California Offshore Wind Story Began in 2016: How Morro Bay Became the Center of a Decade-Long Energy Battle
California offshore Wind Did Not Begin With the 2026 Lawsuit
The legal battle between California and the Trump administration over offshore wind in 2026 has roots that go back much further than the current dispute.
The story began taking shape in 2016, when California and the federal government started building a formal framework for studying and eventually leasing federal waters for offshore renewable-energy development.
At that time, there was no Golden State Wind lease, no completed offshore wind farm and no 2026 court case.
What existed was an idea—and a federal process designed to determine whether California’s deep offshore waters could support a commercial floating-wind industry.
That distinction matters.
The controversy that emerged a decade later was built on decisions, studies, consultations and investments made over several administrations.
In other words, the 2026 fight is not the beginning of the California offshore-wind story.
It is the latest chapter of a process that started in 2016.
1. Why 2016 Became the Starting Point
In January 2016, BOEM—the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management—received an unsolicited request from Trident Winds LLC for a commercial offshore wind lease off California.
The proposed project was aimed at the waters near Morro Bay, on California’s Central Coast.
According to BOEM, the proposed project could initially generate roughly 800 megawatts using approximately 100 floating foundations, with the possibility of eventually reaching around 1,000 MW if transmission capacity and electricity-market conditions supported expansion.
The proposed lease area covered about 67,963 acres and was located approximately 33 nautical miles northwest of Morro Bay in water depths of roughly 2,600 to 3,300 feet.
This was significant because California’s deep offshore waters made conventional fixed-bottom wind turbines difficult.
The emerging solution was floating offshore wind technology.
Instead of permanently fixing the turbine foundation into the seabed, floating platforms could potentially operate in much deeper water.
That technological possibility made the California coast particularly interesting for offshore wind developers.
2. May 2016 — California and BOEM Begin Formal Planning
The federal government did not simply approve the Trident Winds proposal.
A formal planning process had to begin.
On May 31, 2016, BOEM announced that it would work with California to establish an Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force.
California Governor Jerry Brown had requested the creation of the task force earlier that month.
The purpose was to bring federal agencies, California officials, local governments, tribes, industry and other stakeholders into the same planning process.
This was an important institutional step.
The state and federal governments were essentially saying:
Before offshore wind leases are sold, the government needs to understand where development might conflict with fisheries, shipping, defense activities, environmental resources and other ocean uses.
That planning principle would become extremely important years later when national-security and environmental questions became part of the offshore-wind controversy.
3. October 2016 — The California Offshore Renewable Energy Task Force Meets
The first meeting of the California Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force took place in Sacramento on October 13, 2016.
BOEM and California described the task force as a mechanism for planning future renewable-energy development in federal offshore waters.
The group was expected to examine possible areas for renewable-energy research and commercial development while considering environmental and competing ocean uses.
This was not yet a construction approval.
It was planning.
That difference is critical.
2016 therefore produced three major developments:
- A commercial offshore-wind lease request emerged.
- BOEM began assessing competitive interest.
- California and federal agencies established a formal planning structure.
Together, these steps created the foundation for what would later become California’s offshore-wind leasing program.
4. August 2016 — BOEM Tests Whether Other Companies Are Interested
On August 18, 2016, BOEM published a Request for Interest in the Federal Register.
The purpose was to find out whether companies other than Trident Winds were interested in developing offshore wind in the proposed area.
This is an important legal and commercial step because federal renewable-energy leases generally require competitive procedures when there is competitive interest.
BOEM subsequently received an expression of interest from Statoil Wind US LLC.
That response helped establish that the proposed California offshore-wind area was not merely a single-company concept.
There was broader industry interest.
BOEM therefore moved toward a competitive planning and leasing process.
5. Why Morro Bay Was Important
Morro Bay was not selected randomly.
The Central California coast offered an attractive combination of offshore wind resources and proximity to California’s electricity system, ports and coastal communities.
But the region also presented serious challenges.
The water is deep.
