2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report
i | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

This report is being disseminated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). As such, this 

document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (public law 106-554) and information

quality guidelines issued by DOE. Though this report does not constitute “influential” 

information, as that term is defined in DOE’s information quality guidelines or the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, the study was 

reviewed both internally and externally prior to publication. For purposes of external review, the 

study benefited from the advice and comments of nine energy industry stakeholders, U.S. 

Government employees, and national laboratory staff.

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.

Available electronically at SciTech Connect 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

OSTI http://www.osti.gov

Phone: 865.576.8401

Fax: 865.576.5728

Email: reports@osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

NTIS http://www.ntis.gov

Phone: 800.553.6847 or 703.605.6000

Fax: 703.605.6900

Email: orders@ntis.gov
ii | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Primary Authors

Walter Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Philipp Beiter, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Paul Schwabe, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Tian Tian, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Tyler Stehly, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Paul Spitsen, U.S. Department of Energy

With Contributions From

Amy Robertson, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Vahan Gevorgian, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................... v

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

1.1 Approach and Method................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Report Structure ............................................................................................................................ 5

2 Overview of Global Offshore Wind Development ............................................................................. 6

2.1 Global Offshore Market ................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Offshore Wind Market Projections ............................................................................................. 11

3 U.S. Offshore Wind Market Assessment.......................................................................................... 15

3.1 U.S. Offshore Wind Industry Overview...................................................................................... 15

3.2 U.S. Offshore Wind Project Development Pipeline Assessment ................................................ 18

3.3 U.S. Offshore Wind Lease Area Assessment.............................................................................. 24

3.4 U.S. Offshore Wind Procurement and Offtake Policy Assessment ............................................ 29

3.5 DOE’s Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects Program ............................................... 32

3.6 Regional Analysis of U.S. Wind Developments......................................................................... 33

4 Cost and Pricing Trends.................................................................................................................... 53

4.1 Pricing Trends............................................................................................................................. 54

4.2 Capital Expenditures................................................................................................................... 63

4.3 Operational Expenditures............................................................................................................ 66

4.4 Performance ................................................................................................................................ 66

4.5 Financing Trends......................................................................................................................... 68

5 Offshore Wind Technology Trends................................................................................................... 70

5.1 Site Characteristics for Global Offshore Wind Projects.............................................................. 70

5.2 Offshore Wind Turbine Trends................................................................................................... 71

5.3 Substructure Technology and Market Trends............................................................................. 74

5.4 Electrical Infrastructure Technology and Market Trends ........................................................... 77

5.5 Vessel and Logistical Trends ...................................................................................................... 80

6 Floating Offshore Wind Trends......................................................................................................... 82

6.1 Global Market Assessment.......................................................................................................... 82

6.2 Floating Offshore Wind Trends .................................................................................................. 83

References................................................................................................................................................. 90

Appendix A. U.S. Offshore Wind Policy Types .................................................................................... 105

Appendix B. Floating Projects............................................................................................................... 107

Existing Floating Offshore Wind Projects ......................................................................................... 107

Floating Wind Projects Under Development ..................................................................................... 111

Appendix C. Cape Wind Overview ........................................................................................................ 120
iii | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-

08GO28308 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Funding for the work was 

provided by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind Energy

Technologies Office. The authors would like to extend thanks to Patrick Gilman and Alana Duerr 

from the DOE Wind Energy Technologies Office for supporting this research. Thanks also to Jose 

Zayas, Dan Beals, Rich Tusing, Gary Norton, Liz Hartman, and Brian Pitts of the DOE Wind Energy

Technologies Office for their support and strategic guidance.

The authors would also like to thank the following NREL reviewers and contributors: Suzanne 

Tegen, Brian Smith, Paul Veers, Garrett Barter, and Eric Lantz.

This report covers a wide range of industry projects, policies, and past reports that the authors have 

documented with extensive support from a diverse group of peer reviewers. These experts and 

stakeholders include Ryan Wiser (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Fara Courtney 

(Massachusetts Research Partnership), Elizabeth Treseder (DONG Energy), Knut Aanstad (Statoil), 

Jeff Kehne (Magellan Wind), Gilles Duchesne (SBM Offshore), Aaron Smith (Principle Power), 

Katherine Kollins (SE Wind Coalition), Tom Harries (Bloomberg New Energy Finance London), 

Doug Boren (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [BOEM] Pacific), Necitas Sumait (BOEM 

Pacific), Cheri Hunter (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement), Angel McCoy (BOEM), 

Troels Stybe Sorenson (DONG Energy), Val Stori (Clean Energy States Alliance), Gavin Smart 

(ORE Catapult-UK), Tyler Studds (MassCEC), Nils Bolgen (MassCEC), and Christen Anton 

(MassCEC).

Editing was provided by Sheri Anstedt (NREL) and graphics were created by Al Hicks (NREL) and 

Bryan Bechtold (NREL). Additional communications and coordination were provided by Alex 

Lemke (NREL), Carol Laurie (NREL), and Jamie Wiebe (NREL). The cover design was done by 

John Frenzl (NREL).
iv | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ATD advanced technology demonstration 

BIWF Block Island Wind Farm 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

BPU Board of Public Utilities (New Jersey) 

CapEx capital expenditures 

COD commercial operation date 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

FID final investment decision 

GW gigawatt 

HVAC high-voltage alternating current 

HVDC high-voltage direct current 

kV kilovolt 

kW kilowatt 

LEEDCo Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation 

LCOE levelized cost of energy 

LIPA Long Island Power Authority

LLC Limited Liability Company 

m meter(s)

METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 

MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hour 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

OpEx operational expenditures 

OREC offshore renewable energy certificate 

OTM offshore transmission module 

OWDB Offshore Wind Database 

PPA power purchase agreement 

R&D research and development 

RES Renewable Energy Systems 

TBD to be determined 

TSO Transmission System Operator
v | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Executive Summary

The 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report was developed by the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is 

intended to provide offshore wind policymakers, regulators, developers, researchers, engineers, 

financiers, and supply chain participants, with quantitative information about the offshore wind 

market, technology, and cost trends in the United States and worldwide. In particular, this report 

is intended to provide detailed information on the domestic offshore wind industry to provide 

context to help navigate technical and market barriers and opportunities. The scope of the report 

covers the status of the 111 operating offshore wind projects in the global fleet through 

December 31, 2016, and provides the status and analysis on a broader pipeline of 593 projects at 

some stage of development.1 In addition, this report provides a wider assessment of domestic 

developments and events through the second quarter of 2017 to provide a more up-to-date 

discussion of this dynamically evolving industry. A summary of the key findings are provided 

below.

The United States commissioned its first commercial offshore wind project off Rhode 

Island. In December 2016, Deepwater Wind completed the commissioning of the Block Island 

Wind Farm, marking a milestone as the first commercial offshore wind project in the United 

States. The 30-megawatt (MW) project is in Rhode Island state waters off the southern coast of 

Block Island. It is comprised of five 6-MW Haliade wind turbines manufactured by General 

Electric (formerly Alstom Wind Power). In addition, the project included laying a power cable to 

connect the grid on Block Island to the mainland grid. The project is expected to produce enough 

electricity to power 17,000 Rhode Island homes (Chesto 2017).

Strike prices from offshore wind energy procurement auctions plummet in European 

wholesale electricity markets. European auction strike prices2 from July 2016 through June 

2017 indicate a trend of offshore wind price declines. Although there is some variability in these 

recent price signals caused by differences in auction design (e.g., differences in the allocation of 

grid connection costs, development costs, and contract length), market and policy environment, 

and project characteristics, winning bid prices have declined from approximately 

$200/megawatt-hour for projects, with a commercial operation date between 2017 and 2019 

down to about $65/megawatt-hour for projects, with a 2024/2025 commercial operation date. 

Although the normalized adjusted strike prices presented in this report do not comprehensively 

account for all possible differences among projects (e.g., site conditions, project-specific risk 

profiles, or future electricity prices), a significant drop in offshore wind bid prices over the past 

year has emerged as a clear trend. However, the impacts on cost, the future trajectory of these 

prices and whether these downward trends will be sustained, and their transferability to the U.S. 

market have not been fully evaluated.

 1 Note that the 2014–2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report covered operating projects through June 30, 

2015, with a focus on developments in 2014 and the first half of 2015 (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015). 2 The strike price for an offshore wind project from an auction is usually the lowest bid price at which the offering 

can be sold. The strike price usually covers a specific contract term for which that strike price will be paid for the 

energy produced. The offeror of that strike price is awarded the rights to develop a particular parcel under 

predetermined conditions set in the tender offer that may vary by country or market. The strike price should not be 

confused with levelized cost of energy, which may be calculated using different financing and cost assumptions.
vi | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

New offshore wind capacity, commissioned globally in 2016, dropped to 1,188 MW.

Following 2015’s record deployment of nearly 4,000 MW, new offshore wind installed capacity 

experienced a dip, with a total of 1,188 MW commissioned in 2016. This decrease can be mostly 

attributed to a transition in the United Kingdom market support mechanism and delays in 

interconnections for some projects in Germany and the Netherlands. Meanwhile, China’s annual 

installed capacity increased slightly from 352 MW in 2015 to 430 MW in 2016. By the end of 

2016, the global offshore market had accumulated 12,913 MW of commissioned capacity from 

111 operating projects. Projections for 2017 indicate expected global new capacity additions to 

be above 4,000 MW based on the number of projects currently under construction. The pipeline

of offshore wind development capacity as of December 31, 2016, was about 231,000 MW

comprising 593 projects.

Industry-wide confidence that the U.S. offshore wind market is emerging has increased 

because of decreasing global costs and stronger state policy commitments. News of the 

declining costs for offshore wind projects in Europe has spurred confidence in the domestic U.S. 

offshore wind market this year. Several states including Massachusetts, New York, and 

Maryland have enacted new policies or bolstered their existing policies to incentivize the 

development of offshore wind. These policies include procurement targets for offshore wind and 

offshore renewable energy credits that could support over 4,000 MW. Some U.S. activities since 

the last U.S. offshore market report (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015) include:

• The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) held a competitive lease sale of 

344,000 acres offshore New Jersey on November 9, 2015. The winners were RES 

America Developments Inc., (which later transferred to DONG Energy), with a bid of 

$880,715 (160,480 acres), and US Wind Inc., with a bid of $1,006,240 (183,353 acres).

• In August 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed bill H.4568, allowing for 

1,600 MW of offshore wind to be procured by June 2027 (General Court of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2016).

3

• In September 2016, DOE and the U.S. Department of the Interior issued the National 

Offshore Wind Strategy (Gilman et al. 2016) to facilitate the responsible development of 

offshore wind in the United States. The strategy recognizes the environmental and 

economic benefits of offshore wind, identifies critical challenges, and presents a federal 

action plan. 

• On December 15, 2016, Statoil was awarded rights to the BOEM lease area off the coast 

of New York for an unprecedented bid value of $42.5 million (Statoil 2016).

• On January 10, 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo committed to develop up to 

2,400 MW of offshore wind by 2030 in support of the state’s 2030 Renewable Portfolio 

Standard target of 50% (Cuomo 2017). On January 25, 2017, the Long Island Power 

Authority approved a power purchase agreement for Deepwater Wind’s 90-MW South 

Fork Wind Farm, which is located 30 miles off the coast of Montauk. 

 3 Bill H.4568 excludes the Cape Wind project.
vii | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• On March 16, 2017, a competitive lease sale for a wind energy area of 122,405 acres 

offshore Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, was announced, with the highest bid of $9,066,650 

from Avangrid Renewables, LLC, the provisional winner.

• In Massachusetts, a request for proposals was issued on June 29, 2017, seeking to procure 

a total of 400−800 MW from the BOEM lease areas off of Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island.4

• In May 2017, the Maryland Public Service Commission issued an offshore wind 

renewable energy certificate for the procurement of 368 MW from US Wind (248 MW) 

and Deepwater Wind’s Skipjack project (120 MW).

• Two of the DOE advanced technology demonstration projects, the 21-MW Lake Erie 

Icebreaker project led by the Fred Olsen/Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation

consortium and the 12-MW Aqua Ventus I project led by the University of Maine, 

continue to make progress. They will be considered for the next round of funding from 

DOE.

The U.S. offshore wind project pipeline is estimated to be 24,135 MW, with 14,785 MW 

under exclusive site control5 by developers. The U.S. offshore wind project development 

pipeline includes 28 projects totaling 24,135 MW of potential installed capacity. Developers 

have obtained exclusive site control over 18 sites totaling 14,785 MW of potential capacity, 

including projects located in state waters. Most of the near-term activity is concentrated in the 

North Atlantic region, but projects have been proposed in all five U.S. regions (as defined by 

DOE’s Wind Vision) (DOE 2015). Figure ES-1 shows a map of two advanced technology 

demonstration projects, the current projects in the U.S. pipeline, and the operational Block Island 

Wind Farm6.

 4 The request for proposals permits bidders to submit proposals with a nameplate capacity of no less than 200 MW 

and no greater than 800 MW. 

5 Federal law requires the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to conduct a fair public auction for offshore wind 

sites in which there is interest from more than one developer (i.e., “competitive interest”). A developer cannot 

proceed until they have been awarded exclusive rights to the site through the competitive auction process. 6 Deepwater Wind’s two lease areas in RI/MA are shown as a single project and U.S. Wind’s two lease areas in MD 

are shown as single project.
viii | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure ES-1. U.S. offshore wind projects

Source: NREL 

Industry continues to push toward larger turbines, seeking rated capacities greater than 8 

MW in deeper waters. Offshore wind turbine development is continuing its upscaling trend. For 

example, the completion of the Burbo Bank Extension project (United Kingdom) in early 2017 

was the first commercial project to use a Vestas 164-meter rotor, 8-MW turbine (V164-8 MW)

that was first prototyped in 2014. In addition, an upgraded V164 prototype 9.5-MW turbine was 

debuted in 2017 (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries [MHI] Vestas Offshore 2017b; Weston 2017a; de 

Vries 2017). Large turbine sizes are generally preferred in offshore applications because of fewer 

installations and lower maintenance, and many developers are anticipating continued turbine 

growth, with the expectation that the benefits of increased turbine size will continue to lower 

energy costs. Globally, the average turbine size for offshore wind projects increased from 3.4 

MW for projects installed in 2015 to 4.7 MW for projects installed by the end of 2016. This trend 

is expected to continue, with average turbine size expected to reach 7.0 MW for projects 

installed in 2020.

The floating wind project pipeline triples in size to almost 3,000 MW. In sites where the 

water is too deep to use proven fixed-bottom commercial technology, floating foundations are 
ix | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

beginning to be developed. The global floating offshore wind pipeline has reached 2,905 MW in 

2016, with 26 announced projects including 21 demonstration/pilot-scale projects, as well as the 

five commercial-scale projects in Hawaii, California, and France. The total number of floating 

projects in the pipeline has increased by over a factor of three since 2015, when 819 MW of 

pipeline capacity was reported (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015). The floating offshore wind 

industry is moving away from proof-of-concept single turbine deployments that characterized the 

first wave of prototype development from 2009 through 2015. The current trend indicates a 

growing number of multiturbine, precommercial pilot projects. There are 11 individual 

precommercial floating projects totaling 229 MW in capacity that have advanced past the 

planning phase and are either under construction, approved, or have significant resources 

committed for project development. These projects are described in more detail in Section 6 and 

Appendix B.

After years of regulatory planning and leasing, confidence in the nascent U.S. offshore wind 

market has increased as the result of declining offshore wind costs globally, continued supply 

chain development, and higher levels of activity in supportive domestic state policy. U.S. 

industry activity is accelerating, emboldened not only by the first wind farm off Block Island, but 

by the assertive presence in the United States of well-capitalized and experienced offshore wind 

developers (e.g., DONG Energy, Statoil ASA, Iberdrola), and the rapid decline in European 

offshore wind auction strike prices approaching a market competitive range.
1 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

1 Introduction

The 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report was developed by the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. It is intended to provide stakeholders, including 

policymakers, regulators, developers, financiers, and supply chain participants, with quantitative 

information about the offshore wind market, technology, and cost trends worldwide. The data in 

this report are intended to provide context for the domestic industry and help inform the U.S. 

offshore wind industry and its stakeholders to identify risks and opportunities. The scope of the 

report covers the global fleet of operating projects through December 31, 2016.

