offshore

SACRAMENTO — In a bid to stabilize struggling crude-oil refineries, state lawmakers on Saturday passed a last-minute bill that would allow the construction of 2,000 new oil wells annually in the San Joaquin Valley while further restricting drilling along California’s iconic coastline.

The measure, Senate Bill 237, was part of a deal on climate and environmental issues brokered behind closed doors by Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister). The agreement aims to address growing concerns about affordability, primarily the price of gas, and the planned closure of two of the state’s 13 refineries.

California has enough refining capacity to meet demand right now, industry experts say, but the closures could reduce the state’s refining capacity by about 20% and lead to more volatile gas prices.

Democrats on Saturday framed the vote as a bitter but necessary pill to stabilize the energy market in the short term, even as the state pushes forward with the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

McGuire called the bills the “most impactful affordability, climate and energy packages in our state’s history.”

“We continue to chart the future, and these bills will put more money in the pockets of hard-working Californians and keep our air clean, all while powering our transition to a more sustainable economy,” McGuire said.

The planned April 2026 closure of Valero’s refinery in Benicia will lead to a loss of $1.6 billion in wages and drag down local government budgets, said Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City), who represents the area and co-authored SB 237.

Wilson acknowledged that the bill won’t help the Benicia refinery, but said that “directly increasing domestic production of crude oil and lowering our reliance on imports will help stabilize the market — it will help create and save jobs.”

Crude oil production in California is declining at an annualized rate of about 15%, about 50% faster than the state’s most aggressive forecast for a decline in demand for gasoline, analysts said this week.

The bill that lawmakers approved Saturday would grant statutory approval for up to 2,000 new wells per year in Kern County, the heart of California oil country.

That legislative fix, effective through 2036, would in effect circumvent a decade of legal challenges by environmental groups seeking to stymie drilling in the county that produces about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil.

“Kern County knows how to produce energy,” said state Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield). “We produce 80% of California’s oil, if allowed, 70% of the state’s wind and solar, and over 80% of the in-state battery storage capacity. We are the experts. We are not the enemy. We can help secure energy affordability for all Californians while enjoying the benefits of increased jobs and economic prosperity.”

Environmentalists have fumed over that trade-off and over a provision that would allow the governor to suspend the state’s summer-blend gasoline fuel standards, which reduce auto emissions but drive up costs at the pump, if prices spike for more than 30 days or if it seems likely that they will.

Some progressive Democrats voted against the bill, including Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José), the chair of the Legislative Progressive Caucus. The bill, Lee said, was a “regulatory giveaway to Big Oil” that would do little to stabilize gas prices or refineries, which are struggling because demand for oil is falling.

“We need to continue to focus on the future, not the past,” Lee said.

The bill also would make offshore drilling more difficult by tightening the safety and regulatory requirements for pipelines.

Lawmakers also voted to extend cap-and-trade, an ambitious climate program that sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions. Lawmakers signed off on a 15-year extension of the program, which has been renamed “cap and invest,” through 2045.

The program is seen as crucial for California to comply with its climate goals — including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 — and also brings in billions in revenue that helps fund climate efforts, including high-speed rail and safe drinking water programs.

Also included in the package was AB 825, which creates a pathway for California to participate in a regional electricity market. If passed, the bill would expand the state’s ability to buy and sell clean power with other Western states in a move that supporters say will improve grid reliability and save money for ratepayers.

Opponents fear that California could yield control of its power grid to out-of-state authorities, including the federal government.

SACRAMENTO — Amid concerns that refinery closures could send gas prices soaring, California legislative leaders Wednesday introduced a last-minute deal aimed at increasing oil production to shore up the struggling fossil-fuel industry while further restricting offshore drilling.

The compromise, brokered by Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, would streamline environmental approvals for new wells in oil-rich Kern County and increase oil production. The bill also would make offshore drilling more difficult by tightening the safety and regulatory requirements for pipelines.

