Should California Build Massive Offshore Wind Farms?

In its race to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2045, California has begun moving forward with plans to build 4.5 GW offshore wind farms. Is this the best way to achieve this goal?

Feb 11, 2023

Today’s Debate

In December, the federal government held its first-ever auction for leases to build massive wind farms off California’s coast. The government auctioned off 5 sites about 20 miles off the coast of Morro Bay (central coast) and Humboldt County (northern coast), totaling 583 square miles, for a total of $757M.

While there are many wind farms off the nation’s eastern coast and in Europe, this would be the first commercial-scale wind farm off the west coast. Due to California’s deep waters, these wind farms would consist of floating wind turbines - unlike the anchored turbines in the Atlantic.

This came after state and federal action in 2021 to advance offshore wind. In May 2021, the Biden Administration and Governor Newsom announced an agreement to enable the development of an initial 4.6 GW of offshore wind off California's Central and North Coasts. In September 2021, the California Legislature - with bipartisan approval and Governor Newsom’s support - signed AB 525 into law, requiring the California Energy Commission to establish offshore wind targets for 2030 and 2045 and a strategic plan to hit those targets.

Habib Dagher, who is helping develop the first offshore floating wind turbines in the U.S., describes the debate inherent in this opportunity:

“There’s a lot of opportunities, but there’s also some challenges. California has deeper waters than any other areas with these floating turbines so far in the world. How do you protect the environment, protect local stakeholders, protect the fisheries, protect indigenous communities, while also speeding up permitting so we make a difference with global climate change?”

Argument in Brief

Should California build massive wind farms off the coast?

Case For:

Offshore wind farms can generate a significant amount of renewable energy
Offshore wind farms produce energy when it is needed most
Offshore wind farms don’t use land or block the view

Case Against:

Offshore wind energy is very expensive
We currently lack the infrastructure to build and operate these wind farms
Offshore wind farms will hurt the environment and fishing industry

My Assessment:

Offshore wind energy seems to have incredible potential to be an abundant and reasonably reliable source of energy in the years to come. However, in a heads-down sprint to achieve its aggressive climate action goals, California appears poised to skip an important step in the development of new technology: small-scale pilot projects. In addition to not having a working model of floating turbines for this specific context, we don’t know much about the impact of commercial-scale offshore wind farms on the marine environment and fishing industry.

Add to that the fact that offshore wind energy prices are 3x the cost of several other energy sources and it starts to seem clear that we’re moving too fast. Right now, we don’t even have the port infrastructure to enable turbine fabrication and assembly.

Instead of going big out of the gates, California should scale back the existing projects and do a few pilot projects with a focus on learning about the technology and construction requirements and the impact on the environment and fishing industry - while waiting for innovation to drive costs down.

Offshore wind farms can generate a significant amount of renewable energy

These offshore wind farms have the potential to produce 4.5 gigawatts to power about 1.5 million homes and provide as much as 6.8% of the state’s energy - which would increase wind energy generation by ~50% in California.

These 4.5 GW would also help the state achieve its goal of 5 GW of offshore wind energy by 2030 and its larger goal of 100% clean electricity by 2045, as Governor Newsom explains:

“Offshore wind is a critical component to achieving our world-leading clean energy goals and this sale is a historic step on California’s march toward a future free of fossil fuels.”

In fact, without this increase in wind power, it will likely not be possible for California to hit its goal:

“The state's 2021 SB 100 joint agency report concludes that for California to reach 100 percent clean energy by 2045, it will need a broad range of renewable energy that includes offshore wind. The study’s “SB 100 Core Scenario” calls for 10 GW of offshore wind by 2045, or as much as the model would allow.”

The initial 4.5 GW is just scratching the surface of California’s full offshore wind potential:

“The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) reports California has an enormous 200 GW of offshore wind technical power potential, representing more than 250 percent of the state’s current electricity use. So 10 GW of offshore wind is just a fraction of the state's full technical potential.”