7 However, the 

report emphasizes developments in the United States and draws on domestic developments and 

events through the second quarter of 2017. The report includes data, obtained from a wide 

variety of sources, about offshore wind projects that are both operating and under development 

to provide current and forward-looking perspectives. This report is part of a set of market reports 

funded by DOE. The other reports cover the status of utility-scale land-based wind8 and

distributed wind.9 These companion reports provide quantitative, independent data for use by the 

wind industry and its various stakeholders.

After years of regulatory planning and leasing, confidence in the nascent U.S. offshore wind 

market is increasing and industry activity is accelerating. At the center of this activity is the 

commissioning of the nation’s first commercial offshore wind project in December 2016, the 30-

megawatt (MW) Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) by Deepwater Wind in Rhode Island state 

waters. However, U.S. offshore wind industry members are emboldened not only by the first 

wind farm off Block Island, but by the assertive presence in the United States of well-capitalized 

and experienced offshore wind developers (e.g., DONG Energy, Statoil ASA, Iberdrola), initial 

supply chain developments, and the rapid decline in European offshore wind auction strike prices 

into a market competitive range. As a result, there has been a prominent rise in legislative 

activity in 2016 that supports offshore wind at the state level. These positive market signals are 

potentially setting the stage for large-scale offshore wind development across the country, from 

Massachusetts to Hawaii.

The data and information from this report provide insight into market, technology, cost, and 

performance trends and are key inputs to the annual Cost of Wind Energy Review report, which 

provides an updated summary of the cost of land-based and offshore wind energy in the United 

States to support DOE’s programmatic reporting on the cost of wind energy (Moné et al. 2015;

2017; Tegen et al. 2012, 2013).

1.1 Approach and Method

The analysis in this report focuses on offshore wind projects at various stages of maturity within 

the project life cycle, starting with the first deployment in 1991 and extending into the future. It 

 7 Note that the 2014–2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report covered operating projects through June 30, 

2015, with a focus on developments in 2014 and the first half of 2015 (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015). 8 The Wind Technologies Market Report is prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and is available for 

the period 2005 to 2016. For the most recent version, see Wiser and Bolinger (2017). 9 The Distributed Wind Market Report is prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the period 2012 to 

2016. For the most recent version, see Orrell et al. (2017).
2 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

also covers projects in a range of countries, spanning North American, European, and Asian 

markets. Although, it is often difficult to compare between markets because of differences in 

political systems, regulatory conditions, and macroeconomic conditions, the breadth and 

diversity of the data allow the development of consistent methodologies to classify, compare,

and analyze the data. As such, one of the primary objectives of this report is to make these 

comparisons and interpret the significance of major offshore wind market trends in deployment, 

cost, and technology.

1.1.1 NREL Offshore Wind Database

This report draws data from NREL’s internal Offshore Wind Database (OWDB)10, which 

contains information on 1,138 offshore wind projects located in 42 countries and totaling about 

399,000 MW of announced project capacity (including both active and dormant projects). 

Projects in the database range in maturity and cover a time period from 1991 to 2034, although 

many have not yet announced a commercial operation date (COD). The OWDB contains 

information on project characteristics (e.g., water depth, wind speed, and distance from shore), 

economic attributes (e.g., project- and component-level costs and performance), and technical 

specifications (e.g., component sizes and masses). Additionally, the database contains 

information on the characteristics of offshore wind installation and transportation vessels, as well 

as ports that have been used to support the construction and maintenance of offshore projects.

The NREL OWDB is built from internal research using various sources of data including peerreviewed literature, press releases, industry news reports, manufacturer specification sheets, and 

global offshore wind project announcements. It is NREL’s best and most reliable source for 

offshore wind market information and is cited throughout this report. Unless stated otherwise, 

the data provided for project pipelines, both globally and domestically, are derived from the 

NREL OWDB. The database is also used extensively to assess technology trends, document 

equipment manufacturers, and assess economic data.

In cases in which sources used to build the OWDB conflict with each other or with other sources 

available to NREL, the data were adjusted to reflect the best-available information. Typically, 

the augmented data are based on the professional judgment of industry experts and/or NREL 

analysts. To ensure accuracy, NREL has verified the OWDB against other credible industry 

databases, publications from institutions and associations, and research organizations. These 

verification sources include:

• The 4C Offshore Wind Database (4C Offshore 2017)

• WindEurope Annual Market Update (WindEurope 2017a)

• Bloomberg New Energy Finance Renewable Energy Project Database (Bloomberg

New Energy Finance 2016)

• MAKE Consulting Global Offshore Wind Database (MAKE Consulting 2017).

Although best attempts were made to validate the data and harmonize it against other available 

sources, minor differences in database methodology and definitions among sources may yield 

slightly different quantified results than found in other published reports. For example, reported 

 10 NREL’s Offshore Wind Database is used as an internal reference and is not published publically. 
3 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

annual capacity additions often vary among sources because of the use of different criteria for 

considering a project as “operating” or “installed.” Despite variability in annual numbers, longerterm trends among all sources are broadly consistent with the NREL OWDB. NREL considers a 

project to be “commissioned” when all turbines are fully operational and capable of feeding 

power into the land-based electricity grid (stage 7 in Table 1).

The data also vary in quality, and, in many cases, are subject to some uncertainty. This is 

particularly true for future projects, in which values are largely based on the public 

announcements of developers and may be subject to change. Because of these uncertainties, the 

analysis presented here emphasizes the broader trends rather than data points corresponding to

individual projects.

The cost and pricing data in NREL’s OWDB spans a large chronology and is reported in a 

number of different currencies. To analyze these data, all information in this report was 

normalized into 2016 U.S. dollars (USD) by:

• Converting costs and prices to USD using the exchange rate for the year in which the 

latest data were reported (United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research 

Service 2017) 

• Inflating the values, which are in nominal USD after the exchange rate conversion, to 

2016 USD using the U.S. Consumer Price Index (United States Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017). 

Because this report focuses on data from 2016, NREL used 2016 average exchange rates to 

convert economic data not directly tied to projects (e.g., from studies or related to policy).

1.1.2 Classification of Project Status

This report adopts the system for classifying and tracking the progress of projects described in

the 2014–2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015),

with some minor modifications. This includes projects that are proposed in both federal waters 

and state waters in the United States, as well as those operating and proposed in other countries.

The classification system defines discrete start and end points for each phase to avoid overlap or 

ambiguity. It divides the offshore wind project life cycle into nine stages: 1) planning, 2) site 

control, 3) permitting/offtake agreement signed, 4) approved, 5) financial close, 6) under 

construction, 7) operating, 8) decommissioned, and 9) on hold/canceled.

11 These stages attempt 

to track every potential project throughout its life cycle.

Table 1 summarizes the start and end criteria for the nine project phases in the U.S. offshore 

wind project pipeline and provides examples of some of the key milestones that exist within the 

U.S. regulatory framework. These criteria are broadly generalized across all international 

markets for offshore wind (see, for example, 4C Offshore 2015); however, criteria are not likely

to be perfectly applicable to every market, particularly in project phases 1 through 5, in which 

 11 Note that the Offshore Wind Database (OWDB) does not differentiate between the first category (planning ‒ early 

stage) and the second (planning ‒ site control) for international projects. Instead, both are tracked as a single, 

combined category labeled “Planning.”
4 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

political and regulatory structures may impose different requirements. These different 

requirements will likely translate into some variability in the duration and financial resources 

required to progress from one stage to the next.

One significant change that was made to the classification criteria for U.S. projects in this report 

was in how offtake12 agreements are considered. Market trends for U.S. projects indicate that 

offtake agreements may be signed as early as Phase 2 (site control) up until Phase 5 (financial 

close).

Table 1. Modified Criteria for Pipeline Classification of U.S. Offshore Wind Projects

Step Phase Name Phase Start Criteria Phase End Criteria

1 Planning Starts when developer or regulatory agency 

initiates formal site control process

Ends when a developer obtains exclusive 

development rights to a site (e.g., through 

competitive auction or a determination of no 

competitive interest in the United States)

2 Site Control Begins when the developer obtains exclusive 

development rights to a site (e.g., through 

competitive auction or a determination of no 

competitive interest in the United States)

Ends when the developer files major permit 

applications (e.g., a construction operations plan 

for projects in federal waters in the United 

States)

3 Permitting / 

Offtake 

Agreement

Starts when the developer files major permit 

applications (e.g., construction operation plan for 

projects in federal waters in the United States)

Ends when a regulatory body(s) grants 

authorization to proceed with construction13 or 

when the project has signed an offtake 

agreement

4 Approved Starts when the project has been approved by 

the relevant regulatory bodies and is fully 

authorized to proceed with construction or when 

the project has a signed offtake agreement

Ends when sponsor announces financial 

investment decision (FID) and has signed 

contracts for major construction work packages

5 Financial Close Begins when sponsor announces FID and has 

signed unconditional contracts for major 

construction work packages

Ends when project begins offshore construction 

work

6 Under 

Construction 

Starts when offshore construction work is 

initiated

Ends when project has been connected to the 

power grid and all units fully commissioned; 

commercial operation date (COD) marks the 

official transition from construction to operations

7 Operating Commences when project has been connected 

to the power grid and all units are fully 

commissioned; COD marks the official transition

from construction to operations

Ends when the project has begun a formal 

process to decommission and stops feeding 

power to the grid

8 Decommissioned Starts when the project has begun a formal 

process to decommission and stops feeding 

power to the grid

Ends when the site has been restored and lease 

payments are no longer being made, or if the 

site has been repowered 

9 On Hold/ 

Canceled

Starts if a sponsor stops development activities 

(i.e., discontinues lease payments) and/or 

abandons a prospective site 

Ends when the sponsor announces the restart of 

project development activities

 12 A power purchase agreement is one type of offtake agreement. “Offtake” broadly refers to any mechanism that 

enables an offshore wind project to sell its electricity in an energy market or to an individual client. 13 A rejection may cause the project sponsor to appeal (still permitting phase), place the project on hold, or cancel.
5 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

To allow U.S. projects to show advancement in the U.S. project pipeline for obtaining an offtake 

agreement,14 the end criteria for phase 3 (permitting/offtake agreement) were expanded in this 

report to include the signing of an offtake agreement. Offtake agreements, such as power 

purchase agreements (PPAs), are a major milestone for a project owner as they comprise a fixed 

long-term revenue stream to finance the development, installation, and operation of a project.

For instance, Deepwater’s BIWF project signed a PPA with National Grid on December 9, 2009,

before the final approval on September 5, 2014, (Deepwater Wind 2015a). Similarly, the Long 

Island Power Authority (LIPA) voted to approve a “pay-for-performance” PPA with Deepwater 

Wind on January 25, 2017, for the proposed 90-MW South Fork wind farm project 

(Roggenkamp 2017) before major permit applications were submitted. 

1.2 Report Structure

The remainder of this report is divided into five sections that focus on the following:

• Section 2 provides an overview of the global offshore wind market. Projects from all 

countries are tracked according to their status in the offshore wind development pipeline 

including operating wind plants around the globe.

• Section 3 summarizes offshore wind market developments in the United States. In-depth 

coverage of the U.S.-specific pipeline is given along with a state-by-state and regional 

summary of key activities. 

• Section 4 provides insight into global offshore wind price, cost, and performance trends.

Recent declines in European strike prices are examined and this trend in price declines is 

interpreted with some treatment given to capital cost and finance trends and what that 

might mean for the U.S. market. 

• Section 5 analyzes trends in global and domestic offshore wind fixed-bottom technology.

Recent changes in offshore wind turbines, foundation types, electrical infrastructure, and 

vessels are discussed. 

• Section 6 analyzes trends in global and domestic offshore wind floating technology. This 

section includes a summary of the growing market for floating offshore wind systems and 

what factors might be driving it. Appendix B provides a detailed description of selected 

floating projects under development.

 14 Note that this change was not implemented for projects outside of the United States due to lack of data.
6 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

2 Overview of Global Offshore Wind Development

The global market for offshore wind energy is rooted in Europe. Even though Europe still 

dominates the market with 90% of global installed capacity at the end of 2016, Asia saw a 

significant increase in offshore deployment in 2015 and 2016. North America also witnessed the 

commissioning of its first offshore wind project, the 30-MW BIWF.

European experience and market data indicate progress in offshore wind technological

innovation and market cost reduction. Operating and announced projects for the period ending 

December 31, 2016, are tracked to provide an overview of offshore market growth, project 

progress, commissioning date, and technologies. These indicators can provide insights to future 

market developments and technology research and development (R&D) strategies.

2.1 Global Offshore Market 

As the 2014–2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015) 

anticipated, 2015 marked a record year for global offshore wind deployment with a total of 3,917 

MW commissioned.

15 Germany led deployment with 2,374 MW installed, followed by the 

United Kingdom with 1,055 MW, China with 352 MW, and the Netherlands with 129 MW. 

Following 2015’s high deployment record, new offshore wind installed capacity experienced a 

dip with a total of 1,188 MW commissioned in 2016. This decrease can be attributed to a variety 

of factors, including a transition in the United Kingdom from a green certificates program to a 

contract for difference (CfD)16, as well as delays in interconnection for some projects in 

Germany and the Netherlands. China’s annual installed capacity increased from 352 MW in 

2015 to 430 MW in 2016, continuing the uptick in development activity after the government 

had issued a prioritized approval process for a list of offshore projects. At the end of 2016, the 

global offshore market had accumulated 12,913 MW of commissioned capacity. 

Figure 1 shows the global cumulative (right axis) and annual (left axis) offshore wind installed 

capacity from 2000 through December 2016. These data are based on project-announced 

commission dates from publicly available data sources. The figure includes only projects in 

which all of the capacity has been fully commissioned (i.e., the entire wind plant is feeding 

power into the grid) in a given year, and does not include intertidal projects.17 U.S. market trends 

and project developments are described in detail in Section 3.

 15 Smith, Stehly, and Musial (2015) anticipated 3,996 MW of offshore wind to be on track to begin operations by the 

end of 2015. 

16 A contract for difference (CfD) is a financial arrangement between two parties, stipulating that a power seller (the 

power generator) will be provided with a fixed price level for its power output. Under this contract, the seller is 

compensated by the CfD counterparty with the difference between the CfD strike price and a reference or market 

price. This contracting scheme has been applied in various European offshore wind markets (see Section 4). 17 Europe and the United States are not expected to install intertidal projects, which are located on beaches or tidal 

plains, because of environmental and competing use concerns. Intertidal projects have limited relevance to other 

offshore projects because they use different foundational technologies, installation methods, and electric 

infrastructure designs. Most of the offshore installations in China prior to 2015 were intertidal projects. Intertidal 

projects have also been developed and installed in Vietnam. 
7 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 1. Operating global offshore wind capacity by market (annual and cumulative)

Source: NREL

Note: Figure 1 includes only projects in which all capacity within a phase (as defined by the developer) has been 

fully commissioned; does not include intertidal projects or scaled demonstration projects.

Note that in Figure 1, 2017, data are projections from the development pipeline of announced 

projects already under construction that indicate likely deployment levels of over 4,000 MW. 

This projection includes more than 1,000 MW in both Germany and China, as well as more than 

700 MW in the United Kingdom. The following sections break down the global offshore wind 

market by the two key markets: Europe and Asia.18

2.1.1 European Market Activities

The European offshore wind industry is more than 20 years old and its technical practices and 

market data serve as the basis for assessing market potential and trends worldwide. It has grown 

from a fleet of less than 3,000 MW in 2010 to a cumulative installed base of more than 11,700 

MW in 2016. 

A combination of increasing plant size, technology improvements, infrastructure and related 

R&D investments, and favorable market, policy, and economic conditions has led to a downward 

trend in expected power generation prices for offshore wind in Europe, as evidenced by recent 

competitive auction results in Denmark, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany

(see Section 4 for more details). A development pipeline averaging 3,700 MW per year from 

2017 to 2022 provides the market visibility required to sustain a robust supply chain. The 

production volume associated with this pipeline has several benefits for the industry that support 

 18 U.S. activities are addressed in Section 3.
8 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

reduced costs, including increasing economies of scale, improving infrastructure and 

manufacturing facilities, increasing competition within the supply chain, and fostering a skilled

workforce.

Based on announced commercial orders to date, the European market has recently seen the 

adoption of larger technology platforms with turbine generator nameplate ratings from 6 MW up 

to 8.4 MW, resulting in fewer turbines for a given project size. Innovations in foundation design, 

installation techniques, and electrical infrastructure are also being demonstrated and adopted in 

near-term commercial projects in Europe (see Section 5). 

To meet the European Union’s commitment of 20% renewable energy by 2020, which includes a 

set of legally binding and country-specific targets, European policymakers have developed

support schemes and regulatory policies that are designed to minimize project cost and reduce 

the price impacts on ratepayers.