With support from Rivas and McGuire, Senate Bill 237 is expected to pass as part of a flurry of last-minute activity during the Legislature’s final week. Newsom’s office said the governor “looks forward to signing it when it reaches his desk.”

The late introduction of the measure may force the Legislature to extend its 2025 session, set to end Friday, by another day because bills must be in print for 72 hours before they can be voted on.

The bill was introduced Wednesday as part of a package of energy policies that aims to address growing concerns about affordability and the closure of California oil refineries.

Valero and Phillips 66 plan to close plants in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County’s South Bay, which would reduce California’s in-state oil refining capacity by an estimated 20%. Industry experts warn that losing refining capacity could lead to more volatile gas prices.

The closures have become a sore spot for Newsom and for state Democrats, pitting their longtime clean-energy goals against concerns about the rising cost of living — a major political liability.

The package tries to strike a balance between the oil industry and climate activists, but neither side seemed particularly pleased: Environmental groups panned the agreements, and industry groups said they were still reviewing the bill.

“I don’t think what’s in that legislation is going to keep refineries open,” said Michael Wara, the director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program.

Crude oil produced in California makes up a fraction of what refineries turn into gasoline, he said, so although increasing production may help stabilize the decline of local oil companies, it won’t benefit the refineries.

The bill would grant statutory approval for up to 2,000 new wells per year in the oil fields of Kern County, the heart of California oil country, which produce about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil. That legislative fix, effective through 2036, would in effect circumvent years of legal challenges by environmental groups seeking to stymie drilling.

The state, which has championed and pioneered progressive environmental policies to slash carbon emissions, also is home to a billion-dollar oil industry that helps power its economy and has significant political sway in Sacramento. Despite steady declines in production, California remains the eighth-largest crude oil producing state in the nation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said the legislation “acknowledges the harms of oil drilling yet takes radical steps to boost it.”

“Removing environmental safeguards won’t reverse the terminal decline of California oil production but it will allow the industry to do more damage on its way out the door,” Kretzmann said, adding that it will have “no impact on refinery closures or gas prices.”

Ted Cordova, a vice president of E&B Natural Resources, an oil and natural gas company with operations in Kern County, told reporters earlier this week that California needs to reverse falling oil production to keep refineries operating. He said his firm gets emails from pipeline companies saying they are operating “at dangerously low levels, can you send us more?”

The bill also has the potential to create new hurdles for Sable Offshore Corp., the Texas oil firm that is moving toward restarting offshore drilling along Santa Barbara County’s coast, depending on when the company navigates through a litany of ongoing litigation and necessary state approvals.

The company has moved forward on repairs to the network of oil pipelines that burst in 2015 in one of the state’s worst oil spills, despite opposition from the California Coastal Commission.

The bill, which would take effect in January, reasserts the authority of the commission to oversee pipeline repair projects and requires the “best available technology” for any pipe transporting petroleum from offshore. That could add lengthy governmental reviews for Sable if the operation isn’t running by January.

The company, despite reports that it’s running low on capital and has suffered repeated setbacks, continues to say it hopes to begin sales as soon as possible.

Representatives from Sable did not respond to questions Wednesday.

Mary Nichols, an attorney at UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the bill probably wouldn’t affect the ongoing project off Santa Barbara County’s coast — which remains tied up in litigation — but makes clear that there’s no easy path for any other company looking to take advantage of offshore oil in federal waters under the oil-friendly Trump administration.

“This was designed to send a message to anybody else who might be thinking about doing the same thing,” said Nichols, a former chair of the California Air Resources Board.

Lawmakers also introduced a tentative deal on cap-and-trade, an ambitious climate program that has raised roughly $31 billion since its inception 11 years ago. The revised language would extend the program from its current 2030 deadline until 2045.

The program, last renewed in 2017, requires major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries to purchase credits for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit, and allows those companies buy or sell their unused credits at quarterly auctions.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City), one of the authors of SB 237, said she was glad to make progress on the push and pull between the state’s fuel needs and its commitment to green energy. She said she understands there are environmental concerns, but “at the end of the day, our purpose was an issue of petroleum supply.”

