Duke Energy ends wind lease off NC coast. Lawmaker calls it a Trump ‘pattern’

AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.

Democrats in the North Carolina congressional delegation are insisting on details of an agreement that canceled a coastal Duke Energy renewable energy project.

The U.S. Department of the Interior announced late last month that it had settled with Duke Energy to terminate the energy company’s offshore wind lease in the Carolina Long Bay area off the coast of Brunswick County, and to redirect $129 million, described as the value of the lease. Duke in 2022 paid $155 million for the lease.

The agency said the funds will be reinvested into “additional generating capacity” for North Carolinians.

The letter, headed by Raleigh Rep. Deborah Ross, is additionally signed by Reps. Valerie Foushee of Hillsborough and Alma Adams of Charlotte.

Ross told The News & Observer that Duke Energy’s lease cancellation isn’t isolated — “it’s a pattern.”

She said the Trump administration has “had an all-out war on offshore” wind projects by halting or attempting to halt several projects across the country.

“What has been happening is they have been making it harder for people to do the construction, and everybody’s seeing that,” Ross said. “So, people who have leases may say, ‘Oh, well, that’s not worth my time and effort anymore. I want my money back.’”

Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, the executive vice president and CEO of Duke Energy Carolinas, said the settlement allows the energy company “to refocus $129 million in ways that directly benefit our customers and communities,” including into nuclear and natural gas generation.

The Interior Department has stated that offshore wind projects create a national security risk since the turbines can interfere with radar by obscuring “legitimate moving targets.”

Ross said she hopes the letter brings transparency to the federal government’s “pattern and practice” of ending offshore wind projects.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, an advocacy organization based in Chapel Hill, said offshore wind is a critical part of North Carolina’s energy future and Duke Energy’s carbon-neutral goals.

In a statement sent to The N&O, Duke Energy said it “continues to focus on providing reliable, affordable energy to our customers that is increasingly clean.”

“This includes operating the nation’s largest regulated nuclear fleet, which provides half of our power in the Carolinas, along with adding significant amounts of solar and storage in the near term as well as other zero-emitting resources such as advanced nuclear in the long-term,” the statement read.

Ross said the decision to halt the wind project is costing North Carolina money and jobs. She said the project generates jobs “that can’t be outsourced,” compared to other industries where the state could lose jobs to other countries.

“We are in a situation with an administration that wants to go backward on climate change, and we’re seeing the effects of climate change every single solitary day,” she said. “We have to go forward.”

In March, the Interior Department announced a different settlement with TotalEnergies, a company that also had a lease in the Carolina Long Bay area south of Bald Head Island. The federal government settled with the energy company for $133 million.

The announcement specifically points out that the energy company will reinvest its settlement money into oil, natural gas and liquid natural gas production across the country.

In Virginia, Dominion Energy sued the Department of the Interior for attempts to shut down its Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project. A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia first granted the energy company’s request to block the move, then granted a motion to pause litigation until August.

The Interior Department said Duke Energy’s offshore wind project lease was in a “very early stage,” and that the termination of the lease will “convert a national security concern that will lower the costs for its customers in North Carolina.”

Ross said Duke Energy “has put in its integrated resource plan, which is how they plan for how they’re going to provide energy, that this is what they were going to do.”

“I want to know how the deal went out,” she said, referring to discussions between the federal agency and the energy company.

Under state law, Duke Energy is required to be carbon-neutral by 2050.

Munashe Magarira, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, said Duke Energy’s own analysis shows “that we will likely experience pretty unprecedented energy demand growth, primarily from data centers and other large customers.”

“Given that pretty unprecedented growth, offshore wind will be a critical part in meeting the state’s future energy needs,” he said. “To take off a vital asset in reaching energy needs and in meeting our decarbonization goals feels really shortsighted, and it feels like we’re kind of undermining our progress to be able to meet some of the goals and requirements.”

Magarira said he had “pretty serious concerns” about Duke Energy meeting the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. He said the company invested money and time into the project, “and now, essentially because we have a change in priorities at the highest level, Duke has gone back on its commitments and is using part of the money that it invested to reinvest in the energy modernization strategy.”

“I think to go back on this large investment, … which would have helped decarbonize the grid and would’ve helped to create some jobs, raises some questions as to, why was this agreement reached?” he said.

Magarira said the decision, “at least for the short to medium term, takes off the table a pretty vital and valuable resource that provides power with no emissions.”

This story was originally published July 21, 2026 at 8:00 AM with the headline “Duke Energy ends wind lease off NC coast. Lawmaker calls it a Trump ‘pattern’.”