Some examples of these programs include:

• Selecting development zones that emphasize site affordability. The Danish 

government has held several rounds of tenders for offshore projects, including nearshore 

projects, which have low cost levels resulting from their proximity to shore (ranging from 

4 to 8 kilometers (km) (Weston 2015a). These zones may, however, have lower wind 

speeds and therefore reduced capacity factors—relative to open-ocean sites—which tend 

to partially offset the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) advantage of nearshore siting. 

• Sponsoring early-stage development and permitting activities to reduce uncertainty 

about site conditions. Denmark and the Netherlands have defined development zones 

and conducted initial environmental assessments, geotechnical surveys, wind resource 

assessments, and meteorological (met) ocean condition studies before holding auctions 

for development rights. These permitting and early-stage development activities can

reduce the initial development cost of wind project for developers. 

• Implementing competitive auctions for subsidies. Denmark, the United Kingdom, the 

Netherlands, France, and Germany are adopting market mechanisms to price subsidies 

based on competitive auctions. The use of market mechanisms to establish price is based 

on the idea that competition will drive developers to offer their lowest price, rather than a 

price set by a government agency that may not have full visibility of the cost structure of

individual projects.19 Auctions that include some portion of the transmission

infrastructure with approved permits reduce the cost and risk to developers, which 

incentivizes project development. Auctions in 2016 and 2017 have procured nearly 4,000 

MW of offshore capacity expected to be in operation between 2020 and 2025. They 

indicate a downward trend of LCOE, including the possible achievement of LCOE goals 

set by the United Kingdom and the European Union (see Section 4.1 for detailed 

analysis). 

 19 It is challenging for government agencies to set prices that offer a balance between a level that is high enough to 

attract development but low enough to avoid excessive returns for developers. Moreover, a national-level cost 

estimate may not sufficiently reflect the cost structure of a variety of projects with diverse site conditions. The 

government may also face challenges in anticipating future cost changes.
9 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Despite these developments, the industry has expressed concern regarding current political 

uncertainty for future offshore wind deployment levels within national energy plans, particularly 

after 2020. The industry maintains that clarity about the future pipeline is needed to drive supply 

chain investments in new technologies and efficient infrastructure (Campbell 2015; SteinerDicks 2015). 

2.1.2 Asian Market Activities

China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and India have market movement in offshore 

project development and have taken steps to stimulate domestic offshore wind industries. Future 

Asian supply chains could provide a counterweight to European suppliers and increase 

competition within the industry, which could reduce cost levels. Site conditions in many Asian 

markets are different than those in Europe. Many potential development zones are located in 

sites characterized by deep water and exposure to typhoons. Early experience gained through 

deploying and operating offshore wind projects in these conditions could be relevant for certain 

regions of the United States. Similarly, Asian markets offer an opportunity for exports, such as 

floating platform technologies that are under development around the world, including some 

U.S. companies (see Section 6).

China is currently the leading market for offshore wind power in Asia in terms of development 

potential and planned capacity. Barriers to land-based wind development in recent years, 

particularly because of grid integration issues, encouraged developers to seek offshore

opportunities (Global Wind Energy Council 2017). However, deployment has been much slower 

than the government originally anticipated because of a fragmented permitting process and feedin tariff rates that are insufficient to make projects economically viable. The National Energy 

Administration in China reduced deployment targets from 30,000 MW by 2020 down to 5,000 

MW by 2020 (Global Wind Energy Council 2017). In response to the slowdown of offshore

development, the National Energy Administration issued a list of 44 approved projects, totaling 

10,530 MW, prioritized to receive approval from local, provincial, and grid authorities, which

improved the development speed in China in 2015 and 2016 (National Energy Administration 

2014). In 2016, China was second only to Germany in annual installed offshore wind capacity. 

Furthermore, all of the commissioned capacity came from nearshore projects (water depth of 10

meters (m)−15 m) instead of the intertidal projects (water depth <10 m) that dominated the 

Chinese market previously. 

The Japanese government implemented an industry-wide shutdown of all nuclear power plants in 

Japan as a direct result of the Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown caused by the 

earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. Out of Japan’s remaining fleet of nuclear power plants, 

there are 42 operable reactors but only four have been restarted thus far (Nuclear Energy Institute

2017). According to the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, a reactor must meet a series of postFukushima regulatory requirements to be allowed to restart; only 12 reactors at six sites meet 

those standards at this time. The gap left by nuclear, which accounted for about 30% of the 

electricity supply before the tsunami, has been mostly filled by fossil fuels, energy efficiency, 

and some renewable resources. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) plans 

to obtain 22%–24% of Japan’s electricity needs from renewable energy by 2030, including 800 

MW of offshore wind (METI 2015).
10 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

However, the waters off the Japanese coastline are too deep for a high volume of wind turbines 

with fixed-bottom foundation technologies. To address their dominant deepwater offshore wind 

resource, Japan is supporting the rapid development and deployment of floating offshore wind 

technology. Since 2013, Japan has deployed four floating wind turbines, including a 7-MW 

turbine in summer 2015, which is currently the largest floating offshore wind turbine in the 

world.

20 The government has enacted a feed-in tariff for offshore wind that will deliver 36,000 

yen/megawatt-hour (MWh) ($350/MWh) for 20 years and expects that this subsidy will increase 

commercial interest in building offshore wind farms in Japan.

South Korea installed its first offshore wind turbines in 2012, following a 2011 announcement 

that the government would provide nearly $8 billion to fund the phased development of a 2,500-

MW offshore project, with operations beginning in 2019. As of June 2016, the 30-MW Tamra 

Project, South Korea’s first commercial offshore wind project, is under construction and 

expected to be fully operational by the end of the year (Verbruggen 2016). Offshore wind is 

expected to reach 10,600 MW by 2030, equivalent to 27% of South Korea’s total renewable 

target set by their renewables portfolio standard (RPS). This RPS serves as the main policy 

driver for renewable energy in South Korea. It requires power producers to comply through 

generation of renewable energy certificates (RECs), providing offshore wind with an additional 

multiplier for every megawatt-hour generated. Approximately 500 MW of projects are advancing 

through the Korean regulatory pipeline for offshore wind. South Korea hopes to leverage its 

capabilities in the shipbuilding and marine industries to foster a domestic offshore wind 

manufacturing industry (Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute 2013).

Taiwan is also emerging as a potentially large offshore wind market. The government has 

announced targets of deploying 600 MW of capacity by 2020 and 4,000 MW by 2030. The 

government offers a demonstration incentive program for pilot projects. Phase I of Taiwan’s first 

demonstration offshore wind project, Formosa I, was installed in 2016. The 8-MW project was 

fully commissioned in April 2017. The 120-MW Phase II project is expected to become 

operational in 2019. Additional pilot projects are expected to become operational before 2020 to 

take advantage of the incentives for demonstration projects. Several developers have proposed 

projects in Taiwan to be built between 2021 and 2024 (Global Wind Energy Council 2017). The 

government plans to designate commercial development zones in the post-2020 time frame (Hu 

2012; Weston 2015b).

In 2015, the Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy announced India’s Offshore Wind 

Policy, which sets up offshore wind R&D activities and outlines an international competitive 

bidding mechanism for the sector (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy 2015). Although no 

national targets have been established as of June 2017, the Ministry of New and Renewable 

Energy has been tasked with conducting a detailed offshore wind power potential assessment in 

the exclusive economic zones of the county. Preliminary resource assessment by NREL suggests 

a total potential of approximately 162 gigawatts (GW) of offshore capacity in India (Arent et al.

2012).

 20 The Fukushima Forward II floating project consists of one 7-MW and one 5-MW turbine. The 5-MW downwind 

Hitachi turbine has been deployed and is expected to become operational in 2017. 
11 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

2.2 Offshore Wind Market Projections

2.2.1 Project Pipeline Through 2022

The projects under construction are the most predictable in terms of estimating a COD and can 

help illustrate the composition of the market over the next 1 or 2 years. As of December 2016, 

the pipeline project data show that there is 6,300 MW of new offshore wind capacity currently 

under construction. Figure 2 compares the global fleet of operating projects to the projects 

currently under construction by country.

Figure 2. Comparison of market share for projects that are operating vs. under construction

Source: NREL

Table 2 summarizes the fully commissioned offshore wind capacity and the offshore wind 

capacity under construction, by country, as of December 31, 2016.
12 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 2. Summary of Operating and Under Construction Offshore Wind Projects by Country

Commissioned 

(as of end of 2016 [MW])

Under Construction 

(as of end of 2016) Total

United Kingdom 5,097 1,966 7,062

Germany 3,877 1,483 5,360

China 1,092 1,994 3,086

Denmark 1,271 0 1,271

Netherlands 520 600 1,120

Belgium 712 165 877

Sweden 202 0 202

Japan 38 12 50

United States 30 0 30

Other 75 80 155

Total 12,913 6,300 19,213

Note: Totals may not sum as a result of rounding.

The United Kingdom leads the offshore wind market in cumulative capacity with 5,097 MW 

installed. Although no new U.K. projects achieved commercial operation in 2016, partly as a 

result of transitioning from the renewable obligation certificates to a CfD scheme, the market has 

a heavy under-construction pipeline with nearly 2,000 MW expected to be in commercial 

operation in 2017 and 2018. Germany follows the United Kingdom globally, with nearly 1,500 

MW under construction. After the release of the 2014–2016 Offshore Wind Approval and 

Construction list, many projects in China have been able to progress along the development 

timeline. Nearly 2,000 MW are under construction and expected to come online in the next 2

years.

Figure 3 shows the global offshore wind project pipeline through 2022, including all offshore 

wind projects that have announced a COD in or before 2022 (regardless of development status). 

Annual planned capacity additions are shown and the grey line denotes the cumulative planned 

capacity additions. Figure 3 can be reviewed with Figure 1 to get a sense of the full offshore 

wind project history and outlook through 2022.
13 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 3. Global offshore wind pipeline of projects with announced commercial operation dates 

through 2022

Source: NREL

Based on these project pipeline data, 38,856 MW of installed capacity could be commissioned 

between 2017 and 2022, which would bring the cumulative installed capacity to 51,769 MW. 

The United States, France, and Denmark are expected to contribute a greater share of the market 

by 2022. Note that individual projects have not been evaluated to determine the likelihood of 

achieving their announced schedules, therefore the data presented in this report should not be 

treated as a forecast without conducting further investigation. Generally, these estimates are 

considered optimistic because deadlines often slip and occasionally projects are cancelled.

2.2.2 Long-Term Pipeline

Figure 4 shows the global capacity of the operating and announced development pipeline for all 

offshore wind projects by region. This figure does not provide information about the likely 

timing of developments within the long-term pipeline, but provides overall announced capacity

for all active projects recorded in the NREL OWDB.

21 Generally, projects that are more 

advanced within the pipeline are likely to be installed earlier than those that are less mature; 

however, international differences in regulatory structure can result in a wide range of 

development timelines.

 21 The data in Figure 3 do not include projects that are dormant, cancelled, decommissioned, or development zones.
14 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 4. Operating and development pipeline for offshore wind projects by global regions

Source: NREL

The offshore wind project pipeline includes projects that are under construction, at financial 

close, approved, permits submitted, and undergoing planning. This classification is generally 

intended to adhere to the project phases defined in Table 1; however, because of differences in 

international regulatory processes, inconsistencies will arise. In particular, NREL’s global 

project pipeline from the OWDB combines the U.S. status categories “planning” and “site 

control” into a single category called “planning.” Therefore, “site control” is not recognized as a 

separate phase for non-U.S. projects because it is not always relevant when examined across 

varying national regulatory structures. The pipeline is segmented into four global regional 

categories: Europe, North America, Asia, and Other. The “other” category includes several earlystage projects that have been announced in Latin America and Australia.

The estimated global offshore wind pipeline currently totals more than 231,000 MW in capacity, 

with approximately 13 MW of operational capacity.

22 Approximately 60% of the projects in the 

identified pipeline are located in Europe, 25% in Asia, 10% in North America, and 5% in the rest 

of the world (other).

 22 The pipeline capacity in the database decreased from 250,000 in 2015 to 231,000 MW of capacity mainly because 

of projects under development entering the on hold/cancelled category and reductions in announced capacity of 

projects as they advance to the permitting or approved stages.
15 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

3 U.S. Offshore Wind Market Assessment

The U.S. offshore wind industry has experienced significant progress and a general upturn in its 

outlook for sustained market growth since the 2014–2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market 

Report was released in September 2015 (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015). Most notably, in 

December 2016, Deepwater Wind’s 30-MW BIWF became the first commercial offshore wind 

facility commissioned in the United States. This milestone was also accompanied by increasing 

domestic policy support in states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland to attract 

offshore wind, as well as dramatic and demonstrative cost declines in European offshore wind 

markets. In September 2016, a joint DOE/U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) National 

Offshore Wind Strategy (Gilman et al. 2016) identified key research actions that would be

needed to achieve the DOE Wind Vision’s deployment scenario of 86 GW of offshore wind by 

2050 (DOE 2015).

Collectively, these recent actions have motivated prospective developers to secure U.S. wind

areas for near-term offshore wind development. Since 2015, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) auctioned six additional commercial offshore wind leases. Higher auction 

sales prices serve as an indicator that offshore wind energy areas (WEAs) are increasing in value 

to developers. BOEM has also identified six new Call Areas to determine commercial interest in 

potential future offshore wind lease sites and to engage with local stakeholders. As an update to 

the 2014–2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015):

• Section 3.1 provides an overview of the U.S. offshore wind industry.

• Section 3.2 assesses changes to the U.S. project pipeline over the past 2 years.

• Section 3.3 discusses recent offshore leasing developments.

• Section 3.4 highlights new procurement and offtake policies impacting development.

• Section 3.5 explores DOE’s advanced technology demonstration projects (ATD)

program.

• Section 3.6 analyzes offshore wind developments by state in each U.S. offshore 

region.

In Section 2, the global database is current through December 31, 2016, for international market 

assessment. However, for the U.S. assessments made in this section, the authors attempted to 

capture current events as close to the publication date as possible to maximize the relevance of 

this report. Generally, this report captures relevant activities through June 2017.

3.1 U.S. Offshore Wind Industry Overview

Deepwater’s BIWF became the first operational U.S. offshore wind facility in December 2016. 

The $360-million, 30-MW pilot project consists of five 6-MW GE/Alstom Haliade turbines and

took 18 months to construct. Although this project’s cost was comparatively higher than most 

European projects, it represents a first-of-a-kind project in the United States offshore wind 

energy market. Future projects are expected to have a reduced cost profile (Harrington 2017;

Maryland Public Service Commission 2017a). Block Island’s successful completion 

demonstrated that offshore wind can achieve commercial operation in the United States, and 

helped catalyze interest in the U.S. offshore wind market. The U.S. offshore wind industry’s 
16 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

enthusiasm and optimism has also been bolstered by declining costs in European markets, an 

increased number of potential domestic project locations near areas with high renewable energy 

demand, maturing regulatory processes, continued federal R&D support, and the development of 

new state-level policies that mandate offshore wind procurement levels and create regimented 

pathways for offtake agreements.

The National Offshore Wind Strategy (Gilman et al. 2016) outlines a framework to develop a 

robust and sustainable offshore wind industry in the United States by reducing costs and 

technology risks, supporting effective resource stewardship, and clarifying the costs and benefits 

of offshore wind. To reduce costs and technology risks, the strategy indicates that research will 

be necessary to support offshore wind site characterization, data collection, and dissemination; 

ATD projects and industry partnerships; and installation, operation and maintenance (O&M), 

and supply chain solutions. BOEM acts as a steward of offshore resources and plans to enhance 

its regulatory processes to increase transparency, decrease developer risks, and encourage 

interagency and stakeholder cooperation. Potential DOE actions identified in the strategy include 

exploring the cost and benefits of offshore wind by identifying localized environmental and 

economic impacts, analyzing optimal offshore wind and electric system configurations, and 

conducting regional offshore wind integration studies.

Since the beginning of 2015, BOEM auctioned six additional offshore lease areas (two in 

Massachusetts, two in New Jersey, one in New York, and one in North Carolina) and identified 

six Call Areas (four in South Carolina and two in Hawaii) to assess potential commercial interest 

for additional development (see Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 for more information). BOEM has 

also issued a Request for Information to initiate a federal leasing process in California. The 

agency will most likely also hold additional competitive auctions to lease the two previously 

unauctioned lease areas in the Massachusetts WEA and the two unsold North Carolina WEAs in 

the near future.

