NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Offshore Wind Jobs and 

Economic Development Impacts 

in the United States: Four 

Regional Scenarios

S. Tegen, D. Keyser, and F. Flores-Espino

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

J. Miles and D. Zammit

James Madison University

D. Loomis

Great Lakes Wind Network

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-61315

February 2015
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Offshore Wind Jobs and 

Economic Development 

Impacts in the United States: 

Four Regional Scenarios

S. Tegen, D. Keyser, and F. Flores-Espino

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

J. Miles and D. Zammit

James Madison University

D. Loomis

Great Lakes Wind Network

Prepared under Task No. WE14.BB03

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-61315

February 2015
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
iii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgements

The U.S. Department of Energy supported this work. This report would not have been possible 

without the invaluable contributions of offshore wind experts and professionals, developers, 

academics, government officials, and trade association representatives in the four regions 

included in this research. We would like to thank Professor Jonathan Miles and Dane Zammit of 

James Madison University and Professor Dave Loomis from Great Lakes Wind Network for 

their contributions to the research and text for this report. In addition, we thank Walt Musial, 

Aaron Smith, and Eric Lantz of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory who contributed to 

and reviewed this report. We would also like to thank the contributing organizations and 

individuals that wished to remain anonymous, as well as: 

• Blade Dynamics

• Delaware Renewable Energy Taskforce

• Georgia Department of Community Affairs

• Georgia Department of Natural Resources – Coastal Resources Division; Environmental 

Protection Division; Historic Preservation Division; Parks, Recreation, and Historic Sites 

Division; Wildlife Resources Division

• Georgia Department of Transportation 

• Georgia Forestry Commission 

• Georgia Ports Authority 

• Great Lakes Wind Collaborative

• Great Lakes Wind Network

• Jekyll Island Authority

• Keystone Engineering 

• Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation 

• Maryland Energy Administration 

• Offshore Wind Power Systems of Texas LLC 

• PennFuture Energy Center

• Pennsylvania Environmental Resource Consortium 

• Schellstede & Associates, Inc.

• Texas A&M Energy Institute, Wind Energy Center 

• Texas General Land Office

• University of Delaware

• University of Maryland Energy Research Center. 
iv

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

Offshore wind has tremendous potential in the United States as a clean, renewable source of 

electricity. This report uses the offshore wind Jobs and Economic Development Impacts (JEDI) 

model1

 and provides four case studies of potential offshore wind deployment scenarios in 

different regions of the United States: the Southeast, the Great Lakes, the Gulf Coast, and the 

Mid-Atlantic. Researchers worked with developers and industry representatives in each region to 

create potential offshore wind deployment and supply chain growth scenarios, specific to their 

locations. These scenarios were used as inputs into the offshore JEDI model to estimate jobs and 

other gross economic impacts in each region. 

Study results show that in addition to being a promising source of electricity, offshore wind also 

has the potential to drive regional economic development. How significant of a driver depends 

on how much offshore wind capacity is deployed. Specifically, the results from the four regional 

case studies describe how and to what extent increased investment in offshore wind technology 

and labor force development could translate into increased employment in the offshore wind 

industry. 

To obtain the best regional assumptions for this report, the four scenarios (combining 

deployment, labor force, and regional supply chain development) were constructed specifically 

for each region, and this affects the analysis results. The scenarios vary in terms of their levels of 

relative deployment potential as well as assumptions about the local workforce and supply chain. 

Sourcing components locally reduces transportation costs, times, and risks and increases the 

economic impacts to the local economy. One study showed that the total construction costs of a 

hypothetical 588-megawatt (MW) offshore wind farm built off the coast of Virginia with 

turbines imported from Europe would be 17% more expensive than building the same wind farm 

with turbines manufactured locally (VCERC 2010). 

Differences in the scenarios (e.g., local content assumptions) result in regional economic 

comparisons that are not “apples to apples.” In other words, it is not appropriate to compare 

regional results on a dollars- or jobs-per-megawatt basis, given the actual and modeled regional 

variances. Table ES-1 shows ranges of jobs per megawatt in the four regions we examined, but it 

cannot be used as a nationwide average due to the variance in regional model inputs, differences 

in real regional wind conditions, and the fact that all regions of the country were not included. 

Table ES-1. Regional Ranges of Jobs Per Megawatt from Offshore Wind in Four Regions

Results (Jobs/MW) Low Scenario Moderate Scenario High Scenario

Regional ranges 14 - 27 17 - 28 25 - 31

In the Southeast region, offshore wind energy development has the potential to support between 

14 and 44 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs/MW during construction periods and 1.6 and 1.7 FTE 

ongoing (operations phase) jobs/MW. Many large ports in the Southeast region could be used as 

staging areas and for component manufacturing, such as the Port of Virginia, Port of Charleston, 

 

1 For more detailed information on the Offshore Wind JEDI model, please see the model user reference guide at 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58389.pdf
v 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and Port of Savannah. There is existing economic activity in industries similar to offshore wind 

in the Southeast, so the regional workforce and infrastructure could contribute to offshore wind 

in the future. 

In the Great Lakes region, the lack of tides and decreased corrosiveness of freshwater compared 

to saltwater present advantages; however, the main concerns are logistical. Lock and other 

seaway constraints, as well as farther average distances from shore for the potential turbines 

(compared to ocean projects), are likely to increase costs. On average in the Great Lakes, there 

could be between 6 and 27 FTE jobs/MW installed and 0.7 and 0.8 FTE jobs/MW for the 

projects’ ongoing operation. 

According to a report published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), more 

than 30% of the total U.S. offshore wind potential in the 0- to 30-m depth is concentrated in the 

Gulf of Mexico (Musial and Ram 2010). The offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico 

uses approximately 3,700 offshore structures to extract one-fourth of the total U.S. oil production 

and one-eighth of natural gas (Kaiser 2010). Given the similarity between the foundations and 

substructures needed for offshore wind development and those used by the oil and gas industry, 

the existing manufacturing workforce and infrastructure could add to the percentage of local 

labor and materials used in the development of offshore wind or speed the development of a 

local supply chain. Our analysis shows that offshore wind deployment has the potential to 

support between 25 and 29 FTE jobs/MW during construction and 1.3 FTE jobs/MW on an 

ongoing basis, for operations and maintenance. 

The Mid-Atlantic region is home to some of the largest ports and logistics infrastructure in the 

United States, including the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Port of Baltimore, the Port of 

Philadelphia,2

 and the Port of Virginia. The Mid-Atlantic region is home to a large number of 

companies and manufacturers that have the potential to support the offshore wind supply chain. 

During construction phases, we estimated that jobs in this region could range from 12 to 30 FTE

jobs/MW, and the average for the ongoing jobs was 1.2 FTE jobs/MW.

In each of the four regions, this research found that an offshore wind industry in the United 

States has the potential to support thousands of jobs due to robust workforce requirements, even 

at relatively conservative levels of deployment and domestic supply chain growth. 

 

2 The Port of Philadelphia can access the Atlantic Coast via the Delaware River.
vi 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Acronyms & Abbreviations

AWEA American Wind Energy Association

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

FTE full-time equivalent

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GW gigawatt

GWh gigawatt-hours 

I-O input-output 

JEDI Jobs and Economic Development Impact model 

JMU James Madison University

kW kilowatt

M meter

MW megawatt

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

O&M operations and maintenance 

RPS renewable portfolio standard
vii 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contents 

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... iv

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Potential Barriers to Offshore Wind Power Development............................................................ 2

1.1.1 State Government Policies and National Activities......................................................... 2

1.2 Regional Scenarios Vary, Making Comparisons Difficult............................................................ 4

1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Caveats, Limitations, and Sensitivities.......................................................................................... 5

1.5 Results........................................................................................................................................... 5

2 The Regions .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Wind Resources............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Electricity Prices ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Populations and Economies........................................................................................................... 9

3 Case Study: Mid-Atlantic Region...................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure of the Mid-Atlantic ................................................. 12

3.2 Scenarios..................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1 Market and Deployment................................................................................................. 13

3.2.2 Regional Investment....................................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Costs............................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Results......................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.1 Construction Period........................................................................................................ 16

3.3.2 Operations and Maintenance Period............................................................................... 18

3.3.3 Earnings and Output....................................................................................................... 20

3.4 Summary of Economic Impacts.................................................................................................. 21

4 Case Study: Great Lakes Region...................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure of the Great Lakes................................................... 23

4.2 Scenarios..................................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.1 Deployment Scenarios.................................................................................................... 24

4.2.2 Regional Content............................................................................................................ 25

4.3 Results......................................................................................................................................... 25

4.3.1 Jobs................................................................................................................................. 25

4.3.2 Earnings and Output....................................................................................................... 28

4.4 Summary of Economic Impacts.................................................................................................. 29

5 Case Study: Gulf of Mexico Region.................................................................................................. 30

5.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure of the Gulf of Mexico ............................................. 30

5.2 Scenarios..................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2.1 Deployment Scenarios.................................................................................................... 31

5.2.2 Regional Content............................................................................................................ 32

5.3 Results......................................................................................................................................... 33

5.3.1 Construction Period........................................................................................................ 33

5.3.2 Earnings and Output....................................................................................................... 35

5.4 Summary of Economic Impacts.................................................................................................. 37

6 Case Study: The Southeast Region.................................................................................................. 38

6.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 38

6.2 Scenarios..................................................................................................................................... 39

6.2.1 Deployment Scenarios.................................................................................................... 39

6.2.2 Regional Investment-Based Scenarios........................................................................... 40

6.2.3 Cost-Based Scenarios..................................................................................................... 40

6.3 Results......................................................................................................................................... 41

6.3.1 Jobs................................................................................................................................. 41

6.3.2 Earnings and Output....................................................................................................... 44
viii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6.4 Summary of Economic Impacts.................................................................................................. 46

7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 48

References................................................................................................................................................. 50

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 54

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Wind Energy Areas .................................................................. 3

Figure 2. Offshore wind resource map (NREL 2013)................................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Map of the Mid-Atlantic region................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4. Capital expenditure cost distribution for offshore wind in the Mid-Atlantic region ................... 16

Figure 5. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Mid-Atlantic region) ......... 17

Figure 6. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Mid-Atlantic region).......... 19

Figure 7. Map of the Great Lakes region .................................................................................................... 23

Figure 8. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Great Lakes region)........... 26

Figure 9. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Great Lakes region) ........... 27

Figure 10. Map of the Gulf of Mexico region............................................................................................. 30

Figure 11. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Gulf of Mexico region) ... 33

Figure 12. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Gulf of Mexico region).... 34

Figure 13. Map of the Southeast region...................................................................................................... 38

Figure 14. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Southeast region)............. 42

Figure 15. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Southeast region)............. 43

Table of Tables

Table 1. Regions of Analysis........................................................................................................................ 7

Table 2. Regional Offshore Wind Potential within 50 Nautical Miles from Shore ...................................... 9

Table 3. Population and 10-Year Average Annual Growth Rates by Region............................................. 10

Table 4. Employment and Unemployment by Region................................................................................ 11

Table 5. Supply Chain Companies and Firms Identified in the Mid-Atlantic Region................................ 13

Table 6. Mid-Atlantic Region Cost and Capacity Scenarios (2012 $)........................................................ 14

Table 7. Low, Medium, and High Regional Investment Paths for the Dynamic Components for Offshore 

Wind in the Mid-Atlantic....................................................................................................... 15

Table 8. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (Mid-Atlantic 

Region)................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 9. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario (Mid-Atlantic Region).... 19

Table 10. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (Mid-Atlantic 

Region, 2012 $ Millions) ....................................................................................................... 20

Table 11. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M under Each Scenario (Mid-Atlantic Region, 

2012 $ Millions)..................................................................................................................... 21

Table 12. Great Lakes Region Cost and Capacity Scenarios (2012 $)....................................................... 24

Table 13. Great Lakes Local Content Assumptions (Construction) for Each Deployment Scenario ......... 25

Table 14. Great Lakes Local Content Assumptions (O&M) for Each Deployment Scenario .................... 25

Table 15. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario ............................ 26

(Great Lakes Region).................................................................................................................................. 26

Table 16. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario ....................................... 27

(Great Lakes Region).................................................................................................................................. 27

Table 17. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario..................... 28

(Great Lakes Region, 2012 $ Millions) ...................................................................................................... 28

Table 18. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M under Each Scenario................................ 29
ix

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

(Great Lakes Region, $ 2012 Millions) ...................................................................................................... 29

Table 19. Scenario Inputs (Gulf of Mexico Region, 2012 $)...................................................................... 31

Table 20. Detailed Local Content Estimates by Selected Expenditure Categories (Gulf of Mexico Region)32

Table 21. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (Gulf of Mexico 

Region)................................................................................................................................... 34

Table 22. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario (Gulf of Mexico Region)35

Table 23. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (Gulf of 

Mexico Region, 2012 $ Millions).......................................................................................... 36

Table 24. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M Activities under Each Scenario (Gulf of 

Mexico Region, 2012 $ Millions).......................................................................................... 37

Table 25. Overall Scenarios Considering Growth, Regional Investment, and Cost (Southeast Region).... 39

Table 26. Southeast Region Cost and Capacity Scenarios (2012 $)........................................................... 41

Table 27. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (Southeast Region)43

Table 28. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario (Southeast Region)........ 44

Table 29. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario..................... 45

(Southeast Region, 2012 $ Millions) .......................................................................................................... 45

Table 30. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M under Each Scenario................................ 46

(Southeast Region, 2012 $ Millions) .......................................................................................................... 46

Table 31. Summary of Construction Cost and Job Estimates by Region ................................................... 48

Table 32. Comparison of Study Results with Other Published Results...................................................... 48
1 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

Offshore wind has the potential to play a significant role in U.S. electricity generation. The 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates more than 1,000 gigawatts (GW) of 

electricity-generating potential in U.S. waters between 0 and 30 meters (m) deep3

 and more than 

4,200 GW total capacity in all coastal water4 (Musial and Ram 2010; Lopez et al. 2012). In its 

National Offshore Wind Strategy Guide,5 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established a 

scenario that deployed 54 GW of offshore wind-generating capacity by 2030 and 10 GW by 

2020 (Beaudry-Losique et al. 2011). Although as of this publication no commercial offshore 

wind development has occurred in the United States, five offshore wind projects are in advanced 

stages of development. From a global perspective, most offshore development is located in 

Europe’s North Sea. 

