Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Congressional research reportDec 7, 2021
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing,
Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Updated December 7, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46970
SUMMARY
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing,
Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Offshore wind continues to be of interest as a potentially significant renewable energy resource
for the United States. Offshore wind power relies on turbines constructed in bodies of water,
which use wind to generate electricity. According to some estimates, offshore regions of the
contiguous United States and Hawaii have the net technical potential to generate more than 7,000
terawatt hours per year of wind-based electricity—nearly twice the amount of electricity used
annually in the United States in recent years—although these estimates do not take into account
considerations of economic feasibility. The Biden Administration has announced a governmentwide effort to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, which would be equivalent
to more than 2% of the U.S. utility-scale electricity generating capacity and approximately 25%
of total U.S. wind electricity generating capacity.
R46970
December 7, 2021
Laura B. Comay
Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy
Corrie E. Clark
Analyst in Energy Policy
Several U.S. offshore wind projects have been developed, or are under development, in state-owned or federally owned
waters. In state waters, the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm off Rhode Island began commercial operations in 2016. To
date, no projects in federal waters have progressed to the point of electricity generation, except a two-turbine pilot project off
the Virginia coast. In May 2021, the Department of the Interior (DOI) approved the construction and operations plan (COP)
for a larger project, Vineyard Wind, on a federal lease off the coast of Massachusetts; in November 2021, DOI approved the
COP for a second project, South Fork Wind, off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. DOI’s Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM), which oversees leasing and permitting of federal offshore wind projects on the U.S. outer
continental shelf, has awarded multiple additional leases for wind energy development, all in the Atlantic region. BOEM also
has undertaken pre-leasing evaluations in the Pacific region and has solicited interest in potential offshore wind development
in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Congress has debated whether—and, if so, how and to what extent—to promote the development of U.S. offshore wind
energy. Some stakeholders have advocated for expediting federal offshore wind leasing to enable states to meet renewable
power commitments, facilitate a transition away from fossil fuel energy, and promote employment in the offshore wind
sector. Others have expressed concerns that wind leasing may be proceeding too quickly, especially given potential conflicts
with other ocean uses, such as fishing, as well as potential impacts of offshore wind development on birds and marine
mammals, concerns about the visibility of some turbines from shore, and issues related to the variability of wind as an energy
source. Congress also may consider multiple issues pertaining to the deployment of offshore wind energy projects, including
considerations related to domestic capacity for offshore wind infrastructure installation in the coming years, physical
connections to deliver offshore wind power to the onshore power grid, and domestic electricity markets to sell into
competitively. Additional issues concern the optimal disposition of federal revenues from offshore wind development,
including the extent to which future revenues should be shared with coastal states.
Congressional Research Service
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Contents
Overview of Offshore Wind Technology ........................................................................................ 2
Federal Offshore Wind Leasing Process ......................................................................................... 5
BOEM Leasing Activities ......................................................................................................... 8
Frequency and Regularity of Lease Sales ............................................................................... 10
Leasing Activities and Issues by Region ........................................................................................ 11
Atlantic Region Activities and Issues....................................................................................... 11
Pacific Region Activities and Issues ....................................................................................... 14
Gulf of Mexico Region Activities and Issues.......................................................................... 16
Alaska Region Activities and Issues ....................................................................................... 17
Permitting Activities and Issues .................................................................................................... 18
Fishing Industry Concerns ...................................................................................................... 18
Other Permitting Issues ........................................................................................................... 19
Deployment Issues ........................................................................................................................ 21
Jones Act and Port Infrastructure Considerations ................................................................... 21
Electricity Transmission Considerations ................................................................................. 22
Electricity Markets ............................................................................................................ 23
Connections to the Electrical Grid .................................................................................... 24
Offshore Wind Revenues ............................................................................................................... 26
Figures
Figure 1. Offshore Wind Turbine Components ............................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Offshore Wind Structural Support ................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Wind Energy Commercial
Leasing Process ............................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4. Map of BOEM’s Renewable Energy Leases.................................................................... 9
Figure 5. U.S. Offshore Wind Speed Estimates ............................................................................ 12
Tables
Table 1. Active Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore Wind Leases .......................................... 7
Table 2. Federal Offshore Wind Revenues, FY2010-FY2020....................................................... 26
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 28
Congressional Research Service
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
ffshore wind is a growing contributor to the energy mix for some nations and has been of
interest as a potentially significant renewable energy resource for the United States.1 The
U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated
that offshore regions of the contiguous United States and Hawaii have the net technical potential
to generate more than 7,000 terawatt hours per year of wind-based electricity—nearly twice the
electricity used annually in the United States in recent years.2 (This estimate takes into account
potential technological, environmental, and land-use conflicts but not considerations of economic
feasibility.) In March 2021, the Biden Administration announced a government-wide effort to
deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030.3 For comparison, in 2020, the total
U.S. utility-scale electricity nameplate generating capacity was approximately 1,212 GW, with
nearly 119 GW of that capacity produced from wind energy resources (virtually all onshore).4
O
The 117th Congress has conducted oversight and introduced legislation concerning offshore wind
energy.5 Congress has debated whether—and, if so, how and to what extent—to promote the
development of U.S. offshore wind. Congress plays a direct role in decisions about wind
1 For general information on global offshore wind development, see International Energy Administration, Offshore
Wind Outlook 2019, November 2019, at https://www.iea.org/reports/offshore-wind-outlook-2019; Offshore Wind:
Tracking Report, June 2020, at https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-offshore-wind-2020; and Renewables 2020:
Analysis and Forecast to 2025, November 2020, at https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020/wind#abstract.
2 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2016 Offshore Wind Energy
Resource Assessment for the United States, Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-66599, September 2016, p. 39, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66599.pdf (hereinafter cited as NREL, 2016 Assessment). NREL estimated that the
Alaska offshore region could technically contribute a further 12,000 terawatt hours per year; NREL, Offshore Wind
Energy Resource Assessment for Alaska, Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-70553, December 2017, p. v, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70553.pdf (hereinafter cited as NREL, 2017 Alaska Assessment). U.S. wind energy
resource estimates are highly dependent upon certain assumptions, such as turbine height and capacity power density
(electricity generation per land or ocean surface area).
3 White House, “Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs,” fact sheet, March
29, 2021, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-bidenadministration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/. The initiative includes steps to expedite
offshore wind leasing and permitting, invest in port infrastructure, provide access to loan guarantees, and provide
research and development funding, among other actions. In January 2021, President Biden had set a goal of “doubling
offshore wind by 2030” (Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” Section 207,
January 27, 2021, 86 Federal Register 7619). The Administration also proposed floating offshore wind demonstration
projects as part of the American Jobs Plan (White House, “The American Jobs Plan,” fact sheet, March 31, 2021, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan).
4 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power Annual, “Table 4.3 Existing Capacity by Energy
Source,” October 29, 2021, at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_03.html. Nameplate generating
capacity refers to the maximum rated output of electricity generated under specific conditions.
5 Recent hearings exploring offshore wind in the 117th Congress include U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Building Back Better: Reducing Pollution and Creating
Jobs Through Offshore Wind, hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., April 20, 2021, at https://naturalresources.house.gov/
hearings/building-back-better-reducing-pollution-and-creating-jobs-through-offshore-wind; U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Full Committee Hearing on Offshore Energy Development in Federal
Waters and Leasing Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., May 13, 2021, at
https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/5/full-committee-hearing-to-examine-offshore-energy-development;
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber,
Renewable Energy Transition: A Case Study of How International Collaboration on Offshore Wind Technology
Benefits American Workers, hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., July 29, 2021, at https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2021/7/
renewable-energy-transition-a-case-study-of-how-international-collaboration-on-offshore-wind-technology-benefitsamerican-workers; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy,
Offshore Wind, Onshore Benefits: Growing the Domestic Wind Energy Industry, hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., October
21, 2021, at https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-offshore-wind-onshorebenefits-growing-the-domestic-wind.
Congressional Research Service
1
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
development offshore by virtue of the federal government’s jurisdiction over most of the ocean
territory surrounding the United States. The U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS), extending from
the outer boundaries of state waters (in most cases, 3 nautical miles from shore) to at least 200
nautical miles from shore, is federally managed, primarily under the Submerged Lands Act and
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).6
A 2005 amendment to the OCSLA authorized the Secretary of the Interior to offer leases,
easements, and rights-of-way on the OCS for offshore renewable energy activities.7 Since then,
the Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has
awarded multiple leases for wind energy development in U.S. waters.8 To date, no renewable
energy projects in federal waters have progressed to the point of electricity generation, except a
two-turbine pilot project off the Virginia coast.9 In state waters, the five-turbine Block Island
Wind Farm off Rhode Island began commercial operations in 2016.
This report begins with a brief overview of offshore wind technology. It then discusses
background and selected considerations related to leasing, project permitting, deployment, and
federal revenues from offshore wind. In addition to the issues discussed in this report, Congress
has considered other issues relevant to the development of U.S. offshore wind, such as federal
research activities, job programs, and tax incentives to promote offshore wind development, as
well as broader questions related to the balance of conventional and renewable energy resources
and to the physical and cyber security of the electric power system in the United States. These
issues are outside the scope of this report.
Overview of Offshore Wind Technology
Offshore wind power relies on wind farms (collections of wind turbines) constructed in bodies of
water that use wind to generate electricity in much the same manner as onshore wind farms.
Generally, offshore wind turbines are larger than onshore wind turbines. Other distinguishing
features of offshore wind turbines include the supporting structure or foundation for the wind
turbine and the support vessels required for offshore wind development.
The wind flowing over a body of water turns an offshore wind turbine’s blades; the blades attach
to a rotor, which spins a generator to create electricity. The generated electricity then can be
delivered to an onshore electrical grid through undersea cables to grid interconnection
equipment.10 Key factors that affect the amount of electricity generated from a wind turbine
6 Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§1301 et seq.; and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C.
§§1331-1356. For Texas and a portion of Florida, state waters extend to 9 nautical miles from shore. For more
information, see CRS Report R40175, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, by Adam Vann; and CRS Report RL33404,
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by Adam Vann.
7 P.L. 109-58, Section 388 (43 U.S.C. §1337(p)), authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue leases, easements, and
rights-of-way for energy development “from sources other than oil and gas.”
8 As of the date of this report, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) had issued 19 offshore wind leases
for projects that remain active (Table 1). In addition to these, BOEM awarded several other leases that expired or were
relinquished (for more information, see BOEM, “Lease and Grant Information,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewableenergy/lease-and-grant-information). Some offshore wind projects span multiple leases, and some leases contain
multiple projects.
9 BOEM, “Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/
coastal-virginia-offshore-wind-project-cvow.
10 The size and number of undersea electrical cables and the type of additional equipment needed to ensure
compatibility with the electrical grid depend on numerous factors, including whether the electrical cables deliver direct
current (DC) electricity, where the electric charge flows in one direction, or alternating current (AC) electricity, where
Congressional Research Service
2
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
include wind speed, air density, and the swept area of the turbine (the area through which the
rotor blades spin). Generally, the faster the wind speed, the denser the air, and the larger the swept
area, the more electricity can be generated from the wind turbine.
