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

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Economic Impact from LargeScale Deployment of Offshore 

Marine and Hydrokinetic 

Technology in Oregon

T. Jimenez and S. Tegen

Produced under direction of the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) under Interagency Agreement IAG-12-1867 and Task 

No. WFQ4.1005.

This report is available from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management by 

referencing OCS Study BOEM 2014-664. The report may be downloaded 

from the BOEM website through the Environmental Studies Program 

Information System (ESPIS) and may also be accessed on the BOEM 

Pacific Region website.

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-61727

January 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

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Economic Impact from LargeScale Deployment of Offshore 

Marine and Hydrokinetic 

Technology in Oregon 

T. Jimenez and S. Tegen

Prepared under Interagency Agreement IAG-12-1867 

and Task No. WFQ4.1005

This report is available from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

by referencing OCS Study BOEM 2014-664. The report may be 

downloaded from the BOEM website through the Environmental 

Studies Program Information System (ESPIS) and may also be 

accessed on the BOEM Pacific Region website.

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-61727

January 2015
NOTICE

Study direction and funding were provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Pacific Region, Camarillo, CA, under Interagency Agreement IAG-12-1867 and Task No. 

WFQ4.1005. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for publication. The 

views and conclusions contained in this report are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as 

representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial 

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This manuscript has been authored by employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (“Alliance”) under 

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”).

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.

CITATION

Jimenez, T. and Tegen, S., 2014. Economic Impact of Large-Scale Deployment of Offshore Marine and 

Hydrokinetic Technology in Oregon. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, 

CO, Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-61727. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Pacific Region, Camarillo, CA, OCS Study BOEM 2014-664. 35 pp.

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.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 

which sponsored this work, and for the valuable advice and discussions provided by Thomas Liu and 

Jean Thurston of BOEM. We are grateful for the valuable discussions and suggestions from Matthew 

Sanders and Jason Busch of the Oregon Wave Energy Trust. Finally, we thank our colleagues at the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Robert Thresher, David Keyser, Michael Lawson, Aaron 

Smith, Philipp Beiter, and Stuart Cohen for their generous sharing of time and knowledge, and to 

Fort Felker and Sheri Anstedt for careful review. This report would not have been possible without 

their support.
iv

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

Executive Summary

The overall United States’ marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) resource is comprised of river 

currents, ocean currents, and ocean wave energy. Of the three, wave energy has the greatest 

resource potential for electricity generation in the country. Within the continental United States, 

the West Coast in general, and Oregon in particular, appear to have the best wave energy 

resource. Wave energy resources are transformed into power by using wave energy converters, 

or WECs. MHK power is still in the stage of prototype devices and small demonstration 

projects1; however, this report explores scenarios with high deployment levels of WEC

technology to investigate economic impacts for the State of Oregon, with the assumptions that 

technological advancements are made and costs are significantly decreased in the future. 

To better understand the potential economic impacts of large-scale WEC technology, the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management commissioned the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to 

conduct this economic impact analysis of large-scale WEC deployment in Oregon. 

The analysis examined two deployment scenarios in the 2026‒2045 timeframe. The first scenario 

assumed 13,000 megawatts (MW) of WEC technology deployed in Oregon during the analysis 

period and the second scenario assumed 18,000 MW of WEC deployments. Sensitivity studies 

examined the effects of a robust in-state WEC-based supply chain and WEC device exports 

outside of Oregon. 

The impacts highlighted here could be used in policy and planning discussions and could be 

scaled to get a sense of the economic development opportunities associated with other WEC 

deployment scenarios. In addition, the analysis can be used to inform stakeholders in other states 

about the potential economic impacts of this scale of WEC technology development. All

estimates are based on currently available data, with caveats discussed in Section 2.1. It should 

be noted that scenarios in this report are hypothetical, and deployments of this magnitude would 

not realistically happen without advancements in technology and a very significant reduction in 

the cost of energy for WEC technology. 

According to the analysis conducted in this study, deploying 13,000 MW of WEC installations in 

Oregon and assuming a medium-level in-state supply chain could2

: 

• Support a total of 6,800 operation-phase FTE jobs by 2045 when 13,000 MW have been 

deployed. Support 6,800 operation-phase jobs annually in the years following the 

analysis period for the remaining lifetime of the MHK projects 

• Generate a total of $8.0 billion in economic activity for Oregon during the construction 

phases 

• Support a total of $1.0 billion in economic activity by 2045 during operation phases. 

Generate $1.0 billion in annual economic activity in the years following the analysis 

period for the remaining lifetime of the MHK projects

• Provide $7.4 million in annual lease payments to the State of Oregon. 

 

1 According to the December 2013 Ocean Energy Systems Annual Report, the United Kingdom has 3,850 kilowatts 

of MHK capacity installed (Ocean Energy Systems 2013). 2 Analysis results are provided in real 2012 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars.
v 

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

Figure ES-1 shows the estimated jobs in construction and operations for the years of the analysis. 

Figure ES-1. Estimated jobs in Oregon supported by WEC deployment scenarios

One key finding from this work is the sensitivity of the results to the magnitude of the in-state 

supply chain. Establishing an in-state supply chain that can manufacture even a modest portion 

of WEC installations would dramatically increase the economic impact of large-scale WEC 

deployment within the state.
vi 

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

Table of Contents

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

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii

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

2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 The Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model................................................................... 3

2.2 Research Data and Assumptions and Methodology...................................................................... 6

3 Results................................................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 Gross Economic Activity ............................................................................................................ 16

3.2 Employment Impacts ................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Construction Jobs........................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Jobs ................................................................................... 19

3.3 State Lease Revenue.................................................................................................................... 19

4 Oregon Manufacturing Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................... 19

5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 22

References................................................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 25

List of Figures

Figure ES-1. Estimated jobs in Oregon supported by WEC deployment scenarios..................................... v

Figure 1-1. Wave energy conversion device topologies............................................................................... 1

Figure 1-2. Annual estimated U.S. wave power density............................................................................... 2

Figure 2-1. JEDI Wind model economic development impact categories.................................................... 5

Figure 2-2. Construction cost breakdown assumptions.............................................................................. 11

Figure 3-1. Economic ripple effect from 13,000 MW of WEC facility deployments in Oregon from 2016 

to 2045 (assuming 20% in-state device share)....................................................................... 14

Figure 3-2. Estimated local spending supported by 13,000 MW of WEC facilities in Oregon during 

project construction (assuming 20% device local share) ....................................................... 17

Figure 3-3. Estimated total economic impacts from WEC deployment in Oregon throughout the analysis 

period ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3-4. Estimated annual employment impacts from WEC deployment in Oregon ............................ 18

Figure 4-1. Manufacturing scenarios and associated job impacts during construction comparing WEC 

devices with 20% (1A) and 60% (1B) local components ...................................................... 20

Figure 4-2. Manufacturing scenarios and associated economic impacts.................................................... 21

during the construction phase with 20% and 60% local share.................................................................... 21
vii 

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

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Analysis Cases .......................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2-2. Oregon Wave Energy Deployment Scenarios (Costs given in 2012 dollars)...................... 9

Table 2-3. Construction Cost Assumptions ........................................................................................... 10

Table 2-4. Operating Cost Assumptions................................................................................................. 11

Table 2-5. Additional Study Parameters Considered ............................................................................ 13

Table 3-1. Oregon Summary Impacts from WEC Deployment (2026‒2045)........................................ 15

Table A-1. Case 1A Results – FTE Jobs Based on Annual Installations............................................. 25

Table A-2. Case 1A Results – Earnings .................................................................................................. 26

Table A-3. Case 1A Results – Total Economic Impacts ........................................................................ 27

Table A-4. Case 1B Results – FTE Jobs Based on Annual Installations............................................. 28

Table A-5. Case 1B Results – Earnings .................................................................................................. 29

Table A-6. Case 1B Results – Total Economic Impacts ........................................................................ 30

Table A-7. Case 2B Results – FTE Jobs Based on Annual Installations............................................. 31

Table A-8. Case 2B Results – Earnings .................................................................................................. 32

Table A-9. Case 2B Results – Total Economic Impacts ........................................................................ 33

Table A-10. Case 2C Results – FTE Jobs, Earnings, and Total Economic Impacts........................... 34
1 

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

1 Introduction

Marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies are in the early stages of development toward 

becoming a source of renewable energy, such as solar and wind power. MHK can be subdivided 

into two categories: current energy converters (CECs) and wave energy converters (WECs). 

