Front Page  »  

California files lawsuit against Trump administration over wind energy

May 6, 2025

Floating windmill designs

By KAREN VELIE

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the Trump Administration’s alleged “unlawful attempt to freeze the development of offshore wind energy,” according to Bonta’s office.

On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting new offshore wind leases in federal waters while pausing current leases, such as the three charters off the coast of Morro Bay. While the Secretary of the Interior examines existing wind energy leases, agencies are barred from issuing or renewing approvals, rights of way, permits or loans for both onshore and offshore wind projects.

A coalition of 18 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration arguing the order halting wind energy projects is unlawful and endangers the development of a crucial renewable energy source.

The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s order violates multiple federal laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act. The attorneys generals are asking the court to declare the order illegal and to prevent the administration from taking any action to delay or prevent wind energy development.

“The Trump Administration’s directive to halt the development of offshore wind energy is illegal,” Bonta said. “This reckless directive will not only reverse America’s progress in clean energy initiatives, but our communities will also suffer the economic consequences of the president’s misguided lawlessness. The president has promised that his actions would lower energy costs, but instead, energy prices have only gone up and will continue to skyrocket.”

In 2022, the federal government auctioned off three offshore wind energy sites located between 20 and 30 miles off the coast of Morro Bay. The goal was to have the windmills in the water by 2030.

While the majority of San Luis Obispo County residents initially supported the “green energy” projects, sentiments changed as information regarding plans to industrialize Port San Luis near Avila Beach and portions of the Morro Bay waterfront spread through the community.

Industrialization of the proposed Central Coast ports would have significant impacts on the local economy, the fishing industry and ecosystems. The support systems on land would include massive piers, and could require new breakwaters and dredging.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am a lifelong proponent of actual green tech. It is mandatory that we transition to clean power sources ASAP, if we are to pass along a livable planet. But I cannot agree that offshore wind or nukes are the answer to this problem. They both have very real reasons why they are both prohibitively expensive and toxic in the extreme. That is not a dead end/either/or situation. In both cases, there has been a massive amount of propaganda on behalf of those who stand to make massive, generational wealth from our pockets, and leave a mess that we will also be held accountable for cleaning up. If that is even possible.


There are many alternatives in the pipeline that hold great promise, along with some that are already performing well and should be considered instead. For instance, there are onshore wind devices with turbines that look a bit like a tulip (no rotating blades), come in colors, and are not the massive behemoths being proposed. They are shorter, work more efficiently when grouped closely together, and operate in a much wider range of wind action. Obviously far cheaper and more conducive to localized power, which is desirable. Solar is also far cheaper and does not require destroying our towns with massive, ugly industrial ports. Battery tech is moving very rapidly to provide a much safer and more efficient means of power storage than those toxic, dangerous lithium installations we are right to reject from placement in Morro Bay.


I suggest that these alternatives be investigated for price, locations, and efficiency. If they pencil out as I am sure they will, we (SLO County, REACT ALLIANCE, the fishing community) should suggest we will sue the state if we are forced to accept such an inappropriate and expensive project when much better alternatives are available. The bad publicity alone would likely cause the financially interested parties to back down.


We can do this!


4

The climate is doing great. Never been better. CO2 has the planet greening. It is only mandatory, no ASAP in California and that won’t last. Our tax base is fleeing the highest energy cost in the nation. I guess you haven’t seen Solar Star, Topaz Solar and Ivanpah Solar Electric, just a few of our states solar fields that cover earths habitat. Topaz Solar in our own county covers 10 square miles of habitat. Ivanpah Solar Electric covers 5 square miles of habitat. It opened in 2014 and is set to close in 2026.


6

I actually went to a colloqium on the solar project on Carrizo Plains, put on by serious environmental monitors. As it turns out, the project is a total success in regard to protecting the environment. Wildlife is thriving in the shadows of the solar panels, living in a sustainable balance and even a bit improved for the shelter provided.


The experience of those living on the East Coast with the offshore wind projects have a very different tale to tell. Look into that.


As for pretending that we do not have a climate problem…..can’t help you with that.


-2

If offshore wind is a problem because of the impact on fishing and marine life, would you be ok with putting the windmills on vacant land near Morro Bay and other central coast beach towns? For some good spots would be in the hills above Morro Bay, Cayucos, San Simeon, etc, where there is ample wind throughout much of the year.


0

I would like to, again, remind everyone that 5 or 6 more Diablo sized plants, right there on PG&E/Diablo property, would suffice to produce for many decades the clean and safe energy needed for the state. Not a single sacred and beloved beachfront town, or highly environmentally sensitive ocean bay, would be harmed.


