Dueling Winds: Is Offshore the Next Battle Ground Between California
and Texas?
(written in March 2011)
Recently there have been several comparisons between Texas and California that evaluate economic opportunities, energy, and lessons each state can learn from the other. The Economist published an entire issue primarily dedicated to the comparison in July 20091 and a few months later The New York Times published an article that dubbed these two states “Renewable Energy’s Odd Couple.”2 California has had a renewable energy program since 19983 and both states have passed renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The Texas RPS, initially passed in 1999, requires 5,880MW be installed by 20154 and California’s standard, initially passed three years later, requires one-third of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020.3
California started building onshore wind turbines for electricity generation in the 1970’s3 and led the industry for years. The passage of the RPS in Texas spurred the wind energy industry initially in the western, and now coastal, parts of the state and in 20065 Texas’ installed capacity surpassed that of California. California is now third in total installed6 capacity behind Texas and Iowa.6
Offshore wind power generation in the United States is a hot topic. Offshore sites use larger wind turbines than sites onshore which improves profitability, and offshore winds tend to be stronger, more consistent, and less turbulent which makes offshore wind a more dependable source for electricity generation.
While the federal government offers tax credits and loan guarantees for renewable energy projects that can benefit offshore wind projects in both states,7 certain problems have yet to be solved for either state. It is unclear how transmission infrastructure will connect offshore wind projects to the power grids8,9. In both California and Texas public utilities commissions approve new routes for transmission lines and then lines are built by utilities that pass the expense to customers.
So how do the potential for offshore wind power in Texas and California compare? Will there be a duel between the states over offshore wind?
What are the offshore wind resources of each state?
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) 1993 wind resource map in Figure 1 shows resource information including offshore areas. The resource is separated into seven classes by average wind speed at a height of 50m. Ratings of class 4, corresponding to 7m/s and a power density of 400-500W/m2, or higher are considered useful for power generation with large turbines. It is possible that some areas rated as class 3 could be suitable for utility-scale generation depending on the technology available and the presence of wind shear at higher altitudes.10
Figure 1: United States Wind Resource Map, 1993 [10]
Analysis of NREL maps shows that winds along the California coast range from class 2 to class 7 with most of the coast rating at least class 3. Approximately 43% of the state’s of coastline is classified between 5 and 7 close-in to shore.11 The Texas offshore wind resource ranges from class 3 to class 5 with most of the close-in upper Texas coast rated as class 3 although some areas increase to class 4 offshore. The lower Texas coast is evenly split between classes 4 and 5 except extremely close to shore where class 4 dominates.12 Clearly, California has a stronger wind resource in some places than Texas, but the strength in California varies with location whereas it is fairly evenly distributed in Texas.
What about coastal geology?
The water depths and bottom types at the project site are the major factors that determine what type of foundation is required for an offshore installation. There are four predominant designs of bases for offshore wind structures, however, most projects are on monopile foundations—single piles driven into the seafloor in water depths up to 40m.13 For deeper water, tripods and jackets can be used in depths up to 200m, but beyond 200m floating foundations would be required, which are only now in the testing phase.14
Comparison of bathymetry, bottom, and soil data on coastal charts shows significant differences between the two states. The Texas coast has a fairly wide, shallow continental shelf that reaches approximately 105 nautical miles (nm) offshore along the upper coast and 60nm along the lower coast.15 The shelf slopes gently until it transitions into the continental slope at approximately the 100m-depth contour.15 The bottom predominantly consists of sand and mud with some clay along the upper coast.16
California’s continental shelf is relatively narrower and steeper, and its width varies significantly depending on location. The bottom predominantly consists of sand or mud with some rocky areas.17 Along the northern third of the coast the average distance offshore to the 55m-depth contour is 3nm.18 Portions of the middle third of the coast extend out to 10nm before reaching 55m deep, but this is not consistent and that section of coastline has very steep continental slopes because of numerous submarine canyons. The average distance to the 55m-depth contour along the southern third is 5nm and the slopes vary resulting from the presence of coastal islands.17 In addition, the coast of California is tectonically active with numerous faults crossing the continental margin and coastal zone.18 The difference in gradient between the two coasts is illustrated easily. Along the Texas coast the maximum depth 9nm offshore is 40m15 while the corresponding depth in California can be as deep as 1500m.18
Who has jurisdiction where?