That meant floating technology was potentially necessary.
The area also had competing uses, including:
- commercial fishing;
- marine ecosystems;
- shipping and navigation;
- military activities;
- coastal communities;
- ports;
- cultural and tribal interests;
- transmission infrastructure.
This is why the federal process required extensive consultation rather than simply approving a turbine project.
BOEM later reported that it and California conducted extensive outreach involving tribal governments, state agencies and public stakeholders. More than 80 meetings were eventually held during the broader planning process.
6. The Technology Challenge: California Needed Floating Wind
California’s offshore-wind opportunity was different from many established European offshore-wind markets.
In shallow water, developers can use foundations attached directly to the seabed.
California’s best offshore wind areas are much deeper.
That created a technological challenge.
Floating offshore wind works differently
A floating turbine is mounted on a floating platform that is secured to the seabed with mooring systems and anchors.
Electricity is transmitted back toward shore through subsea cables.
The advantage is that turbines can potentially operate farther offshore in deeper water where strong winds are available.
The disadvantage is that the technology is more complicated and, historically, more expensive than mature fixed-bottom offshore wind.
That meant California was effectively trying to build not only an energy project but also an emerging industrial supply chain.
7. 2017 — The Conversation Moves Beyond a Single Developer
By 2017, California’s offshore-wind discussion was no longer simply about whether Trident Winds could develop one project.
BOEM and California continued public engagement and planning.
BOEM’s later historical summary records a California Offshore Wind Public Information Meeting in April 2017 as part of this continuing process.
The significance of this period was institutional.
The government was collecting information about:
- ocean conditions;
- fishing;
- environmental resources;
- navigation;
- military operations;
- potential transmission;
- ports;
- coastal impacts;
- public concerns.
This information would later be used to determine where commercial offshore leases could be offered.
8. 2018 — The Process Becomes More Competitive
A major step came in October 2018.
On October 19, 2018, BOEM published a Call for Information and Nominations for potential commercial wind-energy leasing areas off northern and central California.
This was broader than the original 2016 request.
BOEM wanted industry and the public to identify areas of interest and provide information about environmental resources, ocean uses and potential conflicts.
According to BOEM’s later summary:
- 118 comments were received;
- 14 nominations were submitted;
- 11 nominations concerned the Morro Bay Call Area.
Those figures demonstrate that offshore wind had moved from an individual developer’s proposal toward a broader commercial and public planning exercise.
9. Why Public Consultation Mattered
Offshore wind development can create benefits, but it can also produce conflicts.
Fishermen may worry about access to fishing grounds.
Coastal communities may worry about views and tourism.
Environmental organizations may raise concerns about marine wildlife.
Military agencies may examine potential interference with training, testing or other operations.
Tribal governments may raise cultural and resource concerns.
That meant California’s offshore-wind planning had to balance several interests simultaneously.
The later federal environmental review process would rely heavily on information gathered during this earlier planning period.
This is one reason the 2016–2020 period should not be dismissed as “nothing happened.”
A large part of the work was information gathering and conflict identification.
10. 2019–2020 — Scientific and Technical Planning Continues
During 2019 and 2020, the offshore-wind program continued to develop through workshops, scientific studies and stakeholder engagement.
BOEM’s California planning history lists a number of activities during this period, including:
- the California Offshore Wind Energy Planning Outreach process;
- scientific and technical discussions;
- offshore-wind webinars;
- public and stakeholder engagement;
- California Energy Commission workshops;
- National Renewable Energy Laboratory discussions.
BOEM’s historical materials describe the broader outreach effort as involving more than 80 meetings with stakeholders, tribal governments and government agencies.
This period was therefore about building the information base necessary for future leasing.
11. 2020 Was a Quiet but Important Year
For readers looking only at headlines, 2020 may appear to be a relatively quiet year.
But offshore-wind development does not move like a normal construction project.
Before turbines can be built, developers and regulators need to answer fundamental questions:
Where should turbines go?
