Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Offshore Wind Moves Forward on California Coast

Christine Heinrichs
News Feed
Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Progress continues on the controversial proposal to install a multi-billion dollar wind farm off the California coast. The five project areas will provide future power needs equivalent to the electricity produced by Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which was on schedule to be retired until this past legislative session. On November 21, PG&E received a federal grant of $1.1 billion to keep it operating for another five years. California’s deep waters, 3,000 feet, are three times as deep as any floating wind turbines have been launched. Forging into the unknown presents a number of concerns and promises that engineers, officials and citizens are weighing out. Leases to Outer Continental Land, needed to locate as many as 1,300 mega-sized wind turbines, will be auctioned off December 6. The process for building 2-5 GigaWatt offshore wind projects, producing more electricity than Diablo Canyon, gets underway with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s lease sale auction starting at 7 a.m. Pacific. They will warm up with a practice auction the day before. The auction could take two days to reach a conclusion and settle on five winning bidders. The lease sale includes three Morro Bay areas, (80,062 acres, 80,418 acres, 80,418 acres), and two Humboldt areas, (673,338 acres and 69,031 acres) totaling 373,268 acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, 20-30 miles offshore. Forty-three bidders have qualified and ponied up the $5 million bid deposit to participate.‍ Bidding credits‍ Bids will be considered not only on amount of money, but also on how they propose to use the bidding credits. Bidders can qualify for up to 20 percent credit by committing to investing in workforce training and supply chain development. They can also get up to five percent credit for a Lease Area Use Community Benefit Agreement and five percent for a General Community Benefit Agreement. CBAs are intended to mitigate potential impacts on- and offshore to communities, tribal, or other stakeholder groups and may assist fishing and related industries by supporting their resilience and ability to adapt to impacts that may arise from the development of the lease area. A Lease Area Use CBA would be between the lessee and a community or stakeholder group “whose use of the geographic space of the Lease Area, or whose use of resources harvested from that geographic space, is directly impacted by the Lessee’s potential offshore wind development. ”The General CBA would be with communities, tribes, or stakeholder groups that are expected to be affected by the potential impacts on the marine, coastal, and/or human environment from activities resulting from lease development that are not otherwise addressed by the Lease Area Use CBA. Eric Endersby, Morro Bay’s harbor director, sees how those credits can help the waterfront. “We are the closest port to the Morro Bay area, and we are a protected port, so it makes sense for the operations and maintenance boats to be coming and going out of Morro Bay,” he said in an interview. “There would be a lot of fuel sales, a lot of high-dollar, high-skilled jobs. The cable is coming into Morro Bay, through the grid system, so there’ll be that aspect to it. We see a revitalization of our working waterfront.” Other ocean users The leases require consideration of other users, from commercial fishing and Department of Defense national security to vessel speed requirements, use of low-energy geophysical survey equipment and coordinating with the Coastal Commission on plan submissions. Bidders know that BOEM has no authority to issue leases in national marine sanctuaries. The Morro Bay wind areas are adjacent to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the proposed Chumash Heritage NMS. Violet Sage Walker, chair of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, wrote in an op-ed in The Tribune, “The Northern Chumash Tribal Council advocates for marine conservation, equitable mitigation measures and fair community benefits. We believe offshore wind must coexist and cooperate with marine protections, and we see this as a unique opportunity for a collaborative effort, not a combative one.” Frankie Myers, vice chair of the Yurok Tribe in Northern California, said at the Floating Wind USA 2022 conference in San Francisco, that the ocean is the last place his people have to pray. “We can’t go any further west,” he said. “What will our descendants see? Another colonial resource or a collaborative partner?” Lines on a map are abstractions that are irrelevant to fisheries and tribal lands. Full details are in the Final Sale Notice National and state goals The West Coast Floating Offshore Wind projects, with a goal of 4.5 GW of power by 2030, are part of the Biden administration’s goal for Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, a commitment to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and at least 25 gigawatts of onshore renewable energy by 2025.The state of California has set a target of 2-5 GW of offshore wind power by 2030 and 25 GW by 2045. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant’s two units combined produce 2.2 GW. Although intended to be retired in 2024 and 2025, in 2022 the legislature extended the plant’s licenses five years. ‍New port terminals needed Ten additional port terminals along California’s coast will be required to support the projects. None of California’s current ports is large enough or strong enough to support the wind turbine staging and fabrication. Terminals may be located in existing ports such as Long Beach and San Francisco, but construction of entirely new ports may be required. ‍Building the turbines Turbines are 1,100 feet tall on a base 425 feet wide. About 1,300 are projected to be installed in the West Coast projects. The size of the turbines presents problems yet unsolved, including moving the assembled turbines from the manufacturing facility into the water. It could take two weeks or longer to tow them out to the site where they will be tethered. The size and complications of constructing the turbines and setting them in place presents risks that are difficult to evaluate and insure. “What keeps me up at night is a project that is uninsurable,” one insurance executive said.‍ Deeper waters, bigger ships Hanson Wood, regional senior vice president for development in the West Region, EDF Renewables, said that although technical lessons have been learned from projects in Asia, there is no precedent for a wind project in California’s depths, around 3,000 feet. The chains tethering the turbines to sea floor anchors could put marine mammals at risk by catching drifting fishing gear and ensnaring them. The area is known as the Blue Serengeti for its migration routes of whales and seals. A ship large enough to transport the turbine parts, in compliance with U.S. Jones Law, is under construction in Texas. The 472-foot-long Charybdis is estimated to cost around $500 million. Humboldt has already received a grant for $10.5 million to renovate its facilities into the Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Heavy Lift Marine Terminal, which will be capable of handling large heavy cargo vessels, offshore wind floating platform development and integration and decommissioning, and other maritime activities. Developing the Central Coast wind area could create around 15,000 new jobs, according to a report on the economic impact by REACH Central Coast and Cal Poly. Environmental impacts Environmental impacts such as the loss of wind energy that drives the ocean upwelling which is the central feature of ocean ecology in the area remain to be evaluated in the future. The amount of money involved is staggering, hundreds of billions of dollars, so those credits – 20 percent for workforce and supply chain, and five percent each for offshore and onshore impacts – will represent large amounts of money to communities like Morro Bay and Humboldt. It’s not without significant risk, though. In mid-November, Shell, with partners China General Nuclear Power Group and France’s Caisse des dépôts et consignations (CDC) canceled a demonstration floating wind project offshore France. Shell’s statement cited ”technical, commercial and financial challenges” in the execution of the project as the main reasons for the decision to cancel the EUR 300 million, 28.5 MW Groix & Belle-Île pilot wind farm, Le Parisien reports.“ The economic conditions linked to the project have been significantly modified, calling into question, for all the partners of the consortium, the economic viability of the project,” Shell was quoted as saying in a statement. State regulators Representatives of California’s State Lands Commission and the Coastal Commission attended the San Francisco conference, supporting the projects. Governor Gavin Newsom is committed to floating offshore wind and the regulatory agencies are on board. All projects will be subjected to California's notoriously contentious permitting process, but the pressure is on to get turbines in the water by 2030. With the workforce development required – it will take as long as two years to train welders to the skill level needed – new port terminals to be constructed, and techniques for anchoring the turbines in such deep water refined, sussing out the risks of screwing it up is needed. Yurok Vice Chair Myers said, “The path to messing it up is just so wide. ”While the powers behind the idea and the money are moving forward, those communities that will be most affected are watching from the sidelines. “I’m afraid that it will be just such a bright, shiny object that it will distract us from the changes we need to make,” one conference participant said privately. The question of whether this provides the solution California needs for its future power requirements, or if expenses and technical problems overwhelm it remains to be seen. We will keep you posted.