Offshore lands are publically owned. Most states are the property owners out to a distance of 3nm and federal government ownership extends from the seaward extent of state ownership out to the limit of the 200nm exclusive economic zone. This is the case in California and the State Lands Commission (SLC) manages state tidelands.19 Texas, however, is one of the few exceptions resulting from differences in original land surveys. Texas owns submerged lands out to 9nm and the General Land Office (GLO) manages this land.20
This difference in ownership has important impacts. To install a project in state waters requires a lease and permits from the state and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)21—the agency with jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States. To install a project in federal waters a lease and permit are required from the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE),22 the agency that manages federal offshore lands, but permits and leases required to work in state waters still are necessary for transmission to reach the shore. Projects in federal waters suffer a larger regulatory burden as a result. The fact that Texas owns and controls an additional 6nm from the shore is important because it allows a more extensive area to be developed without additional federal requirements.
This difference in jurisdiction also is important because of the potential for resistance to seeing offshore wind turbines above the horizon. A person with a height of eye 6ft above sea level sees the horizon 3nm away23. A project constructed within 3nm would be entirely visible,23 as would be the case in California. At 9nm, the seaward extent of Texas’ waters, turbines would appear smaller, simply based on a linear scale, and the Earth’s curvature partially obstructs the turbines making them appear even smaller above the horizon. In Texas, projects placed farther offshore still receive the regulatory benefit of being in state waters while reducing resistance based on visual impacts.
Do project-friendly regulatory frameworks exist?
Texas has a history of leasing lands for energy production and an established leasing process for offshore land. The GLO adapted the offshore oil and gas leasing process to offshore wind leasing in 2004. To develop an offshore wind project in Texas, a company nominates the tracts it wants to use and then bids on them at a public sale. The GLO executes a lease with the winning bidder, but no permit or environmental impact statement (EIS) is required as a condition of obtaining the lease.21 To build the project the company will have to obtain a Corps permit, which includes an EIS. This process allows a company to secure an exclusive right to work on the desired location before spending money on site assessments or an EIS. To date, Texas has issued eight offshore wind leases, but no projects have applied for a Corps permit.24
In 1969 California imposed a moratorium on new offshore drilling and in 1994 passed a law designating all California tidelands as a coastal sanctuary, formally prohibiting any new oil and gas leases.17 As a result the state does not have a well-established process for offshore oil and gas leasing to adapt to offshore wind. Personnel at the SLC indicated that they would follow their surface leasing process. To do a project in California state waters following this process requires a lease and permit from the state, which could require an EIS25, and a Corps permit that also requires an EIS. Thus a project may be required to do two EIS’s. The SLC or the Corps may accept an EIS prepared for the other, but this is not guaranteed. The cost of an EIS can range from several hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars.25 The risk of having to spend money on two EIS’s, especially without a secured right to work at the desired location, could be a significant deterrent to investment.
On a positive note, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has proposed a wave energy pilot project in California state waters.26 There are additional federal permitting requirements through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for this type of project that are not required for offshore wind, but the SLC and FERC are considering an agreement that would combine the EIS’s for the project.27 If California approves this agreement and signs the lease it could serve as a template for other renewable offshore projects.
So how do they compare?
California has a stronger wind resource in some places than Texas, but the steeper slope of the continental shelf and geologic features reduce the area where offshore turbine foundations can be placed. In contrast, the gradual slope of Texas’ continental shelf and lack of canyons or tectonic activity allow foundations to be installed in most areas. Perhaps development of additional areas offshore California will be possible after the technology for floating foundations is established.
The larger geographic extent of Texas’ jurisdiction reduces the regulatory burden and risk for offshore wind projects. Additionally as a result of the state’s history of offshore development people may be less likely to resist visual impacts. Texas has been proactive in courting development by adapting existing leasing procedures and not requiring an EIS aside from that required for the federal permit. In contrast, California’s regulatory process is more cumbersome and the lack of recent offshore leasing history introduces uncertainty and potential extra costs to offshore wind projects.