Deployment in line with goals established by DOE would require significant investment. At the 

time of publication, an average offshore wind plant could cost approximately $5,600 per kilowatt 

(kW) to install. The 2011 installed cost of a typical 3.6-megawatt (MW) turbine would be more 

than $20 million (Tegen et al. 2013). Because of the large expenditures, developers and other 

businesses related to the offshore wind industry have the potential to play an important role in 

U.S. regional economies. Valuable insights into the scale and scope of local economic 

development driven by offshore wind can be gained by analyzing these potential impacts. The 

intent of this analysis is to use reasonable deployment numbers to estimate the potential 

economic impacts of different levels of offshore wind development, not to predict deployment 

scenarios.

There is extensive literature that analyzes the potential development and economic impact of 

land-based wind installations and the land-based wind industry in the United States.

6 Empirical 

studies of regional economies where wind development has occurred show that the deployment 

of wind power systems has an impact (Brown et al. 2012). Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory performed an analysis of development and trade data showing that a landbased wind supply chain has developed in the United States. Indeed, the land-based wind 

industry had a measurable impact on the U.S. economy even when it only contributed 3.3% of 

the nation’s electricity (Wiser and Bolinger 2012).7

 

Yet while the technology is similar, there are many differences between offshore and land-based 

wind installations. Each has different logistical and labor force requirements, and each operates 

under different regulations. Each technology influences material suppliers and manufacturers 

differently and has different infrastructure requirements. These are only a few examples from a 

 

3 It’s generally easier and less expensive to install wind turbines in shallower waters.

4 This potential is for areas with an average wind speed of 7 m/s or greater at 90-m elevation that are up to 50 

nautical miles from the U.S. coast. 

5 http://energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/national-offshore-wind-strategy-creating-offshore-wind-energy-industryunited

6 Sample publications include Brown, Pender, Wiser, Lantz, & Hoen 2012; DOE 2008; Druckenmiller 2012; U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2004; Lantz & Tegen 2008; Pedden 2006; Wei, Patadia, & Kammen 

2010.

7 The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that wind power contributed 4.1% to the United States 

electricity supply in 2013 and 3.3% in 2012. 
2 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

multitude of differences. This offshore wind-specific analysis captures the unique impacts that a 

burgeoning offshore wind industry could have in regions of the United States. 

This report introduces the Offshore Wind Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) 

model8 and explores potential economic development impacts of offshore wind development in 

four regions of the United States: the Southeast, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 

Mid-Atlantic. In doing so, the authors (“we”) introduce the first estimates of economic impacts 

from offshore development using the Offshore Wind JEDI model. 

The Department of Energy selected the regions in this report based on areas that could deploy 

fixed-bottom (monopile or jacket) offshore wind platform technology. There are other domestic 

regions with offshore wind potential farther out from shore for which a floating platform would 

be necessary (due to the water depth), such as the Northeast. To deploy offshore wind in the 

United States, policymakers and stakeholders need to address a number of issues including 

transmission, policy, environmental impacts, siting and permitting, comparative assessments of 

alternative generation options, and education and outreach. The JEDI model assesses specific 

gross economic impacts to the regions. Many of the above important issues are mentioned in this 

report but are not thoroughly discussed or analyzed. The results offered in each regional section 

stem from the aggregation and analysis of the information collected from local experts and may 

not reflect the point of view of each of the third parties interviewed. There are two states that are

included in two different regions: Pennsylvania in the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic regions, and 

Virginia in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions. 

1.1 Potential Barriers to Offshore Wind Power Development

Offshore wind projects worldwide have not been developed in locations where they have a 

significant exposure to hurricanes and other tropical events (Musial et al. 2013a). Therefore, 

there is no empirical evidence regarding the effect this additional risk factor would have on the 

structural design of turbines and foundations, and ultimately on total installation costs. 

Hurricanes do not preclude the development of the offshore wind industry; however, an increase 

in cost and possibly a lower energy production per unit of installed capacity may be expected 

(Navigant Consulting 2013). 

Beyond concerns about hurricanes, there are additional barriers to offshore wind project 

development. Property owners and others oppose offshore wind development for aesthetic 

reasons, logistical complications with fisheries and vessel traffic, military and civilian air traffic, 

radar, environmental concerns, transmission, and grid interconnection. This report focuses on 

scenarios in which the successful deployment of offshore wind projects overcomes these 

barriers, in the future. For more information on barriers to offshore wind power development, see 

Musial and Ram 2010.

1.1.1 State Government Policies and National Activities

Policies identified as effective in advancing offshore wind deployment at the state level include 

(but are not limited to) renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), especially with an offshore wind 

 

8 To view the Offshore Wind JEDI user reference guide, go to www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58389.pdf
3 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

section, feed-in tariffs, and low-interest loans (Navigant Consulting 2013). Some states also have 

emissions policies that could see offshore wind as a favorable clean energy option.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) operates a number of offshore renewable 

energy programs.

9 BOEM grants leases, easements, and rights-of-way for orderly, safe, and 

environmentally responsible renewable energy development activities (BOEM 2013). In 2013 

and 2014, BOEM released “Wind Energy Areas” in certain coastal areas (Musial et al. 2013b), 

including states in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. Developers can use these maps and an 

auction process to bid on leases for offshore wind development. 

Figure 1. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Wind Energy Areas

Source: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 201410

 

9 www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/index.aspx 10

www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Smart_from_the_Start/Wind_Energy_Areas06

07.pdf
4 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1.2 Regional Scenarios Vary, Making Comparisons Difficult

For each region, we performed in-depth interviews with local stakeholders. Each scenario's 

assumptions vary due to wind resource and capacity deployed, which preserves the unique 

regional aspects but makes inter-regional jobs-per-megawatt comparisons more complicated. The 

deployment scenarios in each region (combining deployment, cost reduction, and within-region 

supply chain development) are very different. In one region (the Southeast), we had enough 

information for multiple variations on scenarios, whereas in the other three, we obtained data for 

low-, medium-, and high-deployment scenarios. 

1.3 Methodology

For each case study, researchers worked with regional energy groups and industry 

representatives to create potential offshore wind deployment scenarios and corresponding 

construction and operating costs. Each case considers unique regional features that could play 

roles in the establishment and growth of an offshore wind industry. Each region has a unique 

wind resource as well as a different regional supply chain and labor force, so scenarios vary 

greatly by location. 

Each case study utilizes the Offshore Wind JEDI model. The model is one element in a suite of 

JEDI input-output (I-O) models. JEDI models provide estimated economic impacts that are 

supported by investment in a number of energy technologies. Funded by DOE, NREL and MRG 

& Associates created the Offshore Wind JEDI model to incorporate the unique aspects of 

offshore wind development into an economic impact tool that can be accessed and used by the 

public.11 

I-O models are widely recognized tools that are used to estimate economic impacts associated 

with investments or expenditures. These models map how economy sectors such as businesses, 

households, workers, capital, and governments interact with one another via purchases and sales

at a single point in time. Because sectors are related to one another, an increase in demand for 

one can lead to an increase in demand for another. An increase in demand for steel towers, for 

example, results in increased demand for iron ore. 

JEDI and other I-O models estimate economic impacts that are supported by changes in demand 

for goods and services produced by industries and households. Goods or services produced by 

households include labor and property (such as land) that is sold or leased to industries. JEDI 

estimates changes in demand for these goods and services with data from the project scenario.

The JEDI project scenario is a set of data that describes a project. Each project contains two sets 

of line item expense categories such as equipment (blades, towers, turbines, etc.), materials and 

services, and labor. One set covers the project construction, the other covers operations and 

maintenance (O&M) of a project. JEDI models contain default project scenario and cost data, but 

 

11 All publicly available JEDI models can be downloaded from www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi
5 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

analysts with knowledge of project details can change these defaults to better represent the 

scenario being analyzed.

12 

The JEDI model also allows a model user to specify which portions of expenditures are made 

within the region of analysis. For example, the model allows users to specify whether wind 

turbine blades were manufactured in the state where the project is being built or outside the state 

(assuming the state is the region of analysis). The JEDI model uses expenditures made within the 

region of analysis, or “local expenditures,” to estimate economic impacts. The JEDI model does 

not estimate economic impacts outside the region of analysis (e.g., generator parts from China). 

1.4 Caveats, Limitations, and Sensitivities

As with all economic models, there are caveats and limitations to the use of the JEDI model. 

Results from JEDI models are gross, not net. JEDI calculates economic activity that would be 

supported by demand created by project expenditures. Other changes in an economy take place 

that JEDI does not consider. These include supply-side impacts such as price changes, changes in 

taxes or subsidies, or utility-rate changes. The JEDI results presented in this analysis represent 

estimates at a single point in time and should not be interpreted as a forecast. For more 

information on caveats, limitations, and sensitivities, please see Appendix A.

1.5 Results

The JEDI model reports economic impact estimates for two phases: (1) construction and (2) 

O&M. Construction-phase results are one-time totals that span the equivalent of approximately 1 

year.

13 O&M results are presented on an annual basis and ongoing for the life of the facility.

All impacts are based on expenditures and local content data contained within the project 

scenario. JEDI organizes effects into different categories based on how the user-specified project 

scenario supports the impact. The workers who install a wind turbine, for example, are onsite. 

The workers who manufactured that turbine are part of the supply chain (not onsite). Installers 

and manufacturers earn wages and spend money within the region of analysis, which supports 

further economic activity (e.g., the construction workers eat lunch at local sandwich shops). The 

three categories of impacts used by JEDI are14: 

• Project development and onsite labor impacts represent economic activity that is either 

directly involved with a project’s development and implementation or that occur onsite. 

These impacts typically occur in the construction, maintenance, engineering and professional 

services, and port staging sectors. 

 

12 Further information about the Offshore Wind JEDI model, data, and methodology can be obtained from the user 

reference guide, available at www.analysis.nrel.gov/jedi 13 If, for example, JEDI reports a construction-phase impact of 50 workers to build a project that takes 2 years to 

complete, this is the equivalent of an average of 25 workers per year (50 / 2 = 25). If the same project required 3 

years to complete, the average would be 17 (rounded) workers per year. 14 I-O models typically organize impacts into direct, indirect, and induced effects. JEDI categories differ from these. 

Project development and onsite labor impacts include less-than-direct effects from project expenditures, and turbine 

and supply chain impacts are more broad than the indirect effects from project expenditures. The Offshore Wind 

JEDI User Reference Guide (www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi) contains more information about these differences.
6 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Turbine and supply chain impacts represent economic activity that is supported by 

purchases for a project or business-to-business services. These include locally manufactured 

inputs such as blades and locally procured equipment used to manufacture those blades, such 

as resin and fiberglass. 

• Induced impacts accrue as money circulates in an economy. Households spend earnings 

from project development and onsite labor impacts as well as turbine and supply chain 

impacts. The portion of these earnings spent within the region of analysis is known as 

induced impacts. These effects commonly occur in the retail sales, child care, leisure and 

hospitality, and real estate sectors. 

JEDI reports three metrics for each type of impact: jobs, earnings, and gross output. Each metric 

has a specific definition that informs how it should be interpreted. 

• Jobs are expressed as full-time equivalent (FTE). One job is the equivalent of one person 

working 40 hours per week, year-round. Two people working full-time for 6 months equal 

one FTE. Two people working 20 hours per week for 12 months also equal one FTE. An 

FTE could alternately be referred to as a person-year or job-year. Jobs, as reported by JEDI, 

are not limited to those who work for an employer; they could include other types of workers 

such as self-employed (“sole proprietors”). 

• Earnings include any type of income from work, generally an employee’s wage or salary 

and supplemental costs paid by employers such as health insurance and retirement.15 

• Gross output is the total amount of economic activity that occurs within an economy (within 

the region of analysis). It is the sum of all expenditures. A scenario in which a developer 

purchases a locally manufactured $500,000 blade that utilized $100,000 of locally procured 

fiberglass represents $600,000 in gross output. 

 

15 It could also be other non-wage compensation for work performed, such as proprietor earnings.
7 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 The Regions

This analysis includes case studies of potential deployment and associated economic impacts in 

four regions of the United States: the Mid-Atlantic, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 

Southeast (Atlantic). Analysts worked with regional stakeholders, including academics, 

government officials, industry representatives, and offshore wind experts to develop analysis 

scenarios that best reflect conditions within the study region. These four regions were chosen due 

to the water depth and the near-term deployment potential. Other regions of the country could 

also experience offshore wind deployment, but areas like the Northeast and Northwest have 

greater water depths, so the regions in this analysis are most suited to an analysis of fixed-bottom 

technologies. The current JEDI model does not accommodate floating offshore wind turbine 

systems.