Progress continues on the controversial proposal to install a multi-billion dollar wind farm off the California coast. The five project areas will provide future power needs equivalent to the electricity produced by Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which was on schedule to be retired until this past legislative session. On November 21, PG&E received a federal grant of $1.1 billion to keep it operating for another five years.

Progress continues on the controversial proposal to install a multi-billion dollar wind farm off the California coast. The five project areas will provide future power needs equivalent to the electricity produced  by Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which was on schedule to be retired until this past legislative session. On November 21, PG&E received a federal grant of $1.1 billion to keep it operating for another five years. 

California’s deep waters, 3,000 feet, are three times as deep as any floating wind turbines have been launched. Forging into the unknown presents a number of concerns and promises that engineers, officials and citizens are weighing out. Leases to Outer Continental Land, needed to locate as many as 1,300 mega-sized wind turbines, will be auctioned off December 6. 

The process for building 2-5 GigaWatt offshore wind projects, producing more electricity than Diablo Canyon, gets underway with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s lease sale auction starting at 7 a.m. Pacific. They will warm up with a practice auction the day before. The auction could take two days to reach a conclusion and settle on five winning bidders.

The lease sale includes three Morro Bay areas, (80,062 acres, 80,418 acres, 80,418 acres), and two Humboldt areas, (673,338 acres and 69,031 acres) totaling 373,268 acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, 20-30 miles offshore. Forty-three bidders have qualified and ponied up the $5 million bid deposit to participate.

Bidding credits

Bids will be considered not only on amount of money, but also on how they propose to use the bidding credits. Bidders can qualify for up to 20 percent credit by committing to investing in workforce training and supply chain development.

They can also get up to five percent credit for a Lease Area Use Community Benefit Agreement and five percent for a General Community Benefit Agreement. CBAs are intended to mitigate potential impacts on- and offshore to communities, tribal, or other stakeholder groups and may assist fishing and related industries by supporting their resilience and ability to adapt to impacts that may arise from the development of the lease area.

A Lease Area Use CBA would be between the lessee and a community or stakeholder group “whose use of the geographic space of the Lease Area, or whose use of resources harvested from that geographic space, is directly impacted by the Lessee’s potential offshore wind development.”

The General CBA would be with communities, tribes, or stakeholder groups that are expected to be affected by the potential impacts on the marine, coastal, and/or human environment from activities resulting from lease development that are not otherwise addressed by the Lease Area Use CBA.

Eric Endersby, Morro Bay’s harbor director, sees how those credits can help the waterfront. “We are the closest port to the Morro Bay area, and we are a protected port, so it makes sense for the operations and maintenance boats to be coming and going out of Morro Bay,” he said in an interview. “There would be a lot of fuel sales, a lot of high-dollar, high-skilled jobs. The cable is coming into Morro Bay, through the grid system, so there’ll be that aspect to it. We see a revitalization of our working waterfront.”

Other ocean users

The leases require consideration of other users, from commercial fishing and Department of Defense national security to vessel speed requirements, use of low-energy geophysical survey equipment and coordinating with the Coastal Commission on plan submissions. 

Bidders know that BOEM has no authority to issue leases in national marine sanctuaries. The Morro Bay wind areas are adjacent to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the proposed Chumash Heritage NMS.

Violet Sage Walker, chair of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, wrote in an op-ed in The Tribune, “The Northern Chumash Tribal Council advocates for marine conservation, equitable mitigation measures and fair community benefits. We believe offshore wind must coexist and cooperate with marine protections, and we see this as a unique opportunity for a collaborative effort, not a combative one.”

Frankie Myers, vice chair of the Yurok Tribe in Northern California, said at the Floating Wind USA 2022 conference in San Francisco, that the ocean is the last place his people have to pray. “We can’t go any further west,” he said. “What will our descendants see? Another colonial resource or a collaborative partner?”

Lines on a map are abstractions that are irrelevant to fisheries and tribal lands.

Full details are in the Final Sale Notice

National and state goals

The West Coast Floating Offshore Wind projects, with a goal of 4.5 GW of power by 2030, are part of the Biden administration’s goal for Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, a commitment to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and at least 25 gigawatts of onshore renewable energy by 2025.

The state of California has set a target of 2-5 GW of offshore wind power by 2030 and 25 GW by 2045. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant’s two units combined produce 2.2 GW. Although intended to be retired in 2024 and 2025, in 2022 the legislature extended the plant’s licenses five years. 

New port terminals needed

Ten additional port terminals along California’s coast will be required to support the projects. None of California’s current ports is large enough or strong enough to support the wind turbine staging and fabrication. Terminals may be located in existing ports such as Long Beach and San Francisco, but construction of entirely new ports may be required. 