How deep is the water?
What happens to fisheries?
What marine species could be affected?
How will electricity reach land?
Which ports could support construction and maintenance?
Could military operations be affected?
What happens to coastal communities?
What environmental reviews are required?
These questions take years to study.
California and BOEM were building that foundation throughout the 2016–2020 period.
12. The Most Important Fact: No Golden State Wind Lease Yet
This point should be made very clearly.
2016–2020 was NOT the Golden State Wind lease period.
Golden State Wind did not receive the lease in 2016.
The 2016 process began with Trident Winds’ unsolicited request.
The federal government then evaluated competitive interest and continued broader planning.
The eventual Morro Bay Wind Energy Area was developed through later federal planning.
The competitive California offshore-wind lease auction did not occur until December 2022. BOEM says five companies ultimately won California lease areas with combined high bids exceeding $757 million.
Golden State Wind’s lease came later.
This distinction prevents a common historical mistake in news reporting.
13. What Was the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area?
The eventual Morro Bay Wind Energy Area became much larger than the original 2016 Trident Winds proposal.
BOEM’s later planning documents describe the Morro Bay WEA as approximately:
240,898 acres
or roughly:
376 square miles
and approximately:
20 miles offshore.
The area was eventually designated as the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area in November 2021, after additional planning and consultation.
Therefore, the 2016–2020 period should be understood as the foundation stage, while 2021–2022 became the decisive federal leasing stage.
14. Why the 2016 Planning Matters to the 2026 Lawsuit
This is where the historical story connects to today’s legal dispute.
In 2026, California is challenging the federal government’s cancellation of the Golden State Wind lease.
One of California’s arguments concerns the extensive federal and state process that preceded the lease.
BOEM’s own historical record shows that California and federal agencies had been working together on offshore-wind planning since 2016, with extensive stakeholder engagement and environmental review.
That history matters because the 2026 dispute is not occurring in an empty regulatory space.
The lease emerged from a process that involved:
planning → public participation → environmental review → federal-state coordination → competitive leasing.
California’s legal argument therefore sits on top of a decade-long administrative history.
15. A Decade of Planning Created Economic Expectations
Another important point is economic.
Offshore wind requires major infrastructure.
Developers need:
- ports;
- transmission;
- specialized vessels;
- engineering expertise;
- manufacturing;
- construction workers;
- maintenance facilities;
- training programs.
California later invested heavily in preparing its infrastructure and workforce for offshore wind.
The California Energy Commission says the state has worked with federal agencies, developers, tribes, labor groups, ports, fishermen, local governments and communities over roughly a decade to prepare for offshore wind. California says it has invested more than $100 million to prepare ports, transmission systems and industries.
That investment came later than 2016, but its roots can be traced to the planning framework created during this early period.
16. The Federal-State Relationship Was Built Before the Political Fight
One of the most interesting aspects of this history is that California’s offshore-wind program was not originally a purely state initiative.
Federal and state agencies worked together.
The 2016 task force was specifically designed to coordinate federal, state, local and tribal governments.
Later, the Department of Defense also became part of the offshore-wind planning discussion.
That matters because the 2026 controversy includes national-security arguments.
The history shows that defense considerations were not completely new to the process.
They were part of the planning framework from the beginning.
BOEM’s 2022 environmental documentation states that the 2021 federal-state agreement recognized the importance of military testing, training and operations and the need to protect national security.
17. What Changed Between 2016 and 2020?
The transformation can be summarized simply.
2016
A developer proposes a floating offshore wind project.
2016
BOEM and California create a formal renewable-energy planning task force.
2016
BOEM tests whether other companies are interested.
2017
Public information and stakeholder engagement continue.
2018
BOEM expands the process through a formal Call for Information and Nominations.
2019–2020
Scientific, environmental, technical and stakeholder work continues.
By the end of 2020
California has moved much closer to a structured offshore-wind leasing framework—but no Golden State Wind lease exists yet.