Offshore wind farms produce energy when it is needed most

California’s increasing reliance on renewable energy sources requires a delicate mix of energy sources that ensures there is energy when people use it. Solar energy, which makes up 14% of the state’s total power mix, is only available during the day, while peak energy usage occurs between 4pm and 9pm.

“But when the sun goes down, we still rely on peaker plants for as much as 60% of our electricity. More solar panels and storage capacity will help, but they are unlikely to scale fast enough to close the gap at an affordable price. California needs to procure a diverse portfolio of renewable energy including offshore wind.”

The state already generates more solar energy than any other. But it needs another power source to fill in after the sun sets. The California Energy Commission hopes offshore wind can step in to provide enough renewable energy through the evening.

Winds off the coast are strongest in the late afternoon and evening, providing a good complement to solar power:

Offshore wind is a very different profile compared to onshore. It actually corresponds and coincides very well with the demand profile.

Offshore wind farms don’t use land or block the view

When far enough offshore, offshore wind farms generally go unnoticed by coastal populations, providing an added benefit over onshore wind:

“Offshore turbines don’t have as much visual impact as those on land. They don’t interfere with land usage, and there are no physical obstacles that can interrupt the wind flow. For this reason, offshore wind farms can be made larger and generate more energy than those onshore, with less physical impact.”

However, wind turbines typically must be more than 25 miles off the coast to be out of sight and the leased areas are around 20 miles off the coast.

Case Against:

Offshore wind energy is very expensive

Offshore wind is dramatically more expensive than all other energy sources. According to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report from last March, offshore wind’s levelized cost of electricity is more than 3 times higher than natural gas, standalone solar projects, and onshore wind. When you factor in tax credits, the gap shrinks some, but offshore wind is still 2.5 more expensive than any of those sources. It’s even 25% more expensive than advanced nuclear.

This has been a sticking point for offshore wind:

“To date, offshore wind energy in the United States has been held back by a combination of high costs, lack of government support and, along the West Coast, geography… That’s why no commercial-scale floating offshore wind power projects have been built in the United States to date.”

Offshore wind high costs are driven up by the underwater infrastructure required to stabilize the turbines in the sea - which accounts for 75% of the total cost.

Offshore wind farms have cut the cost by 60% since 2010 - and turbines today can generate twice the power of the average turbine built just 7 years ago. The Biden Administration is also focused on bringing costs down significantly lower:

“The Floating Offshore Wind Shot will aim to reduce the costs of floating technologies by more than 70% by 2035, to $45 per megawatt-hour.”

This would put the cost of offshore wind in the vicinity of onshore wind costs, just north of natural gas and solar, and cheaper than hydroelectric.

We currently lack the infrastructure to build and operate these wind farms

In addition to constructing and anchoring the floating turbines, California will need to build new port infrastructure to fabricate and assemble the turbines - and to transmit and receive the energy.

Adam Stern, executive director of Offshore Wind California, believes that California’s under-developed infrastructure is a key reason there were lower lease sales off the West Coast than in New York and New Jersey:

“Our state is not as far along in preparing for offshore wind in areas like port infrastructure, transmission and procurement policies.”

According to CalMatters, this means that we need to play catch up:

“The scale and size of the technology means California would need to rapidly build specialized port facilities and servicing vessels to construct and transport the gigantic turbines… it’s critical that the state start now investing in transmission and port infrastructure and developing a clear roadmap on permitting and procurement.”

A 2016 analysis by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management found that California would require significant investments in fabrication and assembly ports - and may require some new facilities.

A recent assessment at the Morro Bay site confirmed this:

There is no existing infrastructure or harbor in the study area that can be upgraded to be a Large Facility with localized (minor, targeted) upgrades only, and therefore requires development of a new facility… In both cases, a new port facility appears technically feasible but would be subject to numerous onshore and in-water constraints and would need to be planned to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts. To accommodate land conservation efforts, regulatory considerations, existing uses, and onshore site constraints, significant new overwater coverage would be needed to build a port facility at either site. [emphasis added]

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which oversees the operation of California's bulk electric power system, transmission lines, and electricity market, believes we are better prepared to handle energy transmission:

“For California, a CAISO staff report indicates that up to 5-6 GW of offshore wind could be interconnected − utilizing transmission at a retired gas plant and two soon-to-be-retired nuclear generators on the Central Coast.”