CECs harness the power of river, tidal, and ocean currents and are similar to wind turbines, 

whereas WECs harness the energy of ocean surface waves (Thresher 2013). Figure 1-1 shows 

examples of some of the different WEC devices currently under development. The wide variety 

of topologies indicates that WEC technology is still immature. There are currently no 

commercial-scale, market-ready MHK devices deployed in the United States though there are 

some projects in the demonstration stages, with plans for larger devices. Figure 1-2 shows the 

U.S. wave energy resource.

Figure 1-1. Wave energy conversion device topologies 

Source: Augustine et al. 2012
2 

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

Figure 1-2. Annual estimated U.S. wave power density

Source: Thresher 2013; Resource data from http://maps.nrel.gov/re_atlas

At the request of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted an analysis of the economic impacts of large-scale

(10,000‒20,000 megawatts [MW]) MHK, (specifically wave energy) deployment off the coast of 

Oregon. Oregon was selected because of its large wave energy resource and its ongoing efforts to 

create an Oregon-based wave energy industry. Specifically, NREL examined two different 

deployment scenarios using a large number of WEC deployments. Sensitivity studies were 

conducted to examine the effects of a larger in-state WEC supply chain and WEC device exports 

beyond Oregon. 

Similar to utility-scale wind and solar, utility-scale MHK deployment is expected to support jobs 

and generate tax revenue that can be used to provide other public services. Estimating the 

potential economic development impacts of such power plants allows policymakers and decision 

makers to assess the impacts on jobs and state economic activity. 

For the purposes of this study, state-level economic impacts include jobs, lease revenues, 

payrolls, and business activity from wave energy project development. Note that the described 

and quantified impacts are gross, not net impacts. In other words, the analysis does not account 

for potential job losses and reduced economic activity caused by the displacement of other types 

of electricity generating facilities and the displacement of other activities.
3 

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

2 Methodology

2.1 The Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model

For this study, researchers used the MHK Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) 

model, which is one element of a suite of JEDI input-output (I-O) models. JEDI models provide 

gross estimated economic impacts that are supported by investment in a number of different 

energy technologies. NREL and MRG & Associates developed the MHK JEDI model to 

incorporate the unique aspects of MHK development into an economic impact tool that can be 

accessed and used by the public, at no cost.

3

 

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

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

households, workers, capital, and government organizations 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 a steel plate, for example, results in an increased demand for the iron ore that is sourced 

within the region of analysis. 

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

for goods and services.4 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 an energy 

generation project. Each project contains two sets of line item expense categories such as 

equipment, materials and services, and labor: one set covers the construction of the project and 

the other covers the operation and maintenance (O&M) of a project. JEDI models contain default 

project scenario and cost data, but analysts with knowledge of project details can edit these 

defaults to better represent the scenario being analyzed.

The JEDI model requires users to specify the portions of expenditures that are made within the 

region of analysis, i.e., the “local share.” For example, the model allows users to specify the 

fraction of the “device” purchased from in-state manufacturers (assuming that the state is the 

region of analysis). JEDI uses expenditures made within the region of analysis, or “local 

expenditures,” to estimate economic impacts (for example, WEC devices manufactured within 

the State of Oregon). The JEDI model does not estimate economic impacts outside the particular 

region of analysis (e.g., generator parts from China). 

JEDI reports economic impact estimates for two phases: construction and O&M. Constructionphase results are one-time totals that span the equivalent of 1 year,

5

 and O&M phase results are 

annual and ongoing for the life of the facility. 

 

3 The MHK JEDI model can be downloaded at http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/download.html. Accessed February 

12, 2014.

4 JEDI currently uses the IMPLAN input-output model. More information about IMPLAN can be found at 

http://www.implan.com.

5 If, for example, JEDI reports a construction-phase impact of 50 workers to build a project that takes 2 years to 

complete, this equates to an average of 25 workers per year (50/2 = 25). If the same project took 3 years, the average 

would be 17 (rounded) workers per year.
4 

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

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

scenario worksheet. JEDI organizes these effects into different categories based on how the userspecified project scenario supports the impact. The workers who install a wave energy project, 

for example, are on site. The workers who manufacture the wave energy device are part of the 

supply chain. 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 are6

:

• Project development and on-site labor impacts. This category represents the economic 

activity that is either directly involved with a project’s development and implementation 

or that occurs on site. These impacts typically occur in the construction, maintenance, 

engineering, and port-staging sectors and do not include impacts that arise from 

expenditures for inputs used in a project. 

• Plant and supply chain impacts. This category represents the economic activity that is 

supported by inputs purchased for a project or business-to-business services. These 

include locally manufactured inputs, such as the WEC conversion equipment (also 

referred to as the “device”), and locally procured inputs used to manufacture the device, 

such as steel and fiberglass. This category also includes services provided by 

professionals such as analysts and attorneys who assess project feasibility and negotiate 

contract agreements, banks that finance the projects, and all equipment companies and 

manufacturers of replacement and repair parts.

• Induced impacts. This category represents the impacts of money circulating in an 

economy. Households spend earnings generated from employment in project 

development and development activities as well as turbine and supply chain activities. A 

portion of these earnings spent within the region of analysis supports induced impacts, 

examples of which include retail sales, child care, leisure, hospitality, and real estate 

services. (Goldberg and Previsic 2011) 

Figure 2-1 shows the three categories of impact from the JEDI model. 

 

6 Typically, I-O models organize impacts into direct, indirect, and induced effects, but JEDI categories are different. 

Project development and on-site 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 MHK Wind JEDI 

User Reference Guide (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi) provides more information about these differences.
5 

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

Figure 2-1. JEDI Wind model economic development impact categories

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

utilizes intuitive labels when reporting these metrics, such as “jobs” and “earnings.” Each metric, 

however, has a specific definition that informs how it should be interpreted, as follows. 

• Jobs are expressed as full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. One FTE 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 each working 20 hours/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—and may

include other types of workers, such as sole proprietors (individuals that are selfemployed). 

• Earnings include any type of income generated from work, generally an employee’s 

wage or salary and supplemental costs paid by employers such as health insurance and 

retirement. They may also include other nonwage compensation for work performed such 

as proprietor earnings. 

• Total economic activity (output) is the sum of all expenditures. For example, a scenario 

in which a developer purchases a locally manufactured $500,000 WEC component that 

utilized $100,000 of locally procured aluminum represents $600,000 in gross output. 

As with all economic models, there are caveats and limitations to the use of JEDI. I-O models in 

general utilize fixed, proportional relationships between sectors in an economy. This means that 

factors that could change these relationships, such as price changes that lead households to alter

consumption patterns, are not considered. 

JEDI provides estimates of gross economic impacts based on the user-specified expenditures and 

economic conditions provided when the input-output data were compiled. Impacts that extend 
6 

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

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 as a forecast. They simply reflect how a project might look if it 

was 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. 

These changes in input values are 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 or not inputs are reasonable, nor does it determine whether a 

project is feasible or profitable.

As stated, results from JEDI models are gross, not net. JEDI estimates economic activity that 

would be supported by demand created by project expenditures. Other changes in an economy 

will take place that JEDI does not consider, such as price changes, changes in taxes or subsidies, 

utility rate changes, or changes in property values. JEDI also does not incorporate far-reaching 

effects such as greenhouse gas emissions or displaced investment, or potential effects of a project 

such as changes in fishing, recreation, or tourism.

