Latest Offshore Wind Lease Buy-Backs Threaten Affordable Energy, Wildlife Protections

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of the Interior's latest settlement with the developer Invenergy to buy back four offshore wind leases located in the New York Bight, off the Central Coast of California, and in the Gulf of Maine further damage progress toward clean and affordable energy. Conditions of the buy back require $765 million to be reallocated to the development of gas-fired power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri and geothermal power generation projects in the West.

"The administration is once again reversing course on the nation's progress toward harnessing clean, reliable, renewable offshore wind energy," said Amber Hewett, senior director of offshore wind energy at the National Wildlife Federation. "Rather than allowing continued investment in cleaner, more affordable energy for American ratepayers, the administration is using taxpayer dollars to wage a baseless war on offshore wind energy in favor of more oil and gas production. After failing to provide adequate evidence to support their numerous accusations against offshore wind, this reckless and legally disputed strategy further prevents our country from creating jobs, stabilizing costs, and curbing the devastating effects of climate change on communities and wildlife."

This is the third offshore wind lease buy back announcement since March, the first with TotalEnergies, and the second with Ocean Winds, CPP Investments, and Global Infrastructure Partners. The three announcements comprise roughly $2.6 billion in taxpayer dollars across six offshore wind leases abandoned across both the East and West coasts.

This announcement comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed on June 2 by New York and six other Northeastern states against the administration over its decision to cancel a major offshore wind lease off the coast of New York and reimburse developer TotalEnergies hundreds of millions of dollars to leave the project and invest in fossil fuels. The states argue the deal is unlawful, bypasses required federal procedures, and improperly uses taxpayer funds intended for legal settlements. State leaders also contend that the administration is favoring fossil fuel development over renewable energy, while the administration maintains that the decision protects energy affordability and national interests. To date, however, the administration has not provided evidence for its claims.