Variability of Offshore Wind Energy
In 2020, the global operating capacity of offshore wind energy totaled nearly 33 gigawatts (GW), with
approximately 76% of the offshore wind capacity located in Europe. The United Kingdom—with more than
10 GW of offshore wind capacity—generated 24% of its total electricity from wind resources in 2020. Wind
energy is a variable energy source, in that it can produce electricity only when the wind is blowing. In the late
summer and early fall of 2021, weather conditions resulted in lower-than-expected wind energy generation in the
North Sea, increasing demand for electricity from fossil fuel-fired generators in the United Kingdom. According to
the International Energy Agency (IEA), European natural gas demand has increased due to wind availability, cold
weather in the first quarter of 2021, and an overall increase in demand compared with pandemic-related declines
in 2020. These increases in demand have combined with decreases in supply to increase natural gas prices and
electricity prices overall.
In the United States, current levels of generation from variable renewable energy sources have not created
widespread reliability issues. Sufficient backup capacity usually is available, and system operators and participants
are developing new practices to address the variability of wind and solar sources. Options to address potential
reliability issues include transmission system expansion, smart grid upgrades, increased generation from fossil
sources, and energy storage additions. For more information on variable renewable energy, see CRS In Focus
IF11257, Variable Renewable Energy: An Introduction, by Ashley J. Lawson.
Sources: Department of Energy, Offshore Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition, DOE/GO-102021-5614, August 2021,
p. 37; UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES), “Chapter 5:
Electricity,” updated July 29, 2021, p. 6; Carlos Fernández Alvarez and Gergely Molnar, “What Is Behind Soaring
Energy Prices and What Happens Next?,” IEA, October 12, 2021, at https://www.iea.org/commentaries/what-isbehind-soaring-energy-prices-and-what-happens-next; IEA, “Statement on Recent Developments in Natural Gas
and Electricity Markets,” September 21, 2021, at https://www.iea.org/news/statement-on-recent-developments-innatural-gas-and-electricity-markets.
Different turbine configurations and characteristics can affect turbine performance. As mentioned,
offshore wind turbines are typically taller and larger than onshore wind turbine systems. Figure 1
depicts a typical offshore wind turbine configuration.11
Fixed-bottom turbine support structures are the predominantly deployed offshore wind
technology.12 These structures, also referred to as foundations, secure the tower with the turbine
components to the sea floor. There are several types of foundation technologies, including
monopiles, jackets, and gravity-based foundations. Monopiles, which accounted for
approximately 75% of the global operating offshore wind capacity in 2020, are cylindrical
structures driven or drilled into the seafloor and attached to the bottom of the turbine tower.13
Jacket structures, which accounted for nearly 11% of the global operating offshore wind capacity
the electric charge reverses direction periodically. Most electricity in the United States is generated and distributed in
AC at a frequency of 60 Hertz (i.e., cycles per second). Wind turbine generators produce AC electricity, although the
frequency can differ from the electrical grid’s 60 Hertz frequency. Most offshore projects use AC systems, although
there is interest in DC technologies. Both technologies have advantages and disadvantages. See Padmavathi
Lakshmanan, Ruijuan Sun, and Jun Liang, “Electrical Collection Systems for Offshore Wind Farms—A Review,”
CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, (July 2021), pp. 10-11.
11 Generally, there are two basic types of wind turbines: horizontal-axis turbines and vertical-axis turbines.
12 National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium, Research and Development Roadmap Version 2.0,
October 2019, p. 6.
13 DOE, Offshore Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition, DOE/GO-102021-5614, August 2021, p. 57 (hereinafter cited as
DOE, 2021 Market Report).
Congressional Research Service
3
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
in 2020, typically consist of four legs that are connected by braces and attached via anchors or
drilled piles into the seafloor.14 Gravity-based foundations are placed on the seafloor and rely on
the structure’s weight to resist overturning. Fixed-bottom structures were designed for European
offshore sites and may not be appropriate for all U.S. offshore sites, due to differences such as
water depth, seabed characteristics, and extreme weather conditions.
Figure 1. Offshore Wind Turbine Components
Source: CRS adaptation of illustration from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA), “Offshore Wind 101,” at https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Offshore-Wind/
About-Offshore-Wind/Offshore-Wind-101.
In addition to fixed-bottom structures, the offshore wind industry is exploring the use of floating
structures, which are not set into the ocean floor.15 Floating foundations are a potential support
structure for projects in deep water (approximately 60 meters or 200 feet in depth, or deeper),
such as occurs in the Gulf of Maine and off the Pacific coast and Hawaii.16 Most planned floating
projects use semisubmersible structures; other floating structure designs can include barge,
tension leg platform, and spar technology.17 Tension leg platforms are buoyant structures that
have arms connected through tension to a foundation or anchor system.18 Spar technology relies
on spar buoys, ballasted cylindrical buoys that keep the center of gravity below the center of
buoyancy.19 Figure 2 depicts several types of fixed-bottom and floating structures.
14 Ibid., p. 57.
15 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Offshore Wind Energy: Planned Projects May Lead to Construction
of New Vessels in the U.S., But Industry Has Made Few Decisions amid Uncertainties, GAO-21-153, December 2020,
p. 9.
16 DOE, 2021 Market Report, pp. xii and 48.
17 Ibid., p. 59.
18 International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Floating Foundations: A Game Changer for Offshore Wind
Power, 2016, p. 5.
19 Ibid., p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
4
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Figure 2. Offshore Wind Structural Support
Source: CRS adapted illustration from Josh Bauer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/us-conditions-drive-innovation-offshore-wind-foundations.
Federal Offshore Wind Leasing Process20
BOEM oversees leasing for offshore wind energy on the U.S. outer continental shelf, as well as
permitting of wind projects on developed leases. This regulatory structure generally differs from
that for offshore oil and gas, where BOEM has responsibility for leasing but its sister agency, the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), is primarily responsible for permits to
develop projects on existing leases and for inspections and environmental enforcement.21
The OCSLA and agency regulations allow BOEM to offer commercial wind leases and “limited
leases” (e.g., leases for pilot or research projects that do not result in commercial production
beyond a specified limit).22 The agency must afford a competitive process for offshore wind
leasing unless it determines after public notice that there is no competitive interest.23 BOEM has
awarded most wind leases as competitive commercial leases, especially in recent years.
20 This section provides background on BOEM’s leasing process and activities, including relevant regulations and
policies. For a discussion of the statutory framework underlying the BOEM process, see CRS Report R40175, Wind
Energy: Offshore Permitting, by Adam Vann.
21 Under DOI Secretarial Order 3299 (August 29, 2011), BOEM has authority over all aspects of DOI’s offshore
renewable energy program until the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management “determines that an
increase in activity justifies transferring the inspection and enforcement functions to the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement.” For more information, see BOEM and BSEE, “Memorandum of Agreement Between the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement,” December 22, 2020,
at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/BOEM-BSEE-Renewable-EnergyMOA_0.pdf. Under this memorandum of agreement, BSEE is to assist BOEM with its safety, environmental
compliance, inspection, enforcement, and other specified activities, such as by advising and consulting with BOEM.
22 30 C.F.R. §585.202.
23 30 C.F.R. §585.201. For information on the award of noncompetitive leases, see 30 C.F.R. §585.230-585.232.
Congressional Research Service
5
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
The commercial leasing process consists of four broad phases (Figure 3). In the planning and
analysis phase, BOEM seeks industry interest in wind leasing by publishing a call for information
and nominations for a selected offshore area, known as a call area. BOEM may proactively
initiate consideration of a potential call area, or BOEM’s receipt of one or more unsolicited
applications for a lease could trigger such consideration.24 Wind energy developers and other
stakeholders—such as state and tribal governments, natural resource agencies, and other ocean
users—may provide comments at the call stage. The responses to the call may help BOEM
determine if there is competitive interest in leasing in the area.25 Based partly on the feedback
received, BOEM may identify, within the call area, targeted wind energy areas (WEAs) that
appear “most suitable” for leasing.26 The WEA identification process includes public input and
environmental evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).27 For example,
the U.S. Coast Guard may evaluate the impacts of potential projects on navigation safety and
provide input to BOEM.28 BOEM has previously identified call areas and/or WEAs off the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in November 2021, BOEM published a call for information and
nominations for an area in the Gulf of Mexico.29
In the second phase (the leasing phase), BOEM determines if there is competitive interest in
leases within the WEAs by publishing a request for interest in the Federal Register. If interest
exists, BOEM holds a lease auction.30 To date, BOEM has held lease auctions only in the Atlantic
region. If no competitive interest exists, BOEM may negotiate a lease noncompetitively after
consultation with affected federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes.31
In the third phase, a company that has obtained a lease conducts site assessment activities—for
example, constructing a meteorological tower or installing meteorological buoys to estimate wind
resources. BOEM must approve the lessee’s site assessment plan (SAP) through a process that
includes environmental review under NEPA. BOEM has approved multiple SAPs (Table 1), all of
them in the Atlantic region.
The final phase is the construction and operations phase, in which the lessee builds and operates
the wind facility after obtaining BOEM’s approval of its construction and operations plan (COP).
The COP approval process requires a further round of environmental review and public comment,
in addition to those performed in earlier phases. To date, BOEM has approved two COPs (Table
1); other COPs are at various stages of review.
24 30 C.F.R. §585.211 and 585.230.
25 For example, see BOEM, “Commercial Leasing for Wind Power Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Offshore California—Call for Information and Nominations (Call),” 83 Federal Register 53096, October 19, 2018.
26 BOEM, “Wind Energy Commercial Leasing Process,” fact sheet, January 2017, at http://www.boem.gov/sites/
default/files/boem-newsroom/Wind-Energy-Comm-Leasing-Process-FS-01242017-%281%29.pdf.
27 42 U.S.C. §4321. For more information on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluations, see CRS Report
RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation, by Linda Luther.
28 U.S. Coast Guard, Guidance on the Coast Guard’s Roles and Responsibilities for Offshore Renewable Energy
Installations (OREI), Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 01-19, August 1, 2019, at
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/NVIC/2019/NVIC%2001-19-COMDTPUB-P167004-dtd-01-Aug-2019-Signed.pdf?ver=2019-08-08-160540-483. Also see Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), “BOEMRE and Coast Guard Sign Agreement Outlining Roles for Offshore
Renewable Energy Installations,” press release, July 27, 2011, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/boemnewsroom/Press-Releases/2011/press0727.pdf. BOEMRE was the predecessor agency to BOEM.
29 BOEM, “Call for Information and Nominations—Commercial Leasing for Wind Power Development on the Outer
Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico,” 86 Federal Register 60283, November 1, 2021.
30 30 C.F.R. §585.210.
31 30 C.F.R. §585.231.
Congressional Research Service
6
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Figure 3. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Wind Energy Commercial
Leasing Process
Source: CRS adaptation of BOEM, “Wind Energy Commercial Leasing Process,” January 2017, at
http://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/boem-newsroom/Wind-Energy-Comm-Leasing-Process-FS-01242017%281%29.pdf.
Table 1. Active Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore Wind Leases
(as of December 2021)
Site
Construction &
Year Awarded:
Assessment
Operations
Competitive (C) /
Company or
Plan (SAP)
Plan (COP)
Commercial
Noncompetitive (N)b Project Name(s) Final Approval? Final Approval? Operations?
State(s)a
Lease No.
Delaware /
Maryland
OCS-A 0482
2012 (N)
Garden State
Offshore Energy
(GSOE 1)
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0519
2018 (N)
Skipjack
Yes
—
—
Maryland
OCS-A 0490
2014 (C)
U.S. Wind /
MarWin
Yes
—
—
Massachusetts
OCS-A 0500
2015 (C)
Bay State Wind
Yes
—
—
Sunrise Windc
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0501
2015 (C)
Vineyard Wind 1
Yes
Yes
—
OCS-A 0534
2015 (C)d
New England Wind /
Park City /
Commonwealthd
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0520
2018 (C)
Beacon Wind
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0521
2018 (C)
Mayflower Wind
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0522
2018 (C)
Liberty Wind
—
—
—
Congressional Research Service
7
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Site
Construction &
Year Awarded:
Assessment
Operations
Competitive (C) /
Company or
Plan (SAP)
Plan (COP)
Commercial
Noncompetitive (N)b Project Name(s) Final Approval? Final Approval? Operations?
State(s)a
Lease No.
New Jersey
OCS-A 0498
2016 (C)
Ocean Wind 1
OCS-A 0532
2016 (C)e
Ocean Wind 2e
OCS-A 0499
2016 (C)
New York
OCS-A 0512
North
Carolina
Rhode Island /
Massachusetts
Virginia
Yes
—
—
Atlantic Shores
Yes
—
—
2017 (C)
Empire Wind
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0508
2017 (C)
Kitty Hawk
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0486
2013 (C)
Revolution Wind
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0487
2013 (C)
Sunrise Windc
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0517
2013 (C)
South Fork Wind
Yes
Yes
—
OCS-A 0483
2013 (C)
Dominion Coastal
Virginia Offshore
Wind (CVOW)
Yes
—
—
OCS-A 0497
2015 (N; research
lease)
CVOW pilot
project
Yesf
Yesf
Yesg
Source: CRS.
a. Column shows the state (or states) identified by BOEM as being the adjoining coastal state(s), based on
BOEM’s offshore administrative boundary lines at https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/mapping-and-data/
map-gallery/administrative-boundaries. Depending on offtake agreements between wind developers and
power purchasers, the BOEM-identified state might not be the state where power eventually would be
delivered. For example, the Revolution Wind project on Lease OCS-A 0486 lies off Rhode Island and
Massachusetts, according to BOEM’s administrative boundaries, but the developer has a purchase
agreement to deliver some power to Connecticut.
b. All leases are commercial leases unless otherwise noted.
c. The Sunrise Wind project spans parts of two leases, OCS-A 0500 and OCS-A 0487.
d. In June 2021, BOEM approved the assignment of a portion of Lease OCS-A 0501 to become Lease OCS-A
0534. Originally known as Vineyard Wind South, the project on this lease was renamed New England Wind.
The project will have two phases, known as Park City Wind (Phase 1) and Commonwealth Wind (Phase 2).
e. In March 2021, BOEM approved the assignment of a portion of Lease OCS-A 0498 to become Lease OCSA 0532.
f.
Because the CVOW pilot project was constructed on a research lease rather than a commercial lease,
BOEM approved a research activities plan (RAP) rather than a SAP and COP for the project. BOEM’s
approval of the RAP included initial approval in March 2016 and approval of a revised RAP in June 2019.
BOEM’s approvals of the RAP and the revised RAP provided authorization for construction of the twoturbine project.
g. The CVOW pilot project began generating power in September 2020 and completed steps required to
begin commercial operations in January 2021 (CRS communication with BOEM Office of Legislative Affairs,
April 13, 2021). BOEM is not collecting an operating fee for the CVOW pilot project because the project
operates on a research lease.
BOEM Leasing Activities
BOEM granted its first leases for wind energy development in 2009 and administered 19 active
wind leases as of the date of this report (Figure 4 and Table 1). BOEM issued two
Congressional Research Service
8
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
noncompetitive commercial wind leases, one in 2010 and one in 2012.32 More recently, BOEM
has awarded all commercial leases through competitive auctions.33 All of the issued leases have
been in the Atlantic region.34 BOEM has undertaken pre-leasing evaluations, including
identifying call areas, in the Pacific region and the Gulf of Mexico region.
Figure 4. Map of BOEM’s Renewable Energy Leases
(as of March 2021)
Source: BOEM, Renewable Energy Map Book, March 2021, p. 2, at https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-EnergyLease-Map-Book/. As of November 2021, BOEM has not held new lease sales beyond those shown on the map.
32 BOEM awarded Lease OCS-A 0478 noncompetitively to Cape Wind Associates, LLC, in 2010. The lease was
relinquished in 2018. For more information, see BOEM, “Cape Wind,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/
studies/cape-wind. In 2012, BOEM awarded Lease OCS-A 0482 noncompetitively to Bluewater Wind Delaware. The
lease was later split into two leases and reassigned to two companies, Skipjack Offshore Energy and GSOE 1.
33 For more information on the auction process, see 30 C.F.R. §585.210-585.225.
34 BOEM divides the outer continental shelf (OCS) into four regions for administrative purposes: the Atlantic region,
the Gulf of Mexico region, the Pacific region, and the Alaska region.
Congressional Research Service
9
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Note: Depictions of some of the smaller lease areas in the figure may appear darker compared to larger lease
areas.
Frequency and Regularity of Lease Sales
The frequency and regularity with which BOEM schedules offshore wind lease sales has been a
topic of congressional interest. For oil and gas, the OCSLA requires BOEM to prepare and
maintain forward-looking plans (referred to as five-year programs) that periodically evaluate all
available lease areas and determine when and where lease sales will take place.35 There is no
similar requirement for offshore wind leasing. As discussed, BOEM determines when and where
to hold wind lease sales based either on unsolicited lease applications or on area evaluations
undertaken at the agency’s discretion. Under this process, BOEM has conducted eight
competitive wind lease sales in total, with varying numbers of sales held in recent years. BOEM
held one wind lease sale in 2016, one in 2017, one in 2018, and none in 2019 or 2020.36
Some Members of Congress and other stakeholders have advocated for greater predictability and
regularity in BOEM’s offshore wind leasing program, similar to that provided by the five-year
planning process for oil and gas leasing. They assert that BOEM’s current leasing process
produces “uncertainty for a wide range of stakeholders,” such as offshore wind developers,
coastal communities, the Department of Defense (DOD), the fishing industry, and other ocean
users.37 They contend that a more comprehensive wind leasing program would ensure a consistent
offshore wind supply, facilitate state clean energy targets, and spur investment in an offshore
wind supply chain.38 Such a program could require BOEM to evaluate all offshore regions, rather
than just selected or requested areas, for wind leasing potential.
Others, including some BOEM officials, have expressed concerns about a more standardized
leasing process for offshore wind, arguing for the importance of maintaining flexibility in
scheduling lease sales. BOEM has noted in past years that planning for individual wind lease
35 For more information on offshore oil and gas five-year programs, see CRS Report R44504, Five-Year Program for
Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing: History and Program for 2017-2022, by Laura B. Comay, Marc Humphries, and Adam
Vann; and CRS Report R44692, Five-Year Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program: Status and Issues in Brief, by
Laura B. Comay.
36 The December 2016 lease sale was for an area off the coast of New York, the March 2017 sale was for an area off
North Carolina, and the December 2018 sale was for areas off Massachusetts. Note that revenues (bonus bids) from
these lease sales in Table 2 are shown by fiscal year rather than by calendar year (e.g., bonus bids from the lease sale in
December 2018 show as FY2019 revenue).
37 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, “Legislative Hearing on Offshore Renewable Energy
Opportunities,” hearing memo, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 2018, at https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_—
_leg_hrg_on_discussion_draft_offshore_renewable_energy_for_territories_act_06.26.18.pdf. Also see discussion by
Senator Angus King and BOEM Director Amanda Lefton at U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Full Committee Hearing to Examine Offshore Energy Development, hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., May 13,
2021, at https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/5/full-committee-hearing-to-examine-offshore-energydevelopment.
38 See, for example, testimony of Randall Luthi, National Ocean Industries Association, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Legislative Hearing on Offshore
Renewable Energy Opportunities, hearing, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 2018, at https://republicansnaturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/6.26_Luthi_Testimony.pdf; memorandum from Vincent DeVito, Chair,
Royalty Policy Committee, to Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, “Royalty Policy Committee Recommendations,”
July 9, 2018, p. 2, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/
signed_june_rpc_meeting_summary_with_memo.pdf; and letter from nine Atlantic coast governors to President Joseph
Biden, “Prioritization of Offshore Wind Development,” June 4, 2021, at https://www.eenews.net/assets/2021/06/07/
document_gw_03.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
sales often involves revisions based on stakeholder input and has stated that any more
comprehensive program must “retain the flexibility to allow BOEM to respond to rapid changes
in technology and regional demand.”39 However, in hearing testimony in May 2021, the BOEM
director expressed a goal “that we have a more certain leasing process in which we can
demonstrate what our future lease sales will be in various wind energy areas.”40
Leasing Activities and Issues by Region
BOEM and NREL have explored possibilities for wind development in all four of the federal
offshore regions administered by BOEM: the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska
regions.41 NREL found that all the regions have offshore wind energy potential, taking into
account factors such as wind speed (Figure 5), water depth, competing ocean uses, and
environmental compatibility (but excluding economic feasibility).42 Congress has weighed in on
regional leasing issues through oversight and legislation in the 117th and previous Congresses.
Atlantic Region Activities and Issues
Many leasing issues have pertained to activities in the Atlantic region, where all offshore wind
lease sales to date have occurred. Multiple factors, including but not necessarily limited to those
listed below, have made the Atlantic region attractive for BOEM’s initial wind leasing activities:
Resource Potential. The Atlantic region, especially in the northeast, has strong
average wind speeds (Figure 5) and relatively high wind energy potential.43
Geology. The Atlantic OCS is relatively shallow, allowing for installation of
commercially available fixed-bottom foundations.
Markets. The populous eastern U.S. states offer potential demand for offshore
wind-generated electricity.
State Renewable Power Commitments. Many states along the East Coast have
committed to timelines for sourcing fixed portions of their overall power from
renewable sources in general and offshore wind in particular.
39 Testimony of James Bennett, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Legislative Hearing on Offshore Renewable
Energy Opportunities, hearing, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 2018, at https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/6.26_Bennett_Testimony.pdf.
40 Testimony of BOEM Director Amanda Lefton, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Full Committee Hearing to Examine Offshore Energy Development, hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., May 13,
2021, at https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/5/full-committee-hearing-to-examine-offshore-energydevelopment.
41 NREL, 2016 Assessment; NREL, 2017 Alaska Assessment. Offshore wind also has been pursued in the Great Lakes,
but BOEM does not administer those efforts because those waters are state-owned. The federal government cooperates
with Great Lakes states through a memorandum of understanding on offshore wind (Great Lakes Wind Collaborative,
“State-Fed Agreement Announced to Enhance Coordination of Offshore Wind Projects in the Great Lakes,” press
release, March 30, 2012, at https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/glc-newsrelease-state-fed-agreementenhance-coordination-offshore-wind-20120330-1.pdf; Great Lakes Offshore Wind Energy Consortium, “Memorandum
of Understanding” and “Fact Sheet,” both available at https://www.glc.org/library/2012-great-lakes-offshore-windmemorandum-of-understanding.
42 NREL, 2016 Assessment, p. viii; NREL, 2017 Alaska Assessment, p. v.
43 For the contiguous United States and Hawaii, NREL found “the best resource, based on quality and quantity,” to be
offshore of northeastern states. NREL, 2016 Assessment, p. viii.
Congressional Research Service
11
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Land Constraints. Compared with some other parts of the country, the heavily
developed East Coast has relatively little land available for onshore renewable
development, making offshore development potentially attractive.
Wind leasing efforts in the Atlantic also have encountered challenges, including those related to
potential conflicts between wind energy development and other ocean uses, among others.
Figure 5. U.S. Offshore Wind Speed Estimates
(top figure shows continental United States and Hawaii; bottom figure shows Alaska)
Source: NREL, 2016 Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States, Technical Report NREL/TP5000-66599, September 2016, p. 9, at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66599.pdf; and NREL, Offshore Wind
Energy Resource Assessment for Alaska, Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-70553, December 2017, p. v, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70553.pdf.
Note: Figures show estimated annual average wind speeds at 100 meters above the surface, a typical height for
offshore wind turbine hubs; nm = nautical miles; m/s = meters per second.
Congressional Research Service
12
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
To date, BOEM has awarded offshore wind leases off the coasts of Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia.44 (BOEM
identifies the adjoining states based on defined administrative boundaries, but, depending on
offtake agreements between wind developers and power purchasers, the power could be delivered
to a different state.45) In June 2021, BOEM issued a proposed sale notice for a new wind lease
sale in the New York Bight, an ocean area lying between Long Island and the New Jersey coast.46
In November 2021, BOEM issued a proposed sale notice for a lease sale in the Carolina Long
Bay area offshore of the Carolinas (see text box, “The Carolinas and Southward: President
Trump’s Leasing Withdrawals”).47 BOEM also has engaged in preliminary discussions regarding
wind leasing off other Atlantic states, such as through its Gulf of Maine Task Force.48
Congress could influence the scope and pace of BOEM’s Atlantic wind leasing through
legislation and oversight. Some Members and other stakeholders have advocated for expediting
wind lease sales in the Atlantic, contending that additional sales are needed to enable East Coast
states to meet renewable power commitments and that the sales will lead to economic benefits
and employment in the offshore wind sector. For example, these advocates point to a report
commissioned by offshore wind industry groups that estimated significant job creation and capital
investment from a BOEM lease sale in the New York Bight.49
Other Members and stakeholders have expressed a contrasting concern that Atlantic wind leasing
has proceeded too quickly, especially in consideration of potential conflicts with other ocean uses,
such as fishing. These stakeholders have emphasized the economic benefits accruing to northeast
44 For more information, see BOEM, “Lease and Grant Information,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/
lease-and-grant-information; and BOEM, “State Activities,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/stateactivities.
45 See Table 1, note (a), for additional information.
46 BOEM, “Atlantic Wind Lease Sale 8 (ATLW–8) for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental
Shelf in the New York Bight—Proposed Sale Notice,” 86 Federal Register 31524, June 14, 2021. In March 2021,
BOEM announced the identification of wind energy areas (WEAs) for the New York Bight area (BOEM, “BOEM
Advances Offshore Wind in Major U.S. East Coast Energy Market,” press release, March 29, 2021, at
https://www.boem.gov/boem-advances-offshore-wind-major-us-east-coast-energy-market). In August 2021, BOEM
published a draft environmental assessment for the sale (BOEM, Commercial and Research Wind Lease and Grant
Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf of the New York Bight: Draft
Environmental Assessment, August 2021, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/
state-activities/NY-Bight-Draft-EA-2021.pdf).
47 BOEM, “Atlantic Wind Lease Sale 9 (ATLW-9) for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental
Shelf in the Carolina Long Bay Area—Proposed Sale Notice,” 86 Federal Register 60274, November 1, 2021, at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/01/2021-23801/atlantic-wind-lease-sale-9-atlw-9-for-commercialleasing-for-wind-power-on-the-outer-continental.
48 See BOEM, “Maine Activities,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine-activities.
49 Feng Zhang, Maxwell Cohen, and Aaron Barr, Economic Impact Study of New Offshore Wind Lease Auctions by
BOEM, Wood Mackenzie Power and Renewables, August 2020, at https://bit.ly/33qRcf6. The report estimated that
leasing in the New York Bight would support up to 11.5 gigawatts of offshore wind development, would create more
than 32,000 jobs annually during the construction phase and almost 6,000 jobs annually thereafter, and would generate
capital investment of more than $45 billion during the construction phase and more than $750 million annually
thereafter. The estimate assumed an “optimistic” policy scenario under which both “primary” and “secondary” areas
identified by BOEM would be leased. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), National Ocean Industries
Association, New York Offshore Wind Alliance, and Special Initiative on Offshore Wind at the University of Delaware
commissioned the report. See National Ocean Industries Association, “Offshore Energy Industry Releases Economic
Impact Study of New Federal Offshore Wind Lease Auctions,” August 4, 2020, at https://www.noia.org/offshoreenergy-industry-releases-economic-impact-study-new-federal-offshore-wind-lease-auctions/. For other industry
estimates, see, for example, AWEA, U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment, March 2020, at
https://cleanpower.org/resources/u-s-offshore-wind-economic-impact-assessment/.
Congressional Research Service
13
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
states from the seafood industry and potential obstacles posed to that industry by a fast pace of
offshore wind development. Some stakeholders have questioned whether BOEM may be using
incomplete data on fisheries, or gathering insufficient input from seafood industry groups, when
making leasing decisions.50 For further discussion, see the section on “Permitting Activities and
Issues.”
The Carolinas and Southward: President Trump’s Leasing Withdrawals
Within the Atlantic region, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) southernmost wind lease sale to
date has been for the Kitty Hawk area offshore of North Carolina. On September 8 and September 25, 2020,
President Trump used his authority under Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA; 43
U.S.C. §1341(a)) to issue two memoranda that collectively withdraw from disposition by leasing, through June
2032, the southern portion of BOEM’s Atlantic region. This area includes waters off North Carolina and all areas
to the south, as well as the majority of the Eastern Gulf planning area in the Gulf of Mexico region. Although some
previous presidential withdrawals under Section 12(a) specifically applied to oil and gas leasing or to mineral
leasing, President Trump’s Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico withdrawals do not contain such language. At the time of
the withdrawal, BOEM reportedly stated its interpretation that the President’s memoranda prohibit offshore wind
leasing as well as oil and gas leasing in the affected areas. However, in November 2021, BOEM published a
proposed sale notice for a lease sale in the Carolina Long Bay area, which lies within President Trump’s
withdrawal area. Legislation in the 117th Congress (e.g., H.R. 2635, H.R. 5376) would explicitly authorize wind
leasing in the withdrawn areas, and the House-passed Interior appropriations bill for FY2022 (H.R. 4502) would
prohibit the use of funds to implement President Trump’s withdrawals with respect to offshore wind.
Pacific Region Activities and Issues
BOEM has engaged in preliminary offshore wind planning activities in the Pacific region,
including off the coasts of California and Hawaii.51 Some observers have identified California as
a promising area for offshore wind, particularly because the populous state has enacted legislation
to source 100% of its electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2045.52 Because water depths drop
rapidly off the California coast, projects in federal waters likely would require floating wind
turbines; this technology has not been deployed in the United States and is costlier than the fixedbottom turbines usable in shallower waters.53
50 See, for example, Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA), “Gulf of Maine Offshore Wind,” at
https://rodafisheries.org/portfolio/gulf-of-maine-osw/; and letter from Senators Markey, Whitehouse, Warren, and Reed
to BOEM Acting Director Walter Cruickshank, December 14, 2018, at https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Minimizing%20Conflicts%20Offshore%20Wind%20&%20Fishing.pdf.
51 BOEM also has undertaken some preliminary planning activities off the coast of Oregon but has not initiated the
formal wind planning process by identifying a call area for Oregon. For more information, see BOEM, “Oregon
Activities,” at https://www.boem.gov/Oregon.
52 On California renewable power commitments, see Energy Information Administration (EIA), “California: State
Profile and Energy Estimates,” at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA. California’s Senate Bill 100 (SB
100), The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018, did not define zero-carbon resources. The California Energy
Commission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission, and California Air Resources Board interpreted zerocarbon resources to mean energy resources that qualify as renewable or generate zero greenhouse gas emissions on-site
in a report. See CEC, 2021 SB100 Joint Agency Report: Achieving 100 Percent Clean Electricity in California: An
Initial Assessment, CEC-200-2021-001, March 2021, p. 54, at https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/EFiling/GetFile.aspx?tn=
237167&DocumentContentId=70349.
53 For more information, see the “Overview of Offshore Wind Technology” section of this report. A floating offshore
wind research array has been proposed off the coast of Maine in federal waters. For more information, see State of
Maine, Governor’s Energy Office, “Gulf of Maine Floating Offshore Wind Research Array,” at
https://www.maine.gov/energy/initiatives/offshorewind/researcharray.
Congressional Research Service
14
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
In 2018, BOEM published a call for information and nominations to assess interest in offshore
wind leasing in certain areas off Central and Northern California.54 These call areas had been the
subject of commercial wind developers’ unsolicited leasing requests to BOEM and had been
identified as having high average wind speeds (Figure 5) and available transmission
infrastructure.55 Until May 2021, BOEM had not taken the next step of identifying WEAs most
suitable for leasing within the California call areas. A complication in finalizing the WEAs was
DOD’s concern about potential conflict between offshore wind development and military training
and readiness activities in these areas, especially off the central coast.56 In May 2021, BOEM
announced an agreement under which the agency, in partnership with DOD and the State of
California, has identified two potential WEAs off the central and northern coasts of California.57
Following the completion of environmental analysis and input from stakeholders and the public,
BOEM anticipates a possible lease sale for the two WEAs in mid-2022. BOEM stated that it “will
work with the Department of Defense to ensure long-term protection of military testing, training
and operations, while pursuing new domestic clean energy resources.”58
BOEM also published a call for information and nominations for areas offshore of Oahu, HI, in
2016.59 The agency had received several unsolicited requests from commercial wind developers
to lease in these areas. Hawaii has enacted legislation setting a deadline to transition to 100%
renewable electricity by 2045.60 As with California, wind projects offshore of Hawaii likely
would require floating turbines, given water depths. BOEM has not yet identified WEAs within
the Hawaii call areas. Supporters of Hawaiian offshore wind development contend it could reduce
dependence on expensive imported petroleum for electricity, in addition to creating jobs and
fostering economic growth in the state.61 A challenge for wind development offshore of Oahu
54 For more information, see BOEM, “California Activities,” at https://www.boem.gov/california. In this context, a
nomination would be the submission of a company’s commercial interest in obtaining a wind energy lease within the
call area.
55 BOEM, “California Offshore Renewable Energy,” fact sheet, 2017, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/
renewable-energy-program/State-Activities/CA/BOEM-Offshore-Renewables-Factsheet—02-22-17.pdf.