“We all don’t want an import model,” she said.

Times staff writers Melody Gutierrez and Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

The cancellation is Trump’s latest move against renewable energy, which the US president has dismissed a ‘scam’.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has moved to cancel $679m in federal funding for offshore wind projects, in its latest salvo against renewable energy.

The move on Friday is set to affect 12 offshore projects, including a $427m project in California, as Trump pushes to deregulate and re-prioritise fossil fuels.

In a statement, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the funding was a waste of money “that could otherwise go towards revitalising America’s maritime industry”.

“Thanks to President Trump, we are prioritising real infrastructure improvements over fantasy wind projects that cost much and offer little,” he said.

The funding had been awarded under the administration of former President Joe Biden as part of a wider pivot towards green energy.

Among the cancellations was funding for The Humboldt Bay project, which was meant to be the first offshore wind terminal on the Pacific coast.

A spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has emerged as a leading state opponent to Trump, criticised the action as an example of the administration “assaulting clean energy and infrastructure projects – hurting business and killing jobs in rural areas, and ceding our economic future to China”.

The cuts include a $47m grant for an offshore wind logistics and manufacturing hub near the Port of Baltimore in Maryland, as well as $48m awarded in 2022 for an offshore wind terminal project near New York’s Staten Island.

Also cut was $33m for a port project in Salem, Massachusetts, to redevelop a vacant industrial facility for offshore wind projects.

In a statement, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey said cancelling the Salem grant will cost 800 construction workers their jobs.

“The real waste here is the Trump administration cancelling tens of millions of dollars for a project that is already under way to increase our energy supply,” she said.

The latest trimming comes after the Trump administration abruptly halted construction of a nearly complete wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The Department of the Interior said the move was necessary to address national security concerns, without providing further details.

In early August, the Interior Department also cancelled a major wind farm in Idaho, which had been approved in the final days of Biden’s presidency.

Multiple federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy and Commerce, said they are reviewing offshore wind farms approved by the Biden administration along the Atlantic coast.

Trump has regularly lashed out at green energy, and particularly wind power, calling it an ugly and expensive form of energy that “smart” countries do not use.

Yet, foreign allies and rivals alike have increasingly embraced renewable energy in an effort to slow the ravages of climate change. China, for instance, has invested heavily in solar and wind energy and has become a leading source for wind turbine parts.

Critics have said Trump’s approach will set the US back behind its competitors.

Last week, as US electricity prices rose at more than twice the rate of inflation, Trump falsely blamed renewable power for the skyrocketing prices, calling the industry a “scam”.

On Tuesday, he pledged not to move forward with any wind power projects.

“We’re not allowing any windmills to go up unless there’s a legal situation where somebody committed to it a long time ago,” Trump said at a cabinet meeting.

Aug. 25 (UPI) — The Trump administration has issued a stop-work order, over national security concerns, on a nearly completed offshore wind project that would power Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Danish wind developer Orsted was ordered Friday to stop construction on its Revolution Wind offshore project to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interest of the United States,” according to the acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Matthew Giacona, who provided no additional details.

Construction on the $1.5 billion project, which is located in federal waters about 15 miles off the coast of Rhode Island, is about 80% complete with 45 of the 65 turbines installed, according to Orsted. The company’s shares dropped 17% on Monday, following the announcement.

“Orsted is evaluating all options to resolve the matter expeditiously,” the company said. “This includes engagement with relevant permitting agencies for any necessary clarification or resolution as well as through potential legal proceedings, with the aim being to proceed with continued project construction towards a commercial operations date in the second half of 2026.”

The Trump administration’s stop-work order drew a strong response from Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee, a Democrat, who called it a “political move.”

“The Trump administration’s stop-work order on Revolution Wind undermines efforts to expand our energy supply, lower costs for families and businesses, and strengthen regional reliability,” McKee said.