35

You should try that rap on the people who had to evacuate Fukushima. I’m sure they would be amused. Closer to hand, there is Three Mile Island. And we should not leave out Chernoble. But I’m sure all the families of the dead would love to hear your “opinion”.


-3

Not a fan of the Trumpster fire blow torch-but totally behind him shutting down wind farms.

The article says California is behind the lawsuit. I’ll bet nearly all California residents are against these wind farms. The exception being hippies playing bongos next to their piece of shit van.


50

All the above includes wind power. Ai data centers are requiring 1 gigawatt of power. Which is about half of a steel mill for perspective. Power is going to get real expensive.


Green power brown power. It don’t matter. We don’t have enough period.


19

AI data centers want nuke power. Wind is a joke


3

Umm…. Why would “hippies” be in favor of an environmentally disaster of a project? Actually, it turns out to be those who stand to become generationally wealthy from such a boondoggle. They are spending a fortune on lobbyists to push this crap thru, lying, I am sure, to the legislators and promising the usual donations, to be sure.


And to be clear, if you peel back the onion of LLC’s etc., that are behind this BS, you find……….wait for it…….. AN OIL COMPANY!!! It is not exactly realistic to imagine that bongo playing (and just what is wrong with that?) “hippies” are the ones forcing this crap on to us. If they were the ones pushing the idea, you would never have even heard of it.


3

If not for oil and carbon we would be a third world nation and you might be starving .


2

Oh, ye of little faith! Had we put even a fraction of the money into research into green tech that we put into fossil fuels and nukes, we would have solved this problem long, long before it became a problem. I was married to a guy in the oil industry and have a bit more of a clue as to just how corrupt it is. And how totally unconcerned for the environment or the long term they happen to be. Firsthand experience. So, it would be more than a little bit difficult to sway my living memory with your “opinion”.


FYI, people were eating just fine for quite some time before they were burning fossil fuels. Given the trajectory of our current regime, we are headed to become a “third world country” in spite of and because of fossil fuels.


-3

“This reckless directive will not only reverse America’s progress in clean energy initiatives, but our communities will also suffer the economic consequences of the president’s misguided lawlessness. “

Economic consequences to who? Certainly the Fisherman were already dealing with “Economic Consequences” just due to their sonar testing. Up to a 70% decline? So we know it effects the fishing industry! I am not against Clean energy. But at what cost? This suit negates the negative affects of a windfarm. IT makes me think its all about the investors rather than what is good for all of us, along with our responsibility for the safety of sea life and birds, and other animals. IT doesn’t seem they have the technology yet to produce “Safe Clean Energy”, Just look at the damage the Battery storage facilities have caused. How many have been affected in the name of “Clean Energy” I think their plans for Clean Energy are premature. We just are not there yet.


49

We are there. The tech is still in the testing stage. Meantime, solar and less insane use of wind power would be putting us that much closer to the goal. There is much better wind available and the batteries we need, that are safe and clean and more efficient are near to introduction. We just need to prevent this total rip off, being pushed by AN OIL COMPANY, from destroying our coast first.


-2

Oil tankers kill more animals than any amount of turbines ever will. The blades ARE recyclable. The site WILL NOT be able to be seen from shore. Etc etc etc… But im sure the pro power company people will downvote and whine anyways. Ya’ll just love getting price gouged apparently. Weird.


-84

Wind is not a cheaper alternative. That’s me whining.


19

This is really about Money and $$investments$$ more than anything else. The stats say they both have the potential to harm wildlife. Neither are the perfect answer. But NOT knowing the full impact to me is irresponsible.

There are other places on land that would have less of an impact. In this article the concern is also about turning our area into another ugly Port Hueneme! Don’t forget, these companies are in it for the PROFIT! I doubt they are concerned about saving the earth! Its a contradiction to sacrifice wildlife to get “Clean Energy” They should be looking to do it where it would Least affect wildlife.

Did you realize : (from CalMatters 10/16/23)

First of its kind, the floating wind technology carries a host of unknowns, including how the projects will affect marine life, especially whales. The projects off Morro Bay will bring with them onshore development, but exactly how it will all come together is still to be determined. Building and operating them and bringing the power to shore will require a new, expanded port somewhere along the coast, as well as offshore and onshore local substations and transmission lines.  

++++The waters off the Central Coast are among the Pacific Ocean’s most biologically rich and diverse, where warm water from the south collides with cooler water from the north, a mashup that biologists say creates one of the RAREST and most distinct marine areas in the world.++++ 

https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/10/california-offshore-wind-central-coast/


2

How many “green energy” people have put “SunRun Solar” on their houses with “Tesla power wall batteries” with the written agreement with PGE to support the grid with the “Power Wall Batteries” when needed and/or use it overnight yourself? I am 99.9% off the grid.