56 See, for example, U.S. Navy, California Offshore Planning Areas: Informational & Operational Overview, February
15, 2018, at https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=17-MISC-01%20. Legislative
provisions passed by the House in the 116th Congress (House-passed H.R. 6395, National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2021) would have specified parameters under which DOD would have been required to engage with BOEM and
other entities to identify wind leasing options in California’s Morro Bay call area. However, this provision was not
included in the law (P.L. 116-283). Included in the House Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968,
the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2020 (H.Rept. 116-84), was a direction to the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees to address “any potential national security concerns with
respect to the construction of offshore wind arrays, to include an examination of legacy and new turbines, and any
appropriate mitigation measures that should be implemented to address these concerns.”
57 BOEM, “Biden-Harris Administration Advances Offshore Wind in the Pacific,” press release, May 25, 2021, at
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-advances-offshore-wind-pacific.
58 Ibid.
59 BOEM, “Call for Information and Nominations for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental
Shelf, Offshore the Island of Oahu, Hawaii,” 81 Federal Register 41335, June 24, 2016, at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/24/2016-14830/commercial-leasing-for-wind-power-on-the-outercontinental-shelf-offshore-the-island-of-oahu. For a map of the call areas, see BOEM, “Map Showing the Hawaii Call
for Information and Nominations,” at https://www.boem.gov/Hawaii-commercial-wind-lease-areas/. For general
information, see BOEM, “Hawaii Activities,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/hawaiiactivities.
60 EIA, “Hawaii State Energy Profile,” at https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=HI; and Hawaii State Energy Office,
“Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative,” at http://energy.hawaii.gov/testbeds-initiatives/hcei.
61 On potential economic impacts of offshore wind development in Hawaii, see BOEM and NREL, Floating Offshore
Wind in Hawaii: Potential for Jobs and Economic Impacts from Two Future Scenarios, April 2016, at
Congressional Research Service
15
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
could potentially be concerns from DOD, owing to naval activities in the area.62 Some have raised
additional concerns about access to fishing grounds in offshore wind areas, visibility of turbines
from shore, potential disturbances to marine life, and encroachment into ocean areas sacred to
Native Hawaiians.63
Offshore Wind and U.S.Territories
OCSLA and its offshore wind leasing provisions (43 U.S.C. §1337(p)) currently do not apply to the exclusive
economic zones of U.S. territories and possessions. Bills introduced in the 117th Congress (e.g., H.R. 2780, H.R.
3764, H.R. 5376) and previous Congresses would authorize BOEM to conduct wind lease sales offshore of U.S.
territories and possessions, and would require the agency to study the technological and economic feasibility, as
well as the environmental effects, of offshore wind leasing in the territorial jurisdictions of American Samoa,
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Congressional supporters have expressed interest in offshore wind as a potential way to address high energy costs
and dependence on imported petroleum in the territories. The five territories covered by the proposed study all
have set renewable energy targets, such as American Samoa’s goal of 100% renewable energy by 2040 and Puerto
Rico’s goal of 100% renewable energy by 2050.
Gulf of Mexico Region Activities and Issues
In February 2020, BOEM and NREL completed two studies exploring possibilities for offshore
wind development in the Gulf of Mexico.64 The first study considered various offshore renewable
technologies (wind, wave, tidal, current, solar, and others) and determined that offshore wind is
the “leading” renewable technology for application in the Gulf, given the region’s wind resource
potential and the relative maturity of offshore wind compared to the other renewable
technologies.65 The second study considered the economic feasibility of offshore wind for sites in
the Gulf. It found several potential development sites where wind might become cost-competitive
without subsidies by 2030, including sites off Port Isabel, TX; Port Arthur, TX; and Pensacola,
FL, among others. The study estimated that a single offshore wind project in the Gulf could
contribute more than 4,000 jobs and $445 million in gross domestic product (GDP) to the
economy during the construction phase, as well as an ongoing 150 jobs and $14 million in GDP
during project operations.66
The BOEM and NREL studies found the Gulf advantageous for offshore wind development in
several ways. For example, the presence of a robust supply chain for offshore oil and gas in the
region—which could be transitioned for wind development—could lower costs for fabrication,
installation, and maintenance of offshore wind infrastructure. The Gulf’s shallow waters, mild
temperatures, and relatively low average wave heights also could facilitate turbine siting and
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65481.pdf.
62 See DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2017 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Update,
August 2018, pp. 31, 69, at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/08/f54/71709_0.pdf.
63 See, for example, Heather Richards, “Hawaii NIMBY Fight Reveals Biden Offshore Wind Challenge,” Energywire,
April 6, 2021, at https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1063728671/print.
64 BOEM and NREL, Survey and Assessment of the Ocean Renewable Energy Resources in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico,
OCS Study BOEM 2020-017, February 2020, at https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2020-017.pdf; and
BOEM and NREL, Offshore Wind in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico: Regional Economic Modeling and Site-Specific
Analyses, OCS Study BOEM 2020-018, February 2020, at https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2020018.pdf (hereinafter cited as BOEM and NREL, Offshore Wind in the Gulf).
65 BOEM, “Availability of Two New Studies on Renewable Energy in the Gulf of Mexico,” press release, April 23,
2020. On the offshore wind resource potential in the Gulf, see NREL, 2016 Assessment.
66 BOEM and NREL, Offshore Wind in the Gulf, p. xv.
Congressional Research Service
16
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
accessibility for maintenance. However, the study also identified challenges for offshore wind in
the Gulf region, particularly the need to adapt wind technologies to withstand the region’s
hurricane potential, relatively low average wind speeds (see Figure 5), and weak soils on the
seafloor.
Unlike many Atlantic and Pacific coast states, most Gulf coast states do not have renewable
energy mandates.67 However, some Gulf coast states have expressed interest in exploring offshore
wind development. In November 2020, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards requested that
BOEM establish a task force to explore Gulf offshore wind, a potential first step toward wind
leasing.68 In June 2021, BOEM published a request for interest in offshore wind and other
renewable technologies in the Central and Western planning areas of the Gulf and announced its
intention to establish a Gulf of Mexico Renewable Energy Task Force.69 BOEM’s request for
interest did not include the Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area (see text box above, “The
Carolinas and Southward: President Trump’s Leasing Withdrawals”).70 In November 2021,
BOEM took the next step in potential Gulf wind leasing by publishing a call for information and
nominations for an area off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas.71
More broadly, the general development of offshore wind in the United States has been of interest
to Gulf coast states and some of their Members of Congress, owing to potential economic
opportunities the new industry could create for Gulf-based businesses that traditionally have
served the offshore oil and gas industry. For example, facilities in the Gulf are participating in
developing some of the first U.S. offshore wind supply vessels for work on offshore wind projects
in the Atlantic region (see section on “Deployment Issues,” below).72
Alaska Region Activities and Issues
An NREL assessment found that Alaska has a technical offshore wind resource capacity larger
than that of all other U.S. states combined.73 However, the study also identified “significant
challenges [that] inhibit large-scale offshore wind deployment in Alaska,” including the
“remoteness” of the offshore wind resources, their distance from load centers in the state, and the
67 Texas has a mandate that 10,000 megawatts (MW) of the state’s electricity-generating capacity come from renewable
sources by 2025, but the state has already surpassed this goal, owing mostly to its onshore wind energy generation. See
EIA, “Texas: State Profile and Energy Estimates,” at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=TX.
68 Louisiana Office of the Governor, “Gov. Edwards Announces Renewable Energy Initiative for Gulf of Mexico,”
press release, November 9, 2020, at https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2790.
69 BOEM, “Interior Department to Explore Offshore Wind Potential in the Gulf of Mexico,” press release, June 8,
2021, at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-explore-offshore-wind-potential-gulf-mexico.
70 President Donald Trump, “Memorandum on the Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer Continental
Shelf from Leasing Disposition,” September 8, 2020, at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/
memorandum-withdrawal-certain-areas-united-states-outer-continental-shelf-leasing-disposition/.
71 BOEM, “Call for Information and Nominations—Commercial Leasing for Wind Power Development on the Outer
Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico,” 86 Federal Register 60283, November 1, 2021, at https://www.
federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/01/2021-23800/call-for-information-and-nominations-commercial-leasing-forwind-power-development-on-the-outer.
72 See, for example, Rep. Garret Graves, “Graves Announces Edison Chouest Executes a Long-Term Charter
Agreement for First-Ever U.S. Jones Act Compliant Windfarm Service Operation Vessel,” press release, October 2,
2020, at https://garretgraves.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/graves-announces-edison-chouest-executes-longterm-charter-agreement; and Dominion Energy, “Dominion Energy Continues Development of First Jones Act
Compliant Offshore Wind Turbine Installation Vessel,” press release, December 16, 2020, at https://news.
dominionenergy.com/2020-12-16-Dominion-Energy-Continues-Development-of-First-Jones-Act-Compliant-OffshoreWind-Turbine-Installation-Vessel.
73 NREL, 2017 Assessment, p. v. Also see footnote 2.
Congressional Research Service
17
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
“wealth of land” available for onshore wind development.74 Alaska has a goal to supply 50% of
its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and has pursued hydropower, biomass, and
onshore wind projects, among others.75 BOEM has not undertaken any offshore wind leasing
activities in Alaska to date.76
Permitting Activities and Issues
Lessees in the Atlantic region have submitted site assessment plans (SAPs) and construction and
operation plans (COPs) for offshore wind projects on the leases they hold (Table 1). To date, DOI
has approved multiple SAPs and two COPs—the COP submitted in December 2017 by the
offshore lessee Vineyard Wind, LLC, for the Vineyard Wind 1 project off the coast of
Massachusetts, and the COP submitted by South Fork Wind, LLC, for the South Fork Wind Farm,
located off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts and supplying power to New York.77
The approval of a COP enables the issuance of permits for wind turbine construction and
operation.78
BOEM also has announced further work on pending COPs for other projects. In general, BOEM
anticipates that construction on many Atlantic region projects, if approved, would take place
between now and 2030, potentially resulting in installation of some 2,000 offshore turbines in the
region with up to 22 gigawatts of generating capacity.79
Fishing Industry Concerns
Commercial fishing groups have expressed concerns about potential impacts to their industry
from offshore turbine construction and operation in the Atlantic region, including potential effects
on fish stocks and fishing vessel navigation, among others.80 Partly in response to such concerns,
74 NREL, 2017 Assessment, p. v.
75 EIA, “Alaska: State Profile and Energy Estimates,” at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=AK.
76 NREL has explored the potential for other types of offshore renewable energy (apart from offshore wind) in the
Alaska region, such as marine hydrokinetic energy. See, for example, NREL, “Harnessing Marine Energy at All Scales,
from a Village Microgrid to a Vast Tidal Inlet: NREL Leads Pioneering Alaska Projects,” March 24, 2020, at
https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/harnessing-marine-energy-at-all-scales.html.
77 DOI, Record of Decision: Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project Construction and Operations Plan, May
10, 2021, at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/final-record-decision-vineyard-wind-1
(hereinafter cited as DOI, Vineyard Wind ROD), and DOI, Record of Decision: South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork
Export Cable Project Construction and Operations Plan, November 24, 2021, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/Record%20of%20Decision%20South%20Fork_0.pdf (hereinafter
cited as DOI, South Fork ROD). For the two-turbine pilot project operating off the coast of Virginia, DOI approved an
RAP rather than a COP, because the project was leased under a research lease. See BOEM, “Coastal Virginia Offshore
Wind Project (CVOW),” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/coastal-virginia-offshore-windproject-cvow.