2.2 Research Data and Assumptions and Methodology

This analysis consists of two main parts. The first part consists of the development or selection 

of MHK deployment scenarios. The second part explains our analysis of the economic impacts 

of those deployment scenarios. 

2.2.1 Deployment Scenarios Description

We present four cases that examine two deployment scenarios. Sensitivity studies examine the 

effects of a larger in-state supply chain and WEC device exports to locations beyond Oregon. 

Table 2-1 summarizes the four cases analyzed for this effort. Cases 1A and 1B both assume the 

deployment scenario in which West Coast-based WEC installations supply 80 TWh of electricity

annually by 2050.

7 Case 1A assumes that on average 20% of the WEC devices are sourced by instate OEMs, i.e., a 20% local share, whereas Case 1B assumes a 60% local share for the WEC 

device. Case 2B assumes an even higher deployment scenario in which West Coast WEC

installations supply 160 TWh of electricity annually by 2050, with a 60% WEC device local 

share. Case 2B is quite aggressive, representing an estimated 3% of the entire U.S. electricity 

demand by 2040 (likely a smaller percentage in 2050; however, the Energy Information 

Administration projections end in 2040 [EIA 2014b]). Each of these three cases examines the 

economic impact to Oregon from WEC facilities. 

In contrast, Case 2C assumes that Oregon device manufacturers export out of state. Case 2C 

assumes that Oregon-based OEMs supply 25% of the devices for installations in Washington and 

California under the higher (160 TWh) deployment scenario. For this analysis, the destination of 

the exports does not matter. Destinations could also include Alaska, Hawaii, the East Coast, and

 

7 Though it is impossible to make accurate projections so far into the future, based on Energy Information 

Administration projections (see EIA 2014b), 80 TWh would be between 1%–2% of the United States’ electricity 

consumption in the 2040–2050 timeframe.
7 

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

foreign countries. The results for this case are the economic impacts to Oregon, from these 

exports. For this case, the device local share (from Oregon) is set to 25%. For all other items, the 

value of the local share is set to zero. Note that the impacts of exports are in addition to the 

impacts of in-state installations. In other words, the impacts of Case 2C are in addition to the 

impacts of the already optimistic Case 2B.

According to the Energy Information Administration, “[r]enewable resources contribute over 

two-thirds of the net electricity generation in Oregon. In years with increased or prolonged 

precipitation or snowmelt, renewable resources contribute as much as four-fifths of net 

electricity generation, because of the state’s abundant hydroelectric generation capacity [...].

From 2007 through the end of 2013, [Oregon] electricity generation from non-hydroelectric 

renewable resources almost quadrupled.” (EIA 2014a). 

Table 2-1. Analysis Cases

Case Label Deployment Scenario Sensitivities

1A 80 TWh scenario 20% device local share

1B 80 TWh scenario 60% device local share

2B 160 TWh scenario 60% device local share

2C 160 TWh scenario 25% device local share (from Oregon suppliers) for 

installations in California and Washington 

The deployment scenarios used in this analysis come from hypothetical deployment scenarios for 

wave energy technology that explore the potential impacts of R&D improvement pathways and 

manufacturing learning effects on the cost of energy over long time periods (Cohen 2013; 

Thresher, 2013; Thresher, 2014). The hypothetical scenarios forced the deployment of WEC

technology according to a specified deployment schedule without regard for its cost and then 

estimated the overall capital cost under differing improvement and learning assumptions using 

the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model. ReEDS is a long-term capacityexpansion model for the deployment of electric power generation technologies and transmission 

infrastructure throughout the contiguous United States.8 For a given set of economic, policy, and 

load growth assumptions, ReEDS models the deployment of transmission infrastructure as well 

as various conventional and renewable energy generation technologies. Within the constraints of 

the scenario, ReEDS will meet the anticipated load by using the least expensive (on a lifecycle 

cost basis) combination of transmission and generation. As stated, for the purpose of this 

analysis, we forced the ReEDS model to deploy WEC regardless of costs. 

The ReEDS analysis examined two deployment scenarios: one in which WEC installations 

supply approximately 80 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year to the West Coast by 2050, 

and the other in which WEC technology supplies twice that amount, 160 TWh, by 2050. It is 

important to note that that these scenarios are hypothetical, and deployments of this magnitude 

 

8 http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/description.html 
8 

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

would not realistically happen without advancements in technology and a very significant 

reduction in the cost of energy for WEC technology. ReEDS estimates energy generation 

deployment by state, thus providing Oregon-specific WEC deployment values. Both deployment 

scenarios supply significant portions of the energy needs for the West Coast. We selected 2026 

to 2045 as our analysis period because it captures the bulk of Oregon-based wave energy 

installations occurring within the ReEDS scenarios. 

The scenarios for the ReEDS investigation also include cost estimates, both capital and O&M, 

for the wave energy facilities. Compared to wind or solar energy, wave energy technology is still 

immature and costly. Current estimated installed capital expenditures (CAPEX) for wave energy 

plants are more than $8,272/kW. Current operating expenditures (OPEX) are estimated at 

$400/kilowatt (kW)/year. These values are a composite from several studies (Prevesic 2012; 

Renewable UK 2010; Department of Trade and Industry 2007). Although these costs are high,

cost reduction opportunities exist. The future scenarios analyzed here would require significant 

cost reductions over time resulting from technology improvements, acquiring knowledge, and a 

robust research and development program. 

Table 2-2 shows the hypothetical annual wave energy deployment in Oregon, as well as the 

CAPEX and OPEX, for both scenarios. Also shown are combined installations for California and 

Washington under the 160 TWh scenario. The 80 TWh scenario shows roughly 13,000 MW of 

wave energy deployment off the coast of Oregon by 2045, while the 160 TWh scenario predicts 

over 18,000 MW. Note that the higher scenario does not represent twice the deployment, in 

Oregon, of the lower scenario. Because of Oregon’s excellent wave energy resource, the state

could reach significant levels of deployment, were technology advancements and cost reduction 

to occur. As overall west coast deployment increases in the scenario, Oregon is saturated, and 

more development starts to occur in lower wave energy resource areas.

Both deployment scenarios envision sharp drops in both CAPEX and OPEX from the present 

baseline values of $8,272/kW and $400/kW/year. In the 80 TWh scenario, CAPEX and OPEX

drop to $1,098/kW and $53/kW/year by the end of the analysis period. For the 160 TWh 

scenario, the respective costs at the end of the analysis period are $966/kW and $47/kW/year – a 

very significant prescribed decrease. The cost reductions assumed here are ambitious and would 

take substantial technological improvements, but were modeled to show impacts from a future in 

which WECs have had large cost reductions. It can be noted that both wind and photovoltaic 

technologies have undergone similar levels of cost reduction, so the scenarios are only possible if 

WEC technology proves to be robust and reliable. Again, it must be emphasized that only with 

the development of sound technology options and cost reductions (as shown here) could the 

large-scale deployment of WEC technology be possible. 
9 

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

Table 2-2. Oregon Wave Energy Deployment Scenarios (Costs given in 2012 dollars)

2.2.2 Methodology

Our research on costs and cost breakdowns consisted of a literature review (ECONorthwest 

2009; Carbon Trust 2011; Previsic et al. 2012). We conducted interviews with internal experts 

and MHK stakeholders to provide depth and validation to the analysis. Data obtained from 

interviews included construction costs, O&M costs, percentage of goods and services acquired 

in-state, job generation during the construction period, job generation during the operation 

period, land-lease payments, tax information, payroll parameters, and the cost breakdown of 

different installation and operation categories.

Using the information derived from the sources noted above, we developed specific assumptions 

including construction cost breakdown (Table 2-3), operating cost breakdown (Table 2-4), local 

(in-state) share for both CAPEX and OPEX, and other relevant parameters (Table 2-5), which 

were used as inputs in the JEDI model. 

