Front Page  »  

Opponents of wind energy farms off Morro Bay win another round

June 16, 2025

Early site rendering of example of integration at Port San Luis.

By KAREN VELIE

Opponents of wind energy farms off the coast of Morro Bay won another round when the House approved a version of Trump’s big beautiful bill known as Inflation Reduction Act that includes a timeline for subsidies that make the projects less likely to happen.

In addition to the wind farms, there are plans to industrialize Port San Luis and the Morro Bay Harbor. The support systems on land would include massive piers, and could require new breakwaters and dredging.

The House’s version of the Inflation Reduction Act repeals tax credits for projects that don’t start construction within 60 days of the bill’s passage. The proposed bill also requires companies to eliminate Chinese goods from their supply chain before the end of the year, and then began operating by the end of 2028.

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. However, the projects are dependent on government subsidies and the industrialization of several local ports.

After the House passed its version of the bill despite pressure from a group of house Republicans to continue Biden’s clean energy tax credits, proponents of offshore wind energy began lobbying the Senate. The Senate is currently reviewing the House’s version.

Meanwhile, with the support of several members of the Port San Luis Harbor Commission, the port currently has three separate feasibility studies to determine the viability of Port San Luis for an industrial operations and maintenance port at a cost of more than $3 million.

On May 21, a group of pro-wind energy proponents hosted a roundtable in Sacramento under the tagline, “When they go low, we go local.” Inaccurately listed as the president of the Port San Luis Harbor District, Commissioner Bob Vessley was a panelist who mentioned in his opening that the port has a history regarding energy.

“I’ve learned a lot about offshore wind,” Vessley said. “I told them this is a juggernaut and we need to be involved in this.”

A pro-offshore wind energy group out of Washington D.C., Greenlight, has sent staff to the Central Coast to promote the proposed off-shore wind energy farms and the industrialization of ports.

In a video posted on Facebook, the group claims the offshore wind farms will bring tens of thousands of new jobs to the area. However, three years ago, proponents said that after construction, the farms would result in the employment of approximately 250 people.

On the other side, REACT Alliance, a nonprofit formed to protect California’s Central Coast from the “destructive impacts of offshore wind energy development,” recently asked the U.S. Department of Transportation to rescind a $426,719,810 grant awarded to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District because of misappropriation of federal funds.

There are also wind energy farms proposed for Northern California, along with plans to industrialize Humboldt Bay to provide the needed infrastructure.

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation, REACT President Mandy Davis notes that the grant funds were mandated to “improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people in and across rural and urban areas.” Because the project does not comply with the requirements of the grant, Davis wants the funds returned.

“There are ample reasons to terminate the grant and to demand a return of unspent disbursed funds from the Humboldt Harbor District,” Davis wrote in her June 4 letter.

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 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 the ecosystems.

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, but it requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think those seeking to push the “pause” button here are correct.


The wind industry is filled with those just milking hundreds of millions of dollars into their pockets.


An ugly, large, community-killing industry would change our coastline towns forever. The affluent folks in Santa Barbara wouldn’t allow this, but the wind-barons think we are “hicks” and would fall more easily. No on the windfarms off our coast.


37

The fact that Trump, a known liar only pusuing his own interests, is against it… should tell you everything you need to know. Oil tankers kill more ocean wildlife than any turbine ever would anyways.


-68

Let’s not politicize this. It’s a local issue and should be decided by the community, not by political parties or affiliations of any stripe.


16

Hilarious the comments about Port San Luis having a history regarding energy – duh! That’s a tag line developed by Susie Watkins – the former Harbor Director to make offshore wind seem palatable and have a “marketing statement”.


However, the founding fathers of Port San Luis Harbor District are probably turning in their graves with the notion that now there is some yahoo that thinks its a good idea to go backwards and turn Port San Luis back into an industrial site – after careful work was done to ensure that it is more recreational in nature. To add insult – vessly doesn’t live in Avila or Pismo, but in SLO.


His comment that offshore wind is a “juggernaut” is on target as juggernaut is defined as “A HUGE, POWERFUL AND OVERWHELMING FORCE”. What is exactly how the push for offshore wind has been.


Don’t industrialize our coast!


57

“ When they go low, we go local” Lol! Good luck trying to sell “Big Wind” in the current economy .

After demonstrating we can’t build a bullet train or maintain a battery farm (Moss Landing) , it’s obvious it’s time to move on…

Besides the generalized incompetency in today’s world, there’s the question of money. The Fed is broke , the state is broke and the citizenry has been taxed and billed into a standstill.