78 In addition to BOEM, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, can potentially sign on to DOI’s record of
decision for a COP, thus fulfilling these agencies’ NEPA obligations with respect to permits they administer for an
offshore wind project (for more information, see CRS Report R40175, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, by Adam
Vann). For example, these agencies all concurred on the Vineyard Wind 1 COP (BOEM, Vineyard Wind ROD, p. 3).
Alternatively, other agencies could issue separate decisions based on their evaluations.
79 BOEM, Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement, vol 1, p. 1-6, at
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/vineyard-wind-1-feis-volume-1; and vol. 2, Appendix A, at
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/vineyard-wind-1-feis-volume-2.
80 See, for example, RODA, “RODA Statement on Recent Developments in Southern New England Offshore Wind,”
March 3, 2021, at https://rodafisheries.org/southern-new-england-offshore-wind/; and other RODA statements at
Congressional Research Service
18
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
BOEM undertook a supplement to its draft EIS for the Vineyard Wind 1 COP to analyze
additional fishing data and consider cumulative impacts of potentially widespread wind
development throughout the region.81 With respect to industry concerns about safe navigation for
fishing vessels through wind turbine arrays, BOEM’s supplemental EIS considered an alternative
for Vineyard Wind’s turbine layout involving a designated transit lane suggested by fishing
industry groups.82 The U.S. Coast Guard also published a study on turbine spacing and vessel
transit in wind lease areas off Massachusetts and Rhode Island.83 The Coast Guard study
recommended a “standard and uniform” turbine grid layout with commercial fishing lanes
measuring 1 nautical mile (nm) wide and oriented in an east-west direction. Fishing industry
groups published objections to the study’s findings.84 In May 2021, DOI issued a record of
decision (ROD) for the Vineyard Wind COP, approving a turbine grid arrangement largely
consistent with the Coast Guard recommendations.85
DOI also approved a similar layout, with 1-nm spacing, in its ROD for the South Fork project,
rather than a proposal by fishing industry groups for a 4-nm-wide transit lane. DOI stated that the
fishing industry proposal would “unnecessarily reduce the energy production potential of the
lease,” given the Coast Guard’s finding that turbines with 1-nm spacing would safely
accommodate fishing and transit.86 Fishing industry groups also had raised concerns about
potential interference with marine radar from turbines, impacts to sensitive fish habitat, and the
availability of compensatory mitigation for fishing communities.87 DOI chose a “Habitat
Alternative” for the South Fork project that reduced the number of allowed turbines (from the 15
proposed by the developer to a maximum of 12) to reduce impacts to complex fisheries habitats.
Other Permitting Issues
Some stakeholders have expressed additional concerns about offshore wind permitting as Atlantic
region projects have begun to advance. For example, some individuals and communities have
https://rodafisheries.org/.
81 BOEM, Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
June 2020, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/Vineyard-Wind-1-Supplement-toEIS.pdf. BOEM stated (p. ES-2) that its assessment of the scope of future offshore wind development had “greatly
expanded from what was considered in the Draft EIS, which only considered in detail projects that had submitted
construction plans (approximately 130 MW) in federal waters at that time.” For the supplemental EIS, BOEM assumed
“approximately 22 gigawatts of Atlantic offshore wind development are reasonably foreseeable along the east coast.”
82 Ibid., pp. 2-3 to 2-6.
83 U.S. Coast Guard, The Areas Offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode Island Port Access Route Study: Final Report,
Docket No. USCG-2019-0131, May 14, 2020, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-2019-0131-0101.
84 See letter from RODA to U.S. Coast Guard, “REQUEST FOR CORRECTION: Massachusetts/Rhode Island Port
Access Route Study; Docket No. USCG-2019-0131,” June 29, 2020, at https://rodafisheries.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/07/200629-MARIPARS-correction-RODA.pdf. Some fishing groups objected to “key errors” in the study, which
they characterized as including “inappropriate selection of fisheries data sources,” “absence of analysis of fishing
vessel operational requirements,” “unjustified analysis of only one layout design rather than a range,” “inclusion of
clear mathematical errors,” and “false assertions regarding radar interference.” On October 27, 2020, the Coast Guard
sent the fishing groups a response denying the request for a correction (letter from U.S. Coast Guard to RODA, October
27, 2020, at https://rodafisheries.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RESPONSE-TO-RODA-SIGNED-10-27-2019.pdf).
85 DOI, Vineyard Wind ROD. For further details, see BOEM, Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project: Final
Environmental Impact Statement, March 12, 2021, at https://www.boem.gov/vineyard-wind.
86 DOI, South Fork ROD, p. 15.
87 See, for example, RODA comments on the South Fork draft EIS, February 22, 2021, at https://rodafisheries.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/210222-SFWF_DEIS.pdf; and “RODA Statement on Recent Developments in Southern New
England Offshore Wind,” March 3, 2021, at https://rodafisheries.org/southern-new-england-offshore-wind/.
Congressional Research Service
19
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
objected to proposed projects because of the potential visibility of offshore wind turbines from
shore.88 In response to such concerns, DOI’s chosen alternative for the Vineyard Wind project
included an area where no surface occupancy (i.e., no wind turbines) would be allowed, in order
to reduce visibility.89 Others have cited potential impacts to birds and marine mammals from
offshore wind development as a cause of concern (see text box, “Offshore Wind and Marine
Wildlife”).90
Offshore Wind and Marine Wildlife
Federal agencies and other researchers are studying the effects of offshore wind energy development on marine
wildlife, including birds, marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and other species. Research studies have considered
multiple ways in which offshore wind may affect marine wildlife at different stages of wind project development.
For example, researchers have studied potential impacts from animals’ collisions with turbines or construction
vessels, noise associated with project development, displacement from traditional habitat areas, changes in prey
availability, and animals’ sensitivity to changes in local geomagnetic fields from the anthropogenic electromagnetic
fields emitted by power transmission cables. Some researchers also have pointed to potential benefits to marine
wildlife from offshore wind development, including direct benefits, such as artificial reef development on offshore
wind structures, and indirect benefits stemming from offshore wind’s potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Federal agencies must adhere to statutory requirements related to wildlife, pursuant to several laws relevant to
offshore wind development. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321) requires
agencies to assess potential effects on wildlife in environmental analyses of offshore wind lease sales, plans, and
permits. Some species also are protected under other statutes, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§1361 et seq.), Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.), and Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§703-712).
In its final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Vineyard Wind construction and operations plan, BOEM
found that its preferred alternative for the project would have adverse impacts on birds, fish, marine mammals,
and other living resources ranging in strength from negligible to moderate, as well as some minor to moderate
beneficial impacts. The record of decision (ROD) for the Vineyard Wind project, jointly issued by BOEM and
partnering agencies—the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)—requires Vineyard Wind to undertake mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting activities to reduce potential harm to wildlife. For instance, the developer’s mitigation activities could
include installing bird deterrent devices on turbines, adopting various best management practices for construction,
and adhering to seasonal work restrictions to protect marine wildlife at sensitive life stages, among others. The
ROD anticipated that the mitigation steps would result in the project having overall “neutral effects” on fish and
wildlife. As part of the ROD (Section 5.3.1), NMFS indicated its decision to approve an incidental harassment
authorization under the MMPA to take “small numbers” of marine mammals during construction of the wind
project. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. §1362) defines take as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any marine mammal.”
Supporters of Atlantic offshore wind projects also have raised issues, including about whether the
pace of BOEM’s permitting has been unnecessarily slow, causing project delays for wind
developers.91 Congress has expressed interest in the pipeline of wind projects in the Atlantic
88 For example, visibility concerns have been at issue in the development of wind projects off the Maryland shore; see,
for example, Heather Richards, “NIMBY Concerns Threaten Md. Plans for Bigger Turbines,” EnergyWire, January 2,
2020, at https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1061970701/; and Heather Richards, “Inside the Fight over Md.
Offshore Wind Project,” EnergyWire, January 24, 2020, at https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1062151633/.
89 BOEM, Vineyard Wind ROD. BOEM has defined surface occupancy as “the placement of wind facilities” (see, e.g.,
BOEM, “Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina—Call for
Information and Nominations,” 77 Federal Register 74204, December 13, 2012).
90 For BOEM studies of the wildlife impacts of offshore wind development, see BOEM, “Renewable Energy Research
Completed Studies,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy-research-completed-studies.
91 See, for example, David Iaconangelo, “Largest U.S. Offshore Wind Developer May Delay 5 Projects,” EnergyWire,
Congressional Research Service
20
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
region, and legislators have considered whether BOEM needs additional staff and financial
resources to review the growing number of submitted COPs.92 In appropriations acts for FY2020
and FY2021, Congress appropriated additional funding to BOEM beyond amounts requested for
the agency’s Renewable Energy account to improve permitting capacity for offshore wind
projects.93 For FY2022, BOEM requested an increase of 60% over FY2021 funding for its
Renewable Energy account to increase its workforce capacity, among other purposes.94
Deployment Issues
Congress may consider multiple issues pertaining to deployment of offshore wind energy
projects. Potential issues relate to domestic capacity for construction and installation of offshore
wind infrastructure in the coming years, and to the ability to sell into domestic electricity markets.
Jones Act and Port Infrastructure Considerations
The Jones Act requires that vessels transporting cargo from one U.S. point to another U.S. point
be (1) U.S.-built and (2) owned and crewed by U.S. citizens. Under the Jones Act, vessels
carrying offshore wind supplies and vessels for offshore wind turbine installation that travel from
U.S. ports to project sites on the OCS must be built in the United States, registered under the U.S.
flag, and owned and crewed by U.S. citizens.95 The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported in December 2020 that the United States had no domestic-built vessels capable of
transporting and installing wind turbines of the size planned for many upcoming projects.96 The
GAO report described two potential strategies for wind developers to comply with the Jones Act.
In the first strategy, a Jones Act-compliant wind turbine installation vessel would carry turbine
components from a U.S. port to the project site and install them. In the second strategy, a foreignflagged vessel would travel from a foreign port to install the turbines, but a Jones Act-compliant
feeder vessel would transport the components to the site from a U.S. port.97 In both scenarios,
April 30, 2020, at https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1063007345/.
92 See, for example, Silvio Marcacci, “Four Federal Policies Could Help Offshore Wind Jump Start Our Coronavirus
Economic Recovery,” Forbes, March 24, 2020, at https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/03/24/thesefederal-policies-could-help-offshore-wind-jump-start-americas-economic-recovery/?sh=2a0014da78cc.
93 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11405, Offshore Energy Agency Appropriations, FY2020, by Laura B.
Comay; and CRS In Focus IF11752, Offshore Energy Agency Appropriations, FY2021, by Laura B. Comay.
94 BOEM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2022, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/
files/fy2022-boem-budget-justification.pdf.
95 46 U.S.C. §55102. For more information on the Jones Act (Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920; P.L. 66261), see CRS Report R45725, Shipping Under the Jones Act: Legislative and Regulatory Background, by John
Frittelli. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA; P.L. 116-283, §9503) contained
provisions concerning jurisdiction over the OCS; these provisions have been interpreted to clarify the applicability of
the Jones Act to offshore wind project sites on the OCS. See, for example, Rep. John Garamendi, “Congress Passes
Garamendi Amendment Requiring Jones Act Enforcement in Offshore Wind,” press release, December 11, 2020, at
https://garamendi.house.gov/media/press-releases/congress-passes-garamendi-amendment-requiring-jones-actenforcement-offshore. Although the NDAA provisions clarified that the coastwise laws apply generally to wind
projects, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is primarily responsible for determining what activities fall under the act,
namely, defining what constitutes “transportation” and whether the origin and destination of a voyage are “U.S. points”
(19 C.F.R. §§4.80-4.93).
