CalMatters
By Julie Cart, CalMatters
The California Energy Commission today unanimously approved a sweeping plan to develop a massive floating offshore wind industry in ocean waters — a first-of-its-kind undertaking that will require billions in public and private investments and could transform parts of the coast.
The new state plan sets the path for harnessing wind power from hundreds of giant turbines, each as tall as a 70-story building, floating in the ocean about 20 miles off Humboldt Bay and Morro Bay. The untapped energy is expected to become a major power source as California electrifies vehicles and switches to clean energy.
California’s wind farms represent a giant experiment: No other place in the world has floating wind operations in such deep waters — more than a half-mile deep — so far from shore.
The commission’s vote today came after representatives of various industries, environmentalists, community leaders and others mostly expressed support for offshore wind, although some voiced concerns.
State and federal officials use the word “urgency” to describe the frenetic pace needed to lay the groundwork for development of five areas that the federal government has leased to offshore wind companies.
“I feel the urgency to move forward swiftly,’ said energy commissioner Patty Monahan. “The climate crisis is upon us. Offshore wind is a real opportunity for us to move forward with clean energy.”
She added, though, that the plan “is a starting point…There are a lot of uncertainties about environmental impacts. We need to be clear-eyed and engage the right scientific interests and move carefully.”
The five energy companies are now assessing sites within the 583 square miles, which is expected to take five years. That will be followed by about two years of design, construction and environmental and technical reviews.
“There are a lot of uncertainties about environmental impacts. We need to be clear-eyed and engage the right scientific interests and move carefully.”
Energy Commissioner Patty Monahan
Energy Commission Chairman David Hochschild recently called it “one of the single most complex processes I’ve been involved with.”
That complexity was reflected in the heft of the strategic plan, which includes three volumes and 500 pages of public comment. The breadth of the document — which involved coordination among 10 state agencies — reflects the sheer size and scope of what’s being envisioned. State officials said offshore wind requires an unprecedented level of planning and policy development in California.
The offshore wind industry must be created almost from scratch: a new manufacturing base for the still-evolving technology; a robust and reliable supply chain; transportation networks on land and sea; specially configured ports to make, assemble and maintain the gargantuan seagoing platforms; finding and training a highly specialized workforce; building a large transmission network where none exists and beefing up those that operate now.
The Energy Commission’s plan estimates that just the work to upgrade California’s ports will cost $11-$12 billion, much of it publicly funded. The plan identifies the large ports of Humboldt, Long Beach and Los Angeles as viable for storing, staging and assembling parts needed for offshore wind operations.
By 2045, 16 large and 10 small ports will be needed along California’s coast for various aspects of development and support, according to the plan. “Funding and permitting for these projects are a critical challenge to address,” the plan says. An estimated $475 million would be set aside for port infrastructure in a climate bond measure that will be on the November ballot.
Some people at the hearing raised concerns about increased activity around major ports, where ships and trucks already create serious air pollution problems that can trigger asthma and heart attacks.
“This plan does not alleviate that. It increases that,” said Therai Golden, who lives near the Port of Long Beach. “We have a 75 to 100 year legacy of death with the current pollution. It is insane. We don’t oppose offshore wind. We oppose the development in our backyard, where we are already dying.”
Another pressing challenge is transmission — the complex job of getting the power onshore and distributing it to users. The Humboldt area presents the biggest challenge, the report says, given the rural region’s already sparse transmission network.
Capturing wind energy from giant floating ocean platforms is considered essential to achieving California’s ambitious goal of electrifying its grid with 100% zero-carbon energy. The state’s blueprint envisions offshore wind farms producing 25 gigawatts by 2045, powering 25 million homes and providing about 13% of California’s electricity.
Powering an expansive economy free of fossil fuels by 2045 means the state must triple its power generation capacity and deploy new solar and wind energy at almost five times the pace of the past decade.
The endeavor will require coordination with multiple state and federal agencies, as well as local and tribal governments, with overlapping jurisdictions and sometimes conflicting priorities.
That heavy lift, said Adam Stern, executive director of Offshore Wind California, an industry group, made it all the more remarkable that the strategic plan was finalized.
“This is tangible progress. It’s a remarkable record of intent and determination,” he said. “None of these things was happening a year ago. The plan mobilized the ecosystem of state agencies, industry, organized labor, environmental groups and tribes. There are lots of challenges ahead, but this is a great start.”
The plan “is tangible progress. It’s a remarkable record of intent and determination. None of these things was happening a year ago.”
Adam Stern, Offshore Wind California
The Energy Commission missed its March deadline included in state law to approve the plan. Then the agency postponed a scheduled vote two weeks ago to give interested parties enough time to digest the dense package of documents.