Table 1. Regions of Analysis

Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Gulf of Mexico Southeast 

Virginia Illinois Alabama Georgia

District of Columbia Indiana Louisiana North Carolina

Maryland Michigan Florida South Carolina

Delaware Minnesota Mississippi Virginia

Pennsylvania New York Texas

New Jersey Ohio

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Some of the most common factors that influenced deployment levels for this research were 

offshore wind resources, load growth, local supply chains, and electricity prices. Analysts also 

considered regional electricity, current offshore wind activity, and other conditions unique to 

each region.

Each region also has different socioeconomic conditions. Population and employment 

characteristics and trends can influence expectations about future electricity demand. For three of 

the regions studied, we analyzed three scenarios, based on low, medium, and high deployment. 

For the Southeast region, we analyzed five scenarios, based on a combinations of varying levels 

of deployment (or “growth levels”), regional investment, and costs. We were able to perform a 

more in-depth analysis in the Southeast due to collaboration with James Madison University and 

their extensive network in the region. Researchers there had already investigated offshore wind 

deployment and the offshore wind potential in the region. 

2.1 Wind Resources

Wind resources vary within regions, and this will likely be a factor in siting decisions made by 

developers. In the Gulf of Mexico, for example, average wind speeds are greater off the coast of 

Texas than onshore (Figure 2). This is one of the major considerations in evaluating resources, 

however. The potential installed capacity also depends on a number of other factors.
8 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 2. Offshore wind resource map (NREL 2013)

The total potential capacity for offshore wind in the United States is estimated to be 4,224 GW 

(Lopez et al. 2012). This estimate is based on shallow and deep water resource availability and 

quality, power generation system performance, topographic limitations, and environmental and 

land-use constraints. It does not necessarily represent the total amount of renewable energy 

capacity that might actually be deployed because it doesn’t take other considerations into 

account, like economic feasibility, policy, electricity demand, etc. Table 2 shows the potential 

capacity and production in U.S. waters for each of the four regions considered in this study. To 

put the numbers in Table 2 into context, the United States used 4,058,209 gigawatt-hours (GWh) 

of electricity in 2013 and has 1,168 GW of installed capacity (EIA 2014). The nation currently 

has 61.1 GW of land-based wind power developed, even though the potential capacity is more 

than 10,000 GW (Wiser and Bolinger 2013). Not all of the potential capacity will be developed. 
9 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 2. Regional Offshore Wind Potential within 50 Nautical Miles from Shore

Region Potential Annual Energy 

Production (GWh)

Capacity Potential (GW) Area (km2)

Mid-Atlantic 1,075,939 264 52,726 

Great Lakes 3,032,659 742 148,387 

Gulf of Mexico 2,346,618 625 124,985

Southeast 2,393,706 587 117,388 

Source: Lopez et al. 2012

2.2 Electricity Prices

Higher regional (wholesale) electricity rates and higher-quality offshore wind resources could 

allow offshore wind to better compete in many coastal areas (Musial and Ram 2010). The higher 

revenues associated with higher electricity prices generally increase returns on investment and 

encourage construction of new power generation assets, including those with a relatively high 

installed capital cost like offshore wind. 

Wholesale prices are a good indicator of the payments for generated electricity that offshore 

wind producers can expect to receive. Generally speaking, higher yearly average wholesale 

prices are more common in the Mid-Atlantic, whereas hubs in the Southeast and the Gulf of 

Mexico have two of the lowest average prices in the country. This makes offshore wind 

attractive as a generation source in the Mid-Atlantic to operators seeking to maximize their level 

of compensation for generated electricity but does not preclude its deployment in the Southeast 

or Gulf of Mexico. Other factors that influence returns on investment and, by extension, 

deployment opportunities – like capital and operational costs – are addressed for each region in 

the following sections of this report. 

Offshore wind technology costs are likely to continue to decline due to technological innovation, 

manufacturing efficiency, improved O&M strategies, and better resource assessment (Lantz et al. 

2012). NREL experts analyzed 25 offshore wind scenarios discussed in 12 studies and found that 

projections within the 20th to 80th percentile predict a cost decline of 17% to 47% between 2010 

and 2030 (Tegen et al. 2013).

There are sources of low-cost competition for offshore wind electricity such as natural gas 

electric generation. An abundant supply of natural gas in the United States is creating a 

downward pressure on its price, and analysts predict that low prices will continue throughout the 

2020-2030 decade (EIA 2013a). However, wind power costs during generation remain relatively 

constant throughout the life of each plant. Changes in fuel costs for natural gas plants, on the 

other hand, represent a long-term unknown. Even though natural gas prices are projected to 

remain low through the 2020s, a recent study found that wind power can provide protection 

against many of the natural gas scenarios contemplated by the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) beyond 2030 (Bolinger 2013). 

2.3 Populations and Economies

The size of a population and growth trends are important indicators of potential future load 

growth and potential future employment. While individual use of electricity can change, for 
10 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

example, with efficiency improvements, the sheer size of a population is and will continue to be 

a key determinant of infrastructure investments. Industries are also significant electricity 

consumers. In 2011, residential households consumed 38% of electricity in the United States, 

while commercial and industrial users consumed 62% (EIA 2013b). 

Developing offshore wind sites close to where electricity will be consumed is also advantageous 

to producers because it allows for shorter transmission distances. If costs must be incurred to

develop transmission infrastructure, then developers will want to minimize these expenses. 

However, even in the absence of transmission development costs, shorter transmission distances 

are more efficient and allow for a greater portion of the electricity that is produced to be 

purchased by end users. 

Of the regions included in this analysis, the Great Lakes has the largest population (Table 3). Its 

population of more than 82 million represents about a quarter of the U.S. population. From 2001 

to 2011, the population remained nearly the same, despite average nationwide growth of nearly 

1% annually. The Southeast is the least populous region, with more than 32 million residents. It 

was the fastest-growing region with annual growth averaging 1.5% (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). 

Table 3. Population and 10-Year Average Annual Growth Rates by Region

Region Population (2011) Population Annual 

Average Growth, 

2001 – 2011

Percentage of U.S.

Population (2011)

Mid-Atlantic 37,049,834 0.6% 12%

Great Lakes 82,038,050 0.0% 26%

Gulf of Mexico 57,069,952 1.4% 18%

Southeast 32,241,295 1.5% 10%

United States 311,587,816 0.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Intercensal Population Estimates, 2013

Population change is generally correlated with employment opportunities (Greenwood and Hunt 

1989), making a region's economic characteristics equally relevant. 

Regional labor markets are also relevant to any company seeking to hire local workers. 

Employment figures by industry show the number of workers in industries similar to offshore 

wind. Recent up- or down-turns and unemployment figures can signal the relative availability of 

a local labor force. The gross economic impact numbers in this report remain the same regardless 

of whether a worker is hired from within a region or migrates to that region to work, yet this is 

an important distinction for local planners and residents (Cutler and Davies 2007). 

All regions in this analysis exhibited positive average annual employment growth from 2001 to 

2011 that was greater than the U.S. average (Table 4). The fastest growth occurred in the Gulf of 

Mexico, and the Southeast had the highest unemployment rate in 2011. Unemployment was the 

lowest in the Mid-Atlantic region. 
11 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 4. Employment and Unemployment by Region

Region Employment (2011) Average Employment 

Change (2001–2011) 

Unemployment Rate 

(2011)

Mid-Atlantic 21,776,417 0.6% 7.9%

Great Lakes 47,904,384 0.2% 8.6%

Gulf of Mexico 31,211,988 1.3% 8.9%

Southeast 17,881,305 0.9% 9.2%

United States 138,756,000 0.0% 8.9%

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (2013), Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013)
12 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Case Study: Mid-Atlantic Region

The Virginia Center for Wind Energy at James Madison University and NREL analyzed this 

more in-depth case study of offshore wind power developed off the coasts of Virginia, New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The Mid-Atlantic region presents an ample wind 

resource, and many states within this region are striving to become major players in this 

upcoming industry. The region has relatively high electricity rates, which could encourage 

utilities and taxpayers to develop and pay for offshore wind. 

Figure 3. Map of the Mid-Atlantic region

3.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure of the Mid-Atlantic

To assist the development of offshore wind energy in this region, BOEM established renewable 

energy task forces in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey to facilitate 

intergovernmental communications regarding outer continental shelf renewable energy 

activities.16

The Mid-Atlantic region is home to some of the largest and most industrious ports and logistics 

infrastructure in the United States, including the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Port of 

Baltimore, the Port of Philadelphia,17 and the Port of Virginia. 

In general, the Mid-Atlantic region is home to a large number of companies and manufacturers 

that have the potential to support the offshore wind supply chain. However, it is important to 

note that no studies or reports identifying the supply chain capabilities of the states of Delaware 

and New Jersey could be identified, and the results displayed in Table 5 can be used as a general 

indication of current infrastructure.

Each company identified was sorted into one or more of five broad categories, depending on the 

products and services offered:

 

16 www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/Index.aspx 17 The Port of Philadelphia can access the Atlantic Coast via the Delaware River.
13 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Electronics: power transmission equipment, transformers, industrial control systems, etc.

• Manufacturing and assembly: large wind turbine components such as turbine blades, 

nacelles, towers, foundations 

• Materials and safety equipment: composites, paints, resins, plastics, bridges, bolts, nuts, 

concrete, and other similar materials

• Installation, logistics, and transportation: erection, port facilities, shipbuilding and repair, 

railroads, and O&M

• Services: engineering, legal, financial, educational, and outreach. 

Table 5. Supply Chain Companies and Firms Identified in the Mid-Atlantic Region

Maryland Delaware New 

Jersey

Virginia Pennsylvania

Electronics 1 0 3 2 15

Manufacturing & assembly 17 0 1 6 17

Installation, construction, materials 13 2 1 5 28

Maintenance, logistics, transportation 16 0 4 34 6 

Services 6 2 6 34 4 

Total 53 4 15 81 70

3.2 Scenarios 

The inputs used for the JEDI model in these offshore scenarios include market and deployment, 

regional investment, and cost reduction. For each category, three distinct estimates of the way 

input variables change over time were developed. These estimates determine regional economic 

activity and the number of jobs the industry can support. Scenarios run from 2015 up to 2030 for 

offshore wind energy in the Mid-Atlantic, and we ran the JEDI model for each year.

18

3.2.1 Market and Deployment

For market and deployment, we created a conservative, a moderate, and an aggressive approach 

to offshore wind turbine deployment in the Mid-Atlantic region. In these scenarios, it is assumed 

that all wind power plants are constructed in New Jersey, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland; 

Pennsylvania’s contribution to the Mid-Atlantic offshore wind industry was assumed to be 

through regional content via the Port of Philadelphia. 

For low market and deployment, development of new offshore wind power plants was assumed 

to be very conservative, with the market being dominated by pilot/demonstration projects and 

 

18 While the scenarios were developed from 2015 up to 2030, we performed the JEDI analysis for the years 2020 

through 2030. Offshore wind installations are expected to be built before 2020, so we developed these scenarios to 

reflect this point of view.
14 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

small-scale wind power plants; industry growth is slow, reaching 400 MW in 2030. During this 

period, around 12% of all new power plants in the region are from offshore wind, meaning that it 

would still be a niche technology to complement conventional generating technologies. 

For medium market and deployment, a moderate-level offshore wind development in the region 

was assumed; therefore more consistent growth is observed, reaching 750 MW in 2030. By 

2030, the offshore wind market would have represented around 30% of all new power plant 

installations in the Mid-Atlantic region, establishing offshore wind as a mainstream technology.

For high market and deployment, an aggressive level of offshore wind power plant deployment 

was assumed, in which the majority of new power-generating plants derived from offshore wind 

facilities, reaching a market of 1,400 MW by 2030. Around 62% of all new power plants in the 

region are expected to be from offshore wind energy, meaning that it has become the dominant 

generating technology in the Mid-Atlantic. In addition to adding more generating capacity to the 

region, outdated and inefficient power plants would be decommissioned and replaced with newer 

technologies such as offshore wind, particularly because the offshore wind market approaches 

and exceeds the historical growth rate from 2027 through 2030. 

Table 6. Mid-Atlantic Region Cost and Capacity Scenarios (2012 $) 

Deployment Scenario Cost ($/kW) Deployed Capacity (MW)

2020 2030 2020 2030

Low (A) 5,840 5,460 366 3,196

Medium (B) 5,600 4,830 1,912 7,832

High (C) 5,360 4,230 4,100 16,280

3.2.2 Regional Investment

Three estimates for regional supply chain development were considered. The higher the regional 

share percentage in a specific line item, the more money is being circulated into the regional 

economy, thereby supporting more regional jobs. 

We examined each individual component separately when determining its potential for regional 

sourcing. The regional share of many of these components and services, like concrete or legal 

services, was not expected to change over time because they are widely available in the region. 

More specialized goods and services, like foundations and turbine blades, are expected to vary 

over time. Specialized goods and services may not be fully available in the region initially, 

meaning a percentage of the investment must be outsourced. 

For the low regional investment path, it was assumed that the development of the regional supply 

chain is minimal due to uncertainties in the industry. However, due to the sufficient presence of 

manufacturers, developers, and services, some regional contributions are expected. 

The medium regional investment path was assumed to be similar to the low path in the early 

days of the industry, but in this case significant growth in the regional supply chain was assumed 

after 2020. Each year, more manufacturers, developers, and services will relocate to the region or 

expand their facilities to accommodate the offshore wind industry. 
15 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The high regional investment path assumed immediate and significant regional investment into 

the offshore wind industry, resulting in a rapid development of the supply chain. Nearly all 

components and services are regionally sourced by 2030.19 Table 7 summarizes the regional 

investment “paths” for the regional scenarios.

