By Barron Nguyen
California voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 4, signaling a big shift for how the state is addressing a wide range of risk concerns that scientists say are linked to worsening global climate change.
Prop. 4 wasn’t considered widely controversial, overshadowed by bolder ballot measures on criminal justice reform and affordable housing, among others. But the measure’s passage now raises questions, likely to divide the state’s environmental community, over how to disburse California’s largest–ever public investment in climate resilience.
Prop. 4 will raise $10 billion through a state bond issue to be spent on a broad assortment of issues — including water use, wildfire prevention, sustainable agriculture, habitat restoration and clean energy. Earmarked is a $475 million investment into offshore wind farms.
The Nature Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit, was one of the biggest donors in support of Prop. 4, arguing that the bond issue would “help prepare Californians for the impacts of climate change” and that “taking action now [would be] the most fiscally responsible way to protect California’s future.”
Some of the measure’s opponents included the Republican Minority Leader in the State Senate, Brian Jones, whose 40th senatorial district covers inland San Diego County. Jones argued that Prop. 4’s promises are “vaguely defined and, in some cases, dubiously labeled.”
Some of the language for the measure’s proposals, left intentionally open, leaves flexibility for state officials to determine where appropriate funding should be directed.
One area where the debate is likely to be contentious centers on how to allocate Prop. 4 funding to support wind farms while also protecting marine sanctuaries and coastal communities.
Even before voters decided Prop. 4’s fate, agencies and policymakers were looking to retrofit the Port of Humboldt Bay and Port of Long Beach, building terminals for the construction of floating wind turbines to service two proposed offshore wind farms in Humboldt County and San Luis Obispo County, respectively.
Although the state previously approved $10.5 million to upgrade the Port of Humboldt Bay, interest has grown among policymakers for construction of a Central Coast terminal to support future wind farms in the 376-square mile area off the coast of San Luis Obispo County, dubbed the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area, despite some concerns raised by local residents.
The Port San Luis Harbor District announced plans earlier this year for a study to evaluate the potential benefits, costs and concerns associated with building an offshore wind terminal in collaboration with the port infrastructure company Clean Energy Terminals. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors hired its own private partner, Mott McDonald, voting to allocate $1 million in Caltrans grants for another study covering three possible locations for the terminal in San Luis Obispo County. Those sites are Port San Luis, Cal Poly Pier and Morro Bay.
Some members of the Central Coast community have expressed concerns over whether further investments into offshore energy development, instead of spending money on projects that prioritize environmental health, would be the right solution.
In September, addressing the port feasibility study with Mott McDonald, local resident Eric Greening noted how “climate action should focus on drawdown via living natural systems.” This echoed a criticism from others that the state should focus on conservation policies for parks, forests and habitats that would bring down fossil fuel emissions rather than carbon offsets promised by wind energy.
Despite the concerns, many in the private green-energy sector have stuck with California’s continued efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources such as offshore wind.
Three companies have poured $425 million into securing leases within the Morro Bay offshore wind zone after a sale in 2022 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency responsible for the management of the country’s offshore mineral and energy resources.
Federal and international players are keeping a keen eye on California’s investment into wind energy. California joined 13 other states last year to work with the Biden administration to meet offshore wind development goals through the Federal-State Offshore Wind Implementation Partnership.
Even with increasing support, some experts say more private and public contributions into port infrastructure nearby is needed — including funds from Prop. 4, which would make maintenance servicing and construction easier.
Jennifer Mattox, environmental program manager and tribal liaison for the California State Lands Commission, underscored the necessity of a seaport on the Central Coast during a panel with offshore wind specialists involved with port development in the area. She described how “there are some issues with navigation, for safety, for greenhouse gas emissions if you’re towing a fully assembled turbine which is about a thousand feet across and a thousand feet high from Seattle or Humboldt or even from L.A.”
A past study commissioned by Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County had found that a port closer to the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area would reduce costs.
But some argue that California’s investment into offshore wind, including from Prop. 4, may do more harm than good, placing coastal environments at risk and threatening Native Americans’ cultural ties to the land.
The Morro Bay Wind Energy Area has attracted opposition from the Responsible Energy Adaptation for California’s Transition (REACT) Alliance, a local nonprofit established by residents to oppose the wind farm. The group argues that a proposed expansion of offshore energy could potentially threaten protected marine ecosystems, including the newly established Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
Mandy Davis, founder and president of the REACT Alliance, described Morro Bay as “not a viable alternative” for a port. The “ridiculousness of even looking at Morro Bay is pretty mind blowing,” she said, because of argued adverse impacts on marine life.
Violet Sage Walker, chairwoman of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council and one of the first advocates for the establishment of the marine sanctuary, has focused her criticism on the placement of undersea transmission cables linking the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area to land. She cited concerns for the marine environmental and cultural lands, a view shared by other associates of the tribe.
In a written testimony to Congress’s House Committee on Natural Resources, Sage Walker emphasized a combined effort “that doesn’t exclude conservation, marine sanctuaries, tribal people, or marginalized communities.” She added that offshore wind “needs to be a collaborative process — not a combative one.”
A central concern centered on how to accommodate underwater transmission lines through the marine sanctuary that would link the wind farm to the existing Diablo Valley Canyon Power Plant, enabling power generated offshore to be quickly connected to California’s electrical grid. That issue was resolved when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the final boundary designation in October, after months of negotiations aided by the Biden administration, that satisfied both conservation concerns and offshore wind leaseholders.
Although some call for the state to shift its priority towards environmental issues rather than green energy projects, Prop. 4 will provide $1.2 billion towards conservation and habitat restoration, a sum much greater than the $475 million earmarked for offshore wind port infrastructure.
An additional $325 million is planned to upgrade California’s electrical grid system, alongside $50 million to increase the state’s energy storing capacity.
