A local group opposed to offshore wind development wants federal officials to cancel California’s offshore wind leases and return hundreds of millions of dollars to developers.
In a letter sent April 2 to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, REACT Alliance urged the Department of the Interior to pursue “lease-for-refund” agreements with five companies holding offshore wind leases off California’s coast. The group points to a recent federal agreement with TotalEnergies as a model.
In March, the Trump administration paid roughly $1 billion to the French energy company to walk away from U.S. offshore wind leases for projects off the coasts of North Carolina and New York—an arrangement REACT argues should be replicated in California.
“Forcing American ratepayers to shoulder the immense costs of this ‘impractical solution’ offers no immediate benefit. Redirecting the capital currently tied up in these leases toward reliable, domestic energy production—as TotalEnergies has committed to doing—is in the best interest of American families,” the April 2 letter reads.
The five California leases—three located off Morro Bay and two near Humboldt—were auctioned off in 2022 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, generating roughly $757 million in bids and covering a combined 583 square miles of federal waters. While the leases remain active, federal permitting is effectively paused under the Trump administration, leaving the projects in limbo.
“There’s been no movement,” Saro Rizzo, REACT’s vice president, told New Times. “No permits have been pulled, even planned by the operators. So we’re asking them to apply the same mechanism here.”
In December, nearly 100 residents packed a meeting at the Avila Beach Community Center to weigh in on a proposed $3 million state grant to study a potential offshore wind operations and maintenance port at Port San Luis. Some warned that even early-stage planning could pave the way for industrialization of the harbor, while others argued that research is essential to prepare for a transition to renewable energy.
Harbor commissioners ultimately postponed a decision on the grant, citing the need for additional county-led studies.
Rizzo said the group’s opposition is rooted in both environmental and economic arguments. He pointed to the technical challenges of building floating wind turbines in waters as deep as 4,000 feet off the Central Coast, where traditional fixed-bottom turbines are not feasible.
“The technology is completely different for California,” he said. “These would be floating structures anchored thousands of feet down. That hasn’t been proven at this scale.”
He also raised concerns about impacts to marine ecosystems and coastal infrastructure, including the potential expansion of industrial facilities in areas like Avila Beach.
At the same time, the TotalEnergies agreement cited by REACT has drawn scrutiny.
Energy and legal experts have questioned whether the Department of the Interior has the authority to reimburse companies for lease payments that have already been deposited into the U.S. Treasury. Some analysts suggest such refunds could rely on federal funds typically reserved for legal settlements, raising broader questions about precedent and taxpayer impact.
Even so, Rizzo said the agreement signals a shift in federal approach—and an opportunity to halt projects before they advance further.
“We’re just trying to make them aware of our position and make the public aware of what’s going on,” he said.
REACT has not yet received a response from the Department of the Interior. ∆
This article appears in April 16-23, 2026.
We need to stop this floating offshore wind boondoggle before it ruins our Central California coast. Wind energy is not clean – the amount of fossil fuels that are needed to manufacture, transport, install, maintain and eventually dispose of the materials used for these projects that have a lifespan of 15 years ensures no net environmental benefit. Plus it is the most expensive form of energy to produce.
God these people are ghouls.