80 TWh Scenario 160 TWh Scenario 160 TWh Scenario (WA+CA)

Year

Installed 

(MW)

Installed 

Cost 

($/kW)

Investment 

($MM) Year

Installed 

(MW)

Installed 

Cost 

($/kW)

Investment 

($MM) Year

Installed 

(MW)

Installed 

Cost 

($/kW)

Investment 

($MM)

2016 5 $8,272 $41.36 2016 11 $8,272 $90.99 2016 0 $0 $0.00

2018 6 $8,272 $50 2018 11 $8,272 $91 2018 0 $0 $0

2020 12 $4,963 $60 2020 23 $4,963 $114 2020 0 $0 $0

2022 24 $4,960 $119 2022 47 $4,464 $210 2022 0 $0 $0

2024 48 $3,122 $150 2024 97 $2,810 $273 2024 0 $0 $0

2026 99 $2,809 $278 2026 197 $2,528 $498 2026 0 $0 $0

2028 199 $2,528 $503 2028 398 $2,277 $906 2028 0 $0 $0

2030 397 $1,824 $724 2030 790 $1,663 $1,314 2030 0 $0 $0

2032 775 $1,669 $1,293 2032 1,570 $1,490 $2,339 2032 0 $0 $0

2034 1,475 $1,502 $2,215 2034 1,540 $1,349 $2,077 2034 1,582 $1,363 $2,157

2036 1,945 $1,370 $2,665 2036 2,405 $1,228 $2,953 2036 3,220 $1,235 $3,978

2038 1,836 $1,269 $2,330 2038 3,117 $1,141 $3,556 2038 5,373 $1,141 $6,132

2040 1,613 $1,182 $1,907 2040 2,647 $1,059 $2,803 2040 9,579 $1,065 $10,203

2042 530 $1,140 $604 2042 593 $1,015 $602 2042 12,152 $1,027 $12,482

2044 4,117 $1,098 $4,520 2044 5,024 $996 $5,004 2044 5,810 $986 $5,731

Cumulative 13,081 Cumulative 18,470 Cumulative 37,716
10 

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

Table 2-3. Construction Cost Assumptions

Construction % of Total Cost Local Share

Equipment & Material

 Device 69.2% 20%/60%/25%

 Underwater Electrical Collector System 7.8% 10%

 Underwater Transmission Cable 1.3% 10%

 Cable Landing and Grid Interconnection 1.9% 10%

 Balance of Plant 4.1% 80%

 Equipment & Material Subtotal 84.3%

Installation/Labor

 Mooring and Device Installation 6.8% 80%

 Underwater Cable Installation 5.5% 10%

 Cable Landing and Grid Connection 1.4% 80%

 Installation/Labor Subtotal 13.7%

Permitting

 Permitting 2.0% 75%

 Permitting Subtotal 2.0%

Sales Tax (Material and Equipment Purchases)

 Sales Tax (Materials and Equipment Purchases) 0.0% 100%

 Sales Tax Subtotal 0.0%

Total 100.0%

Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 show the assumptions behind the analysis. Local share refers to the 

percentage of resources (e.g., labor, materials, supplies, and equipment) purchased or acquired in 

Oregon. Three values of the local share are given for the “device.” The lower 20% value assumes 

no continued special effort to develop an Oregon-based WEC industry. The higher 60% value 

assumes a successful, aggressive effort to develop a large Oregon-based WEC industry and that 

the majority of the nonelectrical equipment is sourced by Oregon-based OEMs. The 25% value 

for local share is used in Case 2C and assumes that Oregon-based manufacturers achieve an 

export volume equivalent to 25% of the combined WEC installations in Washington and 

California.

A large underwater electrical component industry already exists outside of Oregon, so the local 

share for these items is anticipated to be very low. In addition, underwater cable installation uses 

specialized vessels that are not based in Oregon, thus the low value for the local share of the 

labor for the underwater cable installation. Equipment costs represent about 84% of the total 

project cost, labor represents 14%, and permitting represents 2%. 

Figure 2-2 shows the average cost breakdown assumptions used as inputs for this study. 
11 

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

Figure 2-2. Construction cost breakdown assumptions

Table 2-4 shows the operating expenditure breakdown. Operating costs are assumed to be 4.8% 

of the capital cost and are comprised of just over 20% labor and fewer than 80% for materials 

and services. For both of these items, the local share is anticipated to be relatively high. We 

anticipate that most O&M workers will either already live in-state or settle within the state to 

perform their jobs. 

Table 2-4. Operating Cost Assumptions

Wind Farm Annual Operating 

and Maintenance Costs % of Total Cost Local Share

Labor

 Labor 21.1% 80%

 Labor Subtotal 21.1%

Materials and Services

 Material and Services 78.9% 70%

 Materials and Services Subtotal 78.9%

Sales Tax (Materials and Equipment Purchases

 Sales Tax 0.0% 100%

 Sales Tax Subtotal 0.0%

Total O&M Cost 100.0%
12 

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

Table 2-5 shows the additional parameters considered in the analysis. Because of the large 

capital investment required, the analysis assumes that 100% of the investment for the WEC 

facilities comes from out of state (i.e., the local share is zero.) Deployment on the scale assumed 

for this analysis will require a total investment of $10‒$20 billion. 

As a result of assuming a zero local share for the investment, the only value in this section 

affecting the results is the lease rate. For lease purposes, the offshore facilities will fall into one 

of three zones. Facilities located within 3 miles of the shoreline are located in state waters and 

will be subject to lease rates determined by the State of Oregon. Facilities located in federal 

waters, greater than 3 miles from shore, must receive a lease from BOEM. For projects located 

3‒6 miles offshore, the state is entitled to 27% of the lease revenue. For projects located beyond 

6 miles from shore, the state receives no lease revenue. Facilities located in federal waters may 

also be subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fees. However, the state share of these 

fees is zero, (Bowler 2014) thus these fees have no economic impact to Oregon. 

It is anticipated that most installations will be conducted in water with depths of 50 meters (m)–

100 m. For Oregon, this depth of water is generally located 3‒6 miles offshore. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to assume that the majority of the installations will be positioned within this zone. To 

the extent facilities are located more than 6 miles offshore; Oregon will receive less lease 

revenue. To the extent facilities are located within state waters, Oregon will receive more lease 

revenue. 

The BOEM lease rate used in the analysis is based on a precedent from four offshore leases for

planned wind plants to be located in federal waters (BOEM 2010, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). For 

these projects, the initial operational period lease rate is 2% of product of the facility’s energy 

production and the average regional wholesale electricity rate. The lease rate used in the analysis 

assumes a 30% capacity factor, an average wholesale price of $0.04/kilowatt-hour. Of the total 

BOEM lease revenue, 27% goes to the State of Oregon. (O’Neil 2014) 
13 

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

Table 2-5. Additional Study Parameters Considered 

Additional Parameters Value Local Share

Financial Parameters

 Percentage Financed 50% 0.0%

$ Years Financed (term) 20

 Interest Rate 7%

 Percentage Equity 50%

 Corporate Investors (percent of total equity) 90% 0.0%

 Individual Investors (percent of total equity) 10% 0.0%

 Return on Equity (annual interest rate) 12%

Tax Parameters

Local Property Tax (percent of taxable value)

 Assessed Value (percent of construction cost)

 Taxable Value (percent of assessed value)

 Property Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes)

 Local Property Taxes 0%

 Local Sales Tax Rate

Lease Cost (if applicable)

Lease Cost ($/MW/year) $2,102 27%
14 

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

3 Results

NREL researchers used the JEDI model to estimate the economic impact of each of the four 

cases, and results indicate that the impacts would be significant, given the prescribed robust 

deployment scenarios. Figure 3-1 summarizes the impacts for Case 1A. This case assumes the 80 

TWh deployment scenario and lower local share for the WEC device. 