Building the turbines

Turbines are 1,100 feet tall on a base 425 feet wide. About 1,300 are projected to be installed in the West Coast projects.  The size of the turbines presents problems yet unsolved, including moving the assembled turbines from the manufacturing facility into the water. It could take two weeks or longer to tow them out to the site where they will be tethered. 

The size and complications of constructing the turbines and setting them in place presents risks that are difficult to evaluate and insure. “What keeps me up at night is a project that is uninsurable,” one insurance executive said.

Deeper waters, bigger ships

Hanson Wood, regional senior vice president for development in the West Region, EDF Renewables, said that although technical lessons have been learned from projects in Asia, there is no precedent for a wind project in California’s depths, around 3,000 feet.

The chains tethering the turbines to sea floor anchors could put marine mammals at risk by catching drifting fishing gear and ensnaring them. The area is known as the Blue Serengeti for its migration routes of whales and seals.

A ship large enough to transport the turbine parts, in compliance with U.S. Jones Law, is under construction in Texas. The 472-foot-long Charybdis is estimated to cost around $500 million.

Humboldt has already received a grant for $10.5 million to renovate its facilities into the Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Heavy Lift Marine Terminal, which will be capable of handling large heavy cargo vessels, offshore wind floating platform development and integration and decommissioning, and other maritime activities.

Developing the Central Coast wind area could create around 15,000 new jobs, according to a report on the economic impact by REACH Central Coast and Cal Poly. 

Environmental impacts

Environmental impacts such as the loss of wind energy that drives the ocean upwelling which is the central feature of ocean ecology in the area remain to be evaluated in the future. 

The amount of money involved is staggering, hundreds of billions of dollars, so those credits – 20 percent for workforce and supply chain, and five percent each for offshore and onshore impacts – will represent large amounts of money to communities like Morro Bay and Humboldt.

It’s not without significant risk, though. In mid-November, Shell, with partners China General Nuclear Power Group and France’s Caisse des dépôts et consignations (CDC) canceled a demonstration floating wind project offshore France. Shell’s statement cited ”technical, commercial and financial challenges” in the execution of the project as the main reasons for the decision to cancel the EUR 300 million, 28.5 MW Groix & Belle-Île pilot wind farm, Le Parisien reports.

“The economic conditions linked to the project have been significantly modified, calling into question, for all the partners of the consortium, the economic viability of the project,” Shell was quoted as saying in a statement.

State regulators 

Representatives of California’s State Lands Commission and the Coastal Commission attended the San Francisco conference, supporting the projects. Governor Gavin Newsom is committed to floating offshore wind and the regulatory agencies are on board.

All projects will be subjected to California's notoriously contentious permitting process, but the pressure is on to get turbines in the water by 2030. With the workforce development required – it will take as long as two years to train welders to the skill level needed – new port terminals to be constructed, and techniques for anchoring the turbines in such deep water refined, sussing out the risks of screwing it up is needed. 

Yurok Vice Chair Myers said, “The path to messing it up is just so wide.”

While the powers behind the idea and the money are moving forward, those communities that will be most affected are watching from the sidelines. 

“I’m afraid that it will be just such a bright, shiny object that it will distract us from the changes we need to make,” one conference participant said privately.

The question of whether this provides the solution California needs for its future power requirements, or if expenses and technical problems overwhelm it remains to be seen. We will keep you posted.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of
Christine Heinrichs, Moffat & Nichol, NREL, and Humboldt Bay Wind Port
Christine Heinrichs

Christine Heinrichs writes from her home on California’s Central Coast. She keeps a backyard flock of about a dozen hens. She follows coastal issues, writing a regular column on the Piedras Blancas elephant seal rookery for the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Her narrative on the Central Coast condor flock will appear in Ten Spurs 2021 edition.

Her book, How to Raise Chickens, was first published in 2007, just as the local food movement was starting to focus attention on the industrial food system. Backyard chickens became the mascot of local food. The third edition of How to Raise Chickens was published in January 2019. The Backyard Field Guide to Chickens was published in 2016. Look for them in Tractor Supply stores and online.