In April, the Trump administration issued a stop-work order on the Empire Wind 1 project off New York. That project was allowed to move forward after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul negotiated a natural gas compromise.

“Americans who live in New York and New England would see significant economic benefits and lower utility costs from increased access to reliable, affordable, clean American natural gas,” Interior secretary Doug Burgum said.

Once completed in 2027, Empire Wind 1 — located off Long Island — will become the first offshore wind project to deliver electricity directly to New York City.

Throughout his campaign, President Donald Trump was clear about his opposition to wind power as he pushed for offshore fossil fuel production instead. After taking office in January, Trump signed an executive order, banning new leases for offshore wind in U.S. waters.

The Trump administration halted construction on a nearly complete offshore wind project off Rhode Island as the White House continues to attack the battered U.S. offshore wind industry that scientists say is crucial to the urgent fight against climate change.

Danish wind farm developer Orsted says the Revolution Wind project is about 80% complete, with 45 of its 65 turbines already installed.

Despite that progress — and the fact that the project had cleared years of federal and state reviews — the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued the order Friday, saying the federal government needs to review the project and “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.”

It did not specify what the national security concerns are.

President Trump has made sweeping strides to prioritize fossil fuels and hinder renewable energy projects. He recently called wind and solar power “THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY!” in a social media post and vowed not to approve wind or “farmer destroying Solar” projects. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” he wrote on his Truth Social site this week.

Scientists across the globe agree that nations need to rapidly embrace renewable energy to stave off the worst effects of climate change, including extreme heat and drought; larger, more intense wildfires; and supercharged hurricanes, typhoons and rainstorms that lead to catastrophic flooding.

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee criticized the stop-work order and said he and Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont “will pursue every avenue to reverse the decision to halt work on Revolution Wind” in a post on X. Both governors are Democrats.

Construction on Revolution Wind began in 2023, and the project was expected to be fully operational next year. Orsted says it is evaluating the financial impact of stopping construction and is considering legal proceedings.

Revolution Wind is located more than 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast, 32 miles southeast of the Connecticut coast and 12 miles southwest of Martha’s Vineyard. Rhode Island is already home to one offshore wind farm, the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm.

Revolution Wind was expected to be Rhode Island and Connecticut’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, capable of powering more than 350,000 homes. The densely populated states have minimal space available for land-based energy projects, which is why the offshore wind project is considered crucial for the states to meet their climate goals.

“This arbitrary decision defies all logic and reason — Revolution Wind’s project was already well underway and employed hundreds of skilled tradesmen and women. This is a major setback for a critical project in Connecticut, and I will fight it,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in a statement.

Wind power is the largest source of renewable energy in the U.S. and provides about 10% of the electricity generated nationwide.

“Today, the U.S. has only one fully operational large-scale offshore wind project producing power. That is not enough to meet America’s rising energy needs. We need more energy of all types, including oil and gas, wind, and new and emerging technologies,” said Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Assn., which supports offshore oil, gas and wind energy.

Green Oceans, a nonprofit that opposes the offshore wind industry, applauded the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management decision. “We are grateful that the Trump Administration and the federal government are taking meaningful action to preserve the fragile ocean environment off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts,” the group said in a statement.

This is the second major offshore wind project the White House has halted. Work was stopped on Empire Wind, a New York offshore wind project, but construction was allowed to resume after New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, intervened.

“This administration has it exactly backwards. It’s trying to prop up clunky, polluting coal plants while doing all it can to halt the fastest growing energy sources of the future — solar and wind power,” Kit Kennedy, managing director for the power division at Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, every American is paying the price for these misguided decisions.”

O’Malley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jennifer McDermott in Providence, R.I., and Matthew Daly in Washington contributed to this report.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – In the far north of Brazil, where the Amazon River collides with the sea, an environmental dilemma has awakened a national political debate.

There, the Brazilian government has been researching the possibility of offshore oil reserves that extend from the eastern state of Rio Grande do Norte all the way to Amapá, close to the border with French Guiana.

