Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

New Documents Undermine Trump Administration’s Claims About Offshore Wind Deal

There was no new investment required from TotalEnergies, according to newly disclosed terms.

New Documents Undermine Trump Administration’s Claims About Offshore Wind Deal
John Moore/Getty Images

When the Trump administration announced it was paying TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to cancel the company’s offshore wind leases, it painted the deal as a mutually beneficial trade: The government would reimburse the company for every penny it spent to acquire the leases, and in return, Total would “redirect” the money to U.S. oil and gas development.

Now, the terms of the deal have been made public, and Americans’ side of the bargain appears to be worthless.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management posted the settlement agreements for the two cancelled leases to its website on Friday. The documents make it clear that Total did not have to make any new investments to get its check.

“Following their new investment,” the Interior Department’s March 23 press release had said, “the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases for offshore wind.” But the settlement allows Total to simply submit receipts for oil and gas investments it was already making, including money spent as far back as last November.

The terms required Total to spend the same amount it had spent on the offshore wind leases on “conventional energy projects” within a specific timeframe — between November 18, 2025 and September 30, 2026. “Eligible expenditures” included direct capital expenditures on its own oil and gas projects as well as money funneled through joint ventures. The terms make clear that Total had to actually deploy cash into projects within the timeframe, not just commit to spending it. Once the company spent the money, it could submit a third party audit of its receipts to the Interior Department, and the agency would cancel the leases.

The settlement is also explicit that Total’s outlays for the Rio Grande LNG export terminal, a project the company had reached a final investment decision on last September, were eligible. In the end, Total spent the money — all $928 million of it — in less than 21 weeks. The smaller Carolina Long Bay lease, just east of Wilmington, North Carolina, was officially cancelled on April 2; the Attentive Energy lease, off the coast of Northern New Jersey, was canceled on April 13.

Kit Kennedy, the managing director for power, climate, and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me the inclusion of the Rio Grande project is “another way in which the agreement appears to be a sweetheart deal, or a collusive arrangement.”

Kennedy views the settlement as an attempt to justify compensating the company for not building offshore wind in the U.S. “The irony of handing a billion dollars to this developer at a time when Americans are struggling to pay their electricity bills and struggling to keep afloat,” she said. “To be clear, this billion dollars is coming from us taxpayers, and the net result of these agreements will be to increase electricity bills for Americans.”

TotalEnergies did not respond to emailed questions about the settlement. The Department of Interior did not answer questions directly but submitted a statement that said, "As a result of the certainty provided by the settlement agreements, Total voluntarily accelerated its expenditures on reliable and affordable energy projects that will save money for all Americans and not rely on subsidies from tax-payers to virtue signal.”

The opening section of the settlement tells a story about the circumstances that led to this unusual deal. The Department of Defense had “raised classified national security concerns” about the leases, it says, referring to the classified reports that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum cited when he halted five offshore wind projects last December. The Interior Department “would have” suspended TotalEnergies’ leases indefinitely, too, the settlement says, “similar to” that December suspension order on the five wind projects. Had the agency done that, however, Total “would have claimed breach of contract” and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The agency determined that canceling the lease, instead, was “in the public interest.”

The settlement does not mention who suggested the idea of canceling and refunding the lease or when. TotalEnergies’ CEO Patrick Pouyanné has repeatedly asserted that it was the company’s idea. “It came from us — we took the initiative,” Pouyanné told Axios this week.

This narrative seems to imply that the Interior Department warned Total that it was going to pause the company’s leases, or that the company otherwise found out, and Total responded by threatening to file a breach of contract claim.

The Interior Department paid Total with money from the Judgment Fund, a reserve overseen by the Department of Justice that agencies can draw from to pay off settlements arising from litigation or imminent litigation. To Kennedy, there’s still no evidence that the situation with Total qualifies on either ground. “This breach of contract litigation by TotalEnergies, that's totally speculative,” she said. “There's nothing imminent about it. I think those clauses are just an attempt to justify handing over a billion dollars of taxpayer funds in an unauthorized fashion.”

It’s also notable that the settlement references the five offshore wind projects that Trump did pause, considering how that turned out for the administration. Each of the five project developers challenged the stop work orders in court, and the federal judges in those cases rapidly overturned the orders, reasoning they did not find the government’s national security concerns convincing. (The specific concerns raised by that Department of Defense have not been disclosed publicly.)

“DOI is essentially admitting: we were going to break the law and lose in court, so how about we pay you a billion dollars instead,” Elizabeth Klein, the former director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, told me.

Jeff Thaler, an energy and environmental attorney at the firm Preti Flaherty, pointed out that the settlement agreement also seems to sidestep a key legal requirement. The U.S. statute governing Total’s offshore wind lease says cancellation of the lease can occur at any time, “if the Secretary determines, after a hearing,” that the project would cause harm to the environment or to national security. (Emphasis added.)

“There's been no hearing here, right?” Thaler told me. “One could argue, if there's litigation, that they haven't followed the process correctly.”

Secretary Burgum will be testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee on Monday morning, where Democratic lawmakers have said they will question him about the deal.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include comment from the Interior Department.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate Tech

Climate Tech Bets on Space

In space, no one can oppose your data center.

Solar panels in space.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Wikimedia Commons

An investment boom is exploding in outer space. Investors have thrown their backing behind space-based solar power, orbital data centers, and even extraterrestrial power grids. SpaceX is pursuing an IPO — potentially the largest the world has ever seen — in part to fund its own off-Earth data center ambitions. The Space Foundation reported that the global space economy reached $613 billion in 2024, combining commercial revenue and government funding, while PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the sector could grow to reach $2 trillion by 2040, largely driven by private sector innovation and support.

Different though they may be, these technologies all leverage the vast unknown outside our atmosphere to monitor, manage, and optimize terrestrial energy and climate systems.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

Nuclear Option

On Chinese nuclear exports, Canadian LNG, and Otovos U.S. push

Plutonium storage.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The French government has recorded at least seven deaths linked to the record early heatwave roasting Western Europe • New York City’s springtime temperature swing is surging upward to about 85 degrees Fahrenheit before dropping back into the 60s later this week • Temperatures in Berbera, the prized Red Sea port city in the de facto independent state of Somaliland, are revving up to 100 degrees today.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Trump wants to give weapons-grade plutonium to nuclear startups to use as fuel

The Trump administration is considering handing over leftover weapons-grade plutonium that was set to be buried to companies that aim to use the highly radioactive material as reactor fuel. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy selected five finalists to submit plans to safely transfer the plutonium from a government stockpile. The companies include fuel maker Standard Nuclear, waste reprocessor Exodys Energy, fusion company Shine Technologies, and reactor developers Flibe Energy and Oklo. The move is sure to draw criticism from non-proliferation experts who worry that, unlike the low-enriched uranium used as fuel in conventional reactors, plutonium increases the threat of a rogue actor obtaining material for a bomb. “Countries have tried this before, and they concluded that, as nice as it would be to use that plutonium as fuel, it’s really just a liability and we need to dispose of it permanently,” Scott Roecker, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told The New York Times. In an emailed statement to me, Shine Technologies CEO Greg Piefer said the access to fuel solves “one of the hardest problems in the advanced reactor industry right now.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

How New York Is Weakening Its Climate Law

The state is the first to backtrack on binding emissions legislation.

Kathy Hochul.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A wave of climate action swept the country’s statehouses in the early 2020s, with nearly two dozen states setting targets to slash their emissions. New York was ahead of the pack and among the most ambitious, passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA, in the summer of 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Now, however, the Empire State will distinguish itself as the first of the bunch to walk back its landmark climate law in the wake of Trump’s re-election.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue