Front Page  »  

The answer is not blowing in the wind

April 18, 2026

OPINION by SARO RIZZO

California is gripped by an electricity crisis. A “perfect storm” of structural and policy failures has saddled citizens with the highest residential rates in the contiguous United States—reaching up to 36 cents per kWh as of April 2026. This burden will only grow as EV adoption, high-speed charging, and AI data centers drive peak demand up an estimated 15% by 2030 and 50% by 2045.

The state’s aggressive retirement of fossil fuel and nuclear plants has exacerbated the problem. New green energy hasn’t arrived fast enough to buffer an aging grid that requires a multi-billion-dollar facelift just to handle intermittent solar and wind. While California often enjoys a solar surplus during the day, it faces “duck curve” scarcity from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., when production vanishes just as demand peaks.

This fear of blackouts forced Sacramento to reverse the planned 2025 closure of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. As the state’s last nuclear facility, it remains a vital anchor, providing 8% of California’s total electricity and nearly 20% of its carbon-free power. While Sacramento officially targets a 2030 retirement, the state’s dire predicament will likely force another extension until at least 2035.

Unfortunately, California leaders remain convinced they can solve this crisis through a “moonshot” of massive floating offshore wind farms. By focusing myopically on this path, they are ignoring a fiscal and environmental collision course.

The dream of 25 gigawatts (GW) of deep-water energy carries a $248 billion price tag that will tether Californians to exorbitant bills for decades. With initial generation not expected until 2036, and final buildout until 2045, this project offers zero relief for the energy shortfalls of the next ten years.

The math is staggering. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), installing floating wind on the Pacific Coast will cost roughly $7,349 per kilowatt. Factor in $12 billion for port upgrades and $36.5 billion for new transmission lines, and the price tag will balloon to nearly $10 billion per gigawatt. This will result in a wholesale financing cost of $0.21 per kilowatt-hour—over four times the cost of modern natural gas plants.

Retail markups will eventually crush working families and energy-reliant industries which are already leaving the state due to high energy costs.

Beyond financial ruin lies the gargantuan industrialization of our coastline. Idyllic communities like Avila Beach face destruction from the massive port infrastructure needed to service farms off Morro Bay.

Reaching the state’s goal will require over 2,000 ‘monstrosities,’ each rising 800 feet above the waterline across more than 373,000 acres of federal ocean lease areas. Tethered to the floor 4,000 feet below by thousands of miles of massive steel chains, these turbines will create a vast web of high-voltage cables across hundreds of miles of the ocean floor.

The environmental hypocrisy is “stomach-churning.” While the California Coastal Commission historically restricts minor developments, it has remained silent on the “abominable” impact of the largest ocean construction project in its history. How will migrating whales navigate an obstacle course of cables and nonstop acoustic pollution?

Furthermore, transmitting this power will require roughly 30 offshore converter stations—industrial platforms the size of Navy destroyers. These substations represent a glaring policy contradiction. California spent decades forcing coastal power plants to abandon “once-through cooling” due to its lethal impact on marine larvae.

Yet, these new offshore stations will be designed to suck in a combined 240 million gallons of seawater daily—acting as a biological vacuum that will destroy billions of fish larvae—before discharging it as thermal pollution.

With the current federal administration actively opposing offshore wind—even implementing a nationwide freeze on permitting and leasing—the essential approvals from Washington will not be forthcoming. This federal blockade makes California’s current planning efforts largely futile.

California leadership must abandon this lose-lose approach before we commit to this quarter-trillion-dollar mistake and pivot toward a more pragmatic, diversified energy strategy.

This might include supporting a new generation of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are safer, factory-built, and use liquid-metal cooling that requires zero water intake. Crucially, these advanced designs which experts believe will be ready for buildout as soon as 2030 can be fueled by recycling existing spent nuclear fuel, transforming what is currently viewed as waste into a century of clean energy.

We could pair this with next-generation solid-state battery storage to bridge our solar gaps safely. Combined with increased solar production and a strategic transition to cleaner natural gas plants that offer immediate reliability at a fraction of the cost, we can secure our grid without destroying our coastline. We must prioritize energy that is affordable, immediate, and truly protective of the marine ecosystems we claim to cherish.

Saro Rizzo is a public interest attorney in San Luis Obispo and the Vice-President of REACT Alliance. He was the lead attorney in the successful 1996 litigation against UNOCAL for the Avila Beach oil spill cleanup and currently resides in Avila Beach.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


32 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The author here is conveniently glossing over solar power; the claim that solar panels somehow wear out or stop working in 16 years has been debunked, many solar panels operate with little to no degradation for well over 20 years, and newer panels can last even longer. As to the loss of generation of power when the sun goes down, zero mention of energy storage, which includes battery storage which is being developed with even more efficient operation. And there are other storage means, gravity storage and others that utilize over production of energy during peak sunlight hours and then release their stored energy as demands increase during peak use hours.

I will agree that there are many potential issues with off shore wind production, I don’t believe it is due to the technology, but due to the centralization of energy production by having large operations like what is proposed, that is another beauty of solar generation, decentralized production so one big business isn’t trying to over monetize production. Germany, which has a more northern latitude than most of the US is utilizing solar with government subsidies and have made a huge difference in their energy situation, even though their weather is usually pretty cloudy. China has just built a high speed rail line with solar panels lining both sides of the tracks enabling the train to run on electricity furnished by those solar panels.

