Trump Administration and Invenergy Seal $765 Million Deal to Replace Offshore Wind with Natural Gas and Geothermal
The $765 Million Swap: How the Trump Administration Is Dismantling U.S. Offshore Wind One Lease at a Time
By: Robert Buluma
The administration's latest buyback deal with Invenergy marks a strategic pivot from renewable energy to fossil fuels—and signals a new chapter in America's energy wars.
I. Introduction: A New Front in the Energy Wars
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a landmark settlement agreement with Invenergy, North America's largest privately held developer of independent power infrastructure. The deal: Invenergy would voluntarily terminate four offshore wind leases—located in the New York Bight, off the Central Coast of California, and in the Gulf of Maine—in exchange for $765 million in reimbursements. In return, the company committed to redirect those funds toward natural gas‑fired power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, as well as geothermal power generation projects in the Western United States.
The Invenergy agreement is not an isolated incident. It is the third such buyback deal announced by the Trump administration in 2026, following a $1 billion agreement with French energy giant TotalEnergies in March and an $885 million deal with Golden State Wind and Bluepoint Wind in April. Together, these three settlements have redirected nearly $2.6 billion in taxpayer funds away from offshore wind development and toward fossil fuel and conventional energy infrastructure.
This article examines the Invenergy deal in depth, situating it within the broader context of the Trump administration's systematic campaign against offshore wind, the legal and political battles that have shaped this strategy, and the far‑reaching implications for America's energy transition, state climate goals, and the future of renewable energy investment.
II. The Invenergy Deal: Anatomy of a Settlement
The Leases Terminated
Under the agreement, Invenergy affiliates relinquished four offshore wind leases:
· New York Bight: A lease covering approximately 84,000 acres, purchased in 2022 for $645 million during a Biden administration auction. This project was expected to provide around 2.4 GW of renewable energy capacity.
· Central Coast of California (Morro Bay): The "Even Keel Wind" project, covering more than 80,000 acres off the coast of Morro Bay, anticipated to generate 2 GW of offshore wind capacity—enough to power approximately 1 million homes.
· Gulf of Maine: Two additional leases in the Gulf of Maine, which were very early in development.
The company had already canceled the largest of the four—Leading Light Wind off New Jersey's coast—in November 2025.
The Terms
Invenergy will receive $765 million as partial reimbursement for what it paid for the leases, which were originally awarded under the Biden administration. In exchange, the company will redirect that capital toward:
· Natural gas‑fired power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri.
· Geothermal power generation projects in the Western United States.
Official Rationale
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum framed the agreement as a victory for American energy security and consumer affordability:
"The offshore wind leases were sold under the assumptions that taxpayers would indefinitely subsidize costly, unreliable projects and that no national security concerns were implicated—both assumptions have since been proven false. Under President Trump, companies are shifting investment back toward dependable, secure energy infrastructure that can power our economy and lower utility costs."
Daniel Runyan, Invenergy's Senior Vice President for Development, echoed this sentiment:
"At a time of unprecedented energy demand, Invenergy is focused on delivering reliable, affordable energy for our customers and supporting disciplined investment at scale. That is why Invenergy, with our affiliates and on behalf of our various stakeholders, will deploy additional capital into projects that can be delivered on a commercially reasonable timeline and meet customer demand."
III. The Broader Strategy: From Executive Orders to Buybacks
The January 2025 Presidential Memorandum
The Invenergy deal is the latest manifestation of a concerted campaign against offshore wind that began on President Trump's first day in office. On January 20, 2025, Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum titled "Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government's Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects".
The memorandum directed federal agencies to pause issuing or renewing approvals, permits, leases, or loans for offshore wind projects, pending a comprehensive review of federal wind leasing and permitting practices. The administration cited concerns regarding potential adverse impacts on marine life, energy costs, and the fishing and maritime industries.
Legal Setbacks
The administration's initial approach faced significant legal hurdles. In December 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the blanket suspension on Outer Continental Shelf energy leasing, holding that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia had joined an environmental nonprofit group in challenging the executive action.