18. The Bigger Meaning of 2016–2020
The most important lesson from this period is that offshore wind was treated as a long-term infrastructure strategy, not a short-term energy project.
The government was attempting to answer difficult questions before allowing commercial development.
That included environmental impacts, fishing, tribal interests, military activity, navigation and economic infrastructure.
This slow process can appear frustrating when viewed from a yearly news cycle.
But it is also why the 2026 cancellation has such broad consequences.
By then, offshore wind was no longer merely an idea.
It had become connected to:
- federal leases;
- state energy planning;
- port investments;
- transmission planning;
- workforce programs;
- private investment;
- environmental review;
- national energy policy.
19. 2016–2020 Timeline
| Year | Major Development | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Trident Winds submits offshore-wind lease request | First major formal commercial interest off California |
| 2016 | BOEM begins California renewable-energy task force planning | Federal-state coordination begins |
| 2016 | BOEM issues Request for Interest | Tests competitive industry interest |
| 2017 | Public information and stakeholder engagement | Planning expands |
| 2018 | BOEM publishes Call for Information and Nominations | Broader commercial and public participation |
| 2019 | Scientific and stakeholder work continues | Environmental and technical information grows |
| 2020 | Planning and outreach continue | Foundation for later leasing process |
| 2021 | Morro Bay area advances toward formal WEA designation | Moves toward actual leasing |
| 2022 | Federal environmental review and auction | Commercial leases finally become possible |
The 2016–2020 history is supported by BOEM’s California planning records.
20. What Readers Should Remember
The California offshore-wind story did not begin with President Trump’s 2026 policy.
It did not begin with the Golden State Wind lease.
It did not even begin with the 2022 auction.
Its modern federal history began in 2016, when California and BOEM started building the planning framework for offshore renewable energy.
The first major commercial proposal came from Trident Winds.
The government then tested competitive interest.
California and federal agencies created a task force.
Public and tribal consultation expanded.
BOEM studied ocean areas and competing uses.
By 2018, the government was seeking wider industry nominations.
By 2020, the groundwork for future offshore-wind leasing had been laid.
The major commercial leasing decisions came later.
Conclusion: 2016 Was the Beginning of the Chain
Looking back from 2026, the most important point is simple:
The California offshore-wind controversy is the result of a decade-long policy chain.
The chain began with planning.
Planning led to environmental and technical studies.
Those studies led to designated wind areas.
The designated areas led to competitive leasing.
The leases led to private investment and infrastructure planning.
And eventually, changes in federal energy policy led to the 2026 cancellation dispute.
That is why understanding 2016–2020 is essential before understanding the lawsuits of 2026.
The next chapter is 2021, when the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area moved from long-term planning toward a much more concrete federal development and environmental-review process.
FAQ
When did California offshore wind planning begin?
Modern federal-state planning for California offshore wind began in 2016, when BOEM and California established the California Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force and began evaluating commercial offshore-wind opportunities.
What happened in 2016 at Morro Bay?
Trident Winds submitted an unsolicited request for a commercial offshore-wind lease. BOEM then issued a Request for Interest to determine whether other companies were interested.
Was Golden State Wind already operating in 2016?
No. Golden State Wind’s federal lease came much later. The California offshore-wind auction took place in December 2022.
Was a wind farm built at Morro Bay during 2016–2020?
No. The 2016–2020 period was primarily planning, consultation, technical study and preparation for future leasing.
Why is 2016 important to the 2026 lawsuit?
Because it marks the beginning of the federal-state planning process that eventually produced California’s offshore-wind lease program. The 2026 dispute concerns the reversal of decisions that developed through that much longer process.
Editorial Fact Check
Important: This article does not claim that Golden State Wind existed as a finalized lease in 2016. The correct historical sequence is:
2016 Trident Winds request → federal/state planning → 2018 broader Call → 2021 Morro Bay WEA advancement → 2022 environmental review and auction → 2023 lease → 2026 cancellation dispute.
That distinction is important for accurate California local-news reporting.