BOEM’s recent lease activities have also attracted a larger and more diverse group of industry 

participants. International oil companies with offshore experience and expertise such as Statoil 

(Norway) and Shell (Netherlands-United Kingdom) have registered to participate in U.S. 

offshore wind auctions (Schaps 2017). Statoil acquired New York’s WEA and indicated in 

BOEM’s California Request For Information that the company is interested in developing a 

potential project near Morro Bay, California. Statoil has also expressed interest in the Hawaii 

Call Areas. Fourteen different entities were approved by BOEM to participate in the New York 

WEA auction: Avangrid Renewables, DONG Energy, EDF Renewables, wpd Offshore, Alpha 

Energy, Deepwater Wind, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 

Fishermen’s Energy, Sea Breeze Energy, CI-II NY Inc., Energy Management Inc., Convalt 

Energy, Clean Power Northeast Development Inc., and Innogy US Renewable Projects LLC 

(Federal Register 2016).

Beyond the BIWF becoming operational and BOEM successfully offering additional leases, 

optimism surrounding the U.S. offshore wind market has been driven by state-level policy 

actions in Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland. In August 2016, Massachusetts passed An 

Act to Promote Energy Diversity (H.4568) that requires state electricity providers to procure 

1,600 MW of offshore wind capacity by 2027. The law also codifies a competitive solicitation 
17 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

process that will increase the likelihood of offshore projects establishing 15–20 year offtake 

agreements, decreasing a major source of uncertainty for project developers.

As part of this solicitation process, the electricity providers Eversource, National Grid, and 

Unitil, in coordination with Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, issued a request for 

proposals on June 29, 2017, seeking to procure 400−800 MW of offshore wind energy 

generation (Massachusetts Clean Energy Center 2017).

New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo also increased industry interest by publicly committing 

the state to procuring 2,400 MW of offshore capacity by 2030 in his annual “State of the State”

address in January 2017. Three weeks later, LIPA and Deepwater Wind reached an agreement on 

a 20-year PPA for the 90-MW South Fork project and announced that the site could become 

operational as early as 2022 (Stromsta 2017a).

On May 11, 2017, Maryland’s Public Service Commission awarded offshore renewable energy 

credits (ORECs) to US Wind’s 248-MW project and Deepwater Wind’s 120-MW Skipjack 

project, both for 20 years (Maryland PSC 2017). As a precondition for receiving the credits, each 

developer has to invest in port infrastructure upgrades, local manufacturing, and workforce 

development. Maryland hopes this local investment will make the state an offshore wind industry 

hub for the mid-Atlantic region.

Despite increased industry optimism, several questions need to be answered before U.S. offshore 

wind markets can become self-sustaining and globally competitive in the long term:

• Can the U.S. offshore wind market replicate the dramatic cost reductions achieved 

in Europe? Large-scale offshore wind deployment in the United States is contingent on 

significant cost reductions that make it easier to sign long-term offtake agreements. 

Compared to the European market, greater water depth, farther distances from shore, and 

less favorable market conditions (e.g., cheaper fossil fuels and lower levelized avoided 

costs23) may challenge the economic feasibility of some projects (Beiter et al. 2017).

• Is the U.S. project development pipeline large enough regionally to grow and sustain 

a domestic offshore wind industry similar to what Europe has now? It is unclear 

whether the U.S. project pipeline will be large enough to drive cost reductions through 

economies of scale and incentivize investment in domestic offshore wind supply chains 

and specialized installation/O&M vessels.

• Will the Jones Act24 and other U.S. supply-chain limitations impede the 

construction of projects in the United States? Currently the lack of specialized U.S.-

flagged turbine, cable, and heavy lift platform installation vessels forces developers to 

rely on more complex and potentially more costly installation strategies.25

 23 The levelized avoided cost of electricity is a metric used to capture the value of electricity generation to the 

system (e.g., the electric grid) over the course of a technology’s expected lifespan that measures how much “other,” 

more costly generation is avoided.

24 The Jones Act (also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) requires U.S.-flagged vessels to transport 

merchandise or personnel between two points in waters controlled by the United States.

25 See Section 5 for information on U.S. offshore wind vessel trends.
18 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• What new technologies will need to be commercialized to achieve the 86 GW by 

2050 deployment scenario modeled in the 2015 Wind Vision? High levels of offshore 

wind deployment in the Northeast and the Pacific may require deep-water floating 

platforms. Increased offshore wind deployment in southern latitudes will require systems 

designed to survive hurricanes and provide economic power generation using lower 

average wind speeds. Additional technology solutions may also be needed for turbines to 

survive in freshwater ice climates such as the Great Lakes, especially for deeper water.

Overall, new project announcements and the introduction of new offshore wind-specific policies 

have increased the offshore wind industry’s enthusiasm for U.S. markets. However, a number of 

potential obstacles cast uncertainty on the future trajectory of U.S. offshore wind deployment.

The next three subsections describe the U.S. offshore wind pipeline and breakdown events 

described earlier in more detail. Note that the size of the U.S. offshore wind project pipeline, 

recent leasing activities, and recent state-level offshore wind policy developments are 

interrelated topics and will be referenced in multiple sections.

3.2 U.S. Offshore Wind Project Development Pipeline Assessment

As of June 2017, the U.S. offshore wind project development pipeline includes 24,135 MW of 

potential installed capacity. The U.S. offshore wind project pipeline is made up of:

• Twelve commercial offshore wind projects that have obtained site control26 by winning a 

competitive auction offered by BOEM: Cape Wind (Massachusetts), Vineyard Wind 

(Massachusetts), Bay State Wind (Massachusetts), Deepwater ONE (Rhode 

Island/Massachusetts [RI/MA]), Statoil Wind US (New York), US Wind (New Jersey), 

DONG Energy (New Jersey), Skipjack (Delaware), US Wind (Maryland), Dominion 

(Virginia), and Avangrid (North Carolina). In total, these projects represent 14,686 MW 

of potential installed capacity and are 60.8% of the total U.S. offshore wind project 

pipeline potential.

• Five commercial offshore wind projects that have submitted unsolicited applications to 

BOEM and intend to participate in future BOEM competitive leasing activities include: 

PNE Wind USA (New York), Trident Winds (California), AW Hawaii Northwest 

(Hawaii), AW Hawaii South (Hawaii), and Progression Hawaii (Hawaii). These projects 

represent 2,381 MW of potential installed capacity or 9.9% of the total U.S. offshore 

wind project pipeline.

• Five demonstration projects that have obtained site control from federal or state 

authorities include: BIWF (Rhode Island), Aqua Ventus I (Maine), Dominion and DONG

Energy’s offshore demonstration project (formerly the Virginia Offshore Wind 

Technology Advancement Project [VOWTAP]) (Virginia), Fred Olsen/LEEDCo

Icebreaker (Ohio), and Fishermen’s Energy Atlantic City Windfarm (New Jersey). These 

projects account for 99 MW of potential installed capacity and represent 0.5% of the total 

U.S. offshore wind project pipeline.

 26 Site control means that a developer has acquired an exclusive offshore wind lease from BOEM or a state entity 

and now has the ability to conduct site-specific tests and initiate construction when all regulatory requirements have 

been satisfied.
19 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• Four unleased areas inside BOEM’s WEAs that the agency plans to lease in the future

include: lease areas OCS-A 0502 and OCS-A 0503 in the Massachusetts WEA, the 

Wilmington West WEA (North Carolina), and the Wilmington East WEA (North 

Carolina). These areas have the potential to accommodate 6,969 MW of potential 

installed capacity and represent 28.8% of the total U.S. offshore wind project pipeline.

For this report, project size is based on the developer’s announced project capacity. In cases 

when the project size is unannounced or unknown, the project’s potential installed capacity is 

estimated by multiplying the size of the lease area (km2) by three. Based on U.S. resource 

estimates and historic wind plant array densities, an installed turbine density of 3 MW/km2was 

assumed for U.S. projects to maximize generation and minimize potential wake effects (Musial 

et al. 2016a). This method was carried over for early-stage planning projects wherein lease 

areas/WEAs are not yet under site control but their boundaries have been defined by BOEM and 

unleased areas inside existing WEAs. As such, counting capacity potential using 3 MW/km2

could overestimate the U.S. offshore wind pipeline’s potential installed capacity in the planning 

phases because full WEA development density may be lower based on the total lease area 

boundaries. Capacity density limitations may include required restrictions and easements to 

protect environmental resources, cultural resources, and other uses of the lease area; unsuitable 

seabed conditions; array loss trade-offs and setbacks; or limits imposed by the offtake agreement 

or investors.

Figure 5 breaks down the U.S. offshore wind project pipeline by status and state. Definitions for 

each project status category are identical to those used in Table 1 in Section 1.1.2 Classification 

of Project Status.
20 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 5. U.S. Offshore Wind Project Pipeline by Project Status as of June 2017

Source: NREL

One notable change to the U.S. pipeline this year is the absence of Oregon, with the removal of 

the 25-MW WindFloat Pacific (Principle Power) from the pipeline as a result of the company’s 

decision to put the project on hold and BOEM’s decision to suspend processing of the project’s 

lease request (BOEM 2017a). WindFloat Pacific was originally intended to be a demonstration 

project 24 km west of Coos Bay, Oregon, and consisted of up to five turbines mounted on 

floating platforms. Principle Power received a Notice of Determination of No Competitive 

Interest and exclusive rights to the site from BOEM in 2014 and progressed to the second round 

of DOE’s ATD projects program. However, legislation that would allow regional utilities to pass 

the above-market costs of a demonstration PPA on to rate payers was not enacted in the time

frame required by DOE’s program (Banister 2017). Because obtaining a viable PPA was a 

milestone of the program, the project did not advance to the next state of DOE funding. Principle 

Power has since indicated that it has no plans to proceed with the project as originally proposed.

Figure 6 illustrates the amount of potential pipeline capacity located in each state, arranged from 

largest to smallest. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show that most of the current offshore wind projects in 

the U.S. pipeline are concentrated in the North Atlantic region, although resource assessments 

indicate that there are viable offshore wind resources in other parts of the United States, such as 

in the South Atlantic, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific regions (Schwartz et al. 2010;

Musial et al. 2016a; Beiter et al. 2017).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

U.S. Offshore Wind Project Pipeline (MW)

Massachusetts

New Jersey

North Carolina

Virginia

Hawaii

Rhode Island

New York

California

Maryland

Delaware

Ohio

Maine

30 MW 0 MW 0 MW 492 MW

1,005 MW

13,258 MW

9,350 MW 24,135 MW
21 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 6. U.S project pipeline by state as of June 2017

Source: NREL

However, offshore wind does have several advantages in the North Atlantic including:

• Metocean and bottom conditions that resemble many North Sea sites, allowing 

developers to tap into global industry experience

• High population densities on land that limit other options for large-scale renewables

• High-priced electricity markets caused by limited natural gas pipeline infrastructure and 

constrained transmission delivery makes offshore wind a competitive generation option 

• State governments wishing to diversify their energy supply, stimulate economic growth, 

and gain some measure of energy independence have created offshore wind procurement 

requirements, codified long-term offtake pathways, supply-chain requirements, and R&D 

programs. The North Atlantic is the only offshore wind marketplace in the United States

with procurement and offtake policies.
22 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 6 also shows that the states with the largest estimated project development pipelines are 

not necessarily the ones with the most advanced projects. It is expected that projects’ energy 

capacities will decrease as they move through more advanced development phases because of 

environmental sensitivities, techno-economic considerations, seafloor conditions, and land-use 

exclusions. For example, a lease area may have the potential to support 1,000 MW but after a 

developer has conducted detailed site assessments, they determine that it is only possible to 

install 800 MW.

Figure 7 shows a map of the 28 offshore wind projects that make up the U.S. offshore wind 

pipeline. Locations in Figure 7 are also numbered so that each one corresponds with a more 

detailed project description listed in Table 3. Note that there are 28 projects listed in Table 3 but 

only 25 projects are labeled in Figure 7. This is because three projects in Figure 7 comprise two 

separate lease areas including Unleased Massachusetts WEA areas (5), Deepwater One leases 

(7), and US Wind leases (15) in the Maryland WEA.

Figure 7. Map of U.S. offshore wind projects

Source: NREL
23 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 3. U.S. Offshore Wind Activities by Region

# Project Owner

(Project Name) State Current Status Lease Area

Project

Pipeline 

(MW)

DeveloperAnnounced 

Capacity

(MW)

Potential 

Generating 

Capacity

(MW)

Area 

(km2) Winning Bid Lease Issued

Water

Depth 

(m)

Average

Wind 

Speed (meters per 

second [m/s])

North Atlantic

1 Aqua Ventus I ME

Permitting/Offtake 

Secured ME State Lease 12 12 27 9 N/A 6/4/2009 61−110 8.75

2 Cape Wind Associates

(Cape Wind) MA Developer Suspended Lease OCS-A 0478 468 468 357 119 N/A 10/6/2010 1−18 8.7

3 Vineyard Wind MA Site Control OCS-A 0501 1,600 1,600 2,025 675 $150,197 4/1/2015 36−58 9.3

4

DONG Energy & 

Eversource

(Bay State Wind)

MA Site Control OCS-A 0500 2,000 2,000 2,277 759 $281,285 4/1/2015 39−50 9.3

5a Unleased Area MA

Planning/

Applications 

Received

OCS-A 0502 3,012 N/A 3,012 1,004 N/A N/A 34−62 9.4

5b Unleased Area MA

Planning/

Applications 

Received

OCS-A 0503 1,707 N/A 1,707 569 N/A N/A 34−62 9.2

6 Deepwater Wind

(Block Island Wind Farm) RI Operating RI State Lease 30 30 6 2 N/A 4/2/2010 23−28 9.7

7a Deepwater Wind

(Deepwater One North) RI Site Control OCS-A 0486 500 500 1,185 395 $3,089,461 10/1/2013 30−46 9.1

7b Deepwater Wind

(Deepwater One South) RI Site Control OCS-A 0487 500 500 816 272 N/A 10/1/2013 30−46 9.2

8 Deepwater Wind

(South Fork) RI Permitting/Offtake Secured N/A 90 90 - - N/A 1/25/2017 31−36 9.2

9 Statoil Wind NY Site Control OCS-A 0512 1,000 1,000 963 321 $42,469,725 4/1/2017 20−40 9.3

10 PNE Wind USA

(Excelsior Wind Park) NY Planning Unsolicited Application 400 400 498 166 N/A N/A 20−40 9.2

11 US Wind NJ Site Control OCS-A 0499 2,226 N/A 2,226 742 $1,006,240 3/1/2016 17−34 8.6

12 DONG Energy NJ Site Control OCS-A 0498 1,947 N/A 1,947 649 $880,715 3/1/2016 17−34 8.4

13 Fishermen’s Energy

(Atlantic City Windfarm) NJ Approved NJ State Lease 24 24 6 2 N/A 6/5/2011 8−12 8.3

14 Deepwater Wind

(Skipjack) DE Permitting/Offtake Secured OCS-A 0482 120 120 1,170 390 $24,108 12/1/2012 9−33 8.3

15a US Wind MD Permitting/Offtake 

Secured OCS-A 0489

750 750

396 132 $3,841,538 12/1/2014 16−29 8.2

15b US Wind MD Permitting/Offtake 

Secured OCS-A 0490 570 190 $4,859,560 12/1/2014 14−37 8.3

North Atlantic Subtotal 16,386 7,494 19,458 6,396 $56,602,829

South Atlantic

16 Dominion and DONG 

Energy VA Site Control OCS-A 0497 12 12 27 9 N/A 11/1/2015 20−26 8.3

17 Dominion VA Site Control OCS-A 0483 2,000 2,000 1,371 457 $1,600,000 11/1/2013 18−33 8.5

18 Avangrid Renewables NC Site Control OCS-A 0508 1485 N/A 1,485 495 $9,066,550 3/17/2017 31−43 8.5

19 WEA Wilmington West NC Planning 1623 N/A 1,623 541 N/A N/A 14−20 8.3

20 WEA Wilmington East NC Planning 627 N/A 627 209 N/A N/A 15−29 8.4

South Atlantic Subtotal 5,747 2,012 5,133 1,711 $10,666,650

Pacific

21 Trident Winds

(Morro Bay) CA Planning Unsolicited Application 765 765 825 275 N/A N/A 461−996 7.81

22 AW Hawaii Wind

(Oahu Northwest) HI Planning Unsolicited Application 408 408 138 46 N/A N/A 700−1,000 8.3

23 AW Hawaii Wind

(Oahu South) HI Planning Unsolicited Application 408 408 138 49 N/A N/A 500−700 8.4

24 Progression Hawaii HI Planning Unsolicited 

Application 400 400 138 46 N/A N/A 350−550 8.4

Pacific Subtotal 1,981 1,981 1,239 416

Great 

Lakes

25 Fred Olsen/LeedCo

(Ice Breaker) OH Permitting/Offtake Secured OH State Lease 21 21 30 10 N/A N/A 16−19 8.1

Great Lakes Subtotal 21 21 30 10

United States Total 24,135 11,508 25,590 8,533 $67,269,479
24 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

3.3 U.S. Offshore Wind Lease Area Assessment

In the United States, leases for potential offshore wind projects located 0–5.6 km (0–3 nautical 

miles) offshore are issued by state regulators and leases for potential projects located 5.6 km–

370.4 km (3–200 nautical miles) offshore are issued by BOEM.