Table 7. Low, Medium, and High Regional Investment Paths for the Dynamic Components for 

Offshore Wind in the Mid-Atlantic

Low Investment Medium Investment High Investment

Component 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030

Nacelle/drivetrain 32% 68% 35% 95% 65% 100%

Blades & towers 13% 71% 25% 95% 30% 95%

Substructures & foundation 11% 30% 20% 50% 30% 85%

Source: Navigant 2013

3.2.3 Costs

The EIA established a baseline cost for offshore wind in 2015 to be around $5,975/kW in 2010 

dollars20 and made adjustments to the baseline for each state. For the Mid-Atlantic region, the 

average expected cost for an offshore wind power plant is around $6,040/kW,21 but there is 

significant variance among the states. For instance, Virginia enjoys the lowest expected capital 

costs at around $5,724/kW, whereas New Jersey is the most expensive at $6,736/kW. The higher 

costs of living and large population densities in the northern states led to higher construction cost 

estimates for New Jersey and Delaware relative to other states.

Figure 4 depicts a pie chart showing the typical capital costs for offshore wind in the MidAtlantic region in this JEDI analysis. Approximately 51% of the total cost is associated with 

turbine equipment such as blades, nacelles, and foundation, along with other materials and 

equipment such as concrete, safety equipment, and other equipment. Labor and development 

costs comprise the majority of the remainder at approximately 34% of the total cost. The 

remainder of capital expenditures is distributed among financing, insurance, tax, and other 

miscellaneous costs.

 

19 A linear scaling system was applied for Regional Investment percentages between 2021 and 2024, and 2026 to 

2029.

20 In April 2013, the EIA updated the baseline capital costs for offshore wind to $6,230 in 2012 dollars, which 

accounts for the rate of inflation over these 2 years and not an increase in the cost relative to 2010 dollars.

21 To date, no cost estimates are available for Pennsylvania.
16 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 4. Capital expenditure cost distribution for offshore wind in the Mid-Atlantic region 

Three simple cost-reduction models were established for application to the JEDI model, which 

may occur due to technological advancements, economies of scale, and other factors, such as 

improvement in manufacturing and deployment efficiency. These estimates establish upper and 

lower bounds for cost reduction in the Mid-Atlantic. 

Under the low-cost reduction path, limited development in offshore wind energy technologies, 

manufacturing efficiencies, and deployment efficiency was assumed. A cost reduction of 3.5% 

every 5 years was applied to the baseline, resulting in an overall cost reduction of around 10% by 

2030. Under the medium-cost reduction path, a more aggressive cost-reduction model was 

applied, representing more significant technological advances and more efficient manufacturing, 

assembly, and deployment of offshore wind turbines. A cost reduction of 7.2% every 5 years was 

applied, resulting in an overall cost reduction of around 20%. Under the high-cost reduction path, 

optimal technology improvements and efficiency were assumed. It was also assumed that 

favorable federal and state policies help further reduce the capital costs of offshore wind power 

plants. The average cost of offshore wind is assumed to decrease by 11.2% every 5 years, for an 

overall cost reduction of around 30%.

3.3 Results

3.3.1 Construction Period

Under Scenario A, the offshore wind industry supports approximately 1,100 FTEs in 2020, 

increasing to more than 8,200 FTEs in 2030. In other words, the industry is expected to support 

nearly eight times more labor after 10 years, despite the conservative assumptions made in this 

Turbine 

Equipment 

29%

Materials and 

Other 

Equipment

22%

Labor 

Installation 

19%

Insurance 

During 

Construction

2%

Development 

Services/Other 

15%

Construction 

Financing

11%

Other 

Miscellaneous 

0%

Sales Tax

2%
17 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

scenario. Many of the jobs supported are in supply chain and induced impacts, with 

comparatively little from project development and onsite labor. 

Scenario B would support significantly more FTEs throughout the modeling period, increasing 

from around 6,000 FTEs in 2020 to more than 22,100 FTEs in 2030 (i.e., more than three times 

total FTEs over Scenario A). 

Under Scenario C, JEDI analysis suggests that the offshore wind industry would support nearly 

18,000 FTEs in 2020 and more than 42,000 FTEs in 2030, for a total of around 330,000 FTEs in 

construction over this period (which is more than double that supported by Scenario B). Figure 5 

depicts the estimated construction-phase jobs supported by Scenarios A, B, and C. 

Figure 5. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Mid-Atlantic region)

 -

 5,000

 10,000

 15,000

 20,000

 25,000

 30,000

 35,000

 40,000

 45,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Jobs (FTE)

Scenario Low (A) Medium (B) High (C)
18 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 8. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario

(Mid-Atlantic Region)

Deployment

Scenario Years

Project 

Development & 

Onsite Labor

Supply 

Chain Induced Total FTE Jobs/MW

Low (A)

 

 

2020 230 460 440 12

2030 1,490 3,610 3,100 20

Annual Average

2020-2030 770 1,770 1,710 16

Medium (B)

 

 

2020 1,320 2,440 2,290 15

2030 4,250 9,550 8,300 29

Annual Average

2020-2030 2,630 5,740 5,060 23

High (C)

 

 

2020 3,120 7,890 6,950 18

2030 9,410 17,360 15,790 30

Annual Average

2020-2030 6,240 12,850 11,531 25

3.3.2 Operations and Maintenance Period

The O&M phase of an offshore wind power plant is much less labor-intensive than the 

construction phase; therefore the total number of FTEs supported was expected to be 

significantly lower. Jobs supported during the O&M phase last throughout the lifetime of the 

power plant, which is typically around 25 years. In other words, jobs supported during this phase 

are typically ongoing opportunities. 

The JEDI model outputs for FTE supported under the low, medium, and high scenarios are given 

in Figure 6. The low-deployment / high-cost scenario (A) is projected to support the fewest 

FTEs, with almost 4,000 FTE over 3.2 GW generating capacity by 2030, whereas JEDI analysis 

of the higher-deployment/lower-cost scenarios (B and C) gives an estimate of around 9,500 and 

20,000 FTEs respectively. In this analysis, all O&M expenditures are assumed to be regional, so 

the normalized FTE per megawatt is a consistent 1.2 FTE/MW for all three scenarios from 2020 

through 2030. 

Similarly to the construction phase, many of the jobs supported are expected to be turbine and 

supply chain, while significantly fewer jobs are supported in the project development and onsite 

labor sector. The difference in jobs supported between the sectors is much larger during the 

O&M phase than the construction phase. In Scenario B, between 1.8 and 2.2 jobs in turbine and 

supply chain are supported for every job in project development and onsite labor during 

construction. During O&M, this ratio increases to around 8 jobs in the supply chain for every job 

in project development. 
19 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 6. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Mid-Atlantic region)

Table 9. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario (Mid-Atlantic Region)

Deployment 

Scenario Years

Project 

Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply 

Chain Induced Total FTE Jobs/MW

Low (A) 

2020 30 250 160 1.2

2030 280 2,220 1,390 1.2

Annual Average 

2020-2030 140 1,130 710 1.2

Medium (B) 

2020 170 1,330 830 1.2

2030 680 5,440 3,410 1.2

Annual Average 

2020-2030 410 3,220 2,020 1.2

High (C)

2020 360 2,850 1,780 1.2

2030 1,420 11,300 7,080 1.2

Annual Average 

2020-2030 850 6,790 4,250 1.2

 -

 5,000

 10,000

 15,000

 20,000

 25,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Jobs (FTE)

Scenario Low (A) Medium (B) High (C)
20 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3.3.3 Earnings and Output

As the industry grows, JEDI indicates higher combined earnings and outputs for all three 

scenarios, as shown in Tables 10 and 11. The larger portion of the money in earnings and output 

is expected to be in turbine and supply chain, whereas project development is expected to have 

the smallest portion. For earnings, between 44% and 49% of the money is expected to be in 

supply chain, whereas around 24% to 30% would be allocated in onsite labor and project 

development. This is roughly equivalent to a 2:1 ratio; that is, for every dollar in project 

development, approximately $2 would be in turbine and supply chain. 

This difference is even larger for output; between 54% and 62% of the output was in turbine and 

supply chain. For project development and onsite labor impacts, JEDI projected only around 

12% to 18% to be in this sector. In dollar terms, this means that for every dollar in project 

development, roughly four dollars are in turbine and supply chain. 

Table 10. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (MidAtlantic Region, 2012 $ Millions)

 Project Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced

Deployment

Scenario

Years Earnings Output Earnings Output Earnings Output

Low (A) 2020 $30 $60 $40 $120 $30 $70

2030 $210 $300 $290 $1,070 $180 $490

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$120 $180 $150 $560 $100 $270

Medium (B) 2020 $190 $280 $190 $670 $130 $360

2030 $600 $760 $750 $2,970 $470 $1,300

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$370 $500 $450 $1,730 $290 $450

High (C) 2020 $450 $680 $610 $2,370 $390 $1,090

2030 $1,340 $1,590 $1,360 $5,390 $900 $2,480

Annual Average 

2020-2030 

$890 $1,140 $1,000 $3,970 $660 $1,810
21 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 11. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M under Each Scenario (Mid-Atlantic 

Region, 2012 $ Millions)

 Project Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced

Deployment

Scenario

Years Earnings Output Earnings Output Earnings Output

Low (A) 2020 $4 $4 $20 $60 $9 $30

2030 $30 $30 $180 $560 $80 $220

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$20 $20 $90 $290 $40 $110

Medium (B) 2020 $20 $20 $110 $340 $50 $130

2030 $80 $80 $430 $1,370 $200 $540

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$50 $50 $260 $810 $120 $320

High (C) 2020 $40 $40 $230 $720 $410 $280

2030 $170 $170 $900 $2,850 $100 $1,130

Annual Average 

2020-2030 

$100 $100 $540 $1,710 $250 $680

3.4 Summary of Economic Impacts

The Mid-Atlantic region has the potential to support a robust offshore wind industry; there is a 

good shallow wind resource, particularly in Virginia and New Jersey. The wind energy areas 

currently being promoted by the BOEM are located relatively close to major population and 

infrastructure centers, where electricity is in high demand. The region is home to some of the 

largest and most industrious ports on the East Coast, with the necessary equipment and expertise 

to handle large wind turbine components. These make the region very attractive for offshore 

wind power plant development. 

The JEDI model was used to provide estimates of the magnitude of economic impacts using 

three distinct scenarios, representing conservative, moderate, and aggressive development of the 

industry in the region. Scenario A is a conservative scenario, and JEDI analysis projects fewer 

jobs and slow regional growth. Scenario C, the aggressive scenario, projects the highest 

economic impacts but would require the supply chain to develop at a very rapid pace due to the 

large number of wind turbines to be deployed annually that are regionally sourced. These two 

scenarios represent an upper and a lower bound of what the wind industry could look like in the 

Mid-Atlantic.

Scenario B offers moderate development of the industry and supply chain, and JEDI analysis 

suggests that the industry would be able to support approximately 8,000 FTEs in 2020 to 

approximately 31,000 FTEs in 2030 regionally. While the results of this study are only estimates 

intended to create a general profile of what the offshore industry could look like, the results 

presented in Scenario B seem to offer sufficient economic returns to encourage further growth. 
22 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

However, since an offshore wind industry does not yet exist in the United States, these results 

should be considered preliminary and should be updated as further developments occur and 

information improves. 
23 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Case Study: Great Lakes Region

In collaboration with NREL, Professor David Loomis22 and the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative

conducted an analysis of the economic impacts of potential offshore wind development in the 

Great Lakes region. This case study reflects their analysis and findings. The Great Lakes region 

includes states that touch Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario: Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania23, and Wisconsin, as shown in Figure 7. 

Figure 7. Map of the Great Lakes region 

4.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure of the Great Lakes

The diversity, freshwater, and inland location of the Great Lakes set projects within the Great 

Lakes region apart from similar projects in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Pacific Ocean. 

Water depth can vary greatly from site to site. Ocean depths can vary but typically not as much 

as in the Great Lakes. Lakes are filled with freshwater, which freezes at a higher temperature 

than sea water yet is not as corrosive as the saltwater found in the ocean. There are fewer port 

options for potential offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes than projects off the U.S. 

seaboard. Potential wind sites in the Great Lakes are usually farther from shore than potential 

sites off the coast of the United States. Lakes do not experience tides; relatively consistent water 

depth decreases maintenance costs. 

 

22 Department of Economics, Illinois State University 23 Note that Pennsylvania is included in both the Great Lakes region and the Mid-Atlantic region. 
24 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

In addition, lock constraints can make transporting offshore wind system boats and equipment 

between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic difficult. The Saint Lawrence Seaway, which connects 

the Great Lakes with the Atlantic, cannot accommodate vessels wider than 80 ft. or those that 

need freshwater depth of more than 26.5 ft. Freshwater is less buoyant than saltwater, so a boat 

able to navigate in 26.5 ft. of ocean water may not be able to operate in freshwater of the same 

depth. The 80-ft. width limit, however, is likely the most problematic in transporting offshore 

wind ships and equipment. Barges capable of traversing the Saint Lawrence Seaway exist, but 

they are not as common as suitable barges that are too wide for the canal (Garrett et al. 2012).

The majority of these differences would likely make offshore wind development in the Great 

Lakes more expensive than comparable ocean-based projects. The lack of tides and decreased 

corrosiveness of freshwater compared to saltwater slightly mitigate but do not outweigh these 

increased expenses. 

4.2 Scenarios 

For the Great Lakes region, the Great Lakes Wind Network utilized its network to research 

potential deployment scenarios, along with regional content estimates. NREL and Illinois State 

University performed interviews with regional experts to obtain data on the supply chain and 

manufacturing capabilities.

