Posted on July 22, 2026
Nine states are threatening to sue the Trump administration over offshore-wind exit deals involving Invenergy and three other developers: Bluepoint Wind, TotalEnergies, and Golden State Wind.
In the case of Chicago-based Invenergy, the Interior Department cancelled three leases held by subsidiaries off California and Maine and moved to seek nearly $120 million in federal payments for the company.
The Interior Department said in July 10 cancellation records that it will ask the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund to pay Invenergy $111.8 million for a California lease and $8.1 million for two early-stage Gulf of Maine leases. The letters do not show that Treasury has approved or paid the requests.
Invenergy could ultimately recover as much as $764.9 million across four leases. Bluepoint Wind has a separate agreement worth up to $765 million. (Inc. has reached out to Invenergy and Bluepoint Wind for comment.)
TotalEnergies could recover $928 million for relinquishing two leases after making an equal investment in U.S. oil, gas, and LNG projects. Golden State Wind could recover approximately $120 million for a California lease after an equivalent investment in conventional energy projects.
California and eight Northeastern states filed notices July 16, alleging that the administration bypassed federal lease-cancellation rules and purported to settle claims even though the developers had not sued. The notices begin a 60-day waiting period before the states may sue.
The agreements give the developers a chance to recover their original lease bids after the Trump administration’s campaign against offshore wind upended the federal policy environment in which they made those investments. The reimbursements would not necessarily cover all the money the companies have spent developing the projects.
Invenergy, founded by Michael Polsky, has developed more than 220 energy projects since 2001. Wind power has been a major part of the business—the company counted 110 wind projects in a 2022 portfolio breakdown—but the company also has projects involving natural gas, solar, storage, transmission, and other technologies.
That diversification now gives Invenergy several routes to qualify for reimbursement. According to the agreement, the company can receive dollar-for-dollar payment for eligible 2026 spending by Invenergy or its affiliates on gas plants, pipelines, LNG, oil-and-gas storage, geothermal projects, and other infrastructure—even expenditures made before the agreements were signed in June.
Polsky told Inc. last year that policy changes might slow Invenergy but that the company would follow the market’s direction. “An energy project takes years to develop and build, and operates for decades,” he said. “So we take that long view. At the end of the day, technology listens to the market, not politicians. The market will go with the technology that makes sense.”
Invenergy’s largest potential reimbursement is tied to its remaining New York Bight lease: up to $645 million after the company documents qualifying conventional-energy spending.
Bluepoint, a partnership between Ocean Winds and Global Infrastructure Partners, will surrender its own New York Bight lease after Global Infrastructure Partners invests as much as $765 million in a U.S. liquefied-natural-gas facility. Bluepoint also said it would not pursue new U.S. offshore-wind developments.
States cry foul
The White House called the payments refunds rather than buyouts.
“The Administration is simply returning the money that companies bid on offshore wind projects that are unable to be built due to national security concerns,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Inc.
Rogers said the companies were redirecting the money toward more reliable energy projects and blamed the collapse of the wind developments on the loss of Biden-era subsidies. The White House did not identify the national-security concerns or explain why the Judgment Fund is legally available.
The government has refunded offshore lease payments before. In the 2000 case Mobil Oil v. United States, the Supreme Court ordered the return of about $156 million after finding that the government had changed the contractual rules governing offshore oil-and-gas leases.
Here, however, the developers had not sued, no court had found a breach, and reimbursement is tied to spending on different energy projects.
David Super, a Georgetown University law professor who studies federal budgeting, called the arrangement “an entirely illegitimate use of the Judgment Fund.”
Provisions covering imminent litigation are meant for “clear, fully formed conflicts” in which filing suit would be a technicality, Super said. “This goes far beyond that.”
He said the agreements appeared designed to bypass Congress’s control over federal spending and may violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, which restricts agencies from spending money Congress has not authorized.
From boom to buyout
The agreements reverse part of the offshore-wind expansion Washington once promoted. The 2022 New York Bight auction generated $4.37 billion from six bidders. Four years later, the government could return Bluepoint’s entire $765 million bid and most of Invenergy’s.
California says the administration has committed as much as $2.6 billion to similar offshore-wind exit agreements nationwide.
The effects could reach far beyond the developers. The U.S. offshore-wind supply chain now spans more than 40 states and has attracted more than $25 billion in investment, according to Oceantic Network, an industry group.
Stephanie Francoeur, Oceantic’s senior vice president of communications and external affairs, said cancellations force thousands of businesses and workers to seek contracts in other industries or regions.
“Most small companies depend on the contracts they secure well in advance to maintain their operations and payroll,” Francoeur told Inc. “Some may ultimately not find it.”
Oceantic estimates that each canceled offshore-wind project removes between $8 billion and $10 billion in potential economic activity, including wages, infrastructure investment, and projected savings for electricity customers.
The canceled leases were prospective projects, not operating wind farms. But money was already attached to the expected industry: Invenergy’s California lease included more than $30 million in workforce, supply-chain, and community-benefit commitments, according to the state.