She has a B.S. in Journalism from the University of Oregon and belongs to several professional journalism and poultry organizations.

Why is it so expensive to build affordable homes in California? It takes too long

Guest Commentary written by Jason Ward Jason Ward is co-director of the RAND Center on Housing and Homelessness. He is also an economist at RAND and a professor of policy analysis at Pardee RAND Graduate School. The spiraling cost of housing in California has affected virtually every facet of life. California has the nation’s largest […]

Guest Commentary written by Jason Ward Jason Ward is co-director of the RAND Center on Housing and Homelessness. He is also an economist at RAND and a professor of policy analysis at Pardee RAND Graduate School. The spiraling cost of housing in California has affected virtually every facet of life. California has the nation’s largest unsheltered homeless population and among the highest rates of cost-burdened renters and overcrowded homes. One reason for the seemingly endless upward trajectory of rents is how expensive it is to build new apartments in California. Those costs are a major contributor to “break-even rents,” or what must be charged for a project to be financially feasible.  I recently led a study that compared total apartment development costs in California to those in Colorado and Texas. The average apartment in Texas costs roughly $150,000 to produce; in California, building the same apartment costs around $430,000, or 2.8 times more. Colorado occupies a middle ground, with an average cost of around $240,000 per unit. For publicly subsidized, affordable apartments — a sector that California has spent billions on in recent years — the gap is even worse. These cost over four times as much as affordable apartment units do in Colorado and Texas. There’s no single factor driving these huge differences. Land costs in California are over three times the Texas average. “Hard costs,” or those related to improving the land and constructing buildings, are 2.2 times those in Texas. California’s “soft costs,” which include financing, architectural and engineering fees, and development fees charged by local governments, are 3.8 times the Texas average.  There are some unavoidable California-specific costs, like ensuring buildings are resilient to shaking from earthquakes. But the truly lifesaving seismic requirements explain only around 6% of hard-cost differences, the study estimated. The state’s strict energy efficiency requirements add around 7%. California’s high cost of living may drive up the price of labor, but we found that construction wage differences explain only 6% to 10% of hard cost differences for market-rate apartments. However, for publicly subsidized apartment projects, which are often mandated to pay union-level wages, labor expenses explain as much as 20% to 35% of the total difference in costs between California and Texas.  “Soft costs” in California are a major culprit. California property developers pay remarkably high fees for architectural and engineering services — triple the average cost in Texas. It’s five times as much or more if you’re building publicly funded, affordable apartments in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metro areas.  Read Next Explainers Californians: Here’s why your housing costs are so high by Ben Christopher and Manuela Tobias Seismic engineering requirements play a role. The bigger factor are complex and burdensome design requirements for affordable housing. These are dictated by state and local funding sources, and have little to do with habitability or safety but contribute substantially to these astonishing differences.  Development fees to local governments make up the largest soft-cost difference in California. Such fees, which were the subject of a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court case, average around $30,000 per unit. In Texas, the average is about $800. (Again, Colorado occupies a middle ground at around $12,000.)  In San Diego, for example, these fees on average eat up 14% of total development costs per apartment. But the biggest thing driving up California apartment costs? Time.  A privately financed apartment building that takes just over two years to produce from start to finish in Texas would take over four years in California. It takes twice as long to gain project approvals and the construction timeline is 1.5 times longer.  That means land costs must be carried for longer, equipment and labor are on jobsites longer, and that loans are taken out for a longer term, and so on.  Most of the differences that the study uncovered stem from policy choices made by state and local governments. Many are legacies of the so-called “slow growth movement” in California, which has shaped housing production since the 1980s.  Those efforts worked. Population growth in the state went negative for a few years after 2020, due primarily to the high cost of housing. Even more recently, California’s growth was half the numbers seen in Texas and Florida, with younger and higher earners disproportionately leaving.  These departures have dire implications for the state’s fiscal future and political influence nationally. California recently lost a congressional seat for the first time in its history. If current national population trends hold, it could lose four or five seats in 2030. The California Legislature has become increasingly focused on reducing the cost of living, but meeting this goal requires substantial progress on lowering housing costs. New proposals to exempt urban infill housing production from state environmental law and a package of permitting reforms are steps in that direction.  Will policymakers also take lessons from Texas and Colorado’s cheaper housing methods? That remains to be seen. But the future of California may well hinge on it.

