Offshore Wind Energy on California’s Central Coast: Local Opinions and Priorities

Among all respondents, more than half (54%) were not very familiar with offshore wind energy or had no knowledge of it. Familiarity is highest in San Luis Obispo County, closest to the lease area, and lower in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

Overall, 57% of respondents support offshore wind off the California coast, and 22% oppose it, a gap of 35 percentage points. Support outweighs opposition in every county: by 39 points in Santa Barbara County, 37 in Ventura County, and 25 in San Luis Obispo County. Another 21% have not formed an opinion. Nearly all respondents with no opinion (96%) say they are not familiar with offshore wind energy. No opinion is also more common among younger residents (31% of 18–34 and 25% of 35–54, vs. 9% of 55 and older) and also among renters (28%, vs. 14% of homeowners).

To hear from the residents who live nearest to the proposed offshore wind developments, we oversampled seven coastal communities closest to the lease area. These residents have the most knowledge of offshore wind of anywhere in the region: 65% are familiar or very familiar with it, compared with 54% in the rest of San Luis Obispo County and 42–43% in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. Only 8% of residents in the coastal target area have no opinion on offshore wind.

Support for offshore wind off the California coast is similar across the region, including in the coastal target area, where 52% strongly or somewhat support it. Opposition is higher in the coastal target area: 40% oppose, 12 points more than in the rest of San Luis Obispo County and roughly double the opposition in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

When asked about offshore wind being developed off the Central Coast specifically, 68–75% of respondents support it. This question explained what offshore wind energy is and described the proposal for the Central Coast. It did not offer a “no opinion” option; residents had to choose a stance, so these figures are not directly comparable with the 57% support above. Before answering, each respondent was randomly shown one of five short messages about offshore wind, except for one control group, which received no message. Support was essentially the same no matter which message respondents saw: 68% in the no-message group and 68–75% across the message groups. The opposing message, stating that the turbines would be visible from shore with lights at night, did not affect the support level (68%, the same as the no-message group).

We tested if support for offshore wind would change based on how the electricity would be used to understand local energy priorities. Each respondent was randomly assigned a message with a purpose for the offshore wind generated electricity: to power homes on the Central Coast, power homes across California, electrify homes, electrify schools and community buildings, electric vehicle charging, or to power data centers, and then asked how much they support it. For all the purposes besides data centers, around three-fourths of respondents were supportive (70–78%), and there was no meaningful difference in the level of support between power uses. Data centers, however, only received 55% support, about 20 points below the other messages.

If offshore wind is developed off the Central Coast, there is the potential to negotiate “Community Benefit Agreements” with wind developers. These agreements would create benefits, investments, and/or programs that are designed by the local community and funded by the wind developers. Central Coast residents prioritized jobs for local residents, workforce development, and affordable housing, as well as transparent decision-making, community involvement, and green space and environmental programs.

When asked about a variety of issues connected to the development of offshore wind, both positive and negative, three issues were effectively tied. Residents prioritized making energy more affordable and increasing energy independence, and expressed a concern for potential impacts to marine ecosystems and wildlife. Ongoing research into the relationship between offshore wind and marine ecosystems will therefore be important to local communities. Creating well-paying jobs in local communities and protecting against climate change were both issues that Central Coast residents ranked in the middle. They ranked new industrial facilities in ports and the visual impact of turbines from the shoreline lowest. San Luis Obispo residents ranked impacts to marine ecosystems as their top issue, with energy independence second. Santa Barbara residents prioritized energy affordability first, and impacts to marine ecosystems second. Ventura residents also prioritized energy affordability first, with energy independence second.

In April and June 2026, the federal government paid two of the three Central Coast lease holders an estimated $232 million to end their leases: about $120 million to Golden State Wind⁴ and about $112 million to Invenergy.⁵ Each deal requires the company to invest an equal amount in other energy projects: oil and gas projects along the Gulf Coast in one case,⁴ and natural gas power plants in the Midwest and geothermal projects in the western U.S. in the other.⁵ Both agreements were announced (April 27 and June 17, 2026)^4,5 before the survey was fielded (July 14–29).

When asked how much they support the federal government paying companies to cancel their offshore wind leases and invest in oil and gas energy, 73% of Central Coast residents oppose it, including half (50%) who strongly oppose; 27% support it.

Respondents showed strong backing for active state involvement in offshore wind development, even in the face of the federal buyouts. 76% support California continuing to build necessary port and transmission infrastructure. 74% support the state continuing its offshore wind development efforts overall, and 71% would support the State of California leading offshore wind development rather than private companies. 75% support California suing or pursuing other legal action against the federal government, with 53% in strong support. Legal action is the response that divides most by political ideology: 97% of liberals support it, 74% of moderates, and 39% of conservatives (table below).

Battery energy storage systems store the electricity generated by clean power sources, like offshore wind, so that the power can be used when it is needed. 52% of Central Coast residents support battery storage facilities being built on the Central Coast, 22% oppose, and 25% have no opinion. Familiarity is similar to offshore wind: 52% are not very familiar with battery energy storage or have no knowledge of it. As with offshore wind, having no opinion goes with not knowing about the technology: nearly all of those with no opinion (97%) are not familiar with battery storage. Support is 55–56% in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties; San Luis Obispo County is more divided, with 47% in support and 37% opposed; 16% have no opinion, the lowest of the three counties. Support outweighs opposition by 39 points in Santa Barbara County and 36 in Ventura County, but by only 9 in San Luis Obispo County (and 9 in the target coastal area).

Select a county on the map to see county-level findings and how it compares to the tri-county average. Since some demographics are more likely to respond to a survey than others, we adjust each county’s results to represent that county’s population (see the Methods Appendix for weighting methodology). The accompanying county-specific brief can be downloaded below.