The shipping industry is concerned that the plan doesn’t “address and ensure navigational safety and efficiency” for the commercial ships that serve California’s seaports. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the nation’s busiest.
“The plan lacks any effective identification and analysis of potential impacts to the commercial shipping industry,” the Pacific Marine Shipping Association wrote in a letter to the Energy Commission. “It is frankly confounding that there is resistance to include the maritime industry in this vital Plan; to be clear, the industry is not opposed to offshore wind development in practice.”
Environmental groups scoured the documents for answers to what have been unanswerable questions about offshore wind’s potential effects on marine life, migrating whales and birds, and the onshore environment.
Even state scientists have publicly noted a “data gap” when it came to understanding the impact of platforms in the sea, electrified underwater cables, huge spinning blades and increased boat traffic.
To answer those questions, the commission’s plan calls for a broad-based science consortium and a bird and bat conservation strategy, among other topics. Recreational and commercial fishing will be affected, the report says, and that will require continued research, officials say.
Some environmental groups have come to terms with the uneasy tradeoff between the need to address climate change with cleaner energy and the potential harmful impacts that come with any energy development.
Understanding that climate change is contributing to the rapid decline of bird populations means accepting some development, said Mike Lynes, director of public policy for Audubon California. “We want these projects to be successful. But we want to avoid impacts first and mitigate where we can.”
Dan Jacobson, senior adviser to the advocacy group Environment California, said he is becoming comfortable with the unknowns. “But we can’t slow down on the science and information that we need. We have to do things quickly, inexpensively and very smartly. You usually get two out of three of those things. How do we do this so that we cause the least harm and get the most good out of it?”
Offshore wind leases off California
The federal government auctioned off leases for offshore wind production in 583 square miles of deep ocean waters off Humboldt County and Morro Bay. The areas, about 20 miles offshore, have the potential to produce more than 4.5 gigawatts to power about 1.5 million homes.
Assemblymember Dawn Addis, whose district includes 200 miles of the Central Coast, said it is clear to her that her constituents don’t have enough information to understand the implications of the new industry. Her 2023 bill to fund offshore wind scientific research was folded into the budget, with $3.6 million going to the state Ocean Protection Council to organize the research effort.
“Everyone’s hungry to understand the science,” said Addis, a Democrat from San Luis Obispo. “There’s still work to do to get that science into the world. This is a tremendous opportunity to study the deep ocean.”
Addis, who chairs the Legislature’s select committee on offshore wind energy, said lawmakers will analyze the strategic plan and “uncover needs that we just don’t know about yet. Getting this right is not just a slogan for me.”
Generally, the plan acknowledges environmental impacts but says that so-called “adaptive management” — flexibility to change an approach if it proves unexpectedly damaging — can address most concerns.
The projects will industrialize sections of the California coast with an indelible footprint, and could usher employment and revitalized economies to neglected regions. Nearly a fifth of Humboldt County households live in poverty.
Community groups and tribes along the North Coast, in particular, have been participating in formulating the state’s strategic plan to make sure that wind development doesn’t follow the boom-and-bust cycle of so many extractive industries, such as mining and timber. that have come and gone from the Humboldt region.
“We need to be part of the decision-making structure, to make sure that this industry delivers local community protection and investment, through legally binding and enforceable mechanism,” said Katerina Oskarsson, the executive-in-residence at CORE Hub and the Humboldt Area Foundation, part of a coalition of community groups and tribes.
“If this industry moves forward, host communities need to benefit.This is not just about jobs and economic benefit. It’s about justice beyond jobs. This needs to be transformational in a meaningful way,” she said.
This article was originally published by CalMatters.
The project may sound OK as a concept to politicians. However, the ocean is a tough environment for the project as described. The design approach to moor large floating platforms placed in a half mile deep area of the ocean is a big issue. In all likelihood, one good storm could destroy the project before it was even completed.
TJTOM – these are pretty successful in even rougher seas (Northern Europe and the Atlantic). They’ve got the tech, design and construction down pretty darn well. With our calmer Pacific seas, I think this will be a huge benefit to our state and to our environment! Don’t get bogged down by misinformation from haters. We need all the support we can get on these projects!
With our calmer Pacific Seas??? After sharing that bit of information, I am certain you have never been fishing out of Morro Bay or Eureka.
Was a good cast anyway : )
Sail has apparently never been on the North Sea, or even the North Atlantic.
SAIL – “calmER” – I never said the entire pacific coast is always calm. You think it’s less calm than the North Sea?
Way to completely dodge the point thoiugh.
Whataboutism like you always complain about. What about the North Sea???
