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.
I would like to know why the REACT Alliance is associating with the Heartland Institute and CFACT, climate science denial groups tied to the the Kochs, billionaire industrialists, and the fossil fuel industry. Wind energy is far cleaner than burning fossil fuels. Wind turbines emit approximately 13 grams of CO2 per kWh over their lifecycle (including manufacturing and transporting). By comparison, fossil fuels like natural gas and coal release 486 g CO2-eq/kWh and 1001 g CO2-eq/kWh, respectively, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Therefore, wind energy produces about 1/77th the emissions of coal over its lifecycle, making it far cleaner. However, once operational, wind turbines generate clean, emissions-free energy, which quickly offsets the CO2 emissions from manufacturing and transportation.
Floating offshore wind is an environmental disaster and a waste of money – we would be the guinea pigs to a cockamamy State driven project that will negatively impact our oceans, ports, and coastline for years – it will be a giant pile of junk within a few years, just like the ones we see on land – but after spending billions of dollars forcing a square peg in a round hole. California’s shelf drops off to 3000-5000′ forcing them to use 3 mile long tethers, unproven floating technology, midwater high voltage AC cables and once-thru cooling floating substations polluting the ocean. The lease areas are right over Essential Fish Habitat and in the area of migratory whales, birds, and fish. California has small tourist/fishing harbors not the long inlets needed for these projects. Our harbors are not ment to be industrialized ports with giant 300′ Service and Operation Vessels, giant cranes, semi – truck traffic, and storage of hundreds of gallons of gear oil, hydraulic fluid, sulfur hexafluride, and more. California’s coastline and beaches are famous for their beauty and fun and shouldn’t be subject to being torn up and made unsafe by installing 1200 MW High Voltage DC cables. This is a terrible idea. Californians shouldn’t stand for it.
I would still like to know why REACT is promoting buyouts of offshore wind leases in favor of oil and gas–which is what is impacting whales, marine mammals, and fish populations. Floating technology is not unproven. Norway, Scotland, and Portugal all have offshore wind. Open loop systems are standard and used for cooling in many types of power generation, including renewables, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The repetitive claim that offshore wind will “industrialize our ports” is false. If Port San Luis is used as an operations and maintenance facility, the footprint will be quite small. Finally, I hear no complaints about the gear oil, hydraulic fluid, and sulfur hexafluoride used in oil and gas for lubrication, power transmission, and electrical insulation.