Offshore Account
California Rushes In Where Angels Fear to Tread
On July 10, the California Energy Commission (CEC) formally adopted the Offshore Wind Strategic Energy Plan . The plan (which I have previously written about here and here) “outlines analysis and strategies to deploy floating turbines off the state’s central and northern coasts with a planning goal of 25,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity by 2045, enough to power 25 million homes.” The approved Strategic Energy Plan supports AB 525, requiring the CEC to establish offshore wind planning goals out to 2030 and 2045.
As per usual in California politics, the approval process was contentious, and marred by procedural errors. Although the plan was originally supposed to be ratified at the CEC’s business meeting on June 26, the vote was (rightfully) postponed due to the Commission’s failure to provide documents for the public and industry stakeholders to review before endorsing the proposed measures. The final proposal, containing three volumes and clocking in at over 600 pages in total, was released to the public at 1:00pm PT on June 25, providing only four business hours of review time before the meeting scheduled for the morning of the 26th.
As Jacqueline Moore, spokesperson for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) pointedly stated in her comments before the Commission, “[the time given] is deficient and contradictory to the public process. It's imperative that the concerned stakeholders be provided with the opportunity to review, consider, and be able to put together comprehensive comments for the CEC.” Ms. Moore further added that she was unsure whether the recommendations previously submitted by PMSA had been incorporated into the language of the final proposal, and requested that the decision be delayed until the August business meeting in order for her organization to fully assess the documents. This lack of proper public consultation and transparent dialogue is indeed troubling, and portends a poor relationship between the CEC and the communities that will ultimately be impacted by the (likely wanton) actions associated with the Offshore Wind Strategic Plan.
Insufficient Funds
The Strategic Plan is moreover deficient at a fundamental level. Comments made by members of the Yurok and Chumash Tribes at the June 26 hearing described a culture of dismissiveness and non-engagement expressed by the CEC towards concerns voiced by tribal councils. Speaking on behalf of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Violet Sage Walker noted the lack of concrete language in the proposal for ensuring proper tribal inclusion and achievement measurement. She said:
…There was not language in the document that specifically had measurable milestones that we needed to achieve with tribal consultation, tribal inclusion, and some of these other issues that we're facing, which is the lack of resources available to tribes to participate…And how do we assess those milestones? And how do we determine whether or not they're working now and into the future for the next, you know, 40 years, the next four decades.
Tribal members also commented that the proposed measures for protection of wildlife, particularly indigenous fishing grounds, were abstract and did not detail specific impact mitigation and research methods that would be used to assess the project’s effect on the surrounding environment. As the Chairman of Big Lagoon Rancheria stated: “I don't think we have a concrete answer for the effects of this project 20 miles off, and how it's going to impact the fish, which is the blood lifeline of the local tribes.”
Wildlife conservation is a critical concern regarding offshore wind projects, and new research spotlights the emerging link between the construction and operational activities of ocean-tethered wind turbines and increased injury and death to large marine mammals. A study conducted by Rutgers University computer science professor emeritus Apostolos Gerasoulis found compelling statistical evidence suggesting that sonar used for siting and installation of offshore wind turbines and supporting infrastructure has been killing whales along the Eastern Seaboard since these activities began in 2016. This is a startling finding, putting critically endangered species such as the North Atlantic Right Whale into the crosshairs.
Per testimony given before Congress in May 2023, acoustical scientist Robert Rand concluded that sonar survey activities related to offshore wind was as loud as 220 decibels (dB) at the source, and up to 151.6 dB at half a nautical mile’s distance. NOAA estimates that whales can experience temporary hearing loss at a continuous blast of 152 dB, and suffer permanent deafness at 173 dB and above. Thus, these findings corroborate Gerasoulis’ data, as whales depend on echolocation to navigate dark waters, and deafness increases the likelihood of collision accidents with ships, fishing nets, and other ocean detritus. Lack of hearing can also lead to starvation, as the animals are unable to locate adequate food resources.
As Gerasoulis unequivocally stated in an interview with the Daily Mail, “The numbers never lie…there is a cause. We have shown that the cause for death of the whales is offshore wind. Period.” The graph below shows the correlation between humpback whale deaths, as recorded in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database, and increased offshore wind survey traffic. While the northern region had no offshore wind development during the observed timeframe, the central and southern regions both began offshore wind projects after 2016.
If the CEC has its way, the scourge of offshore wind surveys and installations will soon spread to the chilly waters of the northern Pacific. The potentially devastating effects on marine life are myriad, and whales are not the only victims. According to one damning report entered into the CEC’s public record, EMF exposure posed by underwater power cables has been causally linked to physical deformities in lobsters, leading to stunted growth that prevents predator evasion, and inducing malformations in claw architecture, which has a deleterious effect on lobster swimming and hunting abilities. Altered magnetic fields under the ocean also affect fish, and have been shown to disorient fish in their migratory patterns, and cause disruptions in hormonal secretion and mating practices.
To add insult to injury, in its bid for fast-tracking offshore wind development, the CEC has formally suspended requirements during the scoping process related to compliance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA, while sometimes burdensome, plays a critical role in ensuring construction projects have adequate oversight and do not exceed legal limits for toxic waste and noise pollution. Considering the untested nature of the gargantuan offshore wind operations proposed in the Strategic Plan, dispensing with CEQA seems unwise at best, and downright corrupt at worst. As an astute observer of the June 26 meeting succinctly expressed: “The exemption of the electricity businesses from CEQA is the marriage of our California state government and business to usurp the environmental process. CEQA is for the protection of the people of the State of California. And to propose to exempt any industry from the CEQA process is to open the door for future business exemptions.”
Green-Backed Bankrollers
Despite severe lapses in judgment in ensuring proper environmental stewardship, the CEC’s plan has garnered the blessings of many prominent “green” NGOs, such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. At the June 26 meeting, representatives from both organizations spoke mostly positively of offshore wind in California “as a renewable energy resource that can and should retire polluting fossil gas plants across the state,” while offering mainly toothless caveats that the plan should “include analysis of offshore wind impacts from cradle to grave, and offshore wind specific impacts on indigenous cultural resources.” These endorsements echo the findings reported recently by independent energy industry journalist Robert Bryce in his piece exposing the poor planning and execution of the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts. This unholy alliance of supposed protectors of nature and the big wind industry begs the question, “who watches the watchers?”
Hidden Fees
Apparently, the answer is “nobody.” That response came down with a thud on July 13, when a 300-foot piece of a GE Vernova wind turbine blade crashed into the ocean off Nantucket (also reported in detail in Bryce’s article). The accident, occurring at one of Vineyard Wind’s sites, left seawaters imperiled with dangerous debris for days, and closed beaches during the height of the summer season after huge pieces of fiberglass washed ashore. While company representatives are quick to blame a “manufacturing deviation,” the potentially catastrophic and deadly consequences of such an error should have prompted oversight committees to ensure the highest standards of quality assurance, a measure that clearly was not performed.
As California races at breakneck speed to implement its Offshore Wind Strategic Plan, shored up this week by a commitment of the California PUC to an initial target of 7.6 GW by 2035, it is only a matter of time before the deep waters of the Pacific roil with the folly of blind bureaucratic ambition. While the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, it is inevitably hastened by a can of WD40.
Electrically yours,
K.T.