Undeterred, the administration pivoted. On December 22, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management director ordered a pause on the leases for five offshore wind projects already under development along the East Coast, citing "national security risks identified by the Department of War" concerning potential radar interference. The five projects—Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind—had each completed environmental review, and some were substantially advanced in construction. Vineyard Wind was nearly 95 percent finished and already delivering power to the grid.
Again, the courts intervened. Each of the five project developers filed separate suits and secured preliminary injunctions against the order, allowing work to proceed in the interim. The administration's actions, however, had already made wind power investment decisions significantly more difficult for developers.
The Buyback Strategy Emerges
Frustrated by judicial setbacks, the administration adopted a new tactic: voluntary lease buybacks. Rather than attempting to halt projects through executive fiat, the administration would offer developers financial incentives to walk away from their leases and reinvest in fossil fuels.
The first such deal came in March 2026, when the Interior Department announced a $1 billion agreement with TotalEnergies. The French company would relinquish two offshore wind leases off the coasts of North Carolina and New York and commit to investing approximately $1 billion in oil and natural gas and LNG production in the United States. In exchange, the U.S. government would reimburse the company dollar‑for‑dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases.
The TotalEnergies deal is now facing a legal challenge from a coalition of seven state Attorneys General, who argue that the agreement violated several laws and are asking the court to vacate the lease cancellation. New York Attorney General Letitia James, leading the coalition, described the deal as a "sham" and said it "threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy".
The Invenergy deal represents the third and largest such agreement, bringing the total amount spent on these buybacks to nearly $2.6 billion.
---
IV. The Invenergy Factor: A Strategic Partner
Invenergy is not a typical energy developer. As North America's largest privately held developer, owner, and operator of independent power infrastructure, the company has a diversified portfolio that includes wind, solar, natural gas, and energy storage. This diversification made it a natural partner for the administration's buyback strategy.
The company's decision to accept the deal reflects a pragmatic calculation. As Runyan noted, Invenergy is focused on "projects that can be delivered on a commercially reasonable timeline". Offshore wind development in the U.S. has become increasingly fraught with regulatory uncertainty, supply chain challenges, and cost overruns. The administration's campaign against the industry has only exacerbated these challenges.
By accepting the buyback, Invenergy can redeploy capital into projects with more predictable timelines and lower regulatory risk. The natural gas plants in the Midwest and geothermal projects in the West represent conventional energy infrastructure with established permitting pathways and proven technology.
The company's decision also reflects the broader reality of the U.S. energy market. Despite the administration's rhetoric about "energy dominance" and fossil fuel expansion, the fundamental economics of renewable energy remain compelling. Invenergy's pivot to natural gas and geothermal may be less an endorsement of the administration's policy and more a strategic response to an uncertain regulatory environment.
V. The Geothermal Component: A Silver Lining?
One notable aspect of the Invenergy deal is the inclusion of geothermal power generation projects in the Western U.S.. Geothermal energy—which taps into pockets of heat rising from the center of the earth to spin turbines and generate power—is a renewable energy source with significant potential.
The Trump administration has shown interest in expanding geothermal development. In February 2026, the Department of Energy announced up to $171.5 million to support next‑generation geothermal field tests. In June 2026, the DOE announced a 15‑state initiative to expand the use of geothermal power on the U.S. grid. And in May 2026, the DOE announced $14 million for an enhanced geothermal systems demonstration project in Pennsylvania.
However, critics argue that the geothermal component of the Invenergy deal is largely symbolic. The $765 million settlement is a partial reimbursement for lease fees, not a new investment in geothermal technology. Moreover, as Hillary Bright, executive director of offshore wind advocacy group Turn Forward, pointed out:
"Replacing coastal offshore wind with geothermal or natural gas infrastructure in another region does nothing to address rising ratepayer affordability concerns, reliability challenges or potential gaps in power supply in the Northeast and mid‑Atlantic."