-19

You are either on the grid or off the grid. Give back the subsidies, discounts to the ratepayers that helped you buy your solar panels and TESLA power wall batteries, pay you more than the going rate for electricity when you back feed and just actually be off the grid. BTW there is no such thing as green energy nor renewable energy. Solar panels and batteries wear out.


30

The only lower yielding energy source compared to wind is biomass. California already has the nations highest energy costs because of the democrats trying to force net zero fantasy on the public. There was a very under reported energy blackout a few days ago in Spain and Portugal. The cause was unreliable, intermittent wind and solar power grid failure . Both countries depend on nuclear power from France to back up their grid. In Spain and Portugal’s grid failure it also caused France to be disconnected magnifying the electrical catastrophe. UK and Germany, both big wind and solar proponents, net zero advocates depend on France for nuclear power as well. Since Germany went all in for net zero and closing their nuclear plants their cost of energy has risen 5 fold. Maybe 10, 20 years ago, with less known wind made sense for a small piece of the mix of energy options. Today placing wind turbines in the harshest of environments the ocean with the huge amount of space needed, regular repairs and servicing wind turbines make zero sense. Natural gas should be a big piece of California’s energy basket especially given California has an abundance of natural gas. Nuclear power should be our energy future.


49

Tell that to the isotopes in babies teeth via NWC at Sierra Vista and Slos cancer rate increase post Diablo. Next up, Space Lasers and Yemens secret Ufo project.


-53

Did a smidgen of research on your claim that wind power is one of the lowest yielding energy sources and could not find confirmation of that. Coal seemed to be the consensus for lowest yield because only about 30% of it is usable. Maybe you have a source that confirms your claim.


Anyway, without moving to wind, solar and other clean, renewable energy as expeditiously as possible we risk a future marked by even more severe climate changes than we are already experiencing.


1

Did you read my post ? Not sure where you came up with coal, but coal is cheap and dense, but is the worst polluter because of particulates not CO2. China, India, much of the third world are building coal plants at a rapid pace because it is cheap. Biomass .1 watt/meter squared. Wind 1 W/m2. Solar 10 W/m2. Natural gas 1000 W/m2 and nuclear 2000 W/m2. Wind and solar are even less efficient when pricing in efficiency which is not done in costs presented to the public. Wind 25 to 30% of the time in production over a year and solar approximately 40% of the time producing in a year. The wind has slack times and the sun night, clouds, winter shorter days. Back up is needed in the form of batteries or alternative energy to cover wind and solar intermittent production is also not costed in. Natural gas is about 85% on and nuclear 90% plus producing. The climate is doing great. CO2 is not a pollutant. You breathe it out with every breath. Review the carbon cycle and photosynthesis that they should have taught you in high school science. Good luck. Nuclear the future. Natural gas the transition and needed back up to solar. Much better than batteries.


0

I’m still not seeing a source that confirms your claim that wind is the second lowest “yielding power source.” I guess you don’t have one.


Yep, agree that nuclear is an excellent source of energy. That is, until a geologic event occurs that makes it a nightmare. Maybe ask the Japanese or Ukrainians about that. You might also ask our friends in Nevada why they refuse to store nuclear waste.


The climate is doing great?!? Maybe ask the farmers in Africa about that. Crop production is expected to drop by about 20% in the next 25 years. caused by drought and increased pests. Millions will suffer. I don’t see what’s so “great” about that.


0

Try google. Pretty easy or an AI bot. Willful blindness is no excuse. If you could predict the future out one year you would not be on this thread.


0

Convenient answer, but I obviously did that and could find nowhere that it says wind is the second lowest yielding energy source as you claim in your first post. I asked for a possible reference and you have none, so I suspect your facts ate simply wrong.


0

Where is California getting the money to engage in a lawsuit with Trump? That would be my first question as it is so easy to litigate with someone else’s money.


62

Same place trump is getting money from to go golfing, our pockets.


-42

From the taxpayer.


33

Its called a budget… That’s when they allocate a certain amount of money, for certain things. Understand? Verrrrry simple.


-46

Amazing! I would never have anticipated that I would agree with anything you posted, but today is the exception.


0

The federal budget is a roach motel – money goes in, but it can never be removed. California, obviously, had all those federal dollars earmarked for friends, relatives, and other graft-oriented purposes, and they’ll fight tooth and nail to make sure they get them.


72

Of course they will fight, since they are fighting with other people’s money. Also easier when you are spending someone else’s money.


48
1 2