Figure 3-1. Economic ripple effect from 13,000 MW of WEC facility deployments in Oregon from 

2026 to 2045 (assuming 20% in-state device share)

Table 3-1 summarizes the impacts for all four cases. Impacts reported are centered on JEDI 

model results, which include employment, property taxes, and local economic activity during the 

construction and operation periods. Although estimating all WEC-related impacts was beyond 

the scope of this analysis, new WEC installations may have many other tangible (e.g., use tax 

generation, sales tax generation, water savings, vendor profits, and transmission line impacts) 

and intangible impacts (e.g., electricity price stability and environmental benefits). For the 

operations period, Table 3-1 shows the number of O&M-related jobs in the year 2045, when the 

scenario has reached full deployment capacity. This level of employment is expected to continue 

for O&M-related jobs through the end of the lifetime of the project.

1

State Lease Revenue:

Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Induced Impacts

Construction Phase:

Operational Phase (Analysis Period):

Construction Phase: Construction Phase:

Operational Phase (Analysis 

Period):

Operational Phase (Analysis 

Period):

Jobs and Economic Impacts from the JEDI Model

Operational Phase (After Analysis Period):

Operational Phase (After 

Analysis Period):

Operational Phase (After 

Analysis Period):

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1

13,000 MW of New Wave Energy Conversion Facilities in Oregon

• $0.64 billion to state economy

• 5,900 FTE jobs

• $7.4 million/year

• $0.13 billion to state economy

• 2,400 FTE jobs

• $0.13 billion/year to state economy

• 2,400 jobs

• $0.69 billion to state 

economy

• 3,000 FTE jobs

• $5.8 billion to state economy

• 29,000 FTE jobs

• $1.5 billion to state 

economy

• 11,000 FTE jobs

• $0.18 billion to state 

economy

• 1,300 FTE jobs

• $0.69 billion/year to state 

economy

• 3,000 jobs

• $0.18 million/year to state 

economy

• 1,300 jobs
15 

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

Table 3-1. Oregon Summary Impacts9 from WEC Deployment (2026‒2045)

 

9 Results are provided in real 2012 U.S. dollars.

Case 1A Case 1B Case 2B Case 2C

Jobs (FTE) TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 5,899 5,899 7,648 0

 Construction and Installation Labor 3,290 3,290 4,258 0

 Construction and Installation Related Services 2,609 2,609 3,390 0

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 29,312 57,322 74,257 41,796

 Induced Impacts 11,385 21,461 27,778 15,035

 Total Impacts 46,597 84,682 109,683 56,830

During operating years (by 2045)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 WEC Project Labor Only 2,436 2,436 2,765 0

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 3,058 3,058 4,420 0

 Induced Impacts 1,326 1,326 1,854 0

 Total Impacts 6,820 6,820 9,039 0

Earnings ($MM) TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 343 $ 343 $ 435 $ -

 Construction and Installation Labor $ 153 $ 153 $ 188 $ -

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ 190 $ 190 $ 247 $ -

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 1,732 $ 3,482 $ 4,509 $ 2,611

 Induced Impacts $ 485 $ 913 $ 1,182 $ 640

 Total Impacts $ 2,560 $ 4,738 $ 6,127 $ 3,251

During operating years (by 2045)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 WEC Project Labor Only $ 129 $ 129 $ 146 $ -

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 179 $ 179 $ 260 $ -

 Induced Impacts $ 56 $ 56 $ 79 $ -

 Total Impacts $ 364 $ 364 $ 485 $ -

Output ($MM) TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 637 $ 637 $ 817 $ -

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 5,849 $ 12,639 $ 16,365 $ 10,132

 Induced Impacts $ 1,527 $ 2,878 $ 3,725 $ 2,016

 Total Impacts $ 8,013 $ 16,154 $ 20,907 $ 12,148

During operating years (by 2045)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 WEC Project Labor Only $ 129 $ 129 $ 146 $ -

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 692 $ 692 $ 1,008 $ -

 Induced Impacts $ 178 $ 178 $ 249 $ -

 Total Impacts $ 999 $ 999 $ 1,403 $ -
16 

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

3.1 Gross Economic Activity

As shown in Table 3-1, the modeled scenario’s construction and operation of WEC facilities is 

combined with significant economic activity in Oregon. From rented accommodations that host 

the influx of construction workers to the suppliers and transportation companies that provide 

equipment, supplies, and services to the WEC facilities, this modeled WEC development results 

in a substantial impact to the state economy. 

Depending on the device local share, 13,000 MW of WEC facilities in Oregon (Cases 1A and 

1B) could generate approximately $8‒$16 billion in gross economic activity during the 

construction phase and a total of $1 billion in economic activity by 2045 during the operations 

phase. The lower $8 billion construction phase value assumes a device local share of 20%, 

which means that Oregon-based OEMs provide 20% of the WEC device capacity for Oregon 

installations. The higher value, $16 billion, assumes that Oregon-based device suppliers provide 

60% of Oregon installations. Raising the device local share from 20% to 60% increases the total 

equipment and supply chain construction phase impacts from $5.8 to $12.6 billion. In turn, the 

increased supply chain economic activity increases the induced construction phase impacts from 

$1.5 to $2.9 billion. 

The large variation in construction phase economic activity shows the importance of the in-state 

or “local” content of the parts and equipment used in MHK power generation. Recall from Table 

2-3 or Figure 2-2 that the “device,” (the WEC energy conversion equipment) represents almost 

70% of the capital cost of a WEC installation. Thus, the total economic impact of a WEC 

installation depends heavily on the proportion of the “device” that is supplied from within the 

analysis area (the State of Oregon in this case). The device local share would have a similarly 

large impact on overall construction-phase jobs and earnings impacts. 

Assuming the larger deployment scenario of more than 18,000 MW of WEC facilities, along 

with a 60% device local share (Case 2B), results in almost $23 billion of construction-phase 

gross economic activity and $1.4 billion total operations phase economic activity by 2045. 

Finally, assuming that Oregon-based suppliers export a volume of devices equal to 25% of 

combined Washington and California installations (Case 2C), results in an additional $12 billion 

in construction-phase economic activity over the study period. 

The impacts noted above include only the portion of transactions that take place in Oregon. For 

example, equipment and components that were purchased from other states or other countries are 

treated as monetary leakages and are not included in these estimates. Case 1A assumes that 

13,000 MW of WEC installations represent $17 billion10 in investment, which supports over $8 

billion in state-level economic activity. This $8 billion in economic activity is comprised of 

approximately $0.6 billion in on-site project labor, $5.8 billion in construction materials and 

supply chain equipment, and $1.5 billion in induced activities during the construction period 

(Figure 3-2). 

 

10 2012 U.S. dollars
17 

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

Figure 3-2. Estimated local spending supported by 13,000 MW of WEC facilities in Oregon during 

project construction (assuming 20% device local share)

Figure 3-3 shows the impacts of each case throughout the analysis period. The figure goes two

years beyond the end of the analysis period to show the operational period impacts of the WEC 

facilities installed during the final 2-year installation cycle (2044‒2045). As shown in Figure 3-3, 

construction-phase impacts vary over time depending on the amount of WEC capacity installed

in each period. Operation phase impacts grow over time as the cumulative WEC capacity

increases.

Figure 3-3. Estimated total economic impacts from WEC deployment in Oregon throughout the 

analysis period

Project 

Development and 

On-Site Labor

$0.6 billion On-Site 

Labor 

Local Revenue, 

Turbine, and 

Supply Chain

$5.8 billion Local 

Revenue

Construction 

Materials Supply Chain

Induced $1.5 billion Non-WEC 

sectors
18 

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

3.2 Employment Impacts

3.2.1 Construction Jobs

During the construction phase, construction workers, engineers, surveyors, WEC installers, 

electrical contractors, administrative employees, and managers who live in the project location 

boost local economic activity. Local workers may be employed directly at the new WEC facility, 

depending on the talent pool and skill set in the area. Other workers from outside the state may 

settle within the state. Another category of workers reside out of state and only live within the 

state during the construction phase, moving on when construction is complete. Workers who 

reside in-state spend their earnings on mortgage payments, insurance, childcare, education, 

utilities, tax payments, family entertainment and recreation, clothing, and so on. Workers from 

out of state generate a different set of economic impacts. These temporary workers support a 

smaller ripple effect in the state economy because most of their earnings are spent outside of the 

state, with a smaller portion circulating through the Oregon economy. Most of their impacts are 

limited to spending on lodging, food, beverages, and transportation, which is often subsidized by 

the construction company. Out-of-state workers’ earnings were not included in this analysis.

