The Stakes: State grant spurs possibility of wind turbine manufacturing in Richmond

First in a two-part series on Richmond’s exploration into wind turbine manufacturing. This series is part of “The Stakes,” a UC Berkeley Journalism project on executive orders and actions affecting Californians and their communities.

After decades of manufacturing declines, Richmond leaders have a new pitch: retool the city’s industrial legacy for clean energy.

In October, California placed a bet on that vision. The California Energy Commission awarded Richmond a $750,000 grant to study the feasibility of bringing wind turbine manufacturing to the city’s port. More specifically, exploring the development of a fabrication and logistics facility for floating offshore wind turbines. 

While the grant covers the cost of the planning phase, the actual construction of a facility capable of handling and manufacturing floating turbine components is a significant financial undertaking. For context, a similar project in California focused on staging and assembly has an estimated cost of $4.7 billion.

The development of this type of facility is heavily reliant on public investment, as the required infrastructure upgrades are often too costly for private entities alone, making state funding critical for “de-risking” the investment and attracting private capital.

Proponents, however, remain supportive of the proposal and argue the long-term benefits of the facility justify the effort.

“A project like this will bring revenue and jobs to the city, and by building green infrastructure we’re also going to have a better environment,” said Richmond Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, a champion of city environmental initiatives. 

While wind turbines produce green energy, they are not entirely good for the environment. For example, construction of an offshore platform requires dredging, which would disturb marine habitats and kick up contaminants that have settled on the sea floor. Such a project also would bring more vessels — and subsequent air, water and noise pollution — as platforms and turbines are assembled and installed. Once in operation, turbines would be hazardous to birds. And eventually, they would need to be decommissioned, posing additional environmental concerns. 

For the past several years, California’s long coastline has been seen as an asset to transitioning the state to alternative energy. In 2021, the Biden administration announced the development of first-of-a-kind offshore wind energy projects in central and northern California, aiming to deploy 4.6 gigawatts by 2030, enough energy to power 1.6 million homes. 

By December 2022, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management secured over $750 million in bids from energy companies willing to jump in the water, and began leasing sites. It seemed only a matter of time before the Biden era industrial policy spurred a wind production boom, setting off a race between cities to attract the industry.

But investment was abruptly halted by the Trump administration, which canceled $679 million in nationwide funding for offshore wind infrastructure projects in August. To recoup some of those losses, California legislators authorized $225.7 million in state funds in September for offshore wind ports and related facilities.

Adam Stern, executive director of the advocacy group Offshore Wind California, said in a Sept. 12 statement that despite “the unfortunate federal headwinds this year,” the grants were a “proof point of California’s progress and continued support for offshore wind.”

The Energy Commission’s award to Richmond is part of a larger $42.5 million package for wind energy projects at five ports: Long Beach, $20 million; Humboldt Bay, $18.25 million; Port San Luis, $3 million; and Oakland, $750,000.

Much like Richmond, the Port of Oakland will use its grant money for a feasibility study to identify, evaluate and design port areas for a potential offshore wind manufacturing and staging facility.

If the facility does get built, skilled workers would be welding and fabricating blades that are nearly as long as a football field, over 330 feet long, weigh up to 77,000 pounds, and are made from materials such as fiberglass and carbon fiber reinforced polymers to keep them from breaking down in the ocean. The blades would then be staged and pre-assembled at the port before being shipped out for installation on platforms at sea.

Green-blue jobs

Richmond has long ties to the fossil fuel industry. The Chevron Refinery, which opened in 1902 as Standard Oil Co., pre-dates the city itself. Today, Chevron is the city’s largest employer, with 2,500 workers and its refinery produces 257,000 barrels of crude oil per day. 

Two decades ago, nearly 20% of the city’s workforce was employed in manufacturing, the highest rate in the East Bay, according to Richmond’s economic development plan. But Richmond has lost at least 500 manufacturing jobs since then and has become increasingly reliant on Chevron, which also is the city’s biggest taxpayer.

City leaders want to position the port and its skilled workforce for the next generation of clean energy jobs, setting the goal in the city’s “Green-Blue New Deal” of creating 1,000 of these jobs by 2040. The term “green-blue” is meant to center sustainable ocean practices as part of greening the economy. The city also pledged to end all fossil fuel use by the same date. 

Tim Sbranti, executive director of the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council, described the grant — and the potential manufacturing facilities it could help unlock — as a “great opportunity” for Richmond’s work force. 

Richmond’s advantages

The agreement between Richmond and the state Energy Commission is about planning, identifying potential sites and taking development up to 30% of the design stage. Potential sites at Richmond’s port include Terminal 1, Terminal 2, Terminal 3 and Point Potrero Marine Terminal. 

The yet-to-be-named contractor, which is currently awaiting City Council approval, also will assess permitting and environmental challenges, develop a strategy for local workforce training and make inroads with community stakeholders. The study is slated for completion by March 2030. 

Charles Gerard, Richmond port director, said that the approval process will be completed this month and the contractor’s name will be made public once City Council approves the project. Gerard added that the development of a terminal could take five to 10 years.

“There’s a lot of variables related to the development and deployment of offshore wind and many of those are hard to predict,” Gerard said, adding that the lack of federal support would create delays.

If all goes well, there’s no guarantee manufacturers will move in. Officials positioned the Port of San Francisco as a potential hub for developing offshore wind infrastructure,  self-funding a conceptual plan in 2023. However, according to Eric Young, port spokesperson, the project has not secured any additional funding since then.

Richmond, too, has been looking at bringing offshore wind infrastructure to the city for a few years.

In April 2022, the city awarded a $300,000 contract to consulting firm Appraccel, LLC, which published a report  about a year later recommending offshore wind turbine manufacturing as key to bringing in new jobs. That helped Richmond leaders boost their case for the state grant, Zepeda said. 

In June 2023, the City Council received an assessment by the consultant firm Moffatt & Nichol about the potential to host an offshore wind manufacturing facility. The assessment, which was part of a regional study paid for by the U.S. Interior Department, identified a few hurdles, particularly manufacturing constraints in the port and uncertainties around the assembly process.

It found Richmond had several advantages, including a navigable channel, a sheltered harbor, large assembly yards and a skilled workforce. 

When presented with the report that June, Richmond City Council was taken with the idea.

“The state of California has a new industry being created with offshore wind that requires all ports to make it work,” said Mayor Eduardo Martinez. “Richmond is set to be one of those ports.” 

(Top photo courtesy of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

Coming Tuesday: Can Richmond play a part in the offshore wind turbine project being built in Humboldt Bay?

---

Federal grant cut threatens Humboldt Bay project and Richmond’s hope to join it