I feel the best move is to payoff the NGO that’s doing the “ studies” and give the wind industry players their lease money back. No go!

The unicorn projects were never going to put a dent in the impending “ Climate Crisis “ anyway.

Been on 101 lately? See all those cars and trucks and big rigs and RVs? Wind is never going to put a dent in that!

I know it may be painful for those who built an identity as a Noble Eco Warrior in their mind , but it’s time to face the fact that the information and statistics around Climate have been gamed or omitted because they don’t align with the Doom narrative .

California politicians need to realize there aren’t enough lobbyists or funds to sway people back to believing this stuff. Buying public opinion is out of reach this time.

And please no more of the “Jobs “ sales pitch….

It really insults our intelligence.


64

“but it’s time to face the fact that the information and statistics around Climate have been gamed or omitted because they don’t align with the Doom narrative”


According to Cornell University, “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”


I think it would be pretty difficult to “game” over 80,000 research studies. But, believe what you want. It’s no crime to be a Luddite, though I think your attitude is not helpful toward dealing with climate change.


-51

Climate change, yes. Anthropogenic, not so fast. Consider the discrepancies in climate models (and no, no citations, do your own research). Also, consider the simple fact that in Roman-Britain wine grape varietals were grown that cannot be duplicated today. Why, because the UK was warmer 1500-1800 years ago. Hmmm,,, must have been all those “ gas guzzling SUV’s and cow flatulence..


Climate changes over centuries, How much of that change is man made is debatable. Maybe a bit of it is, maybe not…? Appealing to experts and declarations of “settled science” is not a feature of the scientific method. Skepticism and questioning a hypothesis is.


18

According to Science Feedback, “A recent study working with a global database of paleoclimate records found that no previous warm or cool period in the last 2,000 years—including the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly)—occurred globally and synchronously. But 20th Century temperatures were the warmest of the last 2,000 years for nearly the entire surface of the Earth.”


-4

Respectfully , are you referring to the rise from approximately 300 ppm of atmospheric carbon to about 420 ppm in less than a century? Yes , almost everyone is in agreement that human activity is a large contributor to that rise. However the climate got warmer back in the Roman Climate Optimum than it is now – with no industrial carbon to speak of. We also were coming out of ‘The little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum when Carbon levels started to rise. I think many in and out of the ‘ Scientific community” have issue with carbon rise being tied to climate models that continually – for decades now have predicted warming that hasn’t materialized, while the media, et al, leap from sea level rise to polar bears, to melting ice caps and most lately severe weather and storms as ‘proof’ of impending doom and humans are destroying the planet.

All of which in the final analysis falls short. And here we are decades later and torchbearers , the likes of Al Gore , John Kerry and Greta have all swung and missed. Climatology is a complcated multivarible study with very ephemeral qualities- primarily water vapor movement. Seems like Climate Alarmists only have a spike in one varible to hang there hat on. Sorry – No Crisis.


13

“climate models that continually – for decades now have predicted warming that hasn’t materialized”


According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),”Earth’s average land and ocean surface temperature in 2024 was 2.32 degrees F (1.29 degrees C) above the 20th-century average — the highest global temperature among all years in NOAA’s 1850-2024 climate record. It was 0.18 of a degree F (0.10 of a degree C) warmer than 2023, which was previously the warmest year on record.”


https://www.noaa.gov/news/2024-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record#:~:text=It's%20official%3A%202024%20was%20the,extent%20(coverage)%20on%20record.


And, according to NASA, “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”


https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/


-4

Thanks for sharing the above links. The effort to create a ‘consensus’ is overwhelming , I must say. I wish we had more information from sources that weren’t so invested in perverse incentives- primarily continued funding. Knowing what I’ve personally seen from institutions with regard to national finance, the housing market,COVID, and our role in foreign wars,or Climategate itself ,I am very skeptical. I don’t believe the Universities and other government groups aren’t captured. It may seem naive,but I like the sources that studied and reported historical weather from the last 2 thousand years before the anthropogenic global warming stuff took hold. They didn’t have any perverse incentive then. Yes , the Romantic and Medieval Climate Optimums were real. Yes , The Little Ice Age was real, and they can’t be just brushed away because they don’t follow a narrative. Nobody who works in these institutions dare step out of line. No more funding, career,etc. The big push for ‘Scientific consensus” undermines its own credibility. All science is far too dynamic to ever be ‘settled’ in any field. I fear more for the practice of the Scientific Method than anything else mentioned here.


9