Fig 1.
Map series of levelized cost of energy (LCOE, 2020 USD per megawatt hour) of OWE off the U.S.
West Coast predicted by the InVEST OWEP model. Darker green grid cells have lower cost energy production, which would be more profitable for development, all else equal. Cross-hatched regions are prospective or currently leased OWE call areas. Basemap reprinted from World Ocean base under a CC BY license, with permission from Esri, original copyright © 2024. Basemap content is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein with permission. Copyright © 2024 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
Table 1.
Present value (PV) with economic activity (2020 USD) for entire fishery and per unit area for each fishery, number of associated vessels and fishing depth statistics associated with each of the fisheries analyzed over the 10 years spanning 2011–2020.
Fig 2.
Maps of the overlap index for all fisheries species analyzed (far left map) and for each of the individual species.
Light blue region on the far left map indicates the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Mapped overlap indices share the same scale across each species and for the combined species, making maps directly comparable. Overlap index is the grid cell by grid cell division of fisheries present value with economic activity (AFI M USD re. 2020) and LCOE of OWE. Grid cells with high overlap indices have high fishing value and low OWE production costs, whereas grid cells with low indices have either low fishing value or high OWE production costs, or both. Basemap reprinted from World Ocean base under a CC BY license, with permission from Esri, original copyright © 2024. Basemap content is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein with permission. Copyright © 2024 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
Fig 3.
Boxplots of the levelized cost of energy (2020 USD per megawatt hour) in the areas where different fishery species are caught across the U.S.
West Coast.
Fig 4.
Tradeoff frontiers between levelized cost of energy (LCOE, 2020 USD per megawatt hour) and fishing present value (present value, 2020 millions USD) for different OWE development scenarios.
The frontiers represent Pareto optimal siting choices to achieve the target level of development. Each of the three labeled points along each frontier represent the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles for each Pareto frontier, corresponding to fisheries centric (fish), balanced and offshore wind energy (wind) centric optimal choices, respectively. Panels (A) and (B) represent a regional approach towards meeting the combined regional target across states for 2030 (11 GW capacity) and 2045 (55 GW capacity), respectively. Panels (C), (E), and (G) represent state-based approaches for Washington, Oregon, and California respectively where they are constrained to meeting their OWE development targets for 2030 in state-adjacent waters. Panels (D), (F), and (H) represent state-based approaches for 2045 capacity targets.
Fig 5.
Maps of wind area grid cells that were selected at three example points along tradeoff frontiers.
Each of the three sub-maps within the four map panels A, B, C and D show wind farm grid cells that were selected at three example points along each frontier in Fig 4 representing the 10th (fisheries centric, “Fish”), 50th (“Balanced” between fisheries and wind), and 90th (offshore wind centric, “Wind”) percentiles for each Pareto frontier. Green, rose and gold grid cells correspond to the waters adjacent to the states of Washington, Oregon and California, respectively. Map series in panel (A) indicate wind farm grid cells that were chosen based on a regional (coastwide) approach towards meeting the combined targets across states for 2030, and panel (B) is from a state-based approach for 2030. Map series in panel (C) show wind farm grid cells that were chosen when state targets were developed based on a regional approach towards meeting the combined targets across states for 2045, and panel (D) is from a state-based approach entirely in waters adjacent to each state for 2045.
Fig 6.
Fishery species’ exposure (mean present value exposed by fishery, 2020 millions USD) across Pareto optimal sites for different levels of OWE development (Target, gigawatts).
95% confidence intervals are given in corresponding shaded color to species’ trendlines. Targets labeled 2030 and 2045 indicate goals or mandates by individual states (panels (C), (D), and (E)) or regional aggregate goals (panels (A) and (B)). Panel (A) represents an unconstrained optimization, where aggregate development targets across all three states are met by siting OWE in waters anywhere within our modeling domain. Panels (C) - (E) represent constrained optimization at the state level for California, Oregon, and Washington, respectively, where their individual targets are met only in state-adjacent waters. Panel (B) represents the sum of panels (C) - (E), where development is summed proportionately based on the relative targets - i.e., 11 GW represents 3 GW each from Washington and Oregon and 5 GW from California.