4.2.1 Deployment Scenarios

This analysis considers three growth scenarios: low, moderate, and high growth (Table 12). The 

low scenario (A, which is also high cost) represents mostly pilot projects and small installations, 

culminating in a total of 1,000 MW installed. The medium scenario (B) assumes slightly faster 

growth with moderate cost reductions. The high scenario (C) assumes rapid growth of the 

industry, relatively high levels of deployment, and further cost reductions. 

Growth in the low scenario increases from 250 MW by 2020 to 1 GW by 2030. The medium 

scenario begins with 500 MW by 2020 and grows to 2 GW by 2030, and the high scenario 

increases from 1 GW by 2020 to 5 GW by 2030. All scenarios begin with a $6,632/kW 

construction cost, with 2030 costs ranging from $4,642/kW to $5,969/kW. All scenarios assume 

a constant annual O&M cost of $133/kW. 

Table 12. Great Lakes Region Cost and Capacity Scenarios (2012 $) 

Deployment

Scenario

Construction Cost ($/kW) Deployed Capacity (MW)

2020 2030 2020 2030

Low (A) $6,632 $5,969 250 1,000

Medium (B) $6,632 $5,306 500 2,000

High (C) $6,632 $4,642 1,000 5,000

This study only considers deployment in the Great Lakes in water that is shallow enough for 

jacket substructures. Many sites in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, in particular, would likely

require floating technology. At the time of this publication, the Offshore Wind JEDI model is not 

capable of estimating economic impacts of installations that use floating substructures. 
25 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.2.2 Regional Content

Each growth scenario is positively correlated with the development of an offshore wind supply 

chain within the Great Lakes region (Table 13, Table 14). This assumes that if there is more 

offshore wind development, it is likely that suppliers such as turbine manufacturers will choose 

to invest in facilities in the Great Lakes region, and developers will choose to purchase goods 

that are produced and services that are provided by companies with a local presence. 

Table 13. Great Lakes Local Content Assumptions (Construction) for Each Deployment Scenario

Low (A) Medium (B) High (C)

2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030

Nacelle/drivetrain 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 75%

Blades & towers 0% 25% 0% 50% 21% 75%

Materials & other 

equipment

1% 4% 3% 23% 23% 42%

Construction labor 0% 1% 0% 51% 50% 75%

Development 

services/other

32% 42% 53% 53% 53% 64%

Total construction 

local content

9% 15% 12% 40% 28% 57%

Table 14. Great Lakes Local Content Assumptions (O&M) for Each Deployment Scenario

Low (A) Medium (B) High (C) 

2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030

Labor 61% 79% 68% 98% 79% 100%

Materials & 

services

51% 51% 51% 51% 51% 51%

Total O&M 

local content

51% 53% 52% 54% 53% 55%

The low scenario portrays both the lowest level of regional content that can be purchased within 

the Great Lakes region as well as lowest deployment considered in this case study. As such, it 

can be considered a lower bound. Similarly, the high scenario portrays both the greatest 

deployment and the most content that can be purchased within the Great Lakes region. It can be 

considered an upper bound. 

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Jobs

Figure 8 shows the estimated number of total annual construction jobs supported by project 

construction from 2020 to 2030. 
26 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 8. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Great Lakes region) 

Table 15. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario 

(Great Lakes Region) 

Deployment

Scenario

Years Project Development

& Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced Jobs/MW

Low (A) 2020 100 160 190 6 

2030 100 280 260 9 

Annual Average

2020-2030

100 220 230 7 

Medium (B) 2020 210 510 500 8 

2030 700 1,340 1,270 22

Annual Average

2020-2030

470 960 920 16

High (C) 2020 2,220 2,990 3,180 21

2030 2,250 4,480 4,170 27

Annual Average

2020-2030

2,270 3,890 3,800 25

Table 15 also shows estimated job impacts per megawatt for each scenario during construction. 

Jobs range from a total of 6/MW under the low scenario in 2020 to 25/MW under the high 

scenario by 2030. 

 -

 2,000

 4,000

 6,000

 8,000

 10,000

 12,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Jobs (FTE)

Scenario Low (A) Medium (B) High (C)
27 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

During their operational phase, offshore wind farms in this analysis are estimated to support 

between 0.7 and 0.8 jobs/MW, regardless of time period (Table 17). All scenarios assume that 

almost all workers who operate and maintain the sites live within the Great Lakes region. The 

biggest difference among different scenarios is how much content (such as replacement parts) is 

sourced locally. These differences are not large enough to significantly influence impacts per 

megawatt. 

Figure 9. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Great Lakes region) 

Table 16. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario 

(Great Lakes Region) 

Deployment

Scenario

Years Project 

Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply 

Chain

Induced Jobs/MW

Low (A) 2020 10 100 60 0.7

2030 70 420 260 0.7

Annual Average 

2020-2030

 40 260 160 0.7

Medium (B) 2020 30 210 130 0.7

2030 170 850 530 0.8

Annual Average 

2020-2030

 90 530 330 0.8

High (C) 2020 70 420 260 0.7

2030 420 2,130 1,330 0.8

Annual Average 

2020-2030

 240 1,270 790 0.8

 -

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

 3,000

 3,500

 4,000

 4,500

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Jobs (FTE)

Scenario Low (A) Medium (B) High (C)
28 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.3.2 Earnings and Output

Compensation for jobs supported by potential offshore wind development in the Great Lakes 

region is above average and doesn’t vary significantly among scenarios. In 2011, workers in the 

Great Lakes region were compensated an average of $53,959 annually (BEA 2013). Under all 

three scenarios, the average earnings24 of project development and onsite workers is 

approximately $140,000. Supply chain workers earn $70,000 in Scenarios B and C and $60,000 

in Scenario A. Workers in induced jobs earn slightly less than average, around $50,000. As 

induced jobs include many low-paid retail and service sector workers, this is to be expected. 

Earnings for most O&M workers are also estimated to be above average. Onsite positions earn 

an average of $110,000 in Scenario A, and the increased local portion of management workers in 

Scenarios B and C pushes average earnings up to $120,000. Supply chain earnings are an 

average of $70,000 in all scenarios, and induced earnings are an average of $50,000. 

Table 17. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario 

(Great Lakes Region, 2012 $ Millions)

Deployment

Scenario

Years Project 

Development & 

Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced Total

Low (A) 2020 $30 $30 $30 $90 

2030 $30 $60 $40 $130 

Annual Average 

2020-2030 

$30 $40 $30 $110 

Medium (B) 2020 $70 $100 $70 $240 

2030 $130 $350 $180 $660 

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$100 $230 $130 $470 

High (C) 2020 $420 $710 $460 $1,590 

2030 $390 $1,210 $600 $2,210 

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$410 $1,010 $550 $1,970 

Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Development of offshore wind in the Great Lakes region is estimated to support between $90 

million and $1.6 billion by 2020 and $110 million to $2.2 billion in output by 2030 (Table 17).

Annual average output estimates from 2020 to 2030 range from $110 million to $1,970 million. 

The majority of this output is in supply chain and business-to-business activity.

Operation of offshore wind plants supports between $30 million and $140 million of output in 

2020 (Table 18). By 2030 this increases to $140 million to $710 million. This analysis only 

 

24 “Average earnings” is defined as the sum of all annual earnings from 2020 to 2030 divided by the sum of annual 

FTE jobs (or FTE job-years) over the same time period.
29 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

pertains to impacts estimated to occur between 2020 and 2030, but impacts from the operation of 

facilities continue for the life of the facility. 

Table 18. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M under Each Scenario

(Great Lakes Region, $ 2012 Millions)

Deployment

Scenario

Years Project 

Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced Total

Low (A) 2020 $2 $20 $9 $30 

2030 $8 $90 $40 $140 

Annual Average 

2020-2030 

$5 $60 $20 $90 

Medium (B) 2020 $3 $50 $20 $70 

2030 $20 $180 $80 $280 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$10 $110 $50 $170 

High (C) 2020 $8 $90 $40 $140 

2030 $50 $460 $200 $710 

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$30 $270 $120 $420 

Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

4.4 Summary of Economic Impacts

Offshore wind development in the Great Lakes has the potential to support significant economic 

activity. In the medium scenario presented in this report, project construction is estimated to 

support 25 (2020) to 41 (2030) FTE jobs/MW. These jobs will earn approximately $74,000 

annually. 

On an ongoing basis, these projects are estimated to support 0.8 (2020) to 1.1 (2030) jobs/MW—

a figure that increases as a local supply chain develops. These workers are estimated to earn 

between $67,000 and $63,000 annually. 

These figures represent theoretical installations and supply chain growth. They are estimates 

based on the structure of the Great Lakes economy in 2010. Employment in the region has 

shifted away from manufacturing and toward sectors like health care. Supply chain growth that 

could support offshore wind development could take advantage of existing infrastructure and 

manufacturing workers, but current manufacturing declines may cause manufacturing workers to 

change occupations or migrate out of the region. 
30 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Case Study: Gulf of Mexico Region

NREL conducted an analysis of the potential economic impacts of offshore wind development in 

the Gulf of Mexico region. NREL researchers contacted industry experts, government officials, 

representatives from trade associations, and university researchers who offered their insights into 

the offshore wind development potential in the region. Results offered in this section stem from 

the aggregation and analysis of the information collected from local experts and may not 

necessarily reflect the point of view of each of the third parties interviewed. The Gulf of Mexico 

region is defined in this analysis as all states that surround the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, including its Atlantic coast, as shown in Figure 10. 

Figure 10. Map of the Gulf of Mexico region 

5.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure of the Gulf of Mexico

According to a report published by Musial and Ram, more than 30% of the total U.S. offshore 

wind potential in the 0- to 30-m depth is concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico (Musial and Ram 

2010). Increases in sea depth have been identified as one of the main drivers of offshore wind 

cost increases (van der Zwaan et al. 2012). The abundant potential in shallow waters found in the 

Gulf could help lower costs per unit of electricity produced. 

The offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico uses about 3,700 offshore structures to 

extract one-fourth of the total U.S. oil production and one-eighth of natural gas (Kaiser 2010). 

Given the similarity between the foundations and substructures needed for offshore wind 

development and those used by the oil and gas industry, the existing manufacturing workforce 

and infrastructure could add to the percentage of local labor and materials used in the 

development of offshore wind or speed the development of a local supply chain. Consequently, 

the costs of foundation fabrication and overall installation expenses would be lower than in 

regions where higher levels of imported labor and materials would be needed. 
31 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Ship fabrication and repair yard infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico represent an advantage for 

the region compared to the rest of the United States. Most of the supply chain elements related to 

the construction of large-scale vessels needed for the installation of offshore wind turbines are 

present in the region, including 18 of the 26 largest shipyards in the country (Douglas-Westwood 

2013; Colton 2013). 

5.2 Scenarios

A wide variety of sources was used to obtain information about the Gulf of Mexico region. 

Interviews with local engineering companies, developers, manufacturers, the Texas state 

government, and researchers from academia were helpful in understanding regional trends and 

issues. This section includes information from reports published by domestic and international 

companies and government entities. The cumulative installation scenarios were based on 

numbers published by the Navigant Consortium for the years 2020 and 2030 (Navigant 

Consulting 2013).

5.2.1 Deployment Scenarios

The low-growth scenario used conservative assumptions about the rate of offshore wind 

deployment in the region. Installed capacity per year for this scenario ranged between 49 MW 

for 2021 to 158 MW in 2030. Comparatively, the annual installed capacity ranged between 187 

and 606 MW for the moderate scenario and 213 and 690 MW for the high-growth scenario. In 

the moderate- and high-deployment scenarios, it was assumed that some installations would be in 

place before 2020.25 Table 19 summarizes the estimates used as inputs for the JEDI model.

Table 19. Scenario Inputs (Gulf of Mexico Region, 2012 $) 

Deployment

Scenario

Cost ($/kW) Capacity (MW)

 2020 2030 2020 2030

Low (A) $5,800 $4,930 60 1,000

Medium (B) $5,400 $4,050 400 4,000

High (C) $5,220 $3,400 900 5,000

Construction and operation costs in the Gulf of Mexico for 2020 were based on a hypothetical 

500-MW offshore wind plant conceptualized by the Navigant Consortium26 to estimate costs and 

economic impacts in the North Atlantic region (Navigant Consulting 2013; Hamilton 2013). 

Line-item costs in 2020 were then modified to reflect the conditions prevalent in the Gulf of 

Mexico. O&M costs were kept constant through the period analyzed because no significant 

sources of changes in costs for this area, like technology advancements, were identified.

 

25 This report does not include economic impact estimates from construction prior to 2020. 26 This theoretical plant would be built off the north Atlantic coast in 2018 at a depth of 20 to 30 m, using 3- to 5-

MW turbines with a jacket substructure. 
32 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

We selected a 17% decrease in construction costs between 2020 and 2030 as a baseline for the 

three scenarios based on a recent NREL publication on present and future costs of wind energy 

(Tegen et al. 2012). The baseline cost reduction results from the downward pressure on prices 

worldwide from higher levels of manufacturing automation, turbine technology improvements, 

and increased industry efficiency (Lantz et al. 2012). For the moderate scenario, we selected a 

cost reduction of 25% between 2020 and 2030, which is in line with the estimates that the 

Navigant Consortium reports (Hamilton 2013). 

The low-growth scenario considers a more conservative baseline cost reduction rate of 13%, plus 

a decrease in costs of 2% due to a lower local content use. The combined cost reduction rate for 

the high-growth scenario is 35%, which is the result of a higher baseline cost reduction rate of 

22%, plus 13% coming from local content increases. The next section discusses cost reductions 

related to local content levels in detail.