The replacement projects—natural gas plants in the Midwest and geothermal in the West—will not deliver power to the same states as the offshore wind farms would have. For states like New York, California, and Massachusetts, which have aggressive clean energy targets, the loss of offshore wind capacity represents a significant setback.
VI. State and Local Impacts
California: A Clean Energy Setback
California has been particularly hard hit by the administration's offshore wind campaign. The Invenergy deal cancels the Even Keel Wind project off Morro Bay, which was expected to generate 2 GW of offshore wind capacity. This follows the April agreement with Golden State Wind to end its lease, also in Morro Bay.
With these cancellations, California is now down to just three offshore wind leases—one in Morro Bay and two off the coast of Humboldt Bay. This is a significant blow to the state's goal of deriving 100% of its electricity from carbon‑free sources by 2045. California policymakers aim to produce 25 GW of electricity from offshore wind farms by 2045.
California Energy Commission spokesperson Stacey Shepard condemned the deal:
"California strongly condemns yet another taxpayer‑funded deal brokered by the Trump administration that undermines clean energy growth and U.S. energy security."
New York: Jobs and Economic Impact at Stake
New York has also suffered significant losses. The Invenergy deal cancels a lease in the New York Bight that was expected to provide around 2.4 GW of renewable energy capacity. This follows the TotalEnergies deal, which canceled the Attentive Energy One project off the coast of New York.
The Attentive Energy One project was estimated to deliver $25.6 billion in economic benefits to New York state over its 25‑year life, including $10 billion in savings on energy bills, and was expected to create an estimated 1,716 new jobs in New York. Its cancellation has sparked a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James, joined by six other state attorneys general.
The Northeast and Mid‑Atlantic: Grid Reliability Concerns
For the Northeast and mid‑Atlantic regions, the loss of offshore wind capacity raises serious concerns about grid reliability and energy affordability. As the region transitions away from fossil fuels, offshore wind was expected to play a critical role in meeting growing electricity demand while reducing emissions.
The administration's buyback strategy does nothing to address these concerns. The replacement projects—natural gas plants in the Midwest and geothermal in the West—will not serve the same markets. As a result, ratepayers in the Northeast and mid‑Atlantic may face higher electricity costs and greater reliance on imported natural gas.
VII. Legal and Political Challenges
The TotalEnergies Lawsuit
The administration's buyback strategy is already facing legal challenges. In June 2026, a coalition of seven state Attorneys General—led by New York—filed a lawsuit against the administration over the TotalEnergies deal. The states argue that the administration canceled the lease without following proper procedures and are asking a federal judge to vacate the lease cancellation and settlement agreement.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said:
"This administration cooked up a sham deal to pay a foreign energy company hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind and invest in oil and gas instead. We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy."
The Interior Department has defended the deal, arguing that the lease buybacks were voluntary agreements reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice. Secretary Burgum has characterized the payments as refunds, not subsidies, noting that TotalEnergies "essentially gave the U.S. government an interest‑free loan and their money was refunded to them".
The Invenergy Deal: Future Legal Challenges?
The Invenergy deal may face similar legal challenges. While the administration has framed the agreement as a voluntary settlement, critics argue that it represents an unlawful use of taxpayer funds to advance a political agenda. The deal's requirement that Invenergy redirect funds to specific fossil fuel and geothermal projects raises questions about whether the administration is exceeding its statutory authority.
Congressional Scrutiny
Democrats in Congress are also investigating the administration's buyback strategy. In April 2026, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse launched an investigation into the TotalEnergies payoff. The investigation is examining the administration's legal authority to make such payments and the source of the funding.
VIII. The Human Cost: Jobs and Communities
The administration's offshore wind campaign has real human consequences. Offshore wind projects create thousands of well‑paying union jobs in manufacturing, construction, and operations. The cancellation of these projects means the loss of those jobs.