27 The development and 

execution of leasing processes allow private commercial developers to obtain site control of 

ocean areas and give developers the right to construct and operate offshore wind facilities. Site 

control is an important milestone in a project’s development process because exclusive control 

allows developers to begin the site investigations necessary to design the project and obtain 

critical environmental information about the area. As of June 2017, developers have gained site 

control over 18 sites in the United States, marking a key milestone in the development of the 

U.S. offshore wind pipeline and offshore wind industry’s effort to become commercially viable.

Currently, four projects in the pipeline are located in state waters and have been granted site 

control by the appropriate state agency, including the 30-MW BIWF in Rhode Island (operating), 

the 24-MW Fishermen’s Atlantic City Windfarm in New Jersey, the 21-MW Fred 

Olsen/LEEDCo Icebreaker project in Lake Erie, and the 12-MW Aqua Ventus I project in 

Maine. These projects are included in Figure 7 and Table 3, and described in more detail in 

Section 3.6.

To date, BOEM has issued three leases on a noncompetitive basis28 and conducted seven 

competitive auctions for 13 lease areas inside WEAs along the Atlantic Coast. In total, these 

lease areas and wind sites permitted in state waters could support a potential capacity of 17,592

MW.29 As described earlier, BOEM has competitively auctioned six additional Atlantic WEAs 

off the Atlantic Coast since the beginning of 2015. In January 2015, OffshoreMW (now 

Vineyard Wind, a partnership between Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners & Avangrid 

Renewables) and RES America (now Bay State Wind, a partnership between DONG Energy and

Eversource) each won a lease area inside the Massachusetts WEA. In November 2015, DONG

Energy and US Wind each won lease areas inside the New Jersey WEA. Statoil won New York’s 

first competitive auction in December 2016. In total, BOEM has raised $67,269,479 in revenue 

from the 13 offshore wind lease areas it has competitively auctioned. BOEM has also indicated 

that it plans to initiate competitive leasing processes for the two unleased areas inside the 

Massachusetts WEA (OCS-A 0502 and OCS-A 0503) and the Wilmington West and Wilmington 

East WEAs in North Carolina. In aggregate, these four lease areas have the potential to support 

6,969 MW of new offshore wind capacity.

 27 There are several exceptions to this including Texas state waters and the west coast of Florida, which define state 

waters at 9 nautical miles. Also, BOEM has no jurisdiction in the Great Lakes. For more details, see Musial et al. 

(2016a).

28 Federal leases issued to Cape Wind Associates in Massachusetts, Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC (ultimately 

transferred to Deepwater Wind) in Delaware, and the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 

(subsequently awarded to Dominion Power) were awarded without an auction because BOEM leasing processes 

identified that no other competitive interest existed for any of the locations.

29 Capacity estimates for BOEM wind energy areas are based on a capacity density of 3 MW/km2

, which 

corresponds to turbine spacing between 9 and 10 rotor diameters if the entire area was developed with uniform array 

spacing. Wind developers may elect to use wider spacing. However, actual array spacing in Europe is less than 8 

rotor diameters (Musial et al. 2013a; Musial et al. 2013b).
25 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Offshore wind developers have also submitted seven unsolicited applications to develop projects 

in federal waters. PNE Wind USA and Statoil Wind US both submitted applications to develop 

the unleased areas inside the Massachusetts WEA. PNE Winds USA also submitted an 

application for a 400-MW project off the coast of Long Island. Trident Winds submitted an 

application to develop a 765-MW project in Morro Bay, California. Alpha Wind submitted two 

applications to develop projects on the northern and southern coast of Oahu, Hawaii. Progression 

Hawaii also submitted an application to develop a project off southern Hawaii.

Increased developer interest in similar geographic locations prompted BOEM to issue Requests 

for Interest and create six Call Areas

30 to determine which specific locations could support 

commercial offshore wind projects and should be competitively auctioned in the future. Two 

Call Areas are located off Oahu, Hawaii, and four other Call Areas are located off South 

Carolina. Figure 8a, 8b, and 8c show maps of all of BOEM’s current offshore wind lease and 

Call Areas in the United States, including the northeast Atlantic (Figure 8a), the southeast 

Atlantic (Figure 8b), and the Pacific (Figure 8c).

 30 Please note that Call Areas only represent areas that may be suitable for commercial offshore wind development. 

If BOEM deems an area inside a Call Area commercially viable and free from environmental or use conflicts, it may 

use areas inside a Call Area to create a wind energy area that can later be leased to developers.
26 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 8a. BOEM map of U.S. offshore wind lease sites in the North Atlantic

Source: BOEM
27 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 8b. BOEM map of U.S. offshore wind lease sites in the South Atlantic

Source: BOEM
28 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 8c. BOEM map of U.S. offshore wind lease sites on the Pacific Coast

Source: BOEM
29 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

3.4 U.S. Offshore Wind Procurement and Offtake Policy Assessment

Commercial interest in offshore wind leases and the size of the U.S. offshore wind pipeline is 

still primarily driven by state-level policies that support accelerated project development. Since 

the last report, Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland have introduced new policies to procure 

offshore wind capacity and create pathways for offshore wind developers to sell their electricity 

to utilities and other customers.

• Massachusetts. H.4568 establishes that state electricity providers should procure 1,600 MW 

of offshore wind capacity by 2027, and competitively solicit long-term offshore wind offtake 

agreements at least every 24 months (starting in June 2017).

• New York. Governor Andrew Cuomo committed the state to procure 2,400 MW of offshore 

wind capacity by 2030.

• Maryland. The state’s Public Service Commission awarded two offshore wind projects the 

right to receive ORECs that help minimize the premium cost of offshore projects and provide 

future certainty for developers and utilities about costs and revenues.

Table 4. U.S. Projects with Offtake Agreements or Codified Offtake Pathways

Developer/Project 

Name

Project 

Location

Offtake Agreement 

Type

Details

Deepwater Wind 

Block Island Wind Farm

RI Power Purchase 

Agreement

Twenty-year agreement with National Grid for 30 MW of 

capacity. The price of electricity increases by 3.5% annually, 

starting at $244/MWh in the first year and ending at 

$479/MWh in year 20. 

Aqua Ventus I ME Power Purchase 

Agreement

Twenty-year agreement with Central Maine Power for 12 MW 

of capacity at $230/MWh. May seek an additional agreement 

with Monhegan Plantation Power District. 

Fred Olsen/LEEDCo

Icebreaker

OH Power Purchase 

Agreement

Signed a memorandum of understanding to provide Cleveland 

Public Power with 25% of its generation at an undisclosed 

price. American Municipal Power has agreed to purchase 30% 

of the project’s generations. Cuyahoga County signed a 10-

year PPA to buy 8.6% of the project’s output. 

Deepwater Wind

South Fork

NY Power Purchase 

Agreement

Twenty-year “pay-for-performance” agreement with the Long 

Island Public Power Authority (LIPA) for 90 MW of capacity at 

a yet-to-be-determined price. Harrington (2017) reports that 

Deepwater’s PPA with LIPA is estimated to be around 

$160/MWh. 

US Wind MD Offshore Renewable 

Energy Credit

Awarded 20 years’ worth of ORECs for 248 MW of capacity. 

Each year 913,845 ORECs will be sold, with each credit valued 

at $131.93.MWh.

Deepwater Wind

Skipjack

DE Offshore Renewable 

Energy Credit

Awarded 20 years’ worth of ORECs for 120 MW of capacity. 

Each year, 455,482 ORECs will be sold, with each credit valued 

at $131.93.MWh.

Massachusetts Clean 

Energy Center/

Massachusetts 

Department of Energy 

Resources

MA or RI Power Purchase 

Agreement

Massachusetts is seeking to procure 1,600 MW of offshore 

wind energy generation by 2027. The first request for 

proposals was issued on June 29, 2017, and seeks 400−800

MW of offshore wind energy generation that would be 

considered for a 15−20-year long-term contract. Deepwater 

Wind, Bay State Wind, and Vineyard Wind all plan to 

participate in the request for proposals.
30 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

The availability of state-level procurement and offtake policies can potentially have a dramatic 

impact on the way developers view the attractiveness of certain U.S. offshore wind markets. 

Figure 9 shows a timeline with the winning bids for each of BOEM’s auctions measured as 

dollars per square kilometers ($/km2).31 The data show a wide variation in final lease sale prices

that may be potentially correlated with major industry events, especially the implementation of 

state-level offshore wind policies. The timeline begins in 2010, approximately when the 30 CFR 

585 rule was finalized by BOEM (formally Minerals Management Service) (Federal Register 

2009).

Figure 9. U.S. offshore wind lease prices ($/km2) 

Source: NREL

 31 Note that 1 km2 = 247.1 acres

Massachusetts

Cape Wind

$62

Delaware 

Deepwater Wind

$4,570

RI/MA

Deepwater Wind $3,501

Virginia

Dominion

$28,884

Maryland 

US Wind

$25,577

Maryland 

US Wind

$480

Massachusetts 

Vineyard Wind $1,356

New Jersey

DONG

$700

Massachusetts

Bay State 

Wind

$1,357

New Jersey 

US Wind

$132,304

New York 

Statoil

$18,316

North Carolina

Avangrid

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

201020112012201320142015201620172018

Winning Auction Bid ($/km2)

Auction Year

Available state-level offtake pathway at the time of auction

No available state-level offtake pathway at the time of auction

1 km2 = 247.1 acres
31 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

The first lease issued by BOEM was the Cape Wind project, but it did not strictly follow the 30 

CFR 585 rule because the project began almost a decade before the rule was written (see 

Appendix C). Smart from the Start was initiated by DOI in late 2010 and began the formal 

process used today for competitive leasing of WEAs (DOI 2010). However, it took over 2 and a 

half years before BOEM conducted the first competitive lease auction for the RI/MA Area of 

Mutual Interest, which was won by Deepwater Wind in July 2013 for $4,570/km2 (BOEM 

2013a). Shortly after the RI/MA sale, in September 2013, the Virginia WEA was leased by 

BOEM as a single parcel to Dominion Power (BOEM 2013b) for $3,501/km2

. Dominion’s 

commercial interest in offshore wind was largely spawned from their involvement in the DOE 

ATD projects that began in 2012. Although Dominion’s project is no longer part of the DOE 

ATD program, the company is moving forward with construction plans.32 Both the Virginia and 

RI/MA wind energy area auctions set the initial going price for a U.S. lease area with no 

associated offtake attributes at a level between $3,000 and $5,000 per km2

.

The next WEA auction did not occur until mid-2014 when the two Maryland lease areas were

auctioned for a price almost seven times higher than the Virginia and Rhode Island price. This 

price difference can be explained almost entirely by the associated Maryland Offshore Wind 

Energy Act of 2013, which provides a direct pathway to an offtake through 2.5% RPS carve out 

and the availability of ORECs (House Bill 226 2013). The relatively large final lease sale prices 

($28,800/ km2 and $25,500/ km2) may have surprised many industry bidders and revealed that 

having an offtake mechanism pathway can increase the perceived value of a lease area.

In contrast, the next competitive WEA lease sale was held January 29, 2015, when four lease 

areas that comprise the Massachusetts WEA, with no obvious offtake pathway at the time, went 

up for auction. Two weeks earlier, Cape Wind announced that their PPA was in default, which 

added to the uncertainty of the offshore wind market at the time of the auction. These 

circumstances likely decreased the attractiveness of acquiring new offshore wind leases, and as a 

result, developers only bid on two of the sites listed in the January auction. The final sale went to 

OffshoreMW and RES America Developments Inc. for $480/km2 and $700/ km2, respectively.

33

These low prices, which were roughly 2% of the price paid by US Wind in the Maryland sale,

were indicative of a sharp decline in market confidence (Cardwell 2015).

Just 2 months later, Deepwater Wind announced that they had closed financing on the BIWF 

project, increasingly the likelihood that offshore wind in the United States could be a viable 

investment under the right conditions. However, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ (BPU) 

repeated rejections of Fishermen’s Energy’s applications to receive the New Jersey’s ORECs

34

added more market uncertainty (New Jersey 2010; New Jersey BPU 2014). When the New 

Jersey WEA was auctioned in November 9, 2015, developers submitted winning bids that were 

sharply lower than the Maryland auction bids, in which OREC offtake mechanisms were likely 

 32 On July 10, 2017, Dominion formed a strategic partnership with DONG Energy to construct a 12-MW 

demonstration project (formerly known as the Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project) off 

Virginia, the project could potentially be operational as early as 2020 (Stromsta 2017b).

33 Note that RES later partnered with DONG Energy, which now controls the lease, and OffshoreMW later changed 

its name to Vineyard Power and sold 50% of the lease rights to Avangrid. 34 Offshore renewable energy credits are state-level incentives used to support the development of offshore wind.
32 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

believed to be more accessible. The two New Jersey WEAs were sold to DONG Energy and US 

Wind for $1,356/km2 and $1,357/ km2

, respectively; about 20 times lower than Maryland.

In 2016, the U.S. offshore wind industry market outlook gained positive momentum. BIWF 

began turbine installations, European strike prices were at record lows (surpassing expectations), 

and state policies for aggressive offshore wind incentives were passed in both Massachusetts and 

New York. On December 15, 2016, BOEM held a competitive lease sale for the New York WEA 

that resulted in a record sale price of $42.5 million ($132,304/km2) by Statoil Wind US. This 

price per square km was almost 100 times higher than the New Jersey lease sale price just 1 year 

earlier. This extremely high lease price can be attributed, in part, to the expectation that existing 

New York state policies would eventually lead to a PPA at an economical market price; although 

no such codified offtake policy yet exists.

Most recently, on March 15, 2017, BOEM held a competitive lease sale in North Carolina for a 

single lease area near Kitty Hawk. With no formal offtake mechanism in place, offshore wind 

procurement requirement, or large state RPS, Avangrid submitted a winning bid of $9,066,550 

($18,316/km2

). Some organizations have concluded that although companies like Avangrid are 

eager to develop offshore wind in the South Atlantic region, these lease purchases are long-term 

investments that will not be developed until some combination of favorable state policies are 

adopted, technology costs drop, or the wholesale cost of electricity increases (Ouzts 2017).

3.5 DOE’s Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects Program

A National Offshore Wind Strategy identified the need to create offshore wind demonstration 

projects to accelerate innovative R&D to reduce costs and timelines associated with offshore 

wind energy projects (DOE 2011). In 2012, DOE launched the U.S. Offshore Wind Advanced 

Technology Demonstration Projects Funding Opportunity (DE-FOA-0000410) to catalyze 

regionally diverse public-private partnerships that can rapidly and responsibly deploy 

demonstration projects in U.S. waters. The ATD program’s goal is to test and validate innovative 

technology, installation methods, O&M strategies, and regional offshore wind infrastructure that 

can ultimately lower the technology’s LCOE. The ATD projects also allow state and federal 

agencies to test their environmental assessment, siting, and leasing processes and make 

improvements to increase efficiency, ensure public transparency, and reduce uncertainty for 

investors.

During the first phase of the funding, seven participants were selected and each received $4 

million to complete preliminary engineering, design, site evaluation, and planning for their 

proposed offshore demonstration projects. In 2014, Principle Power’s WindFloat Pacific, 

Fishermen’s Energy’s Atlantic City Windfarm, and Dominion’s VOWTAP advanced to the next 

round of funding and received an additional $6.7 million to complete their final engineering 

design, permitting, installation plan, and O&M strategy, and secure power off-take agreements. 