That region is known as the Equatorial Margin, and it represents hundreds of kilometres of coastal water.

But critics argue it also represents the government’s conflicting goals under Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva.

During his third term as president, Lula has positioned Brazil as a champion in the fight against climate change. But he has also signalled support for fossil fuel development in regions like the Equatorial Margin, as a means of paying for climate-change policy.

“We want the oil because it will still be around for a long time. We need to use it to fund our energy transition, which will require a lot of money,” Lula said in February.

But at the start of his term in 2023, he struck a different stance. “Our goal is zero deforestation in the Amazon, zero greenhouse gas emissions,” he told Brazil’s Congress.

As the South American country prepares to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) later this year, those contradictions have come under even greater scrutiny.

Nicole Oliveira is one of the environmental leaders fighting the prospect of drilling in the Equatorial Margin, including the area at the mouth of the Amazon River, known as Foz do Amazonas.

Her organisation, the Arayara Institute, filed a lawsuit to block an auction scheduled for this week to sell oil exploration rights in the Equatorial Margin. She doubts the government’s rationale that fossil-fuel extraction will finance cleaner energy.

“There is no indication of any real willingness [from the government] to pursue an energy transition,” Oliveira said.

“On the contrary, there is growing pressure on environmental agencies to issue licenses and open up new areas in the Foz do Amazonas and across the entire Equatorial Margin.”

Last Thursday, the federal prosecutor’s office also filed a lawsuit to delay the auction, calling for further environmental assessments and community consultations before the project proceeds.

A government reversal

The fate of the Equatorial Margin has exposed divisions even within Lula’s government.

In May 2023, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) — the government’s main environmental regulator — denied a request from the state-owned oil company Petrobras to conduct exploratory drilling at the mouth of the Amazon River.

In its decision, the IBAMA cited environmental risks and a lack of assessments, given the site’s “socio-environmental sensitivity”.

But Petrobras continued to push for a licence to drill in the region. The situation escalated in February this year when IBAMA again rejected Petrobras’s request.

Lula responded by criticising the agency for holding up the process. He argued that the proceeds from any drilling would help the country and bolster its economy.

“We need to start thinking about Brazil’s needs. Is this good or bad for Brazil? Is this good or bad for Brazil’s economy?” Lula told Radio Clube do Para in February.

On May 19, the director of IBAMA, a politician named Rodrigo Agostinho, ultimately overruled his agency’s decision and gave Petrobras the green light to initiate drilling tests in the region.

Petrobras applauded the reversal. In a statement this month to Al Jazeera, it said it had conducted “detailed environmental studies” to ensure the safety of the proposed oil exploration.

It added that its efforts were “fully in line with the principles of climate justice, biodiversity protection, and the social development of the communities where it operates”.

“Petrobras strictly follows all legal and technical requirements established by environmental authorities,” Petrobras wrote.

It also argued that petroleum will continue to be a vital energy source decades into the future, even with the transition to low-carbon alternatives.

Roberto Ardenghy, the president of the Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute (IBP), an advocacy group, is among those who believe that further oil exploitation is necessary for Brazil’s continued growth and prosperity.

“It is justified — even from an energy and food security standpoint — that Brazil continues to search for oil in all of these sedimentary basins,” he said.

Ardenghy added that neighbouring countries like Guyana are already profiting from “significant discoveries” near the Equatorial Margin.

“Everything suggests there is strong potential for major oil reservoirs in that region. The National Petroleum Agency estimates there could be around 30 billion barrels of oil there. That’s why we’re making such a major effort,” he said.

A ‘risk of accidents’

But critics have argued that the area where the Amazon River surges into the ocean comprises a delicate ecosystem, lush with mangroves and coral reefs.

There, the pink-bellied Guiana dolphin plies the salty waters alongside other aquatic mammals like sperm whales and manatees. Environmentalists fear exploratory drilling could further endanger these rare and threatened species.