The Attentive Energy One project alone was expected to create more than 1,700 jobs in New York. The Vineyard Wind project, which was nearly 95 percent complete when the administration attempted to pause it, employed hundreds of union workers. As Frank Callahan, President of the Massachusetts Building Trades Unions, said after the administration's December 2025 lease pause:
"President Trump's order suspending leases for five offshore wind projects currently under construction is a layoff notice for many union trades workers just three days before Christmas."
The Invenergy deal, which cancels leases that were very early in development, may have less immediate impact on jobs than the earlier lease pauses. However, the broader message to the offshore wind industry is clear: investing in U.S. offshore wind carries significant regulatory and financial risk.
IX. Implications for the Future of U.S. Offshore Wind
A Chilling Effect on Investment
The administration's buyback strategy is likely to have a chilling effect on offshore wind investment. Developers who have spent billions of dollars acquiring leases and advancing projects now face the prospect of having those investments rendered worthless by political whim.
The message to domestic and international investors is unambiguous: the U.S. offshore wind market is no longer a stable, predictable investment environment. This uncertainty will make it more difficult for developers to secure financing, and may drive investment to other markets with more stable regulatory frameworks.
The Cost to Taxpayers
The administration's buyback strategy is also costly to taxpayers. The three deals announced to date—TotalEnergies ($1 billion), Golden State Wind/Bluepoint Wind ($885 million), and Invenergy ($765 million)—total nearly $2.6 billion. These are taxpayer dollars that could have been used for other purposes, including infrastructure investment, education, or healthcare.
The administration has framed these payments as reimbursements, not subsidies. However, critics argue that the payments represent a transfer of taxpayer wealth to private companies to advance a political agenda. As Representatives Markey and Ocasio‑Cortez wrote in a letter regarding the TotalEnergies deal:
"With the TotalEnergies payoff, the Trump administration promises an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company to halt private offshore wind development and prop up fossil fuel company exports and profits. It has done so with no explanation of its authority—or the source of the funding—to transmit $1 billion to a private company."
The Impact on Climate Goals
Perhaps the most significant implication of the administration's campaign is its impact on U.S. climate goals. Offshore wind is a critical component of many states' plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to clean energy. The cancellation of these projects makes it more difficult for states to meet their targets and for the U.S. to achieve its broader climate commitments.
The loss of the Invenergy leases alone represents approximately 3.9 GW of renewable energy capacity—enough to power millions of homes. When combined with the other canceled projects, the total lost capacity is substantial.
A Pivot to Geothermal?
The inclusion of geothermal energy in the Invenergy deal suggests a potential area of common ground between the administration and renewable energy advocates. Geothermal is a renewable energy source that provides firm, baseload power—addressing one of the administration's key criticisms of wind and solar.
However, the scale of geothermal investment contemplated in the Invenergy deal is modest compared to the lost offshore wind capacity. And as critics have noted, the replacement projects will not serve the same markets as the canceled offshore wind farms.
X. Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for American Energy
The Trump administration's $765 million deal with Invenergy represents a pivotal moment in American energy policy. It marks the third and largest in a series of buyback agreements that have systematically dismantled the U.S. offshore wind industry, redirecting billions of dollars in taxpayer funds toward fossil fuels and conventional energy.
The administration has framed these deals as a victory for energy security and consumer affordability. Critics see them as an unlawful and costly exercise in political retribution that undermines clean energy growth, destroys jobs, and jeopardizes state climate goals.
What is clear is that the U.S. offshore wind industry faces an uncertain future. The combination of executive action, legal challenges, and voluntary buybacks has created a regulatory environment that is hostile to investment and unpredictable for developers. Whether the industry can recover from this assault—and whether the courts will ultimately uphold or strike down the administration's strategy—remains to be seen.
For now, the Invenergy deal stands as a testament to the administration's determination to reshape American energy on its own terms. The question is whether that vision will withstand legal scrutiny, political opposition, and the fundamental economics of the global energy transition.
See also: Endurance Energy raises $54M to harness a massive untapped energy source on the ocean floor
Comments
Post a Comment