Front Page  »  

SLO County supervisors split on offshore wind energy farms

February 17, 2026

By KAREN VELIE

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 last week to approve a state and federal legislative platform that includes supporting offshore wind energy farms and strengthening support for Proposition 13.

Supervisors Bruce Gibson and Jimmy Paulding initially agreed they wanted to add only legislative priorities the supervisors unanimously voted to approve. Gibson then attempted to get the board to vote on the staffs’ recommended platform before adding additional items, but was shot down.

In an odd twist, Paulding wanted to remove a change he made three years earlier.

In 2023, after noting he was a strong supporter of Proposition 13, Paulding made a conflicting motion that removed support for the two-thirds majority vote required to raise taxes (which is part of Proposition 13), while supporting the proposition. The board then voted 3-2 to approve Paulding’s motion with supervisors John Peschong and Debbie Arnold strongly dissenting.

Last week, Paulding made a motion to remove his earlier modification. He wanted to add support for the two-thirds majority vote required to raise taxes.

Gibson argued against the change saying he was in favor of removing the two-thirds majority required to raise taxes. The board then voted 4-1 with Gibson dissenting.

Their plan to only approve legislative priorities that they agreed on unanimously was quickly forgotten.

Under economic development, the legislative platform includes support “for emerging energy technologies and offshore wind development that provide regional economic benefits.”

The board voted 4-1 to adopt the platform, with Peschong dissenting because of his opposition to wind farms off the coast of Morro Bay.

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, this 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:


10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Offshore (and onshore) wind farms are uneconomic without massive government subsidies. Their output per footprint underperform nuke and gas power plants by orders of magnitude, and they trade some known, but mitigated, environmental problems for unknown and, in many cases, unmitigated ones.


Let the market decide; quit shoving unwanted stuff down people’s throats.


14

How ’bout we just leave Prop. 13 alone? It has proven to be effective, and popular among those who’s income is fixed…like a newly retired Gibson should have.


6

Offshore wind farms are widely considered beneficial for the global energy transition, though they come with a distinct set of trade-offs. As of 2026, they are a cornerstone of many nations’ climate strategies because they solve two major problems: they provide massive amounts of power and they don’t take up any land.

The Major Benefits



  • Superior Efficiency: Winds at sea are stronger and more consistent than on land. Because power output increases cubically with wind speed, a small increase in speed leads to a massive jump in energy. Modern turbines (some exceeding 15 MW) can power thousands of homes each.

  • Scale Without Space Conflicts: Unlike solar or onshore wind, which often compete with agriculture or housing, offshore farms have vast space to expand. This is crucial for densely populated coastal regions.

  • Economic Engines: The industry is a major job creator. By 2026, the global offshore wind market is projected to reach approximately $57 billion, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, marine logistics, and engineering.

  • “Artificial Reef” Effect: Interestingly, the underwater foundations often act as artificial reefs. In projects like the North Sea’s OranjeWind, marine life has been found colonizing these structures, turning previously “barren” seabeds into thriving habitats.


The Challenges & Trade-offsWhile the benefits are significant, “beneficial” is a relative term depending on who you ask:

FactorThe ChallengeCostBuilding at sea is significantly more expensive than on land due to specialized ships, subsea cabling, and the sheer engineering difficulty of “floating” or anchoring massive towers.Marine ImpactConstruction noise (like pile driving) can disrupt the sonar of whales and dolphins. There are also ongoing concerns about migratory bird flight paths.MaintenanceFixing a turbine in the middle of a winter gale is much harder (and pricier) than driving a truck to a field in Kansas. Saltwater corrosion also shortens the lifespan of mechanical parts.

Export to Sheets

The VerdictThe consensus in 2026 is that the long-term environmental and energy security benefits far outweigh the initial costs.As technology for floating turbines matures, we are moving further out to sea, which reduces “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) complaints from coastal residents and taps into even more powerful winds.

Thanks Gemini – Thinking of the future and our grandbabies.


-34

Absolute nonsense


2

Not sure where you got this information, but the engineering for these floating offshore wind turbines in deep water hasn’t even been developed yet. As for the “Scale without Space Conflicts”, yeah sure except for the commercial fishermen that will be displaced yet again. Marine Impact- how about a disruption of the upwellings? Or the whale migration? Or the other testing that will need to be done? The list goes on.

Let’s just remember the companies that have the leases off our coast ARE NOT FROM USA! We’re just going to let foreign companies come in and potentially damage our local ocean? The wind companies haven’t been playing nicely with the commercial fishermen in mitigation talks. Guess who is coming out the looser in the final plan with years of meetings? Yes that’s right, your local neighbors, the commercial fishermen.


26

It’s clear you’ve been following the town halls and mitigation meetings closely—the frustration you’re feeling is shared by many in coastal communities who feel like their “backyard” is being auctioned off to the highest foreign bidder. You’ve raised several critical points that are often glossed over in the high-level marketing of these projects.

To speak to your points with the latest context from 2026:

1. The Engineering “Gap”You’re right that there is a massive leap between a few pilot projects and the massive industrial scale being proposed. While floating turbines exist (like the Hywind projects in Scotland and Norway), those are relatively small.



  • The Reality: We are currently in the “demonstration” phase for deep-water floating tech. The engineering for 15MW+ turbines sitting on floating platforms in the rough Pacific or deep Atlantic is still being refined. Issues like dynamic cable fatigue (cables that have to swing with the ocean) and taut-line mooring are still major technical hurdles that haven’t been “solved” at the scale required for a full-scale wind farm.


2. Disruption of Upwellings & MigrationsThis is one of the most significant environmental concerns. Coastal upwelling—the process where wind pushes surface water away to let nutrient-rich deep water rise—is the “engine” of your local fishery.



  • Upwelling: Recent modeling suggests that large-scale wind farms can create a “wind wake” effect, potentially reducing surface wind stress by around 5%. While that sounds small, it could be enough to weaken the upwelling that feeds the entire food chain.

  • Whales: Beyond the noise of construction, the “secondary entanglement” risk is real. While a whale might not get caught in a massive mooring chain, those chains can snag “ghost” fishing gear or debris, creating a deadly trap that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.


3. Foreign Ownership & The “Neighbor” ConflictIt is a hard pill to swallow that the majority of these lease-holders (like Ørsted, Equinor, and Avangrid/Iberdrola) are European-owned.



  • The Economic Friction: These companies often use global supply chains, which makes the promise of “local jobs” feel hollow to a fisherman whose family has worked those waters for generations.

  • Mitigation Talks: You hit the nail on the head regarding the power imbalance. In many cases, the “mitigation” offered is a financial payout for gear loss or relocation, which doesn’t account for the cultural loss of a way of life or the long-term depletion of a stock if the fish move because of the turbines.


The Current State of Play (2026)As of early 2026, the federal government has faced significant pushback. Some lease areas have actually been rescinded or paused due to lawsuits from fishing groups (like RODA) and concerns over foreign influence on domestic energy security.

The bottom line: Your skepticism isn’t just “protest”—it’s based on the fact that the industry is trying to build the plane while flying it, and the commercial fishing industry is currently the one providing the “runway” at their own expense.


This is AI generated. I appreciate your response and for an ongoing conversation so that we can all get a better understanding of all aspects that affect all sides.


-12

We can argue about how we generate electricity all we want. The price is going up no matter what we do. Which should be all of the above.

Currently, there is a single AI DataCenter that consumes more power than the city of LA.

3 more such plants will be “online” within 3 years, 5-7, within 5 years, and 9-16 in under 10 years.

650MW facilities

As of 2026 there are 668 planned data center projects in the U.S. (adding an estimated ~184 419 MW of capacity). Which is the equivalent 13,000 turbines

Think about that for a second..


1

Or, you know, we could use the proven nuclear generation option, which has such a minuscule impact on the environment, compared to ANY other electrical power generation system.


No worries about high winds, storms, waves too big, slack or not slack anchor cables, fires and oil pollution, sonic troubles for whales and dolphins, and the constant 24/7/365 fight against rust and corrosion.


4

I love that we are all expressing our concerns. It is very important to express our concerns and I love that we care about our natural environment


-2

Of course Gibson votes for boondoggles. What a putz. Good riddance,


31