An early-stage proposal for offshore wind in California emerged last week at a state Energy Commission workshop, which also showcased the powerful opposition that could delay or stop those plans.

“The goal is that we find a path forward that allows us to potentially utilize this renewable energy resource in a way” that allays the concerns of the fishing industry, the military and others that might object, CEC Commissioner Karen Douglas said.

Under Senate Bill 100, retail load-serving entities must provide 100% clean energy by 2045. Though expensive and technologically challenging, floating deep-water turbines anchored off California’s coast could provide gigawatts of renewable electricity.

Developers and offshore wind advocates pointed to the economic benefits the East Coast hopes to reap from projects in its shallower waters.

Brandon Burke, the policy and outreach director of the Business Network for Offshore Wind, cited plans in New Jersey and Virginia to invest of hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore infrastructure. New Jersey is planning to build a “windport” to serve OSW projects in the Mid-Atlantic region, and Dominion Energy recently announced it would build a turbine installation vessel as part of its planned 5,000 MW of offshore wind. (See Dominion Energy Earnings Impacted by Weather, Not COVID-19.)

These are “truly massive infrastructure investments that will drive job growth across the economic spectrum,” Burke said. With 40 million Americans unemployed by the COVID-19 pandemic, offshore wind development is a chance to grow a new industry in California, he said.

“It’s a once-in-a-generation economic investment and recovery opportunity,” he said.

A 6% Ocean Area

Despite the economic and environmental benefits, offshore wind in California is far from reality, experts said.

The areas where wind turbines could be placed off the California coast are relatively small, said Jean Thurston-Keller, task force coordinator with the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which controls the siting of offshore wind projects in federal waters.

State waters extend to 3 nautical miles offshore, where federal jurisdiction starts, reaching to the edge of the U.S.’ exclusive economic zone at 200 nautical miles offshore.

“Offshore California, this encompasses about 215,000 square miles,” Thurston-Keller said in her presentation. “For BOEM’s planning, this is where we start. Offshore wind though cannot be sited just anywhere. There are certain technical constraints that have to be considered.”

Of the 215,000 square miles of federally controlled ocean area, only about 6% meets the requirements for wind farms, Thurston-Keller said. The 900-foot-tall floating turbines envisioned for the coast will need wind speeds of at least 7 meters per second and could anchor in a maximum depth of 1,100 meters, she said.

Most of offshore California is deeper, and large areas have insufficient wind speeds. In addition, vast swaths of the coast are protected as National Marine Sanctuaries, which cannot be developed, she noted.

After taking those factors into account, BOEM identified three areas — termed “calls” — where 1,000-MW wind farms might be built. Two are off California’s Central Coast; the third is along the state’s North Coast near Eureka and Crescent City.

Wednesday’s workshop primarily dealt with the Central Coast areas. One site is near Morro Bay, Calif. The other is close to Diablo Canyon, where Pacific Gas and Electric operates the state’s last nuclear generating station, which is set to retire starting in 2024.

Though the areas are generally suitable for offshore wind, many concerns remain, Thurston-Keller said. Planners have yet to account for underwater telecommunications cables, commercial marine traffic corridors, fishing areas and environmental issues, she said.

Under former Gov. Jerry Brown, the state and BOEM formed a task force in 2018 to begin addressing stakeholder concerns early in the process and established a data portal called the offshore wind energy gateway, where the public could review the information used in decision-making, Thurston-Keller said.

BOEM initiated its leasing process for its California calls in late 2018, she said, but even if a lease were granted, a developer couldn’t start construction until it completed a site assessment that could take up to five years, she said.

“What does the seabed look like?” Thurston-Keller said. “Are there any hazards? Shipwrecks? Areas on the seabed that are sensitive? What frequency are avian and marine mammals occurring in the area?”

Defense Department Concerns

The U.S. Defense Department has said wind turbines off the Central Coast could interfere with its operations. The Navy, Marines and Air Force have a large presence in Central and Southern California, regularly conducting training exercises and missile testing, among other activities.

Steve Chung, who oversees “encroachment” programs for the U.S. Navy, echoed those sentiments at Wednesday’s meeting. But he said renewable energy projects that don’t impede military operations might be acceptable.

“The Department of Defense is committed to working collaboratively with the state of California, BOEM, agency representatives and interested stakeholders to explore the possibilities of offshore wind that avoids adverse impacts to our military operations on testing and training requirements,” Chung said.

The department’s objections have led to consideration of new sites to the north and south of the current Morro Bay call and closer to shore.

‘Bait and Switch’

Tom Hafer, president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization, called the newest offshore wind proposals a “bait and switch.” When employees of offshore developer Castle Wind started talking to the fishermen several years ago, they described a project with 100 wind turbines that would be 32 miles offshore. (Castle Wind still describes its project with those parameters on its website.)

Now BOEM is talking about putting turbines 15 to 20 miles offshore because of Navy concerns, Hafer noted.

“So, everything has changed,” he said. “Bait and switch, it’s called. We agreed to something and that’s not going to happen anymore, so we’re a little concerned about this.”

He said the fishing industry stands to be harmed most by the turbines noise and electrical currents.

“This is going to screw up fishing. This is going to change the migratory habits of a lot of fish out there — albacore, salmon, black cod. Who knows what these are going to do?

“You need to talk to the fishermen — the Central Coast fishermen,” he said. “We’re the ones that are going to be most greatly impacted from this thing, and it kind of appears to us that you guys really don’t give a —- about fishing because you rarely talk about it.

“It’s more important than this viewshed thing,” he added.

The visual impact of giant wind turbines off California’s scenic Central Coast is another potential pitfall.

Unsightly oil rigs have dotted sections of the coast in Southern and Central California for decades, but many areas remain relatively pristine.

Kerry O’Toole, land and resources program manager with Hearst Corp., said planners should have considered the view of the turbines from Hearst Castle, which sits on a mountain top at 1,600 feet above sea level. The heirs of publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst conveyed Hearst Castle to the state, and its conservation easements include viewshed protections, O’Toole said.

More than 600,000 people visited the castle, part of the state park system, in 2019, she said. Windmills would mar the “visitor experience,” including the long and winding drive from the visitor center to the castle, she said.

Coastal residents also don’t like the idea of windmills marring their view. In written comments, resident Laura Vaughn said, “Leave Big Sur alone. It’s beautifully untouched by your energy-grubby fingers. The public should have a say!”

Bill Douros, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, cautioned stakeholders about getting worked up too soon. The planning process will take years, with multiple state and federal agencies involved, he said.

“This is so far away from any kind of final action,” Douros said. “It’s really Stage 0, or Stage 0.1, in a long process.”