California sued the Trump administration and developer Golden State Wind on Friday over a deal that cancelled a planned offshore wind project off the state's Central Coast, according to Offshore Engineer OEDigital. The agreement traded the project for a USD 120 million federal reimbursement and a commitment to invest in fossil fuel projects.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the case in U.S. District Court for the northern district of California, naming the U.S. Department of the Interior and Golden State Wind as defendants, Offshore Engineer OEDigital reported. The complaint argues the April agreement violated federal law and should be invalidated.
The state alleges the deal breaches two statutes: the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which governs federal offshore leasing, and the Judgment Fund Act, which controls how the federal government pays out settlements.
Golden State Wind is a joint venture between Ocean Winds, itself a partnership of France's ENGIE and Portugal's EDP Renewables, and Reventus Power, a London-based offshore wind investment firm, according to the same report.
California's filing cites the effect on its target of developing 25 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2045. The Central Coast lease sat inside the pipeline the state is counting on to reach that figure.
The structure at issue is not unique to this project. Offshore Engineer OEDigital reported that the Trump administration has reached similar lease termination agreements with other offshore wind developers, including TotalEnergies and Invenergy, each requiring investments in conventional energy projects in exchange for ending the offshore lease.
That pattern gives the California case reach beyond a single site. If a court accepts the argument that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Judgment Fund Act do not permit the federal government to buy back a lease and direct the proceeds toward fossil fuel spending, the reasoning would bear on the parallel deals struck with TotalEnergies and Invenergy.
The reimbursement figure and the fossil investment pledge are both terms of the cancelled agreement rather than damages sought, per the account of the deal published by Offshore Engineer OEDigital.