Nuclear power is carbon neutral in the act of producing energy, but is not “green” by any means due to the intensive energy needed to mine, transport, refine, and deliver the fuel to generation sites, not to mention the waste generated by the older technology of splitting the atom. Newer technology utilizing spent fuel is very promising, the idea of building smaller units illustrates the advantages of smaller, decentralized production methods like roof top solar, but in reality, nuclear should really be viewed as a bridge technology while actual green, renewable sources are improved along with better energy storage means.


-1

Wind and solar can never generate enough energy, to offset the energy expended to create them. This is magnified 100 fold by battery storage.


While a great amount of energy is required for nuclear to be built, the power generated far surpasses that of wind and solar, on a MUCH smaller footprint, and as Diablo is proving, can be operated safely for decades beyond it’s initially predicted lifespan. The offshore turbines proposed for California only somewhat equal Diablo…but only on paper. As wind is inefficient at best. Every wind “farm” built, creates less than 40% of the promised energy, due to too much wind, no wind, maintenance, broken equipment, and aging blades and generators.


Diablo is “old” technology (although, thoroughly modernized over the years to remain a top-tier generator), and we have no need to build such massive facilities, since France has shown that much smaller plants can provide plenty of power locally, rather than statewide. The US Dept. of Energy is currently looking into “retired” nuke plants from submarines and aircraft carriers, that with minimal modification to use a lesser grade of uranium (US Navy uses highly enriched cores for near instant steam to the turbines), can easily be reconfigured for commercial use anywhere there is enough cooling water….which is almost anywhere in the USA.


While waste is a problem, the amount is 100x less than solar and wind. But, unlike wind and solar, nearly all of it can be recycled, and much of it will likely be used in “feeder” reactors being developed. Bringing the total waste hazard to a minimum.


Most people don’t care about where they get their electricity from, as long as the return on investment is logical, and the lights stay on 24/7. Logical, is nuclear.


0

This fanatical quest for “clean energy” something that just does not exist is bankrupting California… we have no money for anything in this mismanaged state…

We act as if all the climate change is happening in our state… its ridiculous and it points to the greed of these quest seekers….


5

“we have no money for anything in this mismanaged state”, sorry to disagree, have you checked Transparent California, we have plenty of money but most of it is going into compensations and pensions, a large part of the remaining money is funneled to NGO’s and other favored groups, who then in turn make hefty donations to the same politicians that got them the money in the first place, but agree our state in mismanaged.


4

SMR’s are targets for terrorists. One parked at every nearby DC will attract those who want to disrupt.

I will choose wind and solar over SMR Technology.


-1

Saro, how much do attorneys make by filing public interest lawsuits?


-7

Very few attorneys do public interest law in San Luis Obispo County because clients often do not have the means to pay even though their cause is just. So you take the case with the hope that if you win the court will grant you fees under the private attorney general statute because you achieved a good result for the public overall. Basically, if you do not win the case your hundreds of hours of work will often go uncompensated. If you prevail, then it still in the judge’s discretion to award fees, if at all, and only at what the prevailing hourly rate is for the legal community in that area. As you can see, it is personally financially risky for a solo attorney to do this work when one could stick to regular legal work where you bill your client at a regular hourly rate and get paid monthly whether you win or lose.


18

Like the entire Rizzo family, Saro is driven by passion, not money. So your question doesn’t seem sincere… only snide. Be grateful we have people like Saro in or community. He is looking out for our, and your best interests.


5

If this author was the lead attorney involved in forcing UNOCAL to clean up Avila Beach, he must have received a huge payout. I wonder what his angle is in advocating for “Small Modular (nuclear) Reactor?” He’s an attorney, not a saint. He’s in it for the $$$$.


-16

Cleaner energy, mensa.


-3

How much do these attorneys make by filing lawsuits in the public interest?


-4

Tom, I have spent hundreds of hours as a member of REACT Alliance and do not get paid. It’s all volunteer work like it is for the rest of our board members. I do it because I love our coast and want to protect it for us and our children. So, you are wrong. I’m not in it for the money.


As a side note, I’m not claiming to be a saint. However, you might want to look up St. Thomas

More the patron saint of public servants and politicians. He was a high-ranking official—the Lord Chancellor of England—who famously refused to compromise his principles for the sake of power or wealth. It cost him his life.

I may not be a saint, but like More, I believe that true wealth isn’t found in a paycheck, but in “cheerfulness, peace of mind, and freedom from anxiety” that comes from doing what is right for your community. I’m a servant of this coast first, and no amount of money can change that.


19

Pretty words; hope they’re true. I do note however, that you don’t disclose your payout for the Avila beach payout – but that’s your right.


I also observe that post-cleanup avila beach is much more gentrified and upscale than the cool blue collar vibe I enjoyed before the lawsuit and cleanup. Progress, I guess, but I miss the old Avila…


Do agree with your opinion piece, though…


0

“North Malibu”


0

Well written informative piece Saro, thank you. And great to see you helping to run REACT. We need more people stepping up and getting involved. It blows my mind that surf rider and other “environmentalists” have sold out to these wind farm fraudsters.


27
1 2