11

The number of employees building a WEC facility depends on the construction stage of the 

project. For example, the peak construction stage may require a significantly higher number of 

workers than the initial and final stages. Figure 3-4 shows the year-by-year job impacts for the 

four cases.

Figure 3-4. Estimated annual employment impacts from WEC deployment in Oregon

 

11By not including earnings from out-of-state workers in the analysis, we minimize the risk of overestimating the 

impacts in Oregon. 
19 

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

3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Jobs

Over the WEC facility’s anticipated 20- to 30-year operating life, long-term employees operate 

and maintain the facility by replacing components, troubleshooting electrical and mechanical 

malfunctions, repairing the hydraulic system, conducting diving operations, performing remotely 

operated vehicle operations, and conducting vessel operations. The analysis assumes that the 

majority of these positions are filled by Oregonians or by people who relocate to Oregon. 

According to the analysis, large-scale WEC deployment in Oregon would result in 6,800 (Cases 

1A and 1B) to 9,000 (Case 2B) ongoing jobs by the time 13,000 MW or 18,000 MW is 

operational (respectively).

12 Of these ongoing jobs, approximately 2,400‒2,800 would be on-site 

positions; 3,100‒4,400 would be equipment and supply chain sector jobs; and 1,300‒1,900 

would be positions in other sectors (e.g., restaurants, hotels, and retail stores) resulting from the 

induced activity. 

3.3 State Lease Revenue

Under the assumptions described in Section 2.2.2, 13,000 MW of WEC installations would yield 

$7.4 million annually to the government of the State of Oregon and 18,000 MW of WEC 

installations will give $10 million annually to the state government. Revenue from leases is often 

used to fund and improve a state’s infrastructure and public services.

4 Oregon Manufacturing Sensitivity Analysis

Economic development impacts depend, to a great degree, on the extent to which goods and 

services are acquired at the local level. WEC device and component manufacturing is anticipated 

to constitute 70% of the total construction cost of a WEC installation, thereby offering the largest 

potential source of economic development benefits at the state level. Because of this, Oregon is 

actively seeking to establish a WEC supply chain to maximize the economic benefits of its 

significant wave energy resource.13

To examine the effects of in-state manufacturing, this study includes a sensitivity analysis that 

investigates different values for the device local share. Case 1A assumes a 20% value for the 

device local share, whereas Case 1B assumes a 60% value for the device local share.

 

12 Unlike the construction period, in which temporary workers are hired, during the operation and maintenance 

period, permanent workers are hired at the state level. Thus, the number of jobs reported during this period remains 

constant for every year that the WEC facility is operating. In other words, 13,000 MW of wind project development 

in Oregon would support 6,800 local jobs every year that the WEC facilities are in operation— approximately 20 

years or the life of the project. 13 http://oregonwave.org/about/ 
20 

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

Figure 4-1. Manufacturing scenarios and associated job impacts during construction comparing 

WEC devices with 20% (1A) and 60% (1B) local components

Figure 4-1 shows the dramatic impact of the device local share on jobs: 13,000 MW of WEC 

facilities would support roughly 5,900 project development and on-site construction-phase FTE 

jobs. Figure 4-2, showing construction-phase economic activity for the two scenarios, again 

shows the supply chain economic activity dwarfing the economic activity related to developing 

and installing the projects. Establishing an in-state supply chain that captures even a modest 

portion of WEC installations will dramatically increase the economic impact of large-scale WEC 

deployment. 
21 

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

Figure 4-2. Manufacturing scenarios and associated economic impacts 

during the construction phase with 20% and 60% local share
22 

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

5 Conclusion

Assuming technological advances and cost reductions in wave energy conversion, large-scale 

WEC deployment could have a significant impact on Oregon’s economy. Over the 20-year 

analysis period, the ambitious deployment goal of 13,000 MW of WEC facilities (Case 1A) 

would support over 46,000 construction-phase FTE jobs and 6,800 ongoing jobs at the 13,000-

MW deployment level. Gross economic activity for this case totals $8 billion during the 

construction phase, $1 billion by 2045 during the operations phase, and $1 billion annually after 

the analysis period. The economic impacts could be even greater if in-state manufacturers 

capture a larger portion of the Oregon market (Case 1B), there are more installations (Case 2B), 

or Oregon-based manufacturers capture a portion of the WEC market outside of Oregon (Case 

2C). 

The analysis shows that WEC device manufacturing appears to be the leading economic 

development driver in Oregon’s potential wave energy industry. The scenario examined here has 

the potential to support significantly more jobs and associated economic impacts compared to 

other WEC activities. Specifically, for Case 1A, where in-state manufacturers capture 20% of the 

state market, the estimated supply chain jobs dwarf the jobs that are directly involved in 

developing and installing the facilities. Development of a local manufacturing base, as well as 

use of local labor and materials, could greatly enhance the economic impacts of WEC 

technology deployment and provide further opportunities for economic diversification and 

growth. As stated above, this NREL analysis assumed improvements in technology and in the 

cost of WEC devices. Without these, such high deployment of this generation technology would 

not be possible. 
23 

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

References

Augustine et al. (2012). Renewable Electricity Future Study: Volume 2 Renewable Electricity 

Generation and Storage Technologies. NREL/TP-6A20-52409-2. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed April 10, 2014: 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52409-2.pdf. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). (2010). Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf, (OCS-A-0478). Accessed 

April 10, 2014: 

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Studies/CapeWind_si

gned_lease.pdf. 

BOEM. (2013a). Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development 

on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0483). Department of the Interior. Retrieved from 

http://www.boem.gov/VA-Lease-OCS-A/. 

BOEM. (2013b). Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development 

on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0486). Department of the Interior. Retrieved from 

http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/RI/Executed-Lease-OCS-A0486.aspx. 

BOEM. (2013c). Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development 

on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0487). Department of the Interior. Retrieved from 

http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/RI/Executed-Lease-OCS-A0487.aspx. 

Bowler, S. (May 2014). Email communication and phone conversation. 

Carbon Trust. (2011). Accelerating Marine Energy. Accessed December 12, 2013: 

https://www.carbontrust.com/media/5675/ctc797.pdf. 

Cohen, S. (December 2013). Email communication. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Golden, CO. 

Department of Trade and Industry. (2007). Impact of Banding the Renewables Obligation – 

Costs of Electricity Production. Accessed June 10, 2014: 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39038.pdf. 

Energy Information Administration. (2014a). Oregon State Profile and Energy Estimate. 

Accessed August 22, 2014: http://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=OR

Energy Information Administration. (2014b). Annual Energy Outlook 2014. Market Trends: 

Electricity Demand. Accessed September 2, 2014: 

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_electric.cfm
24 

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

Goldberg, M.; Previsic, M. (2011). JEDI Marine and Hydrokinetic Model: User Reference 

Guide. NREL/SR-6A20-50402. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed 

October 14, 2013: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50402.pdf.

Ocean Energy Systems. (December 2013). Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems. 

2013 Annual Report. Date Accessed: [include full date accessed]: http://www.ocean-energysystems.org/oes_reports/annual_reports/ Accessed July 21, 2014. 

O’Neil, Barbara. State of Oregon Department of Energy. Personal Communication. July 29, 

2014. 

Previsic, M.; Epler, J.; Hand, M.; Heimiller, D.; Short, W.; Eurek, K. (2012). The Future 

Potential of Wave Power in the United States. RE Vision Consulting on behalf of the U.S. 

Department of Energy. Accessed October 22, 2013: http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/The-Future-of-Wave-Power-MP-9-20-12.pdf.

Renewable UK. (2010). Channeling the Energy: A Way Forward for the UK Wave & Tidal 

Industry Towards 2020. Accessed June 10, 2014: http://www.marinerenewables.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/Channeling-the-Energy-A-Way-Forward-for-the-UK-Wave-TidalIndustry-Towards-2020.pdf. 