This has very little relationship to the north sea. Incase you didn’t read and comprehend the article this is about the CA coastline. As little as I know about wind generation, it requires substantial wind.. Calmer is not the ideal place to put the wind farm. Unfortunately where they propose this installation has traditionally strong winds with a long fetch that reaches all the way to Alaska. That combination creates large waves. I never dodged any point. I have been out there sailing offshore in the Pacific for years from Seattle to Cabo.
SAIL – I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. Whataboutism? Not here pal. I compared our seas to others, which are known by all (except you apparently) to be considerably rough and how offshore wind has been successful in seas rougher than our coast (regardless of what you think). That’s not whataboutism in any sense of the word. That’s simply saying, don’t worry about storms destroying wind farms here, since we have the tech and knowledge to allow them to exist in harsher environments.
LOL that’s just funny dude.
And if sailboats (yes like yours) can sail from “Seattle to Cabo” then wind farms can generate wind. Look guy, you’re just grasping at straws now. You’re bouncing from misunderstanding to deflection to admitted ignorance.
Nice try, matey!
omg
Um, the North Sea has more extreme sea conditions than our site, and has several successful wind farms. How is that not applicable to your attempt to spread FUD based on sea conditions?
This is SO FUCKED UP in SO MANY WAYS….
Dude are you victimized by ten different things every day of your life? So weird how these people believe that government is all up their ass and out to get them at every turn. Bizarro paranoia
COAST – what’s wrong with spending money to clean up our planet? Priorities, man.
Nuclear is superior
Yes, nuclear fission products are lethal for millennia. Glad you’ve recognized that.
Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.
More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.
The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.
There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on spent nuclear fuel in the future.
A death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die; Nuclear: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 33 years would someone die. Solar: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 50 years would someone die.
Nice propaganda that ignores the reality of nuclear waste products and operational safety concerns.
This will save more billions in the long run – lives and money.
It is interesting that CA is just starting this when just recently an off shore wind turbine blade shattered and spread hazardous fiberglass shards over several NJ beaches forcing closures of the beaches untill all of the shards could be cleaned out.
RESIDENT – oh no! An accident happened! Shut it all down and go back to offshore oil drilling since it’s so much safer for the environment!
This is completely insane in so many ways. Why not conserve electricity? AI alone will double electricity needs. Why not spend 11 billion on nuclear energy, the cleanest energy of all? The harsh ocean environment will thrash these projects. California is an a major deficit and tax payer money on electricity experiments? 11 billion could build a LOT of housing for lower income people and homeless. This is a complete scam!
Wind is cleaner and doesn’t destroy the environment and wildlife for 100s of years if there’s an accident.
sac – How is there an “accident” with the wind?
Haven’t read all the comment threads on this article, eh?
DOULIE – *sigh*……. wind turbine failure? Really? It’s like all you guys talk about. “Oh no, the wind mills catch fire!”….”blades break and shoot metal at people” ….. “they leak oil” etc etc etc etc…..
Point is, when there’s an equipment failure with a wind farm, it’s lightyears less destructive than a failure at a nuclear plant or oil well.
This isn’t an experiment. Wind farms have been implemented in many places less benign than our coastal waters, and have not had any major problems. They produce energy cleanly and efficiently, without the massive and enduring environmental impacts and huge subsidies of petroleum extraction and transport.
Those opposed to solar and wind programs have been duped by propaganda, and are not forming their opinions based on the facts.
Rise above, and look at the big picture for once.
Too many people are being duped by the carbon industry propaganda that nuclear fission is cleaner and safer. They know that nuclear power is hideously expensive and takes decades to come on line, and it will benefit their bottom lines.
Helium 3 is our friend and it is just a round trip to the moon.
I’d go.
Fusion is the joining of atomic nuclei and fission is the splitting of atomic nuclei.
Fusion produces far more energy than that created by fission. Fusion, unlike fission, does not create harmful radioactive by-products that need to be stored for thousands of years.
And yet there are no working fusion reactors in existence, other than experimental versions that are not commercially viable (yet).
So, what’s your point?
If you can’t tell, I can’t help you
I don’t think you even know.
Experimental moon energy lol
Ok troglodyte
TNKY- why don’t you actually explain what your position is then?
Honestly. Are you suggesting that we abandon local renewable energy programs in favor of an experimental and unestablished form of energy production? It’s seriously difficult to understand your comment about helium 3. You make only a statement, not really a point.
Now, go ahead and insult some more…..OR be a grown up and clarify what you’re trying to get at.
TNKY – that was actually my response. I accidentally hit the anonymous button.
I guess tnkyknk has been reading articles like these:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/mining-helium-3-on-the-moon-has-been-talked-about-forever-now-a-company-will-try/
https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started
“just a round trip to the moon” ha ha – Not.