5.2.2 Regional Content

Ten of the 15 leading U.S. ports (by tonnage) are located in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2011, 

approximately 40% of all waterborne traffic in the United States was shipped or received in a 

port located in one of the five states in the Gulf of Mexico (Navigation and Civil Works Decision 

Support Center 2012). The Gulf’s dense waterway infrastructure (e.g., ports and inland 

waterways) could lower operation and maintenance costs, which are correlated to the distance 

between offshore wind turbines and the ports used for maintenance. 

The percentage of labor and components that could be sourced locally was estimated through 

interviews with local experts, including consultants, university faculty, developers, and industry 

advocates. 

Table 20. Detailed Local Content Estimates by Selected Expenditure Categories (Gulf of Mexico 

Region) 

 A (Low) B (Moderate) C (High)

Years 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030

Local content 

Equipment 

 Nacelle/drivetrain 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 40%

 Blades 0% 15% 0% 55% 20% 65%

 Towers 0% 35% 30% 65% 40% 100%

Materials & other equipment 

Basic construction (concrete, rebar, gravel, etc.) 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

Foundation & substructure 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The presence of the offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico could make it easier for 

the region to design, manufacture, and install offshore wind foundations and substructures from 

the start. On the other hand, more specialized components like nacelles and blades require 

manufacturing infrastructure that currently does not exist in the region. Land-based wind power 
33 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

component manufacturers, while numerous in Gulf states, may need to invest significant 

amounts of capital to re-tool their factories or build new ones closer to the coast to produce 

offshore wind turbine components (Hamilton 2013). 

The percentage of local turbine content in Gulf of Mexico installations will not necessarily 

depend on the current land-based wind power manufacturing infrastructure. The amount and 

timing of annual offshore wind installations is an important contributing factor. Manufacturers 

may choose to site their plants in regions of the United States in which deployment occurs earlier 

and at greater levels. It may not be cost effective for component manufacturers to invest in 

facilities in the Gulf of Mexico when comparable facilities exist, for example, along the Atlantic 

coast. In that scenario, a percentage of the orders from the Gulf of Mexico would be fulfilled 

from manufacturing plants located in other regions within the United States. Therefore, early 

deployment trends in the Gulf of Mexico and other regions could influence the amount of local 

content for installations in the Gulf. Local content figures used in this analysis take this into 

account because offshore wind deployments occur earlier and at a faster pace in the North 

Atlantic than in the Gulf in the majority of scenarios considered by experts (Hamilton 2013). 

5.3 Results

5.3.1 Construction Period

Figure 11 shows the estimated total number of FTE jobs supported each year between 2020 and 

2030 by construction under each scenario. This represents the number of jobs supported by 

capacity that is completed in the year indicated. 

Figure 11. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Gulf of Mexico

region) 

Table 21 summarizes job impacts in the initial and final years for each scenario analyzed. Lowergrowth scenarios support fewer jobs, and so do scenarios with lower levels of local content. The 

total number of construction jobs supported in 2020 ranges from 1,480 to 6,800, depending on 

 -

 2,000

 4,000

 6,000

 8,000

 10,000

 12,000

 14,000

 16,000

 18,000

 20,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Jobs (FTE)

Scenario Low (A) Medium (B) High (C)
34 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

the scenario. For 2030, job numbers increase from 4,550 in the low-growth scenario to 18,830 in 

the scenario in which the most rapid growth is experienced.

Table 21. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario

(Gulf of Mexico Region) 

Deployment 

Scenario

Years Project 

Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply 

Chain

Induced Jobs/MW

Low (A) 2020 390 580 520 25

2030 1,270 1,720 1,560 29

Annual Average 2020-

2030

680 950 860 27

Medium (B) 2020 1,340 2,000 1,780 26

2030 4,800 6,580 5,900 29

Annual Average 2020-

2030

2,570 3,700 3,290 28 

High (C) 2020 1,740 2,700 2,360 27

2030 5,400 7,030 6,400 27

Annual Average 2020-

2030

2,960 4,240 3,760 28

In this case study, however, the number of jobs per megawatt installed does not necessarily 

increase with greater local content and deployment. This is because the higher-growth scenarios 

assume increases in labor productivity. This is most noticeable when comparing the medium and 

high scenarios because it causes the number of jobs per megawatt to be lower in the medium 

scenario (in 2020 and 2030) or the same (average 2020 – 2030) as the high scenario. 

O&M jobs, while not as numerous as construction jobs, grow at a faster rate because they are 

proportional to the cumulative capacity installed, whereas construction jobs depend on the 

capacity installed each year (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Gulf of Mexico

region) 

 -

 2,000

 4,000

 6,000

 8,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Jobs (FTE)

Low (A) Medium (B) High (C) Scenario
35 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The number of O&M jobs per megawatt does not vary among scenarios (Table 22). This case 

study assumes that most O&M labor will come from the Gulf Region regardless of scenario, and 

other variations are minor enough to not cause significant differences. 

Table 22. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario 

(Gulf of Mexico Region) 

Deployment

Scenario

Years Project Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced

Low (A) 2020 3 50 30

2030 60 780 440

Annual Average 

2020-2030

30 340 190 

Medium (B) 2020 20 310 170 

2030 270 3,140 1,760

Annual Average 

2020-2030

120 1,450 810 

High (C) 2020 60 700 390 

2030 340 3,920 2,200

Annual Average 

2020-2030

170 2,000 1,120

5.3.2 Earnings and Output

Earnings levels during construction range from a total of $110 million to $500 million in 2020 to 

$350 million to $1,460 million in 2030 (Table 23). These earnings levels represent wellcompensated jobs, with average annual earnings (including benefits) of $140,000 annually for 

onsite workers. Supply chain job holders are estimated to earn approximately $60,000, and 

earnings from induced jobs are approximately $40,000. 
36 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 23. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (Gulf of 

Mexico Region, 2012 $ Millions)

 Project Development 

& Onsite Labor Supply Chain Induced

Deployment

Scenario Years Earnings Output Earnings Output Earnings Output

Low (A) 2020 $50 $70 $30 $140 $20 $70

2030 $180 $210 $100 $414 $70 $210

Annual Average

2020-2030 $90 $120 $50 $230 $40 $120

Medium (B) 2020 $190 $240 $110 $490 $80 $240

2030 $670 $780 $390 $1620 $260 $800

Annual Average

2020-2030 $360 $430 $220 $910 $150 $440

High (C) 2020 $240 $300 $160 $670 $110 $320

2030 $750 $850 $420 $1,750 $280 $860

Annual Average

2020-2030 $410 $480 $250 $1,060 $170 $510

The construction phase of the project is anticipated to support between $280 million and $990 

million in output in the Gulf of Mexico in 2020, increasing to $834 million to $3,460 million in 

2030 (Table 23). The largest portion of this—about half—is in the supply chain category under 

all scenarios.

Output from O&M should be much lower than that supported by construction. In 2020, this 

analysis shows between $10 million and $210 million supported by O&M, increasing to a range 

of $230 million to $1,180 million by 2030 (Table 24). The largest portion of output is in the 

supply chain category in all scenarios.
37 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 24. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M Activities under Each Scenario (Gulf 

of Mexico Region, 2012 $ Millions)

Project Development & 

Onsite Labor Supply Chain Induced

Deployment

Scenario Years Earnings Output Earnings Output Earnings Output

Low (A) 2020 < $1 < $1 $3 $10 $1 $4

2030 $7 $7 $50 $170 $20 $60

Annual Average 

2020-2030 $3 $3 $20 $70 $8 $30

Medium (B) 2020 $3 $3 $20 $70 $8 $20

2030 $30 $30 $200 $680 $80 $240

Annual Average 

2020-2030 $10 $10 $90 $310 $40 $110

High (C) 2020 $7 $7 $50 $150 $20 $50

2030 $40 $40 $250 $840 $100 $300

Annual Average 

2020-2030 $20 $20 $130 $430 $50 $150

Total O&M earnings range from $5 million to $70 million in 2020 and $80 million to $390 

million by 2030 (Table 24). These equate to overall average salaries of $60,000 for all jobs 

supported by O&M activities. Onsite workers receive the highest salaries, earning an average of 

$120,000 annually. Supply chain workers earn an average of $65,000 annually, and induced 

workers earn an average of $40,000 each year. These averages are consistent and similar across 

all scenarios. 

5.4 Summary of Economic Impacts

Scenarios A, B, and C represent different levels of deployment, growth of a Gulf of Mexico 

supply chain, and offshore wind costs. Scenario C supports the most jobs and Scenario A the 

fewest. Scenario A is also the costliest on a per-megawatt basis, while local supply chain growth 

and efficiency improvements push costs down the most under Scenario C. 

In the Gulf region, our analysis shows that offshore wind deployment has the potential to support 

an annual average of 2,490 to 10,960 jobs during construction periods (with an average of 25 to 

29 jobs/MW) between 2020 and 2030, and 560 to 3,290 ongoing jobs on average between 2020 

and 2030 (with an average of 1.3 jobs/MW). The results will depend on many factors, including 

number of projects and turbines installed, energy policy, and regional sourcing of goods and 

services. 
38 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6 Case Study: The Southeast Region

The Virginia Center for Wind Energy at James Madison University (JMU) and NREL performed 

the following analysis to estimate the expected economic impacts associated with offshore wind 

power developed off the coasts of Virginia27, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, as 

shown in Figure 13. 

Figure 13. Map of the Southeast region

6.1 Physical Characteristics and Infrastructure

The Southeast could play a significant role in offshore wind development due to the substantial 

offshore wind resource, with Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia representing 

45% of the total East Coast resource (DOE 2008). The region is home to a highly skilled 

manufacturing and maritime workforce and employs thousands of people in the land-based wind 

industry, despite having almost no utility-scale wind energy facilities.28

There are many large ports in the Southeast region that could potentially be used as staging areas 

and for component manufacturing, such as the Port of Virginia, Port of Charleston, and Port of 

Savannah. Existing economic activity in industries similar to offshore wind in the Southeast 

suggests that the region could have relatively low business expenses, a competitive advantage 

that could also result in offshore wind component manufacturers choosing to locate in the region. 

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates between 4,600 and 8,500 (from 

about 75,000 national) wind-related jobs in the Southeast in 2013. The EIA estimates that 

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia have lower construction costs for offshore 

wind energy than most of the East Coast states (EIA 2013d). 

 

27 Note that Virginia is included in both the Southeast and the Mid-Atlantic regions of the country. 28 Southeastern Coastal Wind Coalition, 2014. www.secoastalwind.org/
39 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6.2 Scenarios

Data for this study were acquired from interviews with state- and region-specific contacts who 

are engaged in activities that support and promote offshore wind development. The authors also 

used Web resources, reports from state and federal agencies and organizations, and appropriate 

databases to obtain information relevant to this effort. 

Unlike the previous three case studies, for this region we examined five offshore wind 

deployment scenarios to accommodate varying future regional investment and technology cost 

potentials. This case study is more complex in its assumptions due to the availability of 

information provided through the JMU network. 

6.2.1 Deployment Scenarios

Five combinations of deployment and market scenarios for offshore wind in the Southeast were 

developed (Table 25). These low, moderate, and high deployment scenarios reflect different 

levels of deployment but not necessarily different levels of growth in a regional offshore wind 

industry. 

Table 25. Overall Scenarios Considering Growth, Regional Investment, and Cost

(Southeast Region)

Deployment

Scenario

Growth Regional 

Investment

Cost Explanation

A Low Low High Low growth and investment, high cost (LLH)

B Medium Medium Medium Moderate (MMM)

C High High Low High growth and investment, low cost (HHL)

D Low High Medium Low growth, high investment, moderate costs (LHM)

E High Low Medium High growth, low investment, moderate costs (HLM)

In the low-growth scenario, investment in the offshore wind industry is assumed to be very 

conservative. In this scenario it is likely that the first turbines deployed offshore will be small 

pilot projects intended primarily to support data gathering. Since the market is assumed to grow 

at a conservative pace (meaning a low level of deployment), it is also assumed that the majority 

of the region's capacity is in Virginia and North Carolina because these states are significantly 

further along in the federal leasing process. Moreover, the wind projects commissioned in this 

scenario are assumed to range between 150 and 250 MW in the initial years up to 2025. Larger 

wind projects of more than 300 MW of nameplate capacity are assumed to be commissioned 

after 2025. 

The first years of the moderate-growth scenario (medium deployment level) are assumed to be 

similar to those of the low-market-growth scenario, featuring an initial phase of pilot projects. 

However, in this scenario, there is a consistent level of growth in the market, reaching 350 

MW/year by 2025 and 600 MW/year by 2030. 

The high-growth scenario (highest deployment) assumes that the offshore wind industry 

accelerates rapidly in the Southeast, representing a ceiling for turbine installations in the region. 
40 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

In this case, the majority of added capacity is from offshore wind. In this more aggressive 

scenario, the industry would start with large-scale projects of more than 300 MW immediately 

and reach a build-in rate of 500 MW/year by 2020. Rapid market growth is assumed to continue 

for the next 10 years, reaching 900 MW/year in 2025 and 1,100 MW/year in 2030, about half of 

the average historical build-in rate for electricity in the region.

6.2.2 Regional Investment-Based Scenarios

Three regional investment scenarios for the Southeast were developed, each representing 

different levels of investment for offshore wind by local and regional companies. These 

scenarios reflect growth in a regional offshore wind industry such as component manufacturers 

or offshore wind training institutions. At higher levels of local and regional investment in 

offshore wind, there will be greater capital injected into the local economy and subsequent job 

creation. In this study, production outsourced to other regions or countries is considered to be 

lost or "leaked" dollars. 