Additionally, University of Maine’s New England Aqua Ventus I and LEEDCo’s Icebreaker 

were selected as alternates and received $3 million. DOE evaluated each project’s progress in 

May 2016 to determine if they should receive additional funding and whether the alternate 

proposal should be added to the main ATD program. Based on their merit, DOE concluded that 

LEEDCo’s Icebreaker and University of Maine’s Aqua Ventus project should be considered for 

the next round of funding and on boarded the two projects in 2016. Each project is eligible to 

receive an additional $40 million if they are able to meet DOE’s budget period criteria. Figure 10 
33 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

provides representations of the substructure types being used by the ATD respective developers. 

The photo on the left shows the 1/8-scale concrete semisubmersible substructure deployed in 

Penobscot Bay, Maine in 2012. The illustration on the right of Figure 10 (Funk 2015) shows the 

monobucket concept that Fred Olsen/LEEDCo intend to deploy in Lake Erie.

Figure 10. Representative substructures proposed in DOE’s ATD program 

Sources: University of Maine (left); LEEDCo (right)

3.6 Regional Analysis of U.S. Wind Developments

This section analyzes the offshore wind market in each offshore region of the United States. 

Within each region, individual states are examined to highlight the variation in offshore wind 

market development and state-level policy implementation. Each subsection assesses the 

location’s offshore wind characteristics using technical potential35 data published in Musial et al. 

(2016a) and economic potential36 estimated in Beiter et al. (2017), state-level policies impacting 

the offshore wind market, and recent offshore wind project developments. Additional 

information regarding offshore wind policies and state-specific developments can be found in 

Appendix A.

 35 Net technical offshore wind energy potential refers to the total amount of electricity that can be generated from 

offshore turbines given technical and siting limitations. Estimates assume a hub height of 100 meters, a resource 

area that extends to the edge of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (370 km), includes a maximum water 

depth of 1,000 meters, excludes areas with wind speeds lower than 7 meters per second, and includes an installed 

capacity density of 3 MW/km2

. 36 Economic potential refers to the amount of offshore wind resource potential that can be developed in the near term 

to generate electricity at a cost below the technology’s minimum revenue requirements. Economic potential 

estimates are highly uncertain because they depend on economic assumptions and market factors that are constantly 

changing. Locations listed with zero economic potential in this report may still be economically viable in the future 

or when using different economic assumptions.
34 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

3.6.1 North Atlantic

Maine

Maine does not currently have any operational full-scale offshore wind projects; however, the 

state has significant market potential (Table 5), especially in deeper water depths that could be 

exploited using floating offshore wind technologies.

Table 5. Maine’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 17,990 km2

Federal Waters 108,304 km2

Total 126,294 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 23,902 Gigawatt-hours 

(GWh)/year

9,355 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 20,120 GWh/year 14,772 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 367,162 GWh/year 44,659 MW

Total 411,184 GWh/year 94,498 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 65,000 MW

Knowing that widespread offshore wind deployment requires floating platforms, the state 

legislature created an offshore wind test site in 2009 to obtain real-world data and deploy pilot 

projects to validate floating platform designs. The test site is located roughly 5 km south of 

Monhegan Island and can be used to deploy up to two offshore wind turbines, six meteorological 

towers, an ocean sensor package, and two wave energy converters on a submerged utility line 

with a maximum capacity of 25 MW (Public Law Chapter 270 2009). The Maine state 

legislature also passed Maine Public Law 615 requiring the state Public Utility Commission to 

solicit a long-term PPA for a potential offshore wind energy pilot project37 and the state to 

procure at least 5,000 MW of offshore wind capacity by 2030. This procurement requirement

complemented Maine’s RPS to generate at least 40% of their electricity from renewable sources 

by 2017. Currently, offshore wind activity in Maine is limited to the proposed New England 

Aqua Ventus I demonstration project38 that is participating in DOE’s ATD program and an 

unsolicited lease application submitted by Statoil Wind in 2011, which is currently inactive.

New Hampshire

Despite having offshore wind resources that could be economically exploited by 2027 (Table 6) 

and a RPS that requires 24.8% of electricity sold in the state to come from renewable energy 

sources by 2025 (House Bill 1312 2014), developers have not shown any interest in deploying 

projects offshore New Hampshire. Because of the lack of commercial interest, BOEM is 

currently not conducting any offshore wind leasing activities in the state.

 37 Maine’s Public Utility Commission approved a 20-year power purchase agreement for the New England Aqua 

Ventus I demonstration project with Central Maine Power in 2013. 38 Aqua Ventus I is a proposed 12-MW offshore wind pilot project located 21 kilometers from the mainland in 61-

110 meters of water depth. The project consists of two 6-megawatt turbines mounted on VolturnUS floating 

concrete semisubmersible platforms designed by the University of Maine that will be assembled in port and towed to 

presecured mooring lines at the wind site.
35 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 6. New Hampshire’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 486 km2

Federal Waters 1,555 km2

Total 2,041 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 693 GWh/year 253 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 976 GWh/year 679 MW 

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 3,322 GWh/year 363 MW

Total 4,991 GWh/year 1,295 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 2,000 MW

Massachusetts

Massachusetts has become one of the United States’ main offshore wind markets because of its 

excellent offshore wind resource and state-level policies intended to provide long-term market 

certainty, minimize developer risk, catalyze the development of domestic offshore wind supply 

chains, and accelerate offshore wind research and development. The state was home to the first 

commercial offshore wind lease application (submitted by Cape Wind Associates in 2001) and 

may potentially draw power from five other proposed commercial projects39 (Table 9). 

Relative to all other states in the North Atlantic, Massachusetts has the largest amount of 

technical offshore wind resource (Table 7).

Table 7. Massachusetts’ Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 16,506 km2

Federal Waters 270,002 km2

Total 286,508 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 84,384 GWh/year 8,583 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 279,883 GWh/year 13,182 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 664,758 GWh/year 65,336 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 24,142 GWh/year 152,754 MW

Total 1,053,166 GWh/year 239, 855 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 55,000 MW

Massachusetts’ offshore wind market is currently being driven by: 1) an offshore wind 

procurement policy that provides transparency about the future level of offshore wind demand,

2) offtake agreement pathways that minimize developers’ uncertainty about how they can sell 

their power, 3) infrastructure investments that can catalyze the development of a domestic supply 

chain and reduce project costs, and 4) R&D policies that are helping develop next-generation 

technologies to improve efficiencies, drive down costs, and develop a well-trained offshore wind 

workforce. See Table 8 for more detail.

 39 Please refer to Figure 8a for a detailed map of offshore wind lease areas issued by BOEM.
36 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 8. Policies and Programs Impacting the Offshore Wind Market in Massachusetts

Type Name Year 

Enacted

(Revised)

Description

Offshore Wind 

Procurement

An Act to 

Promote Energy 

Diversity

(H.4568)

2016 Establishes electric distribution companies in the state to competitively 

procure 1,600 MW of offshore wind capacity by June 30, 2027, from sites 

competitively leased by BOEM and located at least 16 km offshore. Also 

establishes electric distribution companies to hold competitive solicitations 

at least every 24 months (starting June 29, 2017) to seek proposals for 

offshore wind energy generation. During each subsequent solicitation, 

electric distribution companies cannot enter into a long-term PPA if the 

offshore wind generator’s levelized energy price (including transmission 

costs) is not lower than the preceding procurement. State regulators will 

allow electric distribution companies to receive remuneration from their 

rate base up to 2.75% of the annual PPA payments. 

Supply Chain & 

Infrastructure

New Bedford 

Marine 

Commerce 

Terminal

2015 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) upgraded the New Bedford 

Marine Commerce Terminal to support the construction, assembly, and 

deployment of offshore wind projects. The site has 26 acres of storage, can 

handle specialty barges, lifts, turbine installation vessels, and mobile cranes 

rated to lift turbine components. In September 2016, DONG Energy, 

Deepwater Wind, and Offshore MW (now Vineyard Wind) signed letters of 

intent to lease space at the site. 

Research & 

Development

Wind Test 

Center

2011 MassCEC and DOE funded the construction of Wind Technology Testing

Center located in Boston. The facility is the largest blade test center in 

North America and enables R&D that can improve reliability and drive 

down costs for both land-based and offshore applications.

Offshore Wind 

Research

2016 Governor Charlie Baker announced that $700,000 will be awarded to 

Massachusetts’ academic and research institutions via MassCEC’s 

Renewable Energy Trust to support research projects that “identify 

industry workforce and training and safety requirements; establish a multiuniversity partnership focused on innovation and driving down costs; and 

develop a new technique to evaluate the structural integrity of wind 

blades.” (Massachusetts Clean Energy Center 2016) 
37 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 9. Proposed Commercial Offshore Wind Projects in Massachusetts

Developer

(Project Name)

Description

DONG Energy and 

Eversource

(Bay State Wind)

The 759-km2 project is located 24–40 km south of Martha’s Vineyard and was acquired by DONG

Energy in May 2015 from RES America Developments Inc., who won the original BOEM auction in 

January 2015 for $281,285 (BOEM 2015b). In December 2016, DONG Energy entered into a 50/50 

partnership with Eversource Energy (DONG Energy 2016). Bay State Wind submitted their Site 

Assessment Plan for review on May 1, 2017, and BOEM approved the plan on June 29, 2017, giving 

Bay State Wind the ability to conduct on-site testing (BOEM 2017b). The developers also continue to 

complete presite feasibility studies and engage in stakeholder outreach (Del Franco 2016).

Copenhagen 

Infrastructure Partners 

& Avangrid Renewables

(Vineyard Wind)

In January 2015, Offshore MW LLC signed a community benefits agreement with Vineyard Power Coop 

(a local sustainable energy nonprofit organization) and formed Vineyard Wind LLC to develop an 

offshore wind project in the Massachusetts WEA. Offshore MW LLC (now Vineyard Wind) acquired 

lease area OCS-A 0501 in a competitive auction held by BOEM in 2015 for $150,197. The 675-km2

project is located 23 km south of Martha’s Vineyard (BOEM 2015). In August 2016, Copenhagen 

Infrastructure Partners acquired 100% control of Vineyard Wind LLC (Weston 2017b). In May 2017, 

Avangrid acquired a 50% ownership interest in Vineyard Wind LLC (Reuters Staff 2017). The Vineyard 

Wind project opened office space in New Bedford, Massachusetts, in June 2017 and plans to 

participate in Massachusetts’ first competitive long-term offshore wind offtake contract solicitation

(Barnes 2017). 

Deepwater Wind

(Deepwater ONE)

The 667-km2 project is located roughly 45 km east of Montauk, New York, 23 km southeast of Block 

Island, Rhode Island, and 28 km southwest of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. In 2013, Deepwater 

Wind submitted winning bids for both of the Rhode Island/Massachusetts WEAs (OCS-A 0486 and 

OCS-A 0487) for a combined total of $3,838,288. The project’s proximity to multiple offshore wind 

markets (Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and so on) gives Deepwater Wind the 

ability to potentially sell the project’s electricity to a variety of electricity providers in different states.

Cape Wind Associates

(Cape Wind)

The 468-MW, 119-km2, Cape Wind project initially applied for a lease in 2001, and was ultimately 

granted a commercial lease by BOEM in 2010. Cape Wind has had difficulty securing a long-term PPA 

partner, and in 2015 asked BOEM for a 2-year lease suspension, which was granted (DOI 2015). In May 

2017, BOEM, in accordance with a previous court ruling, issued an updated Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for public comment (BOEM 2017c). The project continues to look for 

a long-term offtake agreement.

Statoil Wind US LLC

(inactive)

Statoil Wind submitted unsolicited applications to BOEM for the unleased areas in the Massachusetts

WEA on December 16, 2016: OCS-A 0502 (1,004 km2) and OCS-A 0503 (569 km2). In its application, 

Statoil indicated that it proposes to install between 400 and 600 MW of offshore wind capacity on the 

site (Statoil 2016). Because other parties have indicated that they have commercial interest in the site, 

BOEM plans to initiate a competitive leasing process as per federal regulations (BOEM 2017d).

PNE Wind USA

(inactive)

PNE Wind also submitted unsolicited applications to BOEM for the unleased areas in the 

Massachusetts WEA on December 16, 2016: OCS-A 0502 (1,004 km2) and OCS-A 0503 (569 km2). PNE 

proposes to deploy 400 MW of capacity in the area (PNE Wind 2016). BOEM plans to initiate a 

competitive leasing process for these sites because other parties have also demonstrated commercial 

interest.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island possesses the potential to develop a significant offshore wind market because of its

offshore wind characteristics (Table 10), Renewable Energy Standard requiring electricity 
38 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

providers to supply 38.5% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2035,

40 support from 

the state government, and experience gained from the installation of the BIWF.

Table 10. Rhode Island’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 2,597 km2

Federal Waters 17,053 km2

Total 19,650 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 6,107 GWh/year 1,350 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 21,081 GWh/year 2,840 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 31,359 GWh/year 6,608 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 1,636 GWh/year 3,780 MW

Total 60,363 GWh/year 14,578 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 16,000 MW

Deepwater Wind’s 30-MW BIWF began generating electricity in December 2016, becoming the 

first operational wind farm in the United States. It took 18 months, 300 workers, and 41 different 

vessels to install five 6-MW GE Haliade turbines on steel jackets designed by Keystone 

Engineering and manufactured by Gulf Island Fabrication in Louisiana (see Figure 11).

Figure 11. Block Island Wind Farm (commissioned in December 2016): the first commercial 

offshore wind farm in the United States

Source: Dennis Schroeder, NREL 40448

 40 Please refer to Rhode Island (2016) for more information on the state’s Renewable Energy Standard.
39 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Rhode Island was the first state to work with BOEM to facilitate auctions for offshore wind 

leases. In 2013, Deepwater Wind acquired both lease areas inside the RI/MA WEA41 (667 km2 in 

total), with a winning bid price of $3,838,288. The two lease areas, now known as Deepwater 

ONE, could potentially support over 2,000 MW of offshore wind capacity, assuming 3 MW/km2

array densities (Musial et al. 2013c). To date, Deepwater Wind has indicated that the Deepwater 

ONE project may support over 1,000 MW of capacity. In 2016, Deepwater Wind submitted its 

Site Assessment Plan to BOEM for the northern lease area in Deepwater ONE. Pending BOEM’s 

approval, the developer can start conducting site testing for up to 5 years and begin drafting its 

Construction and Operations Plan, which is due in 2020 (BOEM 2017e). Deepwater Wind 

started its 5-year site assessment term for the southern lease site in July 2014 and has indicated 

that it will not install a met tower or buoy. A Construction and Operations Plan is due for the 

southern lease area by January 2019 (BOEM 2017e).

Deepwater Wind plans to construct a 15-turbine project known as South Fork in the northern 

Deepwater ONE lease area to supply 90 MW of power to LIPA via the town of East Hampton 

(Deepwater Wind 2015b). Because of its proximity to shorelines in multiple states, projects in 

the Deepwater ONE lease areas have the potential to sell power to markets in multiple states. 

The South Fork project also plans to integrate two GE lithium-ion battery storage systems at 

Montauk and Wainscott (Deepwater Wind 2015b). On January 25, 2017, New York’s Governor 

Andrew Cuomo announced that LIPA agreed to a 20-year PPA with Deepwater Wind for the 

South Fork Project (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority [NYSERDA]

2017). Depending on permitting, the project could start construction as early as 2019 and 

commence operations in 2022.

New York

The interest in the offshore wind market in New York has been driven by the state’s offshore 

wind resource (Table 11), increased RPS requirements, ambitious procurement goals laid out by 

the governor, and long-term interest from local utilities.

Table 11. New York’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 19,468 km2

Federal Waters 78,805 km2

Total 98,273 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 6,107 GWh/year 10,123 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 21,081 GWh/year 9,164 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 31,359 GWh/year 28,776 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 10,553 GWh/year 25,391 MW

Total 60,363 GWh/year 73,454 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 1,000 MW

 41 The Rhode Island/Massachusetts WEA was jointly developed by the two states and BOEM because of 

overlapping stakeholders and the site’s proximity to multiple jurisdictions and energy markets. 
40 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

In August 2016, New York replaced its existing RPS with a new Clean Energy Standard that 

requires load-serving entities to supply at least 50% of their electricity from zero-emission 

energy sources (renewable or nuclear) by 2030.