Ukraine Seeking Solutions for Damaged Chernobyl Confinement Vessel, Minister Says

By Yurii KovalenkoCHORNOBYL, Ukraine (Reuters) - Ukraine is seeking solutions to repair the damage caused by a Russian drone attack to the...

CHORNOBYL, Ukraine (Reuters) - Ukraine is seeking solutions to repair the damage caused by a Russian drone attack to the confinement vessel at the stricken Chornobyl nuclear power plant, a government minister said on Saturday.Minister of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Svitlana Hrynchuk was speaking outside the decommissioned station during the inauguration of a 0.8-megawatt solar power facility ahead of two conferences due to discuss Chornobyl and other issues related to nuclear power operations.She said Ukraine was working together with experts to determine the best way to restore the proper functioning of the containment vessel, or arch, after the February 14 drone strike."Unfortunately, after the attack, the arch partially lost its functionality. And now, I think, already in May, we will have the results of the analysis that we are currently conducting ...," Hrynchuk said.Taking part in the analysis, she said, was the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, scientific institutions and companies involved in installing the arc in 2019 to cover the leaking "sarcophagus" underneath, hurriedly put in place in the weeks following the 1986 Chornobyl disaster."In a few weeks we will have the first results of this analysis," she said."We are actively working on this ... We, of course, need to restore the "arch" so that there are no leaks under any circumstances, because ensuring nuclear and radiation safety is the main task."Officials at the plant said the drone attack punched a large hole in the new containment structure's outer cover and exploded inside. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova at the time called the incident at Chornobyl "a provocation".The containment vessel was intended to cover the vast, and deteriorating, steel and concrete structure erected after the plant's fourth reactor exploded, sending radioactivity over much of Europe in the world's biggest nuclear accident.The plant lies within the 30-km (18-mile) exclusion zone set up after the accident, with abandoned high-rise apartment buildings and an amusement park still standing nearby.Hrynchuk said the solar power facility was important to maintain the power supply to the disused station and was also a start to plans to promote renewable energy in the area."We have been saying for many years that the exclusion zone needs to be transformed into a zone of renewal," she said. "And this territory, like no other in Ukraine, is suitable for developing renewable energy projects."(Reporting by Yurii Kovalenko, writing by Felix Hoske and Ron Popeski, editing by Sandra Maler)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Ohio corruption scandal looms over FirstEnergy rate case

This article comes from Canary Media’s Ohio Utility Watch newsletter, a monthly update on Ohio’s HB6 power plant bailout scandal. Visit our newsletter page to sign up . Welcome to Ohio Utility Watch, a newsletter tracking Ohio’s ongoing public-corruption saga, often referred to as the House Bill 6 or HB 6 scandal.…