Offshore wind farms will hurt the environment and fishing industry

Offshore wind farms have the potential to negatively impact the marine environment, the fishing industry, and in some places, Native American tribes, as an attorney from the Natural Resources Defense Council explains:

“Sea turtles, fish and marine mammals could become entangled in the cables, while birds and bats could get caught in the turbines… There's a lot that we don't know about offshore wind in the West and what that means for various marine and coastal ecosystems.”

In Europe, where offshore wind farms have been around for many years, researchers published a study last year warning of the impact of offshore wind farms on the marine environment:

“A scientific team on marine sciences and geography… recommends excluding and moving offshore wind farms from the protected areas in the Mediterranean due to the serious negative impacts these facilities can cause on the marine biodiversity and the landscape.”

The authors did direct these warnings toward the most ecologically fragile areas of the Mediterranean, noting that they may not be relevant in other areas.

Commercial-scale offshore wind farms are also poised to have a large effect on the fishing industry. Tom Hafer, president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization, explains the industry’s concern:

“We’re totally against this. We’ve been consulting with the Castle Wind people for a long time, and we helped pick the spot and developed a memorandum of understanding on an area that we thought would be sustainable for us. That was about 120 square miles. This is 399 square miles. We’re going to lose a whole bunch of fishing grounds. There will be cables in the water. We don’t know how the whales will react. There are a lot of unknowns. People don’t realize how massive this project will be.”

On the East Coast, commercial fishers have been sounding the alarm:

“They say problems exist even in spots where the turbines have yet to go up. Commercial fishermen, along with charter fishing boats, are seeing fish flee from the noise of the site surveys, only returning to regular spots a few days later… Cables and other construction needs are creating changes in the marine environment, which can be particularly harmful to bottom-feeding species like scallops, clams and flounder.”

Wholesalers and fishing groups filed a lawsuit last year against Vineyard Wind, arguing they would be “economically ruined” by the project.

While government officials and the wind energy industry say they will work to mitigate the impact on the environment and the fishing industry, most offshore wind supporters believe the fight against climate change is worth the impact on marine habitats. The former Assemblymember who penned AB 525 to increase offshore wind makes this argument:

“We know that we have to do something different. Offshore wind is different. That being said, we're also acutely aware that there are impacts on communities.”

Brandon Southall - the California Ocean Alliance scientist cited earlier - makes the same argument:

“I hope that when we're looking at these concerns about impacts, that we, as a scientific community and as a conservation community, don't lose sight of the fact that we need sustainable, alternative energy. We need a balance of informed and conservative cautionary decision-making, but not so precautionary and so afraid of the uncertainty that we never get there.”

My Assessment

Offshore wind energy seems to have incredible potential to be an abundant and reasonably reliable source of energy in the years to come. However, in a heads-down sprint to achieve its aggressive climate action goals, California appears poised to skip an important step in the development of new technology: small-scale pilot projects. The scientist who is developing the first offshore floating wind turbines in the country describes just how novel these projects are:

“The turbines off Eureka would be in waters 2,490 feet deep and for Morro Bay, 3,320 feet. No project in the world exists in waters this deep. The deepest project to date is in Norway, in waters 721 feet deep. That adds costs and risk because no one's building anything this big or this deep yet.”

In addition to not having a working model of floating turbines for this specific context, we don’t know a lot about the impact of commercial-scale offshore wind farms on the marine environment and fishing industry. The California Ocean Alliance scientist says “There’s a lot of uncertainty.” The environmental attorney at NRDC says “There’s a lot we don’t know.”

Add to that the fact that offshore wind energy prices are 3x the cost of several other energy sources and it starts to seem clear that we’re moving too fast. Biden’s “wind shot” attempt to cut prices to a third of today’s price hopefully will work. If it does, then California should make big investments in offshore wind farms.

Right now, we don’t even have the port infrastructure to enable turbine fabrication and assembly.