New York utilities’ became interested in offshore wind in 2009 when Consolidated Edison and 

LIPA commissioned an Offshore Wind Power Integration Project Feasibility Assessment that 

evaluated transmission requirements for approximately 350 to 700 MW of offshore wind 

capacity (Consolidated Edison and LIPA 2009). Long Island and New York City then issued a 

Request for Information to support a possible request for proposals for an offshore wind project 

south of Long Island off the Rockaway Peninsula (Offshore Wind Collaborative). In response to 

commercial offshore interest, NYSERDA began a series of site, meteorological, geophysical, 

and environmental studies to streamline the potential development of offshore wind projects. In 

2011, BOEM received an unsolicited application from the New York Power Authority, LIPA, 

and Consolidated Edison for a commercial lease to house an up-to-700-MW project. Having 

received other commercial inquires, BOEM initiated a competitive leasing process for New York 

in 2013, with a plan to lease a site in 2016 (BOEM 2016).
41 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 12. Map of New York wind energy area and unsolicited lease request

Source: BOEM

On December 16, 2016, after 33 rounds of bidding with five other participants, Statoil Wind US 

LLC won the rights to the New York WEA (OCS-A 0512) (Figure 12). Statoil won the 321-km2 

site with a $42,469,725 bid, the largest received in any U.S. auction to date. The final rounds of 

bidding were a competition between Statoil and NYSERDA. NYSERDA had a strategy to gain 

site control of the New York WEA, derisk the project with an offtake agreement, and then select 

a developer under a state-run competition to build and operate the facility. Statoil plans to work 

closely with NYSERDA during the development of the estimated 400- to 600-MW project.

PNE Wind USA Inc. submitted an unsolicited application to BOEM on December 30, 2016, for 

166 km2 southeast of Roland Road Substation to build a 300- to 400-MW facility called 

Excelsior Wind Park by 2027 (PNE Wind 2016).
42 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Building on the Clean Energy Standard announcement, Governor Andrew Cuomo made a public 

commitment that New York would adopt 2,400 MW of offshore wind capacity by 2030 and 

directed state agencies to determine a cost-effective pathway for the state to use 100% clean 

energy during his “State of the State” address on January 9, 2017 (Cuomo 2017). He also 

announced that NYSERDA would complete an Offshore Wind Master Plan by the end of 2017 

that would act as a comprehensive strategy for exploiting the state’s offshore wind resources, 

identifying optimal sites, determining leasing mechanisms, conducting environmental 

assessments, signing offtake agreements, and engaging local stakeholders. The governor also 

urged LIPA to sign a PPA for Deepwater Wind’s South Fork project (the two parties agreed to 

terms on January 25, 2017).

New Jersey

Despite developer interest, significant offshore wind resource availability (Table 12), and the 

relatively early adoption of supportive offshore wind policies, New Jersey has not been able to 

commercially develop any offshore wind sites.

Table 12. New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 7,477 km2

Federal Waters 82,668 km2

Total 90,145 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 62,564 GWh/year 3,888 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 118,033 GWh/year 6,815 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 91,587 GWh/year 33,228 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 8,010 GWh/year 27,246 MW

Total 280,193 GWh/year 71,177 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW

New Jersey’s RPS, first adopted in 1999 and later augmented, requires energy providers to 

supply 24.39% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2028 (New Jersey 2012). In August 

2010, the New Jersey legislature passed the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, 

mandating the development of 1,100 MW of offshore wind capacity that yields a net benefit to 

the state, offering up to $100,000,000 of investment tax credits, and requiring the New Jersey 

BPU to create a ratepayer-funded OREC that can accelerate project development. Although by 

law ORECs should be available to developers, the New Jersey BPU has not formally adopted 

processes to offer or award ORECs to developers.

Fishermen’s Energy worked with the state of New Jersey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

to secure an offshore lease in state waters for their proposed 24-MW Atlantic City Windfarm 

demonstration project in 2011. From 2013 until 2017, Fishermen’s Energy and the state 

legislature unsuccessfully tried to find ways to qualify the project to receive ORECs and 

establish an offtake agreement. The governor vetoed legislation for Fishermen’s ORECs twice, 

S-2711 in January 2016 and S-988 in May 2016 (Christie 2016; Johnson 2016).

In 2011, BOEM issued a Call for Information and Nominations for offshore wind projects in 

federally controlled waters off New Jersey. BOEM received 11 notifications of commercial 
43 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

interest and after determining the optimal lease sites, issued a proposed sales notification in 

2014. BOEM held competitive leases for two sites in November 2015, with US Wind winning a 

742-km2 site for $1,006,240 and RES America Development Inc. winning the other 649-km2 

site for $880,715 (the site was acquired by DONG Energy in September 2016).

Figure 13. Map of the New Jersey wind energy area

Source: BOEM

US Wind’s New Jersey lease site is located approximately 11 km off the coast of Atlantic City. If 

the entire lease area is used, the site has the potential to generate over 2,200 MW of capacity

(Musial et al. 2013b). US Wind has yet to release any project-specific plans. DONG Energy’s 

project in New Jersey could support 1,950 MW of capacity. The company will use its site control 

to assess the site’s seafloor conditions, resource quality, and potential cable pathways. To date, 

DONG Energy has not released any project-specific plans.

Delaware

A federal lease area off Delaware’s coast is being developed for an offshore wind project that 

was awarded the ability to sell power and receive ORECs in Maryland. Future offshore wind 

development may take advantage of the state’s offshore resource (Table 13) and Delaware’s 

existing RPS that requires utility providers to supply 25% of their electricity from renewable 

sources by 2025.
44 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Deepwater Wind currently controls the OCS-A 0482 lease area for its Skipjack project. The 

project is located northeast of Ocean City and is expected to include fifteen 8-MW wind turbines 

mounted on monopiles, providing 120 MW of capacity. The project will interconnect at an 

Ocean City substation, begin operations in 2023, and cost $720 million (Maryland PSC 2017a).

Table 13. Delaware’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 3,474 km2

Federal Waters 5,580 km2

Total 9,054 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 14,719 GWh/year 1,806 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 5,528 GWh/year 1,249 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 358 GWh/year 2,794 MW

Total 20,604 GWh/year 5,876 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW

In May 2017, Maryland’s Public Service Commission ruled that Deepwater Wind’s Skipjack 

was eligible to receive 455,483 Maryland ORECs (at $131.39 per MWh) per year for 20 years. 

This eligibility is contingent on Deepwater Wind using a port located in the greater Baltimore

area for project installation, utilizing a port in Ocean City for O&M activities, and investing $25 

million in a Maryland steel fabrication plant, $13.2 million at the Tradepoint Atlantic Shipyard, 

and $6 million in the Maryland Offshore Wind Business Development Fund (Maryland Public 

Service Commission [PSC] 2017b [Order No.88192]).

Maryland

Maryland’s offshore wind resource is summarized in Table 14.

Table 14. Maryland’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 13,040 km2

Federal Waters 22,196 km2

Total 35,236 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 25,735 GWh/year 3,751 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 29,656 GWh/year 1,738 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 35,036 GWh/year 13,136 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 5,863 GWh/year 7,903 MW

Total 96,289 GWh/year 26,529 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW

Maryland’s RPS, originally introduced in 2005 and subsequently amended, requires in-state 

utilities to each procure at least 25% of their total annual load from renewable energy 

technologies by 2020 (House Bill 1106). The state also adopted the Maryland Offshore Wind 

Energy Act of 2013, which made a maximum 2.5% RPS carve out for electricity generated by 

offshore wind energy starting in 2017, created ORECs, and created the Maryland Offshore Wind 

Business Development Fund and Advisory Committee within the Maryland Energy 

Administration.
45 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

BOEM issued offshore wind Call Areas in 2012 and ultimately conducted a competitive auction 

in August 2014 for the two Maryland lease areas that equal 322 km2

. The auction lasted 19 

rounds and saw US Wind submit the winning bid for both OCS A-0489 ($3,841,538) and OCS 

A-0490 ($4,859,560), for a combined total of $8,701,098. US Wind’s lease areas could support 

over 1,000 MW of capacity, but the developer has only announced it plans to develop 750 MW

Musial et al. 2013d). The company states that the project could consist of 85−187 4- to 6-MW 

turbines (750 MW) mounted on steel jackets and connected at the Indian River Substation in 

Maryland (Maryland PSC 2017). A 750-MW project is expected to cost $2.5 billion but if the 

company decreases the projects size to 248 MW, the project is expected to cost $1.375 billion 

(Maryland PSC 2017a).

In May 2017, Maryland’s PSC ruled that both US Wind’s Maryland project and Deepwater 

Wind’s Skipjack project located in Delaware (see earlier section on Delaware) were eligible to 

sell power in Maryland and receive ORECs. The PSC determined that both projects could 

receive ORECs valued at $131.93/MWh. US Wind is eligible to receive 913,845 credits per year 

(for 248 MW of capacity). This eligibility is contingent on the company using a port located in 

the greater Baltimore area for project installation, utilizing a port in Ocean City for O&M 

activities, and investing $51 million in a Maryland steel fabrication plant, $26.4 million in the 

Tradepoint Atlantic Shipyard, and $6 million in the Maryland Offshore Wind Business 

Development Fund (Maryland PSC 2017b [Order Number 88192]).

3.6.2 South Atlantic 

Virginia

Virginia’s offshore wind resource is summarized in Table 15.

Table 15. Virginia’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 17,195 km2

Federal Waters 46,677 km2

Total 63,872 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 87,924 GWh/year 8,941 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 45,128 GWh/year 5,665 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 24,983 GWh/year 24,190 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 3,776 GWh/year 6,366 MW

Total 161,812 GWh/year 45,163 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW

Although Virginia does not have a mandatory RPS, it does have a voluntary RPS goal of 

providing 15% of base retail electricity sales with renewable energy by 2025. In 2012, the state 

passed legislation (SB 413) that allows investor-owned utilities to achieve up to 20% of a 

voluntary renewable energy goal through accredited R&D activities, recover their costs for 

voluntary RPS programs, and receive an increased rate of return for each RPS goal achieved 

using offshore wind or nuclear facilities built after July 2013 (Virginia 2012). Under this rule, 

offshore wind facilities would receive triple credit toward meeting a utility’s voluntary RPS goal.
46 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Offtake pathways or incentives may not be needed because Virginia is a fully regulated market,

meaning utilities like Dominion can fully recover their capital expenditures plus a rate of return 

through their retail electricity rates.

BOEM published a Call for Information and Nominations in 2012 to determine the competitive 

interest in development offshore Virginia, and after receiving multiple indications of commercial 

interest, decided to create the Virginia WEA (457 km2) and competitively offer the site via 

auction in September 2013 (Figure 14). After six rounds, Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(Dominion Energy) beat out Apex Virginia Offshore Wind LLC with a bid of $1,600,000. 

Dominion submitted a complete Site Assessment Plan to BOEM in March 2016 to install a 

floating WindSentinel lidar buoy. Dominion has 4 and a half years to submit a Construction and 

Operations Plan to BOEM. The lease can support approximately 2,000 MW of offshore wind 

capacity.

Figure 14. Virginia wind energy area and research lease area

Source: BOEM

In 2012, Dominion also submitted a project proposal for VOWTAP to participate in DOE’s ATD 

program and was awarded $4 million of initial funding from DOE. The project aimed to install 

two 6-MW GE Haliade turbines on inward battered guided structures designed by Keystone 

Engineering that are also known as “twisted jackets.” The project’s goal was to validate the 

substructure design and verify the structural integrity of the configuration in hurricane 

conditions. In 2014, DOE selected the project to receive the second round of funding, bringing
47 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

the total to $10.7 million. VOWTAP was also awarded the first-ever wind energy research lease 

in federal water by BOEM in March 2016. VOWTAP’s lease site borders Dominion’s 

commercial lease site. In May 2016, DOE stopped funding the VOWTAP project because 

Dominion could not guarantee that project would become operational before 2020. Dominion 

formed a strategic partnership with DONG Energy on July 10, 2017, to immediately initiate 

engineering and development work on the 12-MW demonstration project (previously named 

VOWTAP) (Stromsta 2017b).

North Carolina

Table 16 shows that North Carolina potentially has the best offshore wind resource in the South 

Atlantic region.

Table 16. North Carolina’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 28,670 km2

Federal Waters 195,719 km2

Total 224,389 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 203,990 GWh/year 14,908 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 143,936 GWh/year 16,713 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 211,934 GWh/year 81,600 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 74,292 GWh/year 60,234 MW

Total 634,153 GWh/year 173,455 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW

North Carolina’s main renewable procurement policy is its Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Portfolio Standard. The standard was created in 2007 and subsequently amended to 

require investor-owned utilities to provide 12.5% of their electricity from renewable sources by 

2021.

BOEM issued a Request for Information about potential Call Area sites in December 2012. 

Based on stakeholder feedback, BOEM identified three WEAs in August 2014: Kitty Hawk, 

Wilmington West, and Wilmington East. On March 16, 2017, BOEM auctioned the Kitty Hawk 

WEA (BOEM 2017f). Eight entities participated in the auction, and after 17 rounds, Avangrid 

acquired the lease area for $9,066,650 (BOEM 2017g). Avangrid’s North Carolina lease site 

contains 495 km2 and could support up to 1,468 MW of capacity based on a 3-MW/km2 array 

power density. Avangrid’s Chief Executive Officer James Torgerson has indicated that the Kitty 

Hawk project is a long-term effort that will not be operational until well after 2020 (Ohnesorge 

2017). To date, Avangrid has not released any project-specific plans.
48 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

South Carolina

South Carolina has significant offshore wind resources (Table 17), but currently does not have 

any state-level policies that support the procurement of utility-scale renewables or offshore wind.

In November 2015, BOEM published a Call for Information to gauge industry interest in 

obtaining commercial offshore wind leases in South Carolina. In parallel, BOEM solicited 

comments to determine the main issues to consider during the agency’s forthcoming 

environmental assessment.

Table 17. South Carolina’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 5,777 km2

Federal Waters 208,605 km2

Total 214,382 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 128,518 GWh/year 3,004 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 70,389 GWh/year 9,800 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 242,215 GWh/year 45,853 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 171,571 GWh/year 123,975 MW

Total 612,639 GWh/year 182,633 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW

3.6.3 Pacific

Oregon

Oregon’s offshore wind resource is substantial but predominantly located in deeper waters where 

floating technology will be required (Table 18). In 2012, Principle Power Inc. proposed its 25-

MW WindFloat Pacific project under the DOE ATD program funding opportunity and was 

competitively awarded $10.7 million to conduct initial R&D, design validation, and stakeholder 

outreach. The proposed project was located 29 km off the coast of Coos Bay, Oregon, in water 

depths averaging 350 m, and including an array of 6- to 8-MW turbines installed on floating 

WindFloat semisubmersible foundations. In 2016, the project was cancelled because Principle 

Power was unable to obtain a power off-take agreement (Principle Power 2015).

Table 18. Oregon’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 6,036 km2

Federal Waters 79,918 km2

Total 85,954 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 1,504 GWh/year 3,139 MW

Water Depth: 30−60 meters 3,877 GWh/year 15,960 MW

Water Depth: 60−700 meters 183,961 GWh/year 42,725 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 40,888 GWh/year 86 MW

Total 230,230 GWh/year 61,910 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW
49 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

California

In September 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown (Jerry Brown) signed California SB 350 to 

reduce greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This new policy requires renewable 

energy electric generation to increase to 50% of the state’s total (Brown 2015). California was 

already on a trajectory to meet its 2020 goals for 33% renewable energy using largely land-based 

wind and solar, but the challenge to go to 50% renewables spurred interest in other renewable 

energy technologies.

An offshore wind cost and feasibility study was commissioned by BOEM in 2016 to assess 

possible siting options and cost trajectories for offshore wind in California, assuming that 

floating technology would probably not be commercially available for a decade (Musial et al.

2017). The study indicated that the cost of floating offshore wind could drop below $100/MWh 

by 2030 at most viable sites in California. It also indicated that large-scale (up to 15 GW) 

deployment of offshore wind was possible in California. Finally, it showed that the 

corresponding daytime wind patterns along the coast were somewhat complementary to the 

preexisting solar production curve, which ramps down in the early evening (Musial 2016). In 

March 2017, a compilation of findings from NREL studies was submitted in a motion by 

Magellan Wind to the California Public Utilities Commission as evidence that offshore wind 

should be considered in the state’s energy portfolio (Musial 2016). California’s offshore wind 

resource is summarized in Table 19.

Table 19. California’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016b)

State Waters 7,833 km2

Federal Waters 150,774 km2

Total 158,607 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016b)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 8,920 GWh/year 4,073 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 8,068 GWh/year 39,474 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 216,579 GWh/year 68,246 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 158,348 GWh/year 662 MW

Total 391,915 GWh/year 112,455 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 0 MW

In 2016, Trident Winds submitted an unsolicited application to BOEM for a proposed project. 