In the low regional investment scenario, the regional contribution to offshore wind projects 

would be minimal because of uncertainty in the industry among local firms; thus as of 2020, 

little of the capital being spent on offshore wind is injected into the local economy. Over the next 

10 years, a very modest increase in regional manufacturing would be expected—the majority of 

components would be manufactured overseas. In particular, it is assumed that all project 

financing would be outsourced. 

In the moderate regional investment scenario, the situation is similar to that of the low regional 

investment scenario in 2020, except that greater investment in the fabrication of substructures 

and foundations would be expected because of the region's capabilities of producing these 

components and the difficulty of transporting such large components from overseas. In this 

scenario, there would be a higher level of regional investment in the industry, thus advancing the 

regional supply chain. Roughly half of the production is assumed to be regional by 2030. As a 

result of supply chain development and increased certainty in the industry, some regional firms 

start to finance these projects. 

The high regional investment scenario assumes a significant level of investment by local and 

regional companies in the industry, resulting in the development of a robust supply chain by 

2030. The level of investment is higher than for the medium and low regional investment 

scenarios by 2020. By 2025, more than half of the components are assumed to be manufactured 

locally, and a supply chain that is almost entirely regional is developed by 2030. The industry is 

healthy enough by this point that regional institutions handle 75% of construction financing. 

6.2.3 Cost-Based Scenarios

We developed three cost-based scenarios for use in the JEDI analysis. First we determined a 

baseline cost using data from the 2010 EIA Annual Energy Outlook report. 

The low-deployment, low regional investment, high-cost scenario A (or LLH) assumes that there 

are limited developments in offshore wind energy technology, meaning that cost reduction is 

slow. A cost reduction of 3.5% every 5 years was applied to the baseline up to 2030. This leads 

to an overall cost reduction of around 10% during this 15-year period. 
41 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The moderate scenario B (or MMM) assumes that there are more technological advancements in 

offshore wind deployment technologies, thus resulting in a lower cost. The average cost of a 

wind turbine was assumed to decrease by 7.2% every 5 years, resulting in an overall cost 

reduction of around 20% over the 15-year period. 

In the high-deployment, low-cost scenario C (or HHL), developments in offshore wind energy 

technologies are the most aggressive, thus driving down the average cost per kilowatt most 

dramatically. The average cost of offshore wind is assumed to decrease by 11.2% every 5 years, 

resulting in an overall cost reduction of 30% by 2030. Table 26 shows the costs per installed 

kilowatt for each scenario.

Table 26. Southeast Region Cost and Capacity Scenarios (2012 $) 

Deployment

Scenario

Cost ($/kW) Capacity Deployed (MW)

2020 2030 2020 2030

Low Cost (C/HHL) 4,415 3,920 985 9,760

Medium Cost (B/MMM,

D/LHM, E/HLM)

4,826 4,480 252 4,027

High Cost (A/LLH) 5,220 5,040 95 1,695

For reference: Scenarios list regional growth/investment/cost

6.3 Results

Five combinations of the deployment and market (growth), regional investment-based, and costbased scenarios were developed. These are defined in Table 26 and referred to as Scenarios A 

(LLH), B (MMM), C (HHL), D (LHM), and E (HLM). In each case, the abbreviations 

correspond to the high, medium, or low listed in Table 25. The first letter refers to the growth 

scenario, the second to the regional investment, and the third to the cost. One-time constructionphase impact estimates presented in this report reflect estimated impacts that are deployed in the 

year indicated. O&M estimates reflect the total number of ongoing, annual O&M jobs supported 

in the year indicated. 

6.3.1 Jobs

The JEDI model results provide a wide range of values for potential jobs from the different 

scenarios (Figures 14 and 15, Tables 27 and 28). Scenario A (LLH) results in the fewest number 

of jobs supported whereas Scenario C (HHL) represents the highest number of total jobs. The 

results show clearly that the level of regional investment impacts the number of jobs generated. 

While Scenarios A (LLH) and D (LHM) had the same offshore wind low level of deployment, 

the higher level of regional investment assumed in Scenario D (LHM) results in an average of 

more than 200 additional jobs annually between 2020 and 2030. Similarly, when comparing the 

results pertaining to Scenarios C (HHL) and E (HLM, which had assumed the same high level of 

deployment), this analysis shows that Scenario C (HHL) results in an annual average of 

approximately 15,000 more jobs from 2020 to 2030. 
42 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 14. Estimated construction-phase jobs supported under each scenario (Southeast region)

The largest portion of the jobs generated in all scenarios, around 43%, was induced jobs that are 

supported by worker expenditures. Nearly as many jobs supported by the projects can be 

attributed to turbine and supply chain impacts. 

Another widely reported metric to consider is the number of FTE jobs per megawatt supported 

under each scenario. From this perspective, Scenario E (HLM) generates the fewest number of 

jobs per megawatt installed, whereas Scenario D (LHM) results in the greatest number of jobs 

per megawatt installed. In 2020, the range of construction-phase FTEs per megawatt varies only 

between 13.6 in Scenario E (HLM) to 19.5 in Scenario D (LHM), primarily because the 

differences in regional investment are not as impactful as in later years. This analysis shows by 

2030 a minimum of 17.1 FTEs/MW in Scenario E (HLM) and a maximum of 44.3 FTEs/MW in 

Scenario D (LHM). For Scenario B (MMM), the moderate scenario, around 16.7 FTEs/MW are 

supported in 2020, with the number increasing to 33.5 FTEs/MW by 2030. 

The JEDI results for total gross jobs supported during the O&M period do not vary significantly 

among scenarios. This is because the largest line-item expenditures are on goods and services, 

such as water transportation, which can already be procured in the Southeast region, and this 

analysis assumes a constant real price of $133/MW for O&M. Impacts from financing and taxes 

are not included.

In all scenarios, the number of O&M jobs supported increases from 1.6/MW in 2020 to 1.7/MW 

by 2030 (Table 28). Figure 15 plots these increases among scenarios. There are very slight 

deviations, with C (HHL) and E (HLM) being nearly the same and A (LLH) and D (LHM) being 

similar as well. 

 -

 5,000

 10,000

 15,000

 20,000

 25,000

 30,000

 35,000

 40,000

 45,000

 50,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

A (LLH) B (MMM) C (HHL) D (LHM) E (HLM) Scenario
43 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 27. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by Construction under Each Scenario (Southeast 

Region) 

Deployment

Scenario

Years Project

Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply

Chain

Induced Total FTE 

Jobs/MW

Scenario A

(LLH)

2020 220 530 590 14

2030 750 1,960 2,090 19

Annual Average 

2020-2030 

420 1,020 1,110 16

Scenario B

(MMM)

2020 860 1,550 1,810 17

2030 4,150 7,480 8,470 34

Annual Average

2020-2030

2,000 3,450 3,980 24

Scenario C

(HHL)

2020 3,310 7,180 7,960 19

2030 9,120 16,260 18,420 40

Annual Average

2020-2030

5,830 10,770 12,140 31

Scenario D

(LHM)

2020 320 730 800 19

2030 2,100 4,280 4,700 44

Annual Average

2020-2030

1,020 2,080 2,290 34

Scenario E

(HLM)

2020 2,270 5,250 5,870 14

2030 3,210 7,500 8,160 17

Annual Average 

2020-2030

2,330 5,310 5,880 14

For reference: Scenarios list regional growth/investment/cost

Figure 15. Annual estimated total O&M jobs supported under each scenario (Southeast region)

 -

 2,000

 4,000

 6,000

 8,000

 10,000

 12,000

 14,000

 16,000

 18,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Scenario A (LLH) B (MMM) C (HHL) D (LHM) E (HLM)
44 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 28. Estimated Number of Jobs Supported by O&M under Each Scenario (Southeast Region) 

Deployment 

Scenario

Years Project 

Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply 

Chain

Induced Total FTE 

Jobs/MW

Scenario A

(LLH)

2020 7 80 60 1.6

2030 130 1,520 1,160 1.7

Annual Average 2020-2030 70 780 590 1.7

Scenario B

(MMM)

2020 18 230 170 1.6

2030 330 3,610 2,760 1.7

Annual Average 2020-2030 150 1,700 1,290 1.7

Scenario C

(HHL)

2020 70 880 670 1.6

2030 840 8,780 6,710 1.7

Annual Average 2020-2030 420 4,510 3,440 1.7

Scenario D

(LHM)

2020 7 80 60 1.6

2030 150 1,530 1,170 1.7

Annual Average 2020-2030 70 780 600 1.7

Scenario E

(HLM)

2020 70 880 670 1.6

2030 770 8,750 6,660 1.7

Annual Average 2020-2030 380 4,490 3,410 1.7

For reference: Scenarios list regional growth/investment/cost

6.3.2 Earnings and Output

The earnings and gross economic output associated with project development and earnings 

associated with construction, as well as turbine and supply chain impacts, induced impacts, and 

total impacts, are presented in Table 29. Scenario C, with high growth and high regional 

investment, results in the greatest earnings and economic output. Scenario E with high growth 

and low regional investment follows in terms of earnings and output during early years (2020), 

but Scenario B with medium growth and regional investment passes Scenario E by 2030. 
45 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 29. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by Construction under Each Scenario 

(Southeast Region, 2012 $ Millions)

Project Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced

Deployment

Scenario

Years Earnings Output Earnings Output Earnings Output

Scenario A

(LLH)

2020 $30 $50 $40 $120 $30 $90 

2030 $100 $160 $130 $490 $100 $320 

Annual Average

2020-2030 

$60 $90 $70 $240 $60 $170 

Scenario B

(MMM)

2020 $120 $170 $100 $350 $90 $280 

2030 $470 $690 $520 $1,930 $420 $1,280 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$270 $350 $230 $860 $200 $610 

Scenario C

(HHL)

2020 $450 $660 $490 $1,760 $390 $1,210 

2030 $1,270 $1,460 $1,110 $4,340 $910 $2,790 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$810 $970 $740 $2,810 $600 $1,840 

Scenario D

(LHM)

2020 $40 $70 $50 $180 $40 $120 

2030 $290 $340 $290 $1,160 $230 $710 

Annual Average 

2020-2030

$140 $170 $140 $550 $110 $350 

Scenario E

(HLM)

2020 $300 $520 $350 $1,190 $290 $890 

2030 $430 $640 $510 $1,850 $400 $1,240 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$310 $500 $360 $1,270 $290 $890 

For reference: Scenarios list regional growth/investment/cost

The onsite labor impacts, local revenue and supply chain impacts, induced impacts, and total 

impacts associated with O&M are presented in Table 30. In 2020, the values are correlated with 

the level of growth defined for each of the five scenarios. By 2030, Scenario C (high growth, 

high regional investment, and low cost) exhibits the strongest growth, followed by Scenario E 

(high growth but low regional investment and medium cost). 
46 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 30. Estimated Earnings and Output Supported by O&M under Each Scenario 

(Southeast Region, 2012 $ Millions)

Project Development 

& Onsite Labor

Supply Chain Induced

Deployment

Scenario

Years Earnings Output Earnings Output Earnings Output

Scenario A

(LLH)

2020 $1 $1 $6 $20 $3 $10 

2030 $20 $20 $100 $340 $60 $180 

Annual Average 

2020-2030 

$8 $8 $50 $180 $30 $90 

Scenario B

(MMM)

2020 $2 $2 $20 $50 $8 $30 

2030 $40 $40 $250 $820 $140 $420 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$20 $20 $120 $380 $60 $200 

Scenario C

(HHL)

2020 $8 $8 $60 $200 $30 $100 

2030 $100 $100 $610 $1,980 $330 $1,030 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$50 $50 $310 $1,020 $170 $530 

Scenario D

(LHM)

2020 $1 $1 $6 $20 $3 $10 

2030 $20 $20 $110 $340 $60 $180 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$9 $9 $50 $180 $30 $90 

Scenario E

(HLM)

2020 $8 $8 $60 $200 $30 $100 

2030 $90 $90 $600 $1,980 $330 $1,020 

Annual Average

2020-2030

$40 $40 $310 $1,010 $170 $520 

For reference: Scenarios list regional growth/investment/cost

6.4 Summary of Economic Impacts

Development of offshore wind power will require significant investment and will affect the 

economy of the Southeast. Economic impacts would arise from direct work onsite as well as 

through an offshore wind supply chain or business-to-business services. In addition, impacts 

would include regional expenditures for goods and services made by offshore wind and related 

workers. Revenues in the form of royalty payments would also be generated, some of which 

would benefit state and local governments.

Scenario A with low growth and investment but high cost generates the lowest total gross FTEs 

regionally. It also produces the lowest economic return locally and regionally. A Sparkline 

showing this scenario between 2020-2030 indicates the estimated number of jobs in construction 

and operations, over time ranging from approximately 1,500 to 7,600 jobs. 

Scenario B with medium growth, investment, and cost represents a moderate case. The market 

growth and supply chain development may provide sufficient economic growth to entice regional 
47 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

industry support and supply chain development. This Sparkline indicates the estimated number 

of jobs over time from this scenario, ranging from approximately 4,600 to 26,800 jobs. 

Scenario C supports the highest number of gross FTE jobs but requires an exceptionally fast 

supply chain development to maintain local manufacturing and production. This scenario 

describes the great potential of offshore wind to support jobs and economic development for the 

region, ranging from approximately 20,000 to 60,100 jobs. 

Scenario D generated significantly more gross FTE jobs than did Scenario A because of 

aggressive regional investment in the industry. While the deployment and market development 

are limited, significant economic output is generated domestically, thus resulting in the highest 

number of FTE jobs per megawatt out of the five scenarios (34 FTE/MW) but not the highest 

number of jobs overall, due to limited deployment. This Sparkline shows job growth ranging 

from approximately 2,000 to 14,000 jobs. 