Thresher, R. (August 2013). “Ocean Wave Energy Technology.” Presented at the BOEM 

Offshore Renewable Energy Workshop. 

Thresher, R. (January 2014). Personal communications. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Golden, Colorado. 
25 

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

Appendix

Table A-1 shows the jobs in each JEDI category for each year of the scenario. The jobs listed 

during operating years are not cumulative, so to reach the total number of O&M jobs, the jobs 

from each year must be summed. For example, in 2026, there are 99 MW of WEC devices 

installed, and an estimated 111 Oregon jobs to operate and maintain that fleet. Two years later, 

when there are 199 MW installed, Table A-1 shows 201 jobs. To reach the total O&M jobs 

supported by projects installed in 2026-2028, we add operating year totals to get 312 Oregonbased operations and maintenance jobs that are ongoing, so they will exist over the life of the 

energy generation system. This same method of reporting is used in the following tables for 

operations-period jobs.

Table A-1. Case 1A Results – FTE Jobs Based on Annual Installations

JOBS 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 94 171 249 446 765

 Construction and Installation Labor 54 97 140 250 428

 Construction and Installation Related Services 40 74 109 196 338

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 466 847 1,235 2,213 3,802

 Induced Impacts 185 335 483 864 1,480

 Total Impacts 745 1,353 1,967 3,522 6,047

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only 40 72 104 184 315

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 50 90 130 231 396

 Induced Impacts 21 39 56 100 171

JOBS 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 923 808 662 210 1,572

 Construction and Installation Labor 514 450 368 117 873

 Construction and Installation Related Services 408 358 294 93 699

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 4,584 4,015 3,291 1,044 7,815

 Induced Impacts 1,780 1,557 1,274 404 3,022

 Total Impacts 7,287 6,380 5,228 1,658 12,409

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only 381 333 273 86 648

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 478 417 343 109 814

 Induced Impacts 207 181 149 47 354
26 

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

Table A-2. Case 1A Results – Earnings Based on Annual Installations

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 7.15 $ 12.38 $ 15.85 $ 27.53 $ 45.72

 Construction and Installation Labor $ 4.21 $ 7.02 $ 7.91 $ 13.26 $ 21.13

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ 2.93 $ 5.37 $ 7.94 $ 14.27 $ 24.60

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 27.75 $ 50.38 $ 73.18 $ 130.97 $ 224.80

 Induced Impacts $ 7.89 $ 14.28 $ 20.58 $ 36.77 $ 62.99

 Total Impacts $ 42.79 $ 77.05 $ 109.60 $ 195.27 $ 333.52

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 2.11 $ 3.80 $ 5.47 $ 9.71 $ 16.64

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 2.94 $ 5.30 $ 7.63 $ 13.55 $ 23.21

 Induced Impacts $ 0.91 $ 1.65 $ 2.39 $ 4.24 $ 7.28

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 53.63 $ 45.98 $ 36.98 $ 11.62 $ 86.21

 Construction and Installation Labor $ 23.90 $ 19.88 $ 15.56 $ 4.82 $ 35.25

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ 29.73 $ 26.10 $ 21.42 $ 6.80 $ 50.96

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 270.84 $ 237.11 $ 194.24 $ 61.59 $ 461.04

 Induced Impacts $ 75.78 $ 66.27 $ 54.24 $ 17.19 $ 128.62

 Total Impacts $ 400.25 $ 349.37 $ 285.47 $ 90.40 $ 675.87

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 20.11 $ 17.54 $ 14.40 $ 4.56 $ 34.17

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 28.06 $ 24.49 $ 20.11 $ 6.38 $ 47.72

 Induced Impacts $ 8.82 $ 7.71 $ 6.34 $ 2.01 $ 15.08
27 

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

Table A-3. Case 1A Results – Total Economic Impacts Based on Annual Installations

Output [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 11.76 $ 20.79 $ 28.19 $ 49.67 $ 83.81

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 94.15 $ 170.79 $ 247.49 $ 442.73 $ 759.51

 Induced Impacts $ 24.85 $ 44.99 $ 64.83 $ 115.84 $ 198.46

 Total Impacts $ 130.76 $ 236.57 $ 340.51 $ 608.24 1,041.78$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 2.11 $ 3.80 $ 5.47 $ 9.71 $ 16.64

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 11.35 $ 20.47 $ 29.45 $ 52.28 $ 89.57

 Induced Impacts $ 2.88 $ 5.20 $ 7.52 $ 13.37 $ 22.95

Output [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 99.60 $ 86.28 $ 70.04 $ 22.11 $ 164.76

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 914.66 $ 800.52 $ 655.61 $ 207.85 1,555.69$ 

 Induced Impacts $ 238.75 $ 208.80 $ 170.88 $ 54.16 $ 405.22

 Total Impacts 1,253.01$ 1,095.60$ $ 896.53 $ 284.11 2,125.67$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 20.11 $ 17.54 $ 14.40 $ 4.56 $ 34.17

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 108.28 $ 94.48 $ 77.57 $ 24.60 $ 184.12

 Induced Impacts $ 27.80 $ 24.30 $ 19.98 $ 6.34 $ 47.51
28 

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

Table A-4. Case 1B Results – FTE Jobs Based on Annual Installations

JOBS 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 94 171 249 446 765

 Construction and Installation Labor 54 97 140 250 428

 Construction and Installation Related Services 40 74 109 196 338

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 923 1,674 2,426 4,339 7,443

 Induced Impacts 350 633 912 1,629 2,790

 Total Impacts 1,366 2,478 3,586 6,413 10,999

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only 40 72 104 184 315

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 50 90 130 231 396

 Induced Impacts 21 39 56 100 171

JOBS 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 923 808 662 210 1,572

 Construction and Installation Labor 514 450 368 117 873

 Construction and Installation Related Services 408 358 294 93 699

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 8,964 7,845 6,425 2,037 15,246

 Induced Impacts 3,356 2,935 2,402 761 5,695

 Total Impacts 13,242 11,588 9,489 3,008 22,513

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only 381 333 273 86 648

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 478 417 343 109 814

 Induced Impacts 207 181 149 47 354
29 

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

Table A-5. Case 1B Results – Earnings Based on Annual Installations 

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 7.15 $ 12.38 $ 15.85 $ 27.53 $ 45.72

 Construction and Installation Labor $ 4.21 $ 7.02 $ 7.91 $ 13.26 $ 21.13

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ 2.93 $ 5.37 $ 7.94 $ 14.27 $ 24.60

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 56.31 $ 102.05 $ 147.55 $ 263.81 $ 452.33

 Induced Impacts $ 14.89 $ 26.94 $ 38.80 $ 69.32 $ 118.75

 Total Impacts $ 78.34 $ 141.37 $ 202.20 $ 360.67 $ 616.81

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 2.11 $ 3.80 $ 5.47 $ 9.71 $ 16.64

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 2.94 $ 5.30 $ 7.63 $ 13.55 $ 23.21

 Induced Impacts $ 0.91 $ 1.65 $ 2.39 $ 4.24 $ 7.28

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 53.63 $ 45.98 $ 36.98 $ 11.62 $ 86.21

 Construction and Installation Labor $ 23.90 $ 19.88 $ 15.56 $ 4.82 $ 35.25

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ 29.73 $ 26.10 $ 21.42 $ 6.80 $ 50.96

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 544.50 $ 476.40 $ 390.05 $ 123.64 $ 925.30

 Induced Impacts $ 142.85 $ 124.91 $ 102.22 $ 32.40 $ 242.39

 Total Impacts $ 740.98 $ 647.29 $ 529.26 $ 167.66 1,253.91$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 20.11 $ 17.54 $ 14.40 $ 4.56 $ 34.17

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 28.06 $ 24.49 $ 20.11 $ 6.38 $ 47.72

