California Offshore Wind: A Don Quixote Fever Dream Come to Life

Guest Post from K.T. Lynn at The Joule Thief.

A Site to Behold

The waters off of California’s North Coast have long been prized for their abundant fisheries and wild natural beauty. The ancestral homeland of some of the state’s largest Native American populations, including the Yurok Tribe, Humboldt and Del Norte counties have seen their fair share of turmoil over natural resources through the centuries.

The Yuroks have lived along the Klamath River for 10,000 years. This is where it enters the Pacific Ocean (Photo by Jennifer Silveira of the USFWS)

The boom of the 1870s gold rush brought speculators by the droves, hoping to strike it rich. The subsequent bust was followed by the massive growth of the local timber industry, clear-cutting thousands of acres of pristine redwood and evergreen forests, and building a vertically integrated economy from logging to pulp mills.

Supporting the mining and timber industries was the nation’s first major system of hydroelectric power. Built by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) about 100 years ago, this vast network of turbines and dams to this day still harnesses the immense energy from cascading water in the Sierra foothills and distributes it throughout Northern California.

Yet, despite the riches endowed to this lush land, the North Coast is among the poorest regions in the state. It is estimated that about one-fifth of Humboldt County residents live in poverty. With both the mining and timber industries long in the rear-view mirror, the largely rural area has not developed the high tech, biopharmaceutical, and entertainment industries that dominate the landscape of California’s GDP today.

A brief flirtation with the illegal marijuana market in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in tears when large, legalized entities ate the lunch of the small-potatoes farmers who had cultivated the region.

Agriculturally, the rugged terrain is less suitable to the majority of crop plants such as almonds, cruciferous vegetables, fruit trees, wine grapes, and olives that make up the Central Valley’s breadbasket economy. Few options for good paying jobs has led to severe “brain-drain” in recent decades, as ambitious 20-somethings leave their family homes for greener pastures further south.

Those left behind face a life of hardship in towns and villages plagued by widespread economic depression. It is against this backdrop pitting natural splendor against economic exigency that a bitter debate over a new lucrative prospect is beginning to emerge — offshore wind development.

In 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB-525, requiring the California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish offshore wind planning goals out to 2030 and 2045, and to develop a five-part strategic plan in conjunction with other state and local agencies, to be submitted to the California Natural Resources Agency for review by June 30, 2023. The Offshore Wind Permitting Roadmap was presented in a workshop on June 2, 2023.

Since then, the CEC has held a number of stakeholder meetings, developed additional planning materials and cost-benefit analyses, and solicited public comments on the proposed plans. A comprehensive characterization of the envisioned infrastructure and impacts was released to the public in January 2024 in the CEC’s draft strategic plan.

At stake thus far are five proposed projects totaling 583 square miles off the coast of Humboldt/Del Norte counties and Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County, along the Central Coast. The auction was held by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in December 2022, with RWE, California North Floating, Equinor Wind, Golden State Wind and Invenergy securing the winning bids.

Most recently, on April 1, 2024, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) released its draft annual transmission plan. Included was a projected initial target to bring online 3.1 GW for the Morro Bay project, and 1.6 GW for the Humboldt County offshore wind development.

Of the expected $6.1 billion needed for all new transmission projects this year, about $4.59 billion is tagged to build the infrastructure to carry offshore wind power back onto the continental distribution system. This includes massive underwater wires, floating platforms to host the wind turbines in the cold, deep waters 20 miles off the coast, and ports to receive and deliver the turbines to their destination.

With turbines expected to be up to 900 feet tall (equivalent to a 70-story building), and situated in waters much deeper than any currently-existing offshore wind operation in the world (up to 2,600ft/ 800m), these projects promise to be first-in-class demonstrations of engineering prowess.

Considering the ambitious scope, scale and cost of these operations, it is not surprising that the plans have stirred up controversy.

On one hand, some local leaders and community organizations see the opportunity as a boon to their otherwise under-invested economies. In comments to the CEC, NGOs such as Brightline Defense and REACH Central Coast highlight the boost to small businesses in the manufacturing, construction, and contracting industries, as well as additional workforce development and training programs set to benefit from offshore wind projects.

Representatives from the county governments of San Luis Obispo and Humboldt have also been broadly supportive of the cash infusion promised to their area, while emphasizing the need to maintain an open conversation between the interests of state and local jurisdictions. Other trades and shipping organizations have similarly expressed support for the projects, citing job growth.

Underlying many of the statements made in favor of offshore wind power is a deep sense of urgency to combat climate change and CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants, as well as a political commitment to the Governor’s net-zero-by-2045 initiatives.