Indigenous communities at the mouth of the river have also resisted Petrobras’s plans for oil exploration, citing the potential for damage to their ancestral fishing grounds.

In 2022, the Council of Chiefs of the Indigenous Peoples of Oiapoque (CCPIO) formally requested that the federal prosecutor’s office mediate a consultation process with Petrobras, which has not taken place to this date.

The federal prosecutor’s office, in announcing Thursday’s lawsuit, cited the risk to Indigenous peoples as part of its reasoning for seeking to delay the auction.

“The area is home to a vast number of traditional peoples and communities whose survival and way of life are directly tied to coastal ecosystems,” the office said.

However, in its statement to Al Jazeera, Petrobras maintains it had a “broad communication process” with local stakeholders. It added that its studies “did not identify any direct impact on traditional communities” resulting from the drilling.

But some experts nevertheless question the safety of oil exploration in the region, including Suely Araujo, who used to chair IBAMA from 2016 to 2018.

Now the public policy coordinator for the advocacy coalition Observatório do Clima, Araujo pointed to practical hurdles like the powerful waters that gush from the Amazon River into the ocean.

“The area is quite complex, with extremely strong currents. Petrobras has no previous exploration experience in a region with currents as strong as these,” Araujo said. “So it’s an area that increases the risk of accidents even during drilling.”

Still, she fears there is little political will within the Lula government to stop the oil exploration — and that awarding drilling licences could be a slippery slope.

“All the evidence is there for this licence to be approved soon,” she said, referring to the project planned near the river mouth.

“The problem is that if this licence gets approved — let’s say, the 47 new blocks in the Foz do Amazonas that are now up for auction — it will become very difficult for IBAMA to deny future licences, because it’s the same region.”

Oliveira, whose organisation is leading the legal fight against the exploration licences, echoed that sentiment. She said it is necessary to stop the drilling before it starts.

“If we want to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees [Celsius], which is where we already are,” she said, “we cannot drill a single new oil well”.

May 20 (UPI) — The Trump administration has lifted a stop-work order on New York’s offshore wind energy project and will allow construction to resume.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced Monday evening that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and President Donald Trump had agreed to lift the order after making progress on a natural gas compromise with the state.

“Americans who live in New York and New England would see significant economic benefits and lower utility costs from increased access to reliable, affordable, clean American natural gas,” Burgum wrote in a post on X.

The offshore and wind energy project Empire Wind 1, off Long Island, is the first offshore wind project that would deliver electricity directly to New York City. It was approved by the Biden administration and stopped last month by Trump.

Throughout his campaign, Trump made his opposition to wind power clear as he pushed offshore fossil fuel production instead. In January, Trump signed an executive order that bans new leases for offshore wind in U.S. waters.

Equinor, the parent company of Empire Offshore Wind LLC, suspended offshore construction last month in compliance with the Interior Department order.

According to Burgum, the Empire Wind 1 project was tabled “until further review of information that suggests the Biden administration rushed through its approval without sufficient analysis.”

Hochul pushed back last month, saying, “Empire Wind 1 is already employing hundreds of New Yorkers, including 1,000 good-paying union jobs as part of a growing sector that has already spurred significant economic development and private investment throughout the state and beyond.”

On Tuesday, Equinor expressed gratitude for the administration’s agreement with New York.

“We appreciate the fact that construction can now resume on Empire Wind, a project which underscores our commitment to deliver energy while supporting local economies and creating jobs,” said Anders Opedal, president and chief executive officer of Equinor.

Equinor’s work began last year with the goal of gearing up commercial operations in 2027. The Empire Wind 1 project is 30% complete. It will include 54 turbines, up to 910-feet tall, that will generate 810 megawatts of electricity for half a million homes.

“I would like to thank President Trump for finding a solution that saves thousands of American jobs and provides for continued investments in energy infrastructure in the United States,” Opedal added. “I am grateful to Gov. Hochul for her constructive collaboration with the Trump administration, without which we would not have been able to advance this project and secure energy for 500,000 homes in New York.”