 Induced Impacts $ 8.82 $ 7.71 $ 6.34 $ 2.01 $ 15.08
30 

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

Table A-6. Case 1B Results – Total Economic Impacts Based on Annual Installations

Output [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 11.76 $ 20.79 $ 28.19 $ 49.67 $ 83.81

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 204.96 $ 371.25 $ 536.05 $ 958.16 1,642.33$ 

 Induced Impacts $ 46.91 $ 84.88 $ 122.25 $ 218.40 $ 374.14

 Total Impacts $ 263.63 $ 476.93 $ 686.49 1,226.23$ 2,100.28$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 2.11 $ 3.80 $ 5.47 $ 9.71 $ 16.64

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 11.35 $ 20.47 $ 29.45 $ 52.28 $ 89.57

 Induced Impacts $ 2.88 $ 5.20 $ 7.52 $ 13.37 $ 22.95

Output [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 99.60 $ 86.28 $ 70.04 $ 22.11 $ 164.76

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 1,976.49$ 1,728.94$ 1,415.34$ $ 448.62 3,357.02$ 

 Induced Impacts $ 450.05 $ 393.55 $ 322.07 $ 102.07 $ 763.68

 Total Impacts 2,526.13$ 2,208.77$ 1,807.45$ $ 572.79 4,285.46$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 20.11 $ 17.54 $ 14.40 $ 4.56 $ 34.17

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 108.28 $ 94.48 $ 77.57 $ 24.60 $ 184.12

 Induced Impacts $ 27.80 $ 24.30 $ 19.98 $ 6.34 $ 47.51
31 

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

Table A-7. Case 2B Results – FTE Jobs Based on Annual Installations

JOBS 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 169 309 453 808 719

 Construction and Installation Labor 96 175 254 452 401

 Construction and Installation Related Services 73 134 199 357 318

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 1,657 3,023 4,407 7,861 6,990

 Induced Impacts 627 1,140 1,654 2,946 2,616

 Total Impacts 2,453 4,472 6,514 11,615 10,326

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only 62 114 162 294 260

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 100 182 259 469 416

 Induced Impacts 41 75 108 196 174

JOBS 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 1,025 1,236 976 210 1,743

 Construction and Installation Labor 570 687 541 116 966

 Construction and Installation Related Services 455 549 434 93 777

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 9,948 11,990 9,457 2,032 16,892

 Induced Impacts 3,720 4,480 3,531 758 6,304

 Total Impacts 14,693 17,706 13,964 3,000 24,940

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only 369 445 357 75 626

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 589 712 572 121 1,002

 Induced Impacts 247 299 240 51 422
32 

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

Table A-8. Case 2B Results – Earnings Based on Annual Installations

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 12.26 $ 21.42 $ 27.94 $ 48.17 $ 41.64

 Construction and Installation Labor $ 6.95 $ 11.66 $ 13.44 $ 22.19 $ 18.44

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ 5.31 $ 9.76 $ 14.50 $ 25.98 $ 23.20

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 101.03 $ 184.13 $ 267.96 $ 477.65 $ 424.57

 Induced Impacts $ 26.67 $ 48.54 $ 70.41 $ 125.39 $ 111.37

 Total Impacts $ 139.96 $ 254.09 $ 366.31 $ 651.22 $ 577.58

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 3.30 $ 6.00 $ 8.56 $ 15.49 $ 13.72

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 5.88 $ 10.70 $ 15.26 $ 27.65 $ 24.49

 Induced Impacts $ 1.76 $ 3.21 $ 4.60 $ 8.34 $ 7.40

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 57.82 $ 68.42 $ 53.04 $ 11.29 $ 93.45

 Construction and Installation Labor $ 24.68 $ 28.39 $ 21.39 $ 4.48 $ 36.83

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ 33.13 $ 40.03 $ 31.65 $ 6.81 $ 56.63

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 604.03 $ 727.79 $ 573.93 $ 123.27 1,024.91$ 

 Induced Impacts $ 158.34 $ 190.70 $ 150.31 $ 32.28 $ 268.34

 Total Impacts $ 820.19 $ 986.90 $ 777.27 $ 166.83 1,386.70$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 19.45 $ 23.50 $ 18.86 $ 3.98 $ 33.05

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 34.72 $ 41.96 $ 33.69 $ 7.11 $ 59.03

 Induced Impacts $ 10.51 $ 12.72 $ 10.23 $ 2.16 $ 17.96
33 

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

Table A-9. Case 2B Results – Total Economic Impacts Based on Annual Installations

Output [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 20.59 $ 36.68 $ 50.42 $ 88.40 $ 77.50

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 367.52 $ 669.52 $ 973.22 1,734.24$ 1,541.08$ 

 Induced Impacts $ 84.03 $ 152.93 $ 221.83 $ 395.06 $ 350.88

 Total Impacts $ 472.14 $ 859.13 1,245.47$ 2,217.69$ 1,969.46$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 3.30 $ 6.00 $ 8.56 $ 15.49 $ 13.72

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 22.75 $ 41.44 $ 59.09 $ 107.04 $ 94.80

 Induced Impacts $ 5.54 $ 10.11 $ 14.48 $ 26.28 $ 23.32

Output [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ 108.96 $ 130.15 $ 101.79 $ 21.77 $ 180.64

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 2,191.98$ 2,640.65$ 2,082.07$ $ 447.15 3,717.69$ 

 Induced Impacts $ 498.88 $ 600.81 $ 473.58 $ 101.69 $ 845.43

 Total Impacts 2,799.82$ 3,371.61$ 2,657.44$ $ 570.61 4,743.76$ 

During operating years

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 Hydro Project Labor Only $ 19.45 $ 23.50 $ 18.86 $ 3.98 $ 33.05

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts $ 134.41 $ 162.41 $ 130.40 $ 27.53 $ 228.50

 Induced Impacts $ 33.13 $ 40.09 $ 32.24 $ 6.82 $ 56.60
34 

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

Table A-10. Case 2C Results – FTE Jobs, Earnings, and Total Economic Impacts Based on Annual 

Installations

JOBS 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 0 0 0 0 0

 Construction and Installation Labor 0 0 0 0 0

 Construction and Installation Related Services 0 0 0 0 0

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 0 0 0 0 2,216

 Induced Impacts 0 0 0 0 797

 Total Impacts 0 0 0 0 3,013

JOBS 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts 0 0 0 0 0

 Construction and Installation Labor 0 0 0 0 0

 Construction and Installation Related Services 0 0 0 0 0

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts 4,086 6,300 10,483 12,823 5,888

 Induced Impacts 1,470 2,266 3,771 4,613 2,118

 Total Impacts 5,556 8,566 14,253 17,436 8,006

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Construction and Installation Labor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 0.16 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.10 $ 138.45

 Induced Impacts $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.03 $ 0.02 $ 33.93

 Total Impacts $ 0.20 $ 0.18 $ 0.13 $ 0.12 $ 172.38

Earnings [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Construction and Installation Labor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Construction and Installation Related Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 255.32 $ 393.61 $ 654.94 $ 801.19 $ 367.86

 Induced Impacts $ 62.57 $ 96.46 $ 160.50 $ 196.35 $ 90.15

 Total Impacts $ 317.89 $ 490.07 $ 815.45 $ 997.54 $ 458.01

Output [$MM (2012)] 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 0.63 $ 0.57 $ 0.41 $ 0.37 $ 537.18

 Induced Impacts $ 0.13 $ 0.11 $ 0.08 $ 0.07 $ 106.90

 Total Impacts $ 0.76 $ 0.68 $ 0.50 $ 0.44 $ 644.08

Output [$MM (2012)] 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

During construction and installation period

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction and Installation Related Services

 Equipment and Supply Chain Impacts $ 990.65 1,527.22$ 2,541.20$ 3,108.65$ 1,427.30$ 

 Induced Impacts $ 197.13 $ 303.91 $ 505.69 $ 618.61 $ 284.03

 Total Impacts 1,187.78$ 1,831.13$ 3,046.88$ 3,727.26$ 1,711.32$