96 GAO, Offshore Wind Energy: Planned Projects May Lead to Construction of New Vessels in the U.S., but Industry
Has Made Few Decisions amid Uncertainties, GAO-21-153, December 2020, at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21153 (hereinafter cited as GAO, Offshore Wind Energy).
97 Wind turbine installation vessels (WTIVs) are designed specifically for the installation of wind turbines. WTIVs
have a large deck and can elevate on legs to lift the vessel out of the water. WTIVs also have a crane to lift and place
Congressional Research Service
21
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
stakeholders identified a need to build new Jones Act-compliant vessels, especially to handle
increasingly large turbine components expected to be used in future projects. Dominion Energy
announced that it contracted with Keppel AmFELS to begin construction of the first Jones Actcompliant offshore wind turbine installation vessel.98
Congress may consider whether to incentivize U.S. vessel construction through financial
assistance, job training programs,99 or other mechanisms and whether to provide infrastructure
funding for U.S. port facilities that could serve as staging areas for offshore wind installation
activities.100 Relatedly, Congress may consider whether to incentivize the manufacturing of
offshore wind components.101 Other considerations may include whether to introduce additional
requirements; for example, some states have required hiring priorities for companies developing
offshore wind projects.102 Another option could be to amend the Jones Act to exempt the offshore
wind industry.
Electricity Transmission Considerations
With offshore wind projects moving forward in the Atlantic region, some stakeholders have
identified potential issues with access to markets to sell the generated electricity. One potential
challenge is ensuring the markets operate in a manner that is competitive to both new generators
(e.g., offshore wind farms) and existing generators. Another potential challenge is ensuring there
is sufficient infrastructure and demand in place to accept the generated electricity and direct the
electricity to consumers.
Access to markets is a key consideration for the success of the offshore wind industry. According
to DOE, “capital expenditures (CapEx) are the single largest contributor to the life cycle costs of
offshore wind power plants and include all expenditures incurred prior to the start of commercial
operation.”103 CapEx data are typically self-reported by developers; because of this, the data are
uncertain. For example, independent verification of the data may not be possible, and some
expenditures may or may not be included in the data.104 Researchers at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory have estimated that both CapEx and operation and maintenance expenditures
turbines. Such vessels can cost up to $500 million, according to GAO. GAO, Offshore Wind Energy, p. 14.
98 Dominion Energy, “Dominion Energy Continues Development of First Jones Act Compliant Offshore Wind Turbine
Installation Vessel,” news release, December 16, 2020, at https://news.dominionenergy.com/2020-12-16-DominionEnergy-Continues-Development-of-First-Jones-Act-Compliant-Offshore-Wind-Turbine-Installation-Vessel.
99 Multiple proposals have been introduced in the 117th Congress related to job training programs for offshore wind,
including proposed grant programs under the Secretary of Energy (e.g., S. 2501) and the Secretary of the Interior (e.g.,
H.R. 998).
100 NREL reported on U.S. port and infrastructure investments in its 2019 Offshore Wind Technology Data Update,
October 2020, p. 21, at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77411.pdf. For more information on federal programs that
support maritime industry, including port infrastructure development, see CRS Report R46654, U.S. Maritime
Administration (MARAD) Shipping and Shipbuilding Support Programs, by Ben Goldman.
101 For example, S. 2766—the Offshore Wind American Manufacturing Act of 2021—would provide a manufacturing
investment tax credit and a production tax credit for manufacturing facilities of offshore wind turbine components.
102 The Virginia Clean Economy Act (Virginia H.B. 1526 and S.B. 851 of the 2020 Session, Chapters 1193 and 1194),
as enacted, established requirements for Dominion Energy Virginia’s qualified offshore wind projects, including
prioritizing the hiring, apprenticeship, and training of veterans, local workers, and workers from historically
economically disadvantaged communities.
103 DOE, 2021 Market Report, p. 75.
104 DOE, 2021 Market Report, p. 101.
Congressional Research Service
22
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
for offshore wind installations were more than twice those for onshore wind installations in
2019.105
Electricity Markets
Offshore wind projects may encounter issues with access to markets to sell the generated
electricity. One challenge involves ensuring market competitiveness for both existing generators
and new generators, such as offshore wind farms. Regional transmission organizations (RTOs)
and independent system operators (ISOs) manage the electric transmission systems and the
competitive wholesale electric energy markets, under the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s (FERC’s) oversight.106 Some regions are outside of these markets, including much
of the Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast. RTOs and ISOs generally run several markets to
ensure enough generation is available to reliably meet power demands. Some RTOs and ISOs use
forward capacity markets to ensure sufficient generation will be available years in the future. As
RTOs and ISOs developed these markets, some participants and observers raised concerns that
states could incentivize new generation, which could undermine competitiveness, enabling new
generators to submit artificially low offers.107 Some states have set offshore wind procurement
goals and have encouraged utilities to enter into power purchase agreements with offshore wind
projects.108 These long-term contracts, in addition to other state legislative or executive policies in
support of offshore wind, could be considered “subsidies” to offshore wind projects, thus
potentially allowing offshore wind developers to sell into electricity markets at lower prices than
other types of generators could offer. To address concerns of artificially low prices, RTOs and
ISOs may have a minimum offer price rule (MOPR), which is a specific minimum dollar amount
that a resource can offer into the capacity market. Several RTOs and ISOs implement MOPRs.
In the Atlantic region, some have expressed concerns that MOPRs could undermine state clean
energy goals and negatively affect offshore wind industry development.109 At the heart of the
debate is a state’s authority under the Federal Power Act over in-state generation facilities, as
opposed to FERC’s exclusive authority over sales in interstate wholesale electricity markets.110
Congress may consider whether states can provide incentives in federal competitive markets.
Congress also may consider whether clean energy generation is a national goal and whether to
105 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2019 Cost of Wind Energy Review, NREL/TP-5000-78471,
December 2020, p. 44.
106 An exception is the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which operates a transmission system and
electricity market covering much of Texas. Many aspects of ERCOT are outside Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) jurisdiction. FERC, “ERCOT,” at https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/electric/electric-powermarkets/ercot.
107 For more information on electricity markets, see CRS Report R43093, Electricity Markets—Recent Issues in Market
Structure and Energy Trading, by Richard J. Campbell.
108 For example, according to Rhode Island General Laws §39-26.1-8, once a developer was identified for a utilityscale offshore wind farm located offshore in Rhode Island waters or in adjacent federal waters, the developer could
apply to the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission to request a long-term contract with the electric distribution
company to buy up to 150 MW from a utility-scale offshore wind power project. For the Block Island Wind Farm,
Deepwater Wind Block Island and National Grid entered into a power purchase agreement in 2009; see National Grid
and Deepwater Wind, Power Purchase Agreement Between the Narragansett Electric Company, D/B/A/ National Grid
and Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC, Docket No. 41111, December 9, 2009, at https://offshorewindhub.org/sites/
default/files/resources/natlgrid_12-10-2009_docket4111deepwaterppa_0.pdf.
109 CRS Insight IN11412, PJM Minimum Offer Price Rule Impact on Future Renewables, by Richard J. Campbell and
Corrie E. Clark.
110 16 U.S.C. §§791a–825r; 16 U.S.C. §824. For discussion of federal authority over electric power, see CRS In Focus
IF11411, The Legal Framework of the Federal Power Act, by Adam Vann.
Congressional Research Service
23
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
establish a national clean energy standard, which could affect the pace of offshore wind
deployment.111
Connections to the Electrical Grid
With interest in developing offshore wind resources, stakeholders including regulators and system
operators are concerned about connecting offshore wind farms to existing transmission and
distribution infrastructure.112 One approach is to connect wind projects to onshore electric grid
infrastructure as the projects are individually approved and developed (which was the approach
used for the Block Island Wind Farm and the Dominion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind pilot
project). Another potential approach is to connect multiple wind projects to a transmission
infrastructure that would be built offshore, forming a transmission backbone that could deliver
electricity to onshore electric grids at multiple points and share the costs of transmission among
offshore wind projects. By attaching to onshore grids at multiple points, a backbone could address
potential reliability and congestion issues within a region. Such a transmission backbone could be
managed privately or publicly.113
One option is for BOEM to authorize one or more private entities to develop an offshore
transmission backbone on the OCS. For example, in June 2019, BOEM published a request for
competitive interest in commercial renewable energy transmission on the OCS offshore of New
York and New Jersey.114 The request was triggered by a proposal from a private developer,
Anbaric Development Partners, LLC, to build an offshore network of subsea transmission cables,
including up to eight offshore collector platforms that would collect power generated from
offshore wind facilities and distribute it to landings at locations from Massachusetts to the Long
Island Sound.115
Another option is for the federal government to develop and manage an offshore transmission
backbone.116 Such an approach could be modeled on other federal onshore projects involving
111 For more on clean energy standards, see CRS Report R46691, Clean Energy Standards: Selected Issues for the
117th Congress, by Ashley J. Lawson.
112 The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) requested that PJM, a regional transmission organization,
incorporate state public policies into its planning process and consider the development of offshore wind generation
and the incorporation of offshore wind generation into New Jersey’s transmission grid. In the order to PJM, New Jersey
BPU noted that staff recommendations include the initiation of “a competitive solicitation process to examine whether
an integrated suite of open access offshore wind transmission facilities, both on-shore and potentially off-shore, could
best facilitate meeting the State’s offshore wind goals in an economically efficient and timely manner.” New Jersey
BPU, Order in the Matter of Offshore Wind Transmission, Docket No. QO20100630, November 18, 2020, p. 4, at
https://www.nj.gov/bpu/pdf/boardorders/2020/20201118/8D%20%20ORDER%20Offshore%20Wind%20Transmission.pdf. PJM has examined onshore transmission needs in response
to anticipated increased growth in renewable energy generation, including offshore wind. PJM estimates that upgrades
to the existing onshore transmission system range between $2.16 billion and $3.21 billion for several long-term
scenarios building out transmission needs to 2035. PJM Interconnection, Offshore Wind Transmission Study: Phase 1
Results, October 19, 2021, p. 17, at https://www.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-notices/special-reports/2021/
20211019-offshore-wind-transmission-study-phase-1-results.ashx.
113 Labor Energy Partnership, Roundtable Summary: The Future of Offshore Wind Energy in the United States, April
2021, p. 7 (hereinafter cited as Labor Energy Partnership, Future of Offshore Wind Energy).
114 BOEM, “Commercial Renewable Energy Transmission on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New York and
New Jersey; Notice of Proposed Grant Area and Request for Competitive Interest,” 84 Federal Register 28582, June
19, 2019.