Will there be a duel between Texas and California over offshore wind? Despite its significant wind resource, for now at least it seems that California isn’t in the fight.
Sources:
1 The Economist. 2009. “America’s Future,” July 11.
2 Galbraith, Kate. 2009. “Renewable Energy’s Odd Couple.” The New York Times. October 18, 3(L).
3 California’s Renewable Energy Programs. 2010. The California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html (accessed April 2010).
4 Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard. 2010. State Energy Conservation Office. http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_rps-portfolio.htm (accessed April 2010).
5 American Wind Energy Association. 2007. “Wind Power Outlook 2007.” http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/Outlook_2007.pdf
6 American Wind Energy Association. 2009. “Wind Industry Annual Market Report Year Ending 2009 Press Release.” http://www.awea.org/reports/Annual_Market_Report_Press_Release_Teaser.pdf
7 Loan Guarantee Solicitation Announcement. 2010. US Department of Energy. http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/CTRE.pdf (accessed April 2010)
8 Transmission for Renewables. 2010. California Public Utilities Commission. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/transmission.htm (accessed April 2010)
9 CREZ Transmission Information Center. 2010. Public Utility Commission of Texas. http://www.texascrezprojects.com/overview.aspx (accessed April 2010)
10 Wind Powering America. 2010. US Department of Energy. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_template.asp?stateab=ca (accessed April 2010)
11 Wind Powering America – California 50m Wind Resource Map. 2010. US Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/ca_50m_800.jpg (accessed March 2010)
12 Wind Resource Offshore Texas, wind Power Density at 50m. 2010. State Energy Conservation Office. http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/zzz_re/re_offshore_pwr50m.pdf (accessed March 2010)
13 European Wind Energy Association. “Oceans of Opportunity: Harnessing Europe’s Largest Domestic Energy Resource.” 2009.
14 Hywind: Putting Wind Power to the Test. 2010. Statoil. http://www.statoil.com/en/technologyinnovation/newenergy/renewablepowerproduction/onshore/pages/karmoy.aspx (accessed March 2010)
15 Uchupi, Elazar. 1967. “Bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico.” Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
16 Chart No. 11300 Galveston to Rio Grande. 2008. US Department of Commerce National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 42nd ed.
17 Chart No. 18020 San Diego to Cape Mendocino. 2007. US Department of Commerce National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 38th ed.
18 Map No. 114010 California Geologic Data Map Series: Map #1 – Faults, Volcanoes, Thermal Springs, and Wells. 1975. California Division of Mines and Geology.
19 California Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing. 2010. County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Energy Division. http://www.countyofsb.org/energy/information/CAleasing.asp#governance (accessed April 2010)
20 State Lands. 2010. Texas General Land Office. http://www.glo.state.tx.us/statelands.html (accessed April 2010)
21 Texas General Land Office. 2010. “General Land Office Sealed Bid Windpower Lease Sale Bidding Instructions.” Unpublished.
22 Renewable Energy Program. 2010. US Minerals Management Service. http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/index.htm (accessed March)
23 Bowditch, Nathaniel. 1981. American Practical Navigator, Vol II. 1981 ed. Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic/topographic Center.
24 Texas General Land Office. 2010. “Wind Energy Leases Along the Texas Coast.” http://www.glo.state.tx.us/energy/sustain/pdfs/Wind_OffshoreLeases.pdf
25 California State Lands Commission. 2010. “Application Guidelines.” http://www.slc.ca.gov/Online_Forms/LMDApplication/APPLICATION_GUIDELINES.pdf
26 Humboldt WaveConnect Power Project. 2010. Pacific Gas & Electric. http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/cleanenergy/waveconnect/projects.shtml (accessed April 2010)
27 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2010. “HWG Permitting Authority Subcommittee Meeting Summary March 18, 2010.” http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/pge/waveconnect/hwg_permitting_authority_subcommittee_meeting_summary_march%20.pdf