Scenario E, with a high level of deployment like Scenario C, resulted in far fewer gross FTE jobs 

than Scenario C because of a higher dependency on non-regional supply chain inputs. Moreover, 

this scenario presents the lowest number of FTE jobs per megawatt out of the five scenarios (15 

FTE jobs/MW). Despite an aggressive deployment and market development, the region would 

not realize the full extent of potential economic impacts from development since many of the 

dollars would "leak" from the local economy. This Sparkline shows the trend over time from 

approximately 15,000 to 35,000 FTE jobs. 

In the Southeast region, offshore wind energy development has the potential to support between 

420 and 5,830 annual jobs on average during construction periods and between 70 and 420 

average ongoing jobs per year. Any level of development will require offshore wind-related 

improvements to infrastructure and will also bring jobs to the region. If there is enough wind 

power deployed to support a robust supply chain for offshore wind, the region would experience 

greater economic growth and perhaps vast improvements in infrastructure. 
48 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

7 Conclusions

Regions around the United States will need to invest in energy infrastructure in the future to 

replace aging equipment or increase generating capacity to respond to demand for electricity. In 

coastal regions of the United States, offshore wind is one possible technology that could be used 

for additional capacity. 

The offshore wind industry in the United States has the potential to support thousands of jobs, 

even at relatively conservative levels of deployment and domestic supply chain growth. 

Interviews with regional academics, industry professionals, and other energy experts informed 

the development of the scenarios presented in this analysis. 

As stated above, each regional analysis was performed by interviewing local experts. The wind 

resource differs from region to region, as do the deployment scenarios. Factors that contribute to 

the varying results also include existing infrastructure (e.g., ports), labor (e.g., available labor 

pool, manual labor vs. mechanized), supply chain, and assumptions from regional experts in 

potential to deploy offshore wind. Results show average construction-phase FTE jobs per 

megawatt deployed of 14 to 31 (Table 31). 

Table 31. Summary of Construction Cost and Job Estimates by Region 

Region Jobs/MW, 

Low Scenario

Jobs/MW, 

Moderate Scenario

Jobs/MW, 

High Scenario

Southeast 16 24 31

Great Lakes 14 17 25

Gulf of Mexico 27 28 28

Mid-Atlantic 16 23 25

These estimates generally correlate with three recently published studies, as shown in Table 32.29

Scenarios included in this report tend to be conservative, with three low scenarios reporting jobsper-megawatt figures less than the minimum from the literature (Bloomberg), and all reporting 

figures less than the maximum from the literature (Hagerman et al.). 

Table 32. Comparison of Study Results with Other Published Results

Study FTE Jobs/MW

Coad and Antunes (2010) 25-29

Hagerman et al. (2010) 39

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2012)30 17

 

29 Studies prior to 2010 exist but were excluded from this report. Significant progress is consistently being made to 

understand cost and logistical requirements of offshore wind energy, and recent studies better capture the present 

state of knowledge. 

30 This figure only represents direct or onsite jobs. 
49 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Ultimately, the number of jobs in the United States that are supported by offshore wind will 

depend on deployment of offshore wind plants and growth of a domestic supply chain. Both of 

these could influence the construction costs of offshore wind installations, which in turn could 

influence both deployment and subsequent domestic supply chain growth. Regardless of these 

nuances, when offshore wind is commercially deployed in the United States, the industry will 

require a robust workforce. 
50 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

References 

Beaudry-Losique, J.; Boling, T.; Brown-Saracino, J.; Gilman, P.; Hart, C.; Johnson, J.; McCluer,

M.; et al. (2011). “A National Offshore Wind Strategy Creating an Offshore Wind Energy 

Industry in the United States.” DOE/EE-0798. U.S. Department of Energy. 

www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2012). Wind, Solar-Research Note: Solar and Wind Sectors 

on Course to Employ 2 Million People Worldwide by 2020. March 5, 2012. 

Bolinger, M. (2013). “Revisiting the Long-Term Hedge Value of Wind Power in an Era of Low 

Natural Gas Prices.” http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6103e.pdf

Brown, J.P.; Pender, J.; Wiser, R.; Lantz, E.; Hoen, B. (2012). Ex Post Analysis of Economic 

Impacts from Wind Power Development in U.S. Counties. Energy Economics 34 (6) 

(November): 1743–1754. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.07.010

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). (2013). About BOEM. Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management. Accessed November 14, 2013. www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/

Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (BLS OES). (2013). Accessed 

from www.bls.gov/oes/. September 2013. 

Coad, L.; Antunes, P. (2010). Employment and Economic Impacts of Ontario’s Future Offshore 

Wind Power Industry. Ottawa, Ontario: The Conference Board of Canada. 

Colton, T. (2013). “Shipbuilding History.” Shipbuilding History. August. 

http://shipbuildinghistory.com

Cutler, H.; Davies, S. (2007). "The Impact of Specific-Sector Changes in Employment on 

Economic Growth, Labor Market Performance, and Migration." Journal of Regional Science 47 

(5): p. 935-963. 

Douglas-Westwood LLC. (2013). “Assessment of Vessel Requirements for the U.S. Offshore 

Wind Sector.”

Druckenmiller, H. (2012). At Wind Speed: How the U.S. Wind Industry is Rapidly Growing Our 

Local Economies (No. IP: 12-09-A). Natural Resources Defense Council.

Garrett, C.; O'Neill, T.; Blatiak, A. (2012). Logistical Requirements for Offshore Wind Ports. 

Garrad Hassan Report No. 700694-USPO-R-01. 

Greenwood, M.; Hunt, G. (1989). "Jobs versus amenities in the analysis of metropolitan 

migration." Journal of Urban Economics 25 (1): p. 1-16. 

Hagerman, G.M. Jr.; Hatcher, P.G.; Miles, J.J.; Newbold, K.F. (2010). Virginia Offshore Wind 

Studies, July 2007 to March 2010. Final Report. 
51 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Hamilton, B.D. (2013). “U.S. Offshore Wind Manufacturing and Supply Chain Development.” 

DE-EE0005364. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=1087161

Kaiser, M.J. (2010). “Marginal Production in the Gulf of Mexico – I. Historical Statistics & 

Model Framework.” Applied Energy 87 (8) (August): 2535–2550. 

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191000053X

Lantz, E.; Hand, M.; Wiser, R. (2012). Past and Future Cost of Wind Energy: Preprint. 

NREL/CP-6A20-54526. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54526.pdf

Lantz, E.; Tegen, S. (2008). Variables Affecting Economic Development of Wind Energy. 

Presented at the WINDPOWER 2008, Houston, TX. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43506.pdf

Lopez, A.; Roberts, B.; Heimiller, D.; Blair, N.; Porro, G. (2012). U.S. Renewable Energy 

Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis. NREL/TP-6A20-51946. National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=1047328

Musial, W.; Ram, B. (2010.) Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: Assessment 

of Opportunities and Barriers. NREL/TP-500-40745. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Golden, CO. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf

Musial, W.; Sheppard, R.E.; Dolan, D.; Naughton, B. (2013a). “Development of Offshore Wind 

Recommended Practice for U.S. Waters: Preprint.” NREL/CP-5000-57880. National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO. www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1078076

Musial, W.; Elliott, D.; Fields, J.; Parker, Z.; Scott, G.; Draxl, C. Assessment of Offshore Wind 

Energy Leasing Areas for the BOEM New Jersey Wind Energy Area. (2013b).TP-5000-60403. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO. 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/60403.pdf 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2013). Offshore Wind Resource 

Characterization. Accessed from www.nrel.gov/wind/offshore_resource_characterization.html 

September, 2013

Navigant Consulting. (2013). Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis; Annual Market 

Assessment 2013. DE-EE0005360. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf

Navigation and Civil Works Decision Support Center. (2012). “The U.S. Waterway System, 

Transportation Facts & Information.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

www.navigationdatacenter.us/factcard/factcard12.pdf

Pedden, M. (2006). Economic Impacts of Wind Applications in Rural Communities. NREL/SR500-39099. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39099.pdf
52 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Rose, S.; Jaramillo, P.; Small, M.J.; Grossmann, I.; Apt, J. (2012). Quantifying the Hurricane 

Risk to Offshore Wind Turbines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (February 

13). doi:10.1073/pnas.1111769109. www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/06/1111769109

Tegen, S.; Hand, M.; Maples, B.; Lantz, E.; Schwabe, P.; Smith, A. (2012). 2010 Cost of Wind 

Energy Review. NREL/TP-5000-52920. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52920.pdf 

Tegen, S., Lantz, E.; Hand, M.; Maples, B.; Smith, A.; Schwabe, P. (2013). 2011 Cost of Wind 

Energy Review. NREL/TP-5000-56266. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1072784

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). (2013). State Personal Income and Employment. 

Accessed from 

www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=5#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=

1 September, 2013

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Population Estimates. Accessed from 

www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html. September 2013. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind 

Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/20-wind-energy-2030-increasing-wind-energys-contribution-uselectricity-supply

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2010). “Updated Capital Cost Estimates for 

Electricity Generation Plants.” Accessed August 2013 from 

www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/pdf/updatedplantcosts.pdf

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2013a). “Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with 

Projections to 2040.” DOE/EIA-0383(2013), 1081575. www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1081575

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2013b). “Electricity Sales.” Accessed 

December 2013 from www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#sales

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2014). “Electricity Data.” Accessed September 

2014 from www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2013d). “Updated Capital Cost Estimates for 

Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants.” Washington D.C. 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2004). Wind Power’s Contribution to Electric 

Power Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities (No. GAO-04-756). 

Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office. 
53 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Van der Zwaan, B.; Rivera-Tinoco, R.; Lensink, S.; van den Oosterkamp, P. (2012). “Cost 

Reductions for Offshore Wind Power: Exploring the Balance Between Scaling, Learning and 

R&D.” Renewable Energy 41 (May): 389–393. 

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148111006161

Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium (VCERC). (2010). “Virginia Offshore Wind 

Studies, July 2007 to March 2010, Final Report.” 

www.vcerc.org/VCERC_Final_Report_Offshore_Wind_Studies_Full_Report_new.pdf 

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M. (2012). 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report. DOE/GO-102011-

3472. United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53474.pdf

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M. (2013). 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report. LBNL-6356E. United 

States Department of Energy, Washington, DC. http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6356e.pdf

Wei, M.; Patadia, S.; Kammen, D. M. (2010). Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: 

How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the U.S.? Energy Policy, 38(2), 919–

931. 

http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/WeiPatadiaKammen_CleanEnergyJobs_EPolicy2010.pdf
54 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Bibliography

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2006). “Oil and Gas Extraction.” Career Guide to Industries 

(January): 25–29. 

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23274839&site=ehost-live

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). (2014). “Commercial Wind Lease for the Wind 

Energy Area Offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts.” www.boem.gov/Commercial-WindLease-Rhode-Island-and-Massachusetts/

Diffley, J.; Bonakdarpour, M.; Norton, S.; Rosbash, T.; Fullenbaum, R.; O’Neil, B. (2010). “The 

Economic Impact of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Industry and the Role of 

the Independents.” IHS Global Insight. 

Huber, G. (2013). Telephone interview with Grant Huber, Texas General Land Office.

Scottish Enterprise. (2013). “A Guide to Offshore Wind and Oil & Gas Capability.” Accessed 

October 8. www.scottish-enterprise.com/~/media/SE/Resources/Documents/GHI/Guideoffshore-wind-oil-gas.ashx

Sovacool, B.K.; Sovacool, K.E. (2009). “Identifying Future Electricity–Water Tradeoffs in the 

United States.” Energy Policy 37 (7) (July): 2763–2773. 

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509001645
55 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix A. JEDI Model Caveats, Limitations, and

Sensitivities

As with all economic models, there are caveats and limitations to the use of JEDI. Input-output 

models in general utilize fixed, proportional relationships between economy sectors. Factors that 

could change economic sectors, such as price changes that lead households to change 

consumption patterns, are not considered. 

JEDI provides estimates of economic impacts given the user-specified expenditures and 

economic conditions when input-output data were compiled. Impacts that extend into the future 

(such as O&M impacts) are assumed to do so if all else is constant. There can be any number of 

changes in a dynamic economy that JEDI does not consider, so these future results should not be 

considered a forecast. They simply reflect how a project might look if it were completed in the 

current economy under the user-specified cost and local content assumptions.

JEDI results are based on project inputs, and these inputs can change from project to project. 

This is especially true of nascent technologies or technologies that have not yet been widely 

deployed in the United States. If an analyst wishes to estimate impacts from a specific project, 

tailoring inputs to that project should produce more accurate results. JEDI does not evaluate 

whether inputs are reasonable, nor does it determine whether a project is feasible or profitable.

Results from JEDI models are gross, not net. JEDI calculates what economic activity would be 

supported by demand created by project expenditures. Other changes in an economy may take 

place that JEDI does not consider, including supply-side impacts such as price changes, changes 

in taxes or subsidies, or utility rate changes. JEDI also does not incorporate far-reaching effects 

such as greenhouse gas emissions, displaced investment, or potential side effects of a project 

such as recreation or tourism.

The order of magnitude of JEDI results is largely a function of a project's scale and how much is 

spent within the region being analyzed. Larger, more expensive projects tend to generate more 

jobs. These jobs may not be onsite; they might be further down the supply chain, or they might 

be a result of expenditures made by investors. Changes in assumed expenditures or local shares 

can have a large impact on estimates, depending on the expenditures and size of the change. The 

changes can vary from line item to line item.