2023. Two more - Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind - are currently under construction, despite federal efforts to halt that work. New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill previously told WNYC that the Garden State will focus on offshore wind again in the future "if that makes sense." Sherrill has emphasized developing solar and nuclear energy in the meantime.

Democrats sue over wind checks. New report says paying developers beats stranding billions mid-build. September 22, 2026 6:55 PM ET Font Size: Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration over offshore wind lease agreements Tuesday - but a new report warns the legal fight highlights a broader problem: whether companies can rely on federal permits even once administrations change. The Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy released its report, "When Permits Aren't Permanent," Monday, arguing that the permitting debate has focused on getting infrastructure projects approved while paying less attention to whether those approvals remain secure after investors commit billions of dollars. "Critics of the offshore wind buyouts should offer an alternative solution. Stranding capital in projects that face stop-work orders and permitting delays fails the taxpayers, tollpayers, and retirees whose pensions and 401(k)s fund them," Sarah Hunt, president and CEO of the Joseph Rainey Center - the report's author - told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The offshore wind fight illustrates what the report describes as a problem at the "back door" of the permitting process. Even after companies secure federal permits, leases and licenses, projects can face stop-work orders or changes in federal policy before construction is complete. "Whatever one thinks of a particular technology or administration, the precedent is now both technology-neutral and administration-neutral: one administration's authorization can be undone by the next," the report reads. New York Attorney General Letitia James led Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont in the lawsuits challenging agreements involving Invenergy - North America's largest private and independent power producer - and Bluepoint Wind, according to the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. Allowing investors to recover their capital and redirect it toward other American energy projects is preferable to leaving money stranded in projects that may no longer move forward, Hunt argued. "The buyouts aren't the problem. The problem is that the government can pull a permit after investors spend the money," she told the DCNF. "Without durability, faster approval only reduces the time between approval and reversal," her report states. The Department of the Interior has negotiated several agreements allowing offshore wind developers to surrender federal leases and recover some or all of their lease payments while redirecting equivalent investments toward other domestic energy projects. "Only Congress can make an authorization durable," the Joseph Rainey Center's report continues. "The framework below rests on six statutory pillars aimed at one result: a validly issued federal infrastructure authorization should function as a property-like commitment, revocable only for cause, through a defined process, or at an honest public price." Under one such agreement, Invenergy agreed to voluntarily terminate four offshore wind leases in the New York Bight, off California's Central Coast and in the Gulf of Maine. The company agreed to redirect $765 million toward natural gas-fired power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri and geothermal projects in the western United States. The report argues the uncertainty exposed by the offshore wind fight could extend beyond wind if companies begin to doubt whether federal approvals will survive changes in presidential administrations. "A future administration that decides offshore drilling no longer fits its climate agenda could run the same playbook, with consequences that extend well beyond energy companies to the ports, manufacturers, service firms and workers whose livelihoods depend on those projects," Guy Caruso, former administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told the DCNF. Congress needs to clarify whether federal energy approvals can change between administrations, Caruso argued, warning the precedent could affect industries beyond offshore wind. "Uncertainty was caused by the mad rush to push through offshore wind without doing the right paperwork to begin with," Craig Rucker, president of pro-free market environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), told the DCNF. Developers treated federal approvals as settled despite unresolved environmental and national-security questions, Rucker argued. He pointed to the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which was among the projects affected by the Interior Department's December 2025 stop-work actions. "After a shoddy so-called 'approval' is properly yanked to do a more thorough review, a stop-work order can be extremely costly," Rucker said. "Permitting uncertainty makes financing harder, complicates construction schedules, and can drive up costs," CFACT Senior Policy Analyst Melanie Collette told the DCNF. "That is true across major infrastructure projects." A hypothetical $5 billion infrastructure project halted when it is between 80% and 87% complete could carry roughly $320 million per year in dead-weight financing costs, according to the Rainey Center's analysis. That calculation does not include lost output, demobilization claims or other potential costs associated with abandoning construction. "Spending billions of dollars should never put a project beyond scrutiny," Collette said. The report comes as Democratic-led states filed two lawsuits challenging Department of the Interior agreements that allow offshore wind developers to surrender federal leases and recover some or all of their lease payments after investing equivalent amounts in other U.S. energy projects.