115 BOEM, “Regional Proposals: Anbaric,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/regionalproposals.
116 Labor Energy Partnership, Future of Offshore Wind Energy, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
24
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
electricity generation and transmission. One example for a federal government model generation
and transmission system is the Western Area Power Administration, which is one of four power
marketing administrations (PMAs) under DOE that markets and transmits power from federally
owned and operated hydropower projects.117 In general, the PMAs came into being because of the
government’s need to dispose of electric power produced by dams constructed largely for
irrigation, flood control, or other purposes and to promote small community and farm
electrification—that is, to provide service to customers whom it would not have been profitable
for a private utility to serve. The government created the PMAs to market federal power and
share the common mission of providing electricity at cost-based rates with preference to public
customers.118 Another example is the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal government
corporation created by Congress in 1933. The preamble to the TVA Act of 1933 lists flood
control, reforestation, and agricultural and industrial development as primary considerations in
the original establishment of TVA.119 Congress established TVA to “exist in perpetuity.”120
Although TVA initially focused its activities largely on its flood control and economic
development roles, TVA is now essentially a power generation company. Its business metrics
focus on optimizing TVA’s financial position, and its operational goals focus on providing
electricity at the lowest feasible rates to its wholesale customers in the multistate Tennessee
Valley region.121
Without a sufficient number of offshore wind projects for a coordinated offshore grid, offshore
wind projects likely will be integrated by generator interconnections, which could result in a
combination of many connections to the electric grid.122 On the one hand, the use of separate
interconnections for each generator is straightforward and reportedly has been the approach for
many offshore wind projects in the United States and Europe.123 On the other hand, large numbers
of individual connections to the onshore electric grid could complicate landfall connections and
transmission planning. Congress may consider whether the federal government would incentivize
offshore transmission infrastructure development and to what extent that development could be
coordinated.124
117 The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) was created by the Department of Energy Organization Act of
1977 (P.L. 95-91). Western Area Power Administration, “About WAPA,” April 13, 2021, at https://www.wapa.gov/
About/Pages/about.aspx.
118 Each power marketing administration (PMA) also has unique elements and regional issues that affect its business.
For more on PMAs, see CRS Report R45548, The Power Marketing Administrations: Background and Current Issues,
by Richard J. Campbell.
119 16 U.S.C. §831.
120
Many government corporations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, were established to exist in perpetuity.
Other government corporations, such as the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, were designed to serve as transition vehicles
to transform from governmental entities into private firms.
121 For more information on the Tennessee Valley Authority, see CRS Report R43172, Privatizing the Tennessee Valley
Authority: Options and Issues, by Richard J. Campbell.
122 John P. Daniel et al., National Offshore Wind Energy Grid Interconnection Study Executive Summary, 2014, p. 35.
123 David Iaconangelo, “Fearing Bottlenecks, States Eye New Transmission Options,” Energywire, May 31, 2019.
In the 117th Congress, H.R. 5376, “To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S.Con.Res. 14,” would
include provisions for interregional planning for offshore wind and grants and loans for offshore wind transmission
infrastructure (see Sections 30461 and 30464).
124
Congressional Research Service
25
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Offshore Wind Revenues
Under the OCSLA, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue
(ONRR) is authorized to collect several types of revenue during the offshore wind leasing
process.125 When BOEM holds a lease sale, developers bid on the offered leases and the winning
company pays the bid amount (known as a bonus) to the federal government. A second type of
revenue is rents, which developers pay annually on a lease prior to the stage when a project
begins commercial operations. Under BOEM regulations, annual rents on commercial offshore
wind leases are set at $3 per acre, unless otherwise specified in the lease or final sale notice.126
Third, developers pay an operating fee (similar to an oil and gas royalty) on electricity produced
from an operating wind facility. The operating fee is calculated based on the nameplate capacity
of the facility, a capacity factor representing the anticipated efficiency of facility operations (e.g.,
accounting for fluctuations in wind speeds), and the annual average wholesale electric power
price in the state where the transmission cable makes landfall for each year that the operating fee
applies.127 ONRR also records other types of offshore wind revenue, such as settlement
agreements and interest payments, in its other revenues category.
Revenue amounts from offshore wind have varied annually over the past decade, with the highest
total—$420 million—collected in FY2019 (Table 2). The majority of revenue in that fiscal year
came from a wind lease sale off the Massachusetts coast in December 2018 that yielded
$405 million in winning bids, considerably more than any previous offshore wind lease sale.
Generally, revenues in the past decade have been from bonus bids, rents, and other sources but
not from operating fees, because no projects were commercially operating in federal waters
during this period.
Table 2. Federal Offshore Wind Revenues, FY2010-FY2020
($ in millions)
Fiscal Year
Bonus Bids
Rents
Other Revenues
Total
FY2010
0
0.1
0
0.1
FY2011
0
0.2
0
0.2
FY2012
0
0.1
0
0.1
FY2013
<0.1
0.4
0
0.4
FY2014
4.7
1.7
<0.1
6.4
FY2015
9.1
2.2
0
11.4
FY2016
1.9
3.3
<0.1
5.2
FY2017
42.5
4.0
<0.1
46.5
125 43 U.S.C. §1337(p)(2). Also see BOEM regulations at 30 C.F.R. §585.221, 30 C.F.R. §585.503, and 30 C.F.R.
§585.506.
126 30 C.F.R. §585.503. Rents are applied to acres that are not yet authorized for commercial operations. By comparison
with the rental rate of $3/acre for offshore wind leases, rental rates for offshore oil and gas leases typically range from
$7/acre to $44/acre, depending on factors such as water depth and the length of time the lease has been held (with rents
increasing in later years). See BOEM, “Gulf of Mexico Rental Rate, Minimum Bid, and Royalty Rate History,” at
https://www.boem.gov/GOM-Lease-Term-History/.
127 30 C.F.R. §585.506. The regulations define the nameplate capacity as the “total installed capacity of the equipment
you install, as specified in your approved COP” (30 C.F.R. §585.506(c)(5)). The regulations provide for capacity factor
adjustments according to production data once a project is in commercial operation (30 C.F.R. §585.506(c)(3)).
Congressional Research Service
26
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Fiscal Year
Bonus Bids
Rents
Other Revenues
Total
FY2018
0
3.3
0
3.3
FY2019
414.2
5.9
<0.1
420.0
FY2020
0
5.2
0
5.2
Total
472.4
26.5
<0.1
498.9
Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Natural Resources Revenue Data, at
https://revenuedata.doi.gov/query-data/?dataType=Revenue#.
Notes: FY2010 is the earliest year for which ONRR recorded federal offshore wind revenues. BOEM did not
collect any offshore wind operating fees during the FY2010-FY2020 period, because no projects had begun
commercial electricity generation. The “Other Revenues” category includes revenues not in the bonus, rent, or
operating fee categories, such as settlement agreements or interest payments.
Under the OCSLA, revenues collected from offshore wind projects that lie within 3 nautical miles
of the seaward boundary of state waters are shared with adjacent coastal states at a rate of 27%.128
To date, the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island have received revenue-sharing payments in
some years from eligible projects in the zone adjacent to state waters, with no payment totaling
more than $25,000 in any year.129 For projects farther from state waters—the majority of the
proposed projects to date—all revenues are deposited in the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts. This disposition differs from that for offshore oil and gas leases. Oil and gas revenue
sharing for projects within 3 nautical miles of state waters is similar to that for wind (revenues are
shared at a rate of 27% with coastal states), but there is additional revenue sharing for projects on
deeper-water oil and gas leases under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
(GOMESA).130 GOMESA provides for revenues from qualified oil and gas leases in broad areas
of the Gulf of Mexico to be shared with eligible Gulf coast states at a rate of 37.5%, up to a
legislated cap.
Some Members of Congress seek a revenue-sharing arrangement for offshore wind leases similar
to that provided by GOMESA for qualified oil and gas leases, or alternatively seek to raise the
amounts shared with states from both wind and oil and gas leasing. Legislation in the 117th
Congress would provide that, for offshore wind projects farther from shore than the OCSLA
revenue-sharing zone, 50% of revenues would be shared with coastal states under a prescribed
formula (with no cap on amounts to be shared).131 As with GOMESA’s oil and gas revenue
shares, the legislation would provide that a state could use the revenues only for specified
purposes, generally related to coastal conservation and restoration.
128 43 U.S.C. §1337(p)(2)(B). State waters in most states extend to 3 nautical miles from shore, so the OCSLA revenue-
sharing zone generally would be for leases lying between 3 and 6 nautical miles from shore. Revenues from projects
lying wholly or partly within that area are shared with states under a formula detailed at 30 C.F.R. §585.540-585.543.
129 ONRR disbursement data queries at https://revenuedata.doi.gov/query-data. Massachusetts has received a revenuesharing payment of approximately $24,000 in each year since FY2011. Rhode Island received revenue-sharing
payments of approximately $170 in each of FY2015 and FY2016 and received approximately $1,700 in FY2017.
130 P.L. 109-432, 43 U.S.C. §1331 note. For more information, see CRS Report R46195, Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act (GOMESA): Background, Status, and Issues, by Laura B. Comay and Marc Humphries.
131
S. 2130, 117th Congress. The formula would be used to determine which coastal states were eligible for revenue
shares from a given project. S. 2130 also would increase the portion of offshore oil and gas revenues shared with Gulf
coast states under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA; P.L. 109-432, 43 U.S.C. §1331 note)
from 37.5% to 50% and would eliminate the GOMESA revenue-sharing cap. Legislation for offshore wind revenue
sharing with coastal states also was introduced in the 116th Congress as S. 3485; the 116th Congress legislation would
have shared 37.5% of revenues with eligible coastal states.
Congressional Research Service
27
Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues
Some legislators also have proposed using offshore wind revenues to fund specified federal
programs. For example, several bills in the 116th and 117th Congresses would set aside a portion
of offshore wind revenue for the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund.132 Some
stakeholders that favor the reduction of federal oil and gas leasing have considered whether
offshore wind revenues could be a potential future funding source for federal programs that
currently rely on offshore oil and gas revenues, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the Historic Preservation Fund.133 To date, revenues from offshore wind leasing have been
considerably less than revenues from offshore oil and gas leasing. For example, federal offshore
oil and gas revenues totaled $5.566 billion for FY2019 and $3.708 billion for FY2020, more than
10 times the amount from offshore wind in FY2019 and three orders of magnitude more than in
FY2020. In its FY2022 budget justification, ONRR projected future annual revenues from
offshore wind ranging from $5 million to $878 million for the FY2021-FY2031 period.134
Author Information
Laura B. Comay
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Corrie E. Clark
Analyst in Energy Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
132 S. 2130 in the 117th Congress, in addition to providing for offshore wind revenue sharing with coastal states, would
set aside 37.5% of offshore wind revenues for the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund. Also in the 117 th
Congress, H.R. 3892 would direct that 30% of offshore wind revenues be deposited to this fund. H.R. 8253, H.R. 8632,
and S. 3485, all in the 116th Congress, would have set aside differing percentages of offshore wind revenues for the
National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund (16 U.S.C. §7503).
133 For more information on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, see CRS Report RL33531, Land and Water
Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent. For more information on the
Historic Preservation Fund, see CRS Report R45800, The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview, by
Mark K. DeSantis.
134 DOI Office of the Secretary, Department-Wide Programs, Budget Justifications and Performance Information:
Fiscal Year 2022, p. ELR-18, Table 9, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2022-os-dwp-budgetjustification.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R46970 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
28
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.