California and New York Sue to Block Offshore Wind Lease Buybacks
Democratic attorneys general from California and New York sued the Trump administration on September 22, 2026, over its plans to buy back offshore wind leases.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the California action concerns removal of a project off California's coast planned by Invenergy, a Chicago-based company. New York Attorney General Letitia James led seven states in suits seeking to block the Invenergy deal and another proposal involving Bluepoint Wind. The New York attorney general's press index for September 22, 2026, listed the action as 'Attorney General James and Governor Hochul Announce Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration's Illegal Offshore Wind Deals.' New York Attorney General
The administration said in June it was buying back Invenergy's U.S. offshore wind leases for four wind projects on the east and west coasts. Invenergy had agreed to voluntarily relinquish four offshore wind leases, which means give up its government permission to build turbines in ocean areas, including the lease for its 2-gigawatt project. A gigawatt is a measure of electricity capacity. California's filing in that dispute is Case No. 4:26-cv-10778, filed on September 22, 2026, and spans 54 pages. California Attorney General's Office
A second target is Bluepoint Wind, which agreed in April to end a wind farm under development off the New York and New Jersey coast. In earlier litigation over an offshore cancellation, seven states led by New York sued the administration and a French energy firm. In that June action, James alleged the administration planned to pay TotalEnergies $795 million to abandon a wind lease off the coast of New York.
The financial terms are contested. The buyback deals at issue this week would hand energy companies $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars in exchange for cancellation of multiple projects. The administration has pledged nearly $4 billion to companies to walk away from wind projects across the country. The Guardian
California and New York describe the payments as unlawful reallocations, meaning shifts of money approved by Congress for one purpose to another use. The Interior Department planned to reallocate more than $111 million in federal taxpayer dollars to pay an Invenergy subsidiary to abandon its offshore wind leases. In a separate August action, California alleged the department unlawfully used $120 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse Golden State Wind for relinquishing an offshore wind lease. On September 22, James alleged the administration illegally used $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars to cancel wind leases and redirect money to fossil fuel projects. New York Attorney General
The Interior Department started buying back offshore wind leases in March after federal courts blocked Trump's efforts to stop offshore wind development through executive action. The department had issued a release titled "The Trump Administration Protects U.S. National Security by Pausing Offshore Wind Leases" on December 22, 2025. It later described an offshore wind settlement agreement as providing partial reimbursement for a lease that was very early stage.
California signaled the current Invenergy challenge in advance. The state sent a notice of intent to file a second lawsuit challenging the administration over offshore wind leases. That notice followed its earlier Golden State Wind litigation.
The broader context here is jurisdictional and fiscal. Offshore leasing joins federal control of the Outer Continental Shelf with limits set by Congress on spending and with state energy buying plans. Think of it like a landlord paying a renter to leave early. Courts will have to sort out property rights in the leases, when agencies can settle, and when they can shift funds.
Looking at what this means for developers and counterparties, the litigation creates parallel risk. Lease security, how to value early-stage ocean acreage, and whether relinquishment deals hold up are all now before judges. A ruling limiting buyback funding would affect pending settlements. A ruling allowing them would build political risk into prices for future offshore bids.