Caught in the Net

However, even a cursory glance at the CEC’s Offshore Renewable Docket Log returns a plethora of scathing comments from fishing and tourism industry organizations, tribal councils, and independent citizens voicing serious concerns over the safety, feasibility, and environmental and economic impacts of offshore wind. Of particular importance is the potential harm to marine life and fishing activities.

A lengthy response from the California Fishermans Resiliency Association highlights a number of these issues. They point to the delicate ecosystem of the Humboldt Bay Estuary, a sanctuary for spawning fish and home to the largest shellfish nurseries for clam and oyster production in California.

This estuary had already been heavily dredged and decimated by settlers attracted to the region during the timber heyday, reduced in size from 10,000 to only 900 acres of the original salt marsh. The site, lying adjacent to the proposed wind project on Samoa Peninsula, would likely suffer physical disturbances from construction activities. The Association also fears contamination from toxic metals such as arsenic and lead, that may leach from the turbine platforms into the ocean over time.

More broadly, the fishermen estimate that the proposed dimensions for the collective projects would result in the loss of 5,000 square miles of Pacific fishing grounds, leading to “a significant long term reduction of the supply of sustainably managed seafood resources, a concentration of fishing efforts into smaller and smaller areas, loss of fishing industry jobs” and “the disappearance of coastal fishing culture.”

Effects on marine mammals are also largely unknown. The Central and North Coasts of California lie along the “humpback highway” and are migratory paths for orca, gray, right, and sperm whales. There has already been speculation that newly constructed offshore wind farms on the U.S. East Coast may be causing North Atlantic right whale deaths. While no definitive evidence for such a link has been found, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has not ruled it out, either.

Other unknown effects of offshore wind projects may precipitate from changes in ocean upwelling, reducing wind speeds at the sea surface, and creating lethally anoxic environments for animals dwelling along the shore and tide pools, such as starfish, urchins, mollusks, and crustaceans.

Transmission of electricity through undersea cables may also alter the ocean’s electromagnetic field, which could cause havoc for migrating fish, dolphins, whales, and turtles depending on these signals to navigate their course. Moreover, the lines installed to hold the floating platforms in place could ensnare and injure or kill whales and other larger marine life.

Left in the Dark

Offshore wind threatens to adversely affect the lifestyles of indigenous communities along the Northern California coast. In a summary of the Offshore Wind Tribal Working Group submitted to the docket in early April, council leaders voiced concern that the CEC, through its various iterations of the strategic plan, had not adequately incorporated feedback from tribal leaders.

A letter from the Yurok Tribe expresses dismay with the CEC and other government authorities for making decisions impacting their ancestral lands without proper inclusion and participation of tribal leaders in key conversations.

In an interview with CalMatters, Philip Williams, a Yurok Tribal Council member, sharply criticized the willingness of other Humboldt County industries and authorities to jump into the agreement, saying:

“Yurok, we’re not motivated by money. We're not willing to sell our resources for money. We've already done that and we've seen the result of it.”

Another docket item, submitted by the Northern Chumash Tribe San Luis Obispo, echoes concerns of the Yurok. They point to the experimental nature of the projects, which may have profound destructive impacts on their indigenous cultural heritage sites, ceremonial and burial sites, and dedicated tribal fishing and hunting grounds.

Also at issue for the Chumash, is the perceived contract breach made by state and federal entities in failing to provide tribes with Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) and training programs that had been promised in exchange for their assistance in scoring leasing contracts.

Blowing in the Wind

Impacts of offshore wind power on marine environments and indigenous populations along the North and Central coasts are only the tip of a very large iceberg. Between initial permitting and construction, these projects will still take several years to build.

And, as the state of California is seeking to ultimately build 25 GW of offshore wind by 2045, many more conflicts and controversies will surface in the coming years. Open questions remain as to further siting options, with the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles expressing early interest in building out wind farm infrastructure on their grounds.

Also unclear, is the economic benefits that offshore wind will ultimately deliver to utilities and ratepayers. An analysis by the National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that, due to higher installation and transmission costs, offshore wind could initially cost as much as $133 per MWh, compared to only about $34 per MWh for land-based wind. The recent debacles surrounding offshore wind construction projects currently underway in New York and New Jersey, however, do not bode well.

The saga of the offshore wind behemoths churns on — a Don Quixote fever dream come to life.

Electrically yours,

K.T.

K.T. Lynn publishes The Joule Thief and this article was originally posted here. Lynn self-describes as an academic renegade undercover and a professional in energy policy and technology research. Visite and subscribe to K.T.'s sub-stack today!

#California #OffshoreWind #Wind #YurokTribe #JouleThief