This article comes from Canary Media’s Ohio Utility Watch newsletter, a monthly update on Ohio’s HB6 power plant bailout scandal. Visit our newsletter page to sign up. Welcome to Ohio Utility Watch, a newsletter tracking Ohio’s ongoing public-corruption saga, often referred to as the House Bill 6 or HB 6 scandal. If you’re new to the story, it revolves around the use of dark money by utility companies and others to pass roughly $60 million in bribes to secure more than $1.5 billion in ratepayer subsidies for aging, uneconomical coal and nuclear power plants. Here are some developments from the last few weeks: The state’s consumer advocate wants regulators to reduce FirstEnergy’s rate of return to reflect poor management practices that enabled bribes and corruption.Environmental advocates say FirstEnergy’s ratemaking case should consider grid disparities in disadvantaged communities.Legislation that would remove HB 6’s coal plant subsidies is moving full-speed ahead, along with incentives for more in-state power plants. At a March 13 hearing, former FirstEnergy executives again declined to answer questions, citing their Fifth Amendment rights.Should ​‘abysmal’ management mean less profit from ratepayers? Ohio’s state consumer advocate and others say FirstEnergy should be penalized with a lower rate of return in its rate case due to the company’s ​“egregious violation of laws and norms” in connection with the HB 6 scandal. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel filed testimony on March 24 arguing, among other things, that the Public Utilities Commission should cut the company’s requested rate of return on capital investments by at least half a percent. All told, the consumers’ counsel says Ohio customers should pay FirstEnergy roughly $132 million less for annual distribution charges. FirstEnergy responded on March 31, arguing the corruption scandal has no bearing on its first ratemaking case since 2007. Although the company expected five years ago that it would need to reduce rates when a new ratemaking process began, it now wants $183 million more per year from Ohio ratepayers. The company has proposed that it earn a 10.8% rate of return on equity. That income generally functions as a reward to the firm for capital investments. An auditor hired by the commission suggested 9.63% based on its market analysis. Ashley Brown, a former PUCO commissioner and past executive director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, said the company’s ​“abysmal” management should be a factor, regardless of whether it’s also addressed in other regulatory cases. “I’ve never seen a better case for arguing performance should play a huge role in determining the rate of return,” Brown said.  Read more: FirstEnergy asks regulators to raise rates by $183 million. Auditors say $8.5 million (Cleveland.com) FirstEnergy wants to raise prices following repeal of scandal-tainted legislation (Ohio Capital Journal) Should equity affect rates? Ohio environmental advocates say FirstEnergy’s ratemaking case needs to address grid disparities for disadvantaged communities compared to elsewhere in the company’s service area. The Ohio Environmental Council filed testimony last month criticizing the utility’s efforts to maintain and improve infrastructure for lower-income areas. The environmental group’s filings include testimony by Shay Banton, a regulatory program engineer and energy justice policy advocate for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. “When utilities are requesting a return on investment, I think it’s prudent for customers to know why those investments are being made and to make sure those investments are being made in an equitable way,” Banton told Canary Media. FirstEnergy’s March 31 response argued that its ratemaking case is unrelated to the equity issues raised by the Ohio Environmental Council. However, company testimony filed on March 24 talks about various investments to maintain and improve reliability. Read more:

Texas energy company wins first-of-its-kind permit to suck carbon out of air, store underground

Environmental groups worry direct carbon capture is not the silver bullet to curb climate change many energy companies purport it to be.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. ODESSA — The Environmental Protection Agency has approved a Texas company’s application to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and inject it underground, becoming the first project in the state to be awarded such a permit. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, a Houston-based oil firm, will start storing 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide in deep, non-permeable rock formations 4,400 feet underground as soon as this year. The facility will be located 20 miles southwest of Odessa. “This is a significant milestone for the company as we are continuing to develop vital infrastructure that will help the United States achieve energy security,” Vicky Hollub, the company’s president and CEO, said in a statement. She said these permits will help energy companies “address their emissions or produce vital resources and fuels.” Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of oil and gas production and the largest contributor to climate change. Oil and gas facilities leak or vent the greenhouse gas, which traps heat in the atmosphere and prevents it from cooling. Environmentalists and the oil and gas industry are divided over the environmental benefits of carbon capture. While the industry has hedged its climate goals on the technology, environmental policy experts remain skeptical about whether it significantly reduces air pollution, saying the world should transition to other fuel sources to slow climate change. Some Texas scientists say the injection method has been tested and proven to work for years and now needs to be implemented. Oxy will attempt to reduce the output of the gas through a technology called direct air capture, or DAC. It grabs the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and separates it from other particles in the air by incinerating them. The equipment then compresses the gas to a brine before transporting and storing it permanently underground. Related Story Oct. 2, 2024 According to the draft permit, which the EPA presented to the public for feedback last fall, Oxy will monitor the pressure and temperature of the well and downhole. It will measure every second on the surface and every ten seconds inside the well, providing a reading every ten minutes. Workers will account for corrosion and groundwater every three months. The company must alert the EPA 30 days before most tests or if there are any changes. It must also alert them of any malfunctions within 24 hours. Virginia Palacios, executive director of Commission Shift, an oil and gas watchdog group, said Oxy’s permit application did not include details regarding the layers where the carbon dioxide would be stored. She said that omitting this information gives residents no assurance that the gas will stay put, adding that the public should have been allowed to evaluate that information. More companies could follow Oxy’s lead, and win quicker approval if Texas regulators win the authority to grant such permits. The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency regulating oil and gas companies, has applied to the EPA for the power to issue similar permits. The EPA is currently accepting public testimony. A public hearing for the public to issue feedback has not been set. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

California lawmakers urge Trump to spare state's hydrogen energy project

A bipartisan group of California lawmakers is calling on the Trump administration to preserve federal funding for a hydrogen energy project, saying it is vital for the nation's future.

