Proponents of offshore wind have had little to celebrate this year, as economic contractions and outright antagonism from the Trump administration have cast a pall of uncertainty on the industry. A technology that, just two years ago, the Biden administration said would generate 30 megawatts and power 10 million homes by 2030 appears to have fallen out of step with the political moment.Some local leaders have said that what once seemed like an imminent influx of clean, renewable energy may now be a decade or more away. Still, projects like the Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Heavy Lift Marine Terminal Project are diligently moving forward, according to sources interviewed by the Times-Standard. And offshore wind’s supporters are challenging the administration’s efforts to curtail wind energy development.“Offshore wind is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the North Coast’s rural economy,” California Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) told the Times-Standard via email. “Estimates project over 1,000 new jobs for port development alone here in Humboldt. But now thanks to President Trump’s deranged love of coal and fossil fuels, all this investment in rural America and smart climate policy is in serious jeopardy.“But California is fighting back and taking the President to court to stop this idiotic action. A huge amount of capital has already been invested off the Humboldt coastline, and we’re going to keep leading the charge combatting our climate crisis and growing this nation-leading economy.”This month, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he joined a coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia in filing a complaint challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s “unlawful Presidential Memorandum halting federal approvals of wind-energy development.”A coalition of environmental groups joining the AG’s complaint characterized that “temporary cessation” as a “government-wide ban on new wind energy projects.”EPIC, along with nine other environmental groups, filed an amicus brief supporting the states’ lawsuit. The brief notes that “onshore and offshore wind power are critical to meeting U.S. energy needs” and that “wind power has enormous public health and climate benefits.” It also notes the Trump administration is weaponizing ostensible environmental concerns to enact what is, effectively, a ban on the development of renewable energy.“This (executive action) is impermissible in our view, and also seems to kind of intentionally mislead the public about the impact of offshore wind and then weaponizes that misinformation and … environmental laws in order to throw hurdles in the way of offshore wind development … and this has caused a lot of ripples,” Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), told the Times-Standard.Jennifer Kalt, executive director of Humboldt Waterkeeper, told the Times-Standard that, while efforts to support offshore wind via the Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Heavy Lift Marine Terminal Project are moving “full steam ahead,” she has, for some time, been skeptical of the timeline for offshore wind development in the region, recalling plans for “a lot of big impactful projects” proposed along the northern Humboldt Bay “that never came to be.”“A lot of studies are going to have to happen over the course of the next many years,” Kalt said, noting that the fate of — or at very least the timeline for — wind energy development in Humboldt County “might just depend on what happens in the next set of elections.”Still, she said, if it’s a zero-sum equation — offshore wind or offshore oil drilling as the Trump administration has perhaps implied — offshore drilling will happen “over our dead bodies.”In late April, RWE CEO Markus Krebber delivered remarks as part of the German energy company’s annual general meeting, stating: “In the U.S., … we have stopped our offshore activities for the time being.”“We remain cautious given the political developments,” Krebber said. “We have introduced higher requirements for future investments in the U.S. All necessary federal permits must be in place. Tax credits must be safe-harbored, and all relevant tariff risks mitigated. In addition, onshore wind and solar projects must have secured offtake at the time of the investment decision. Only if these conditions are met will further investments be possible, given the political environment.”Keep Reading
Democratic Party Representative Salud Carbajal has reintroduced the California Clean Coast Act into the US Congress.The California Clean Coast Act would permanently ban future offshore oil and gas leasing in areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California.The act was the first bill the congressman introduced as a member of Congress in an attempt to protect the state’s coast from offshore drilling and the devastating impact of oil spills.“Santa Barbara knows firsthand how devastating oil spills can be on our marine ecosystems and coastline,” said Carbajal. “I’m proud to lead this bill to ban future offshore oil drilling in our state and ensure California’s world-famous coastline is protected for future generations to enjoy.”“The California Clean Coast Act is critical to protecting our coast and climate from the threats of offshore oil drilling. From the 1969 blowout at Platform A to the 2015 pipeline spill along the Gaviota Coast, the California Coast has suffered the devastating effects of offshore oil development on communities who live, play, and work here. The California Clean Coast Act will preserve our precious coast from the threats of future oil spills and climate change,” added Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Environmental Defence Centre.Keep Reading
Years in development, the Waterfront Eureka Plan is approved but there’s room for changing it as there’s support for waiving minimum parking requirements in some of the plan’s districts.The plan gained unanimous approval by the city council at its May 6 meeting, closing a formative phase that included many public meetings.Ultimate approval still waits, however, as the state’s Coastal Commission will have to certify the plan as part of the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP).And as council approached its vote on the plan’s approval, there was talk of changing it to universally waive minimum parking requirements for residential development.During a public comment period, Colin Fiske of the Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities vouched for lifting the requirements throughout the plan area.“Eureka’s plans and policy documents acknowledge that these mandates are problematic and restrict new housing supply,” he said. “And a number of years ago, Eureka led the way in loosening parking mandates and providing needed exceptions. Now it’s just time to get rid of them altogether.”Jen Kalt of Humboldt Waterkeeper backed that up.“There’s been a lot of studies showing that this is the single policy that can make the biggest difference in increasing new housing development,” she said.Read More
Two governing bodies in Humboldt County are weighing in on a state Assembly bill that would change the permitting process for billboards. They want to keep existing permitting rules in place in times where billboards need to be shored up.The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved a letter in opposition to Assembly Bill 770 in a 4-1 vote last week. The Eureka City Council will consider a similar letter next week.If passed, the bill, sponsored by the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, would add a single sentence to the Business and Professions Code regarding billboard maintenance.” ‘Customary maintenance’ means an activity performed on a display for the purpose of maintaining the display in its existing physical configuration, including, but not limited to, replacing structural members, such as posts and internal bracing, and using stronger materials, without increasing the number of posts,” the bill’s text read.This addition would change the permitting process.According to an analysis from the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, existing regulations say customary maintenance is “action taken on a permitted display to actively preserve the display, in the display’s approved physical configuration and size, for the duration of the display’s normal life,” citing examples like changing the message, or adding a light box.The regulations, as they are, require owners to apply for a new permit in certain activities, like adding structural bracing. If passed, billboard owners can instead upgrade display structures without seeking the permit through Caltrans for the work.The Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization approved the bill with 20 voting in favor and 2 not voting last month. Some elected officials in Humboldt County, however, fear the bill will limit local control.Read More
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a letter of “strong opposition” to a new state bill that would would dramatically expand the definition of “customary maintenance” on billboards, allowing sign companies to make substantial changes to those structures without local government review or permitting.“No other structure of this size in the state of California gets that kind of waiver,” Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said during Tuesday’s meeting.The letter, which the board approved with a 4-1 vote, argues that Assembly Bill 770 would undermine local authority, compromise public safety and endanger environmental and cultural resources. It was placed on the agenda’s consent calendar, meaning it was scheduled to be adopted among a batch of items without specific deliberations, but First District Supervisor Rex Bohn pulled it for discussion.Second District Supervisor and Board Chair Michelle Bushnell said her understanding was that existing billboards already went through the necessary permitting processes, but Planning and Building Director John Ford said that’s not necessarily true.“A lot of the billboards that exist out there were never permitted,” he said, and he vouched for Wilson’s assertion that the bill would essentially allow billboards to be completely rebuilt without local review.Wilson also said the bill could nullify the legal precedent that was established after Viacom Outdoor, Inc. sued the City of Arcata in 2006 after city officials red-tagged billboards that had been toppled by storms, thereby preventing them from being re-erected.Read More