A bipartisan group of California lawmakers is calling on the Trump administration to preserve $1.2 billion in federal funds for a hydrogen energy project to help wean the state off planet-warming fossil fuels. The action follows reports in The Times and other news organizations that the administration is poised to defund nearly 300 Department of Energy projects across the country, including four of seven nascent “hydrogen hubs.” Among them is ARCHES, or California’s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, which was awarded $1.2 billion in federal funds by the Biden administration as part of a nationwide effort to develop hydrogen energy. ARCHES also plans to bring in an additional $11.2 billion from private investors. In a letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright dated Monday, the lawmakers said ARCHES “plays a critical role in securing American energy dominance, advancing world-leading energy technology, creating new manufacturing jobs, and lowering energy costs for American families.” The letter was signed by 47 of the state’s 52 congressional representatives, including four Republicans: Reps. Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), David Valadao (R-Hanford), Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) and Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Several of the hub’s sites were planned for the state’s right-leaning Central Valley. It was also signed by the state’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.The letter follows reports that ARCHES is on the Department of Energy’s budget-cut list along with hundreds of other projects geared toward climate-friendly initiatives. In response to its disclosure, DOE said the agency was conducting a department-wide review and cautioned against “fake lists.” The Trump administration has generally favored development of fossil fuels over clean energy. A draft of the list circulating on Capitol Hill and reviewed by The Times indicates that roughly 80% of the projects set to lose funding are in states that didn’t vote for Trump in the 2024 presidential election, including the four hydrogen hubs. In addition to California, they include a Mid-Atlantic hub, a Pacific Northwest hub and Midwest hub, all of which span primarily “blue” states that tend to vote for Democrats. Three other hydrogen hubs in Republican-leaning red states and regions — Texas, Appalachia and a “heartland” hub in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota — are safe, the list shows. Hydrogen is a promising source of energy that produces water vapor instead of carbon dioxide as its byproduct, which proponents say could be used to power hard-to-decarbonize industries such as steel production, manufacturing and transportation. In their letter, the lawmakers described ARCHES as a “strategic investment in American energy innovation” and noted that projects stemming from it would be dispersed across the state, including efforts to decarbonize the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland by replacing diesel-powered cargo-handling equipment with hydrogen fuel cell equivalents. “The investment is already being used to bring together private industry, local governments, and community organizations to collaborate and build a secure, American-made energy future,” the representatives wrote, adding that ARCHES anticipates the creation of 220,000 jobs. The letter was spearheaded by Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce), whose district includes Lancaster — the first city to join ARCHES when it was announced, with multiple projects planned in the area. “The bipartisan support for ARCHES shown in this letter underscores its importance to California and the nation,” Whitesides wrote in a statement. “I urge the DOE to support this crucial program and preserve its funding, therefore expanding our workforce and economic opportunity.” The potential cuts come as the Trump administration continues to target environmental programs in California and across the country in what officials say is an effort to ease regulatory costs, lower taxes and “unleash American energy.” However, Democratic insiders said the planned cuts appear to be partisan — particularly because California’s hub was the highest-scoring applicant among more than 30 projects considered for the $7 billion federal program. Its $1.2 billion award also matched that of Texas, a red state hub that was safe from the cuts. The seven hydrogen hubs were collectively expected to produce 3 million metric tons of hydrogen annually and reduce 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, an amount roughly equivalent to that of 5.5 million gas-powered cars. “We view ARCHES as a strategic investment in American energy innovation, an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and energy independence and competitiveness,” the letter says. “With that, we respectfully request that you continue supporting ARCHES and provide time for the California hub and its member organizations to further justify their vital role in meeting the energy goals of the administration.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.