The project is a commercial-scale offshore wind farm off the coast of Point Estero, California,

with a grid connection in Morro Bay. The initial project is planned with the nameplate capacity 

of 765 MW, but may be expanded to 1,000 MW at a later date if additional transmission capacity 

and market off-take can be obtained. In August 2016, BOEM issued a Request for Interest for the 

Morro Bay site. Statoil Wind US indicated that they also have commercial interest in the site.

In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown sent a letter to DOI requesting that a state renewable energy task 

force be created to explore the options for renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental 

Shelf. California regulatory activities are expected to continue under BOEM leadership, working 

closely with the task force and other stakeholders to reduce possible conflicts with marine use 

and coastal environments.
50 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Hawaii

On June 8, 2015, Governor David Ige signed a bill into law drafted by the Hawaii state 

legislature augmenting the state RPS so that electricity providers must supply 100% of their net 

electricity sales from renewable energy resources by 2045. The law, HB623, made Hawaii the 

first state in the nation to set a 100% RPS for the electricity sector.42

BOEM has received three unsolicited applications for commercial floating projects in Hawaii. 

Two applications were submitted by Alpha Wind in January 2015 and one by Progression Wind 

in October 2015. Each application is for a project that is approximately 400 MW in capacity. In 

June 2016, BOEM established Call Areas for the north and south sides of Oahu. Hawaii’s 

offshore wind resource is summarized in Table 20.

Table 20. Hawaii’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 34,638 km2

Federal Waters 11,036 km2

Total 45,674 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 2,049 GWh/year 5,738 MW

Water Depth: 30−60 meters 6,127 GWh/year 15,559 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 64,100 GWh/year 6,970 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 27,608 GWh/year 662 MW

Total 99,885 GWh/year 28,930 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 30,000 MW

Figure 15 shows the approximate location of each of these proposed projects with respect to 

Oahu and the BOEM Call Areas. 

 42 Compliance with Hawaii’s 100% RPS requirement is not the same as obtaining every megawatt-hour of griddelivered electricity from renewable resources. Distributed generation systems, such as rooftop solar, are deducted 

from utility electric sales that allow behind-the-meter power to reduce the 100% Hawaii RPS target.
51 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 15. Map of Hawaii Call Areas showing the proposed offshore wind projects

Source: NREL

3.6.4 Great Lakes

The Great Lakes region contains significant offshore wind resource potential and consists of 

eight states: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New 

York. The offshore wind resource for the Great Lakes region is summarized in Table 21.

Table 21. The Great Lakes’ Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

Total 164,767 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−29 meters 213,129 GWh/year 62,441 MW

Water Depth: 30−60 meters43 130,981 GWh/year 36,354 MW

Total 344,110 GWh/year 98,795 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 30,000 MW

Fred Olsen/LEEDCo’s Icebreaker project is the only active offshore project in the Great Lakes 

region, and is also part of DOE’s ATD program. The 21-MW project planned location is 16 km 

off the coast of Cleveland, Ohio, and could be the first offshore wind project deployed in 

freshwater with exposure to surface ice. Icebreaker consists of six 3.45-MW MHI Vestas 

turbines mounted on suction monobucket foundations designed by Universal Foundation. To 

date, LEEDCo has signed a PPA with Cleveland Public Power, American Municipal Power, and 

Cuyahoga County. In December 2016, Norway’s Fred Olsen Renewables agreed to lease the 

 43 Depths of greater than 60 m were excluded because the floating technology needed to survive freshwater ice is not 

yet developed (Musial et al. 2016a).
52 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

development, construction, and operation of Icebreaker and is negotiating with LEEDCo to buy 

project-related research data. Icebreaker plans to become operational by the end of 2018 and is 

eligible for an additional $40 million under DOE’s ATD program in future project performance 

periods after reaching specific milestones, and subject to DOE progress reviews.

3.6.5 Gulf of Mexico

The Gulf of Mexico region contains five states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the 

Gulf Coast of Florida. The region has a sizeable offshore wind resource potential although there 

is presently no development activity (Table 22).

Table 22. The Gulf of Mexico’s Offshore Wind Characteristics

Ocean Area with Minimum Average Wind Speeds of 7 Meters Per Second (Musial et al. 2016a)

State Waters 75,441 km2

Federal Waters 833,622 km2

Total 909,063 km2

Net Technical Offshore Wind Energy Potential (Musial et al. 2016a)

Water Depth: 0−30 meters 583,929 GWh/year 189,227 MW

Water Depth: 31−60 meters 376,683 GWh/year 122,374 MW

Water Depth: 61−700 meters 632,144 GWh/year 214,127 MW

Water Depth: 701−1,000 meters 603,544 GWh/year 208,761 MW

Total 2,196,298 GWh/year 734,489 MW

Offshore Wind Unsubsidized Economic Potential (Beiter et al. 2017)

By 2027 250,000 MW
53 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

4 Cost and Pricing Trends

Winning auction prices for offshore wind bids, commonly referred to as “strike prices,” 44saw a 

significant decline during 2016, which is likely an indication of commensurate reductions in the 

LCOE for offshore wind. These falling costs continue a trend seen in recent years. Between 2010 

and 2016, for projects that had reached a final investment decision (FID), the LCOE is estimated 

to have dropped by approximately 32% in the United Kingdom, the market with the largest 

operating offshore wind capacity (Catapult 2017). There is optimism within the industry that this 

trend will continue,

45 as evidenced by continued reductions in the winning auction strike prices

from various European auctions during 2016–2017; prices which establish the future purchase 

prices for wholesale electricity from the tendered offshore wind projects. Some believe that these 

auction strike prices may prove to be highly influential events for the industry (Radowitz 2017).

Most recently, the award of 1,380 MW of “subsidy-free”46 offshore wind capacity in Germany 

(Bundesnetzagentur 2017) for projects with CODs between 2023 and 2025 has highlighted the 

downward price trend for offshore wind energy procurement rates. These reductions in European 

procurement prices for offshore wind-produced electricity were made possible by a combination 

of favorable siting characteristics and increased project size; continued optimization of 

technology and installation processes; improved market, regulatory, and auction design 

structures; increased competition within the supply chain; favorable macroeconomic trends; and 

strategic market behavior.

For the discussion in this section, it is helpful to clearly distinguish between costs and prices. 

Generally, costs are the total expense incurred by an offshore wind developer to plan, install, 

operate, and decommission an offshore wind plant. Commonly, in this context, costs are reported 

as LCOE, which is the net present value cost of the electricity generated over the lifetime of a 

generation asset divided by the total electricity generated and expressed in dollars per megawatthour ($/MWh).47 Costs can be estimated bottom-up by modeling the various cost components 

(see e.g., Beiter et al. 2016, Moné et al. 2017). Prices are the amount that a purchaser pays for the 

procurement of electricity (and capacity). For instance, the auction tender results mentioned 

above or a PPA established between a wind plant owner and a power purchaser comprise 

procurement prices. A price may also include other economic benefits, such as the 

complementarity to an existing (electricity system) production portfolio and a societal benefit 

reflected through various subsidy mechanisms, or be influenced by the dynamics of a price 

settlement mechanism (e.g., auction bidding strategies and dynamics). For these reasons and 

 44 The strike price for an offshore wind project from an auction is usually the lowest bid price at which the offering 

can be sold. The strike price usually covers a specific contract term for which that strike price will be paid for the 

energy produced. The offeror of that strike price is awarded the rights to develop a particular parcel under 

predetermined conditions set in the tender offer that may vary by country or market. The strike price should not be 

confused with levelized cost of energy, which may be calculated using different financing and cost assumptions. 45 Note that the offshore wind auctions during 2016−2017 were held for projects in Europe with commercial 

operation dates between 2020 and 2025.

46 The German auction followed a “market premium” model (Huebler 2017), in which bids effectively form a 

minimum price that is paid to the awardee. An €0/MWh bid as submitted in this recent auction can be interpreted to 

be not completely subsidy-free because some project costs, such as the grid connection, are paid for by the end 

consumer.

47 Note that levelized cost of energy does not encompass total system costs (e.g., integration costs), nor does it 

capture any revenue opportunities (Beiter et al. 2017).
54 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

more, costs and prices are typically considered as distinct metrics. It may be possible, however, 

to infer some cost trends from pricing. Assuming that projected revenues (based on the price) 

will ultimately balance the project cost, prices can be used as a proxy to understand LCOE (and 

vice versa).

Coincident with reductions in offshore wind procurement prices and costs in Europe, the 

offshore wind market has begun to take hold in the United States with the commissioning of the 

first commercial offshore wind farm and a number of legislative actions, thereby setting the stage

for large-scale offshore wind development (Section 3). For the nascent U.S. offshore wind 

industry, it is critical to understand to what degree realized and anticipated cost reductions in 

Europe can be leveraged. A direct comparison is difficult, as there are a number of key factors 

that differentiate the United States from European markets. These factors include (but are not 

limited to): exchange rates, infrastructure and supply chain maturity, vessel availability, 

workforce readiness, and physical characteristics of the offshore wind siting environment. 

Further, the cost level might be influenced by U.S.-specific market and policy considerations, 

including regulatory structure, the tax code, and the design of incentive programs.

4.1 Pricing Trends

A number of auctions were held in Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark during 2016 and 

2017, procuring a total capacity of nearly 4,000 MW scheduled for commercial operation 

between 2020 and 2025. The winning tenders from these auctions show a clear reduction trend in 

procurement prices over this time frame.

These recent auction price results have been surveyed and analyzed by a range of studies and 

press articles (see e.g., Huebler, Radov, and Wieshammer 2017, Smart 2017, Garlick et al. 2017, 

IEA-RETD 2017, Radov, Carmel, and Koenig 2016, Roland Berger 2016, Hundleby 2016 and 

2017, Snieckus 2017, Andresen 2017, and Hill 2017). This body of literature indicates that the 

industry is confident that cost reductions can exceed prominent LCOE goals issued by The 

Crown Estate in the United Kingdom (£100/MWh [$130/MWh] by 2020) (Catapult 2017) and a 

group of developers and manufacturers (€100/MWh [$110/MWh] by 2020) (WindEurope 

2017c). This growing cost reduction trend has led a number of leading offshore wind 

developers48 to issue a declaration that offshore wind “can be fully competitive with coal and gas 

by 2025, achieving a cost of €80/MWh and below [...] if the industry achieves long-term 

stability through right policies and closer international cooperation” (WindEurope 2017c).

Context is needed to understand these recent European auction results because the auction 

design, market and policy environment, and project characteristics differ significantly between 

countries. As can be observed from Table 23, various mechanisms are applied across European 

countries and the United States in the allocation of site development and grid connection costs, 

as well as available incentives and supra-national (e.g., the European Union), national and state 

goals that provide market visibility (e.g., offshore wind deployment goals).

 48 Including Adwen, EDPR, Eneco, E.ON, GE, Iberdrola, MHI Vestas, RWE, Siemens, Statoil, and Vattenfall.
55 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 23. Comparison of Key Market Structures in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, United 

Kingdom, and United States

Source: Based on IEA-RETD (2017); NREL research

Germany Denmark Netherlands United Kingdom United States

Market Visibility 

Goals

European Union

Directive 

2009/28/EC (35% 

renewables by 

2020); Renewable 

Energy Act [EEG]; 

Offshore Wind Act 

(“WindSeeG”) (6.5 

GW by 2020; 15 GW 

by 2030)

European Union

Directive 

2009/28/EC 

(30% 

renewables by 

2020)

European 

Union Directive 

2009/28/EC 

(12% 

renewables by 

2020); annual 

offshore wind 

tender rounds 

(~700 MW/yr)

European Union

Directive 

2009/28/EC (15% 

renewables by 

2020); Levy Control 

Framework/Contract 

for Differences 

scheme (energy 

technology funding 

for 10 GW by 2020)

Massachusetts bill to 

procure 1.6 GW of 

offshore wind by 

2027; New York

commitment to 2.4 

GW of offshore wind 

by 2030; state RPS 

policies

Site Development Centralized model49

(ErneuerbareEnergien-Gesetz 

[EEG] 2017)

Centralized 

model

Centralized 

model

Decentralized 

model50

Not yet determined 

for large-scale 

commercial projects

Grid Connection Shallow charging 

model51

Super-shallow 

charging 

model52

Shallow 

charging model

Hybrid deep-shallow 

charging model53

Not yet determined 

for large-scale 

commercial projects; 

deep-charging 

model54

Key Incentive 

Mechanisms

EEG 2017 (subsidy 

level determined by 

auction; duration of 

15 years)

Feed-in 

premium 

(subsidy level 

determined by 

auction; 

duration of 

50,000 load 

hours/~12 

years)

Stimulation of 

Sustainable 

Energy 

Production 

grant (SDE+) 

(subsidy level 

determined by 

auction; 

duration of 15 

years)

Renewable 

Obligation 

Certificates (1.8-2.0; 

duration of 20 

years); Contracts for 

Difference (subsidy 

level determined by 

auction; duration of 

15 years)

Not yet determined 

for large-scale 

commercial projects

 49 A centralized model is defined as: “Government bears the majority of the up-front financial risk and undertakes 

the site identification, surveying, consenting, and grid permitting prior to auctioning the site” (IEA-RETD 2017). 50 A decentralized model is defined as: “Developer takes the lead in undertaking site surveys, acquiring grid permits 

and consent, and designing and constructing the electrical infrastructure” (IEA-RETD 2017). 51 A shallow charging model is defined as: “Developer is responsible for intra-array cabling and offshore substation. 

Transmission System Operator [TSO] provides transmission infrastructure to export electricity back to shore” (IEARETD 2017).

52 A super-shallow charging model is defined as: “Developer is responsible for intra-array cabling and connection 

into a substation only. TSO provides substation, export cabling, and onshore reinforcements” (IEA-RETD 2017). 53 A hybrid deep-shallow charging model is defined as: “This can entail a developer constructing the offshore assets 

but transferring ownership and operation to a TSO or third party” (IEA-RETD 2017). 54 A deep-charging model is defined as: “Developer is responsible for constructing and operating all offshore 

transmission assets, often including onshore reinforcements (i.e., onshore substation and cable routing)” (IEARETD 2017).
56 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 16 depicts an initial assessment of (adjusted) offshore wind auction strike prices from 

Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Denmark for projects to be deployed 

between 2017 and 2025 (COD). The underlying project data for the most recent tenders held 

from July 2016 to June 2017 is shown in Table 24 (Germany), Table 25 (Denmark), and Table 

26 (Netherlands). It should be noted that many of the projects shown in Figure 16 with future 

CODs have not yet reached FID, and some caution is appropriate when determining whether

these projects will be realized. For instance, the recent winning tenders in Germany (as generally 

in most jurisdictions) may have an option to not build, subject to paying a penalty (Huebler, 

Radov, and Wieshammer 2017). Some of the recent tenders shown in Figure 16 have also 

benefitted from a set of favorable conditions that may not be present in upcoming European 

auctions (e.g., the U.K. CfD auction in fall 2017 [OffshoreWIND.biz 2017a]) or in early U.S. 

projects. Some of these generally favorable conditions include:

• Proximity to shore

• High average wind speeds

• An auction design and regulatory regime that shifts the development risk to the public/ 

ratepayers

• Ability to leverage tax advantages

• Local electrical system and operational synergies

• Strategic bidding behavior

• Favorable project realization timelines

• Extended project design lifetimes beyond 20 years

• General macroeconomic conditions (e.g., low lending rates and prices for materials and 

vessels).

The strike price data shown in Figure 16 features data published in market reports and analysis 

from Garlick et al. (2017), NERA (2017), Smart (2017), and parametric relationships 

documented in Beiter et al. (2016). These initial estimates depend on various assumptions and 

will benefit from further validation as more project details and analysis becomes available. The 

strike price data from the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom shown in Figure 16 

were derived by Garlick et al. (2017), which include an adjustment of strike prices to allow for

project-to-project comparisons. These strike price data adjustments include:

• The electrical system cost (e.g., array cables, substation, export cable, and land-based

interconnect), which was added whenever these were provided by the tender offeror

• Site development costs (e.g., initial environmental assessments, geotechnical surveys, 

wind resource assessments, and metocean condition studies) were added whenever these 

were provided by the tender offeror

• A uniform contract length of 15 years.

The German strike prices were derived from NERA (2017) and Smart (2017), with development 

costs added. The development costs were derived from parametric cost relationships documented 

in Beiter et al. (2017). Development costs were assumed to be approximately 4% of the 
57 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

combined balance-of-station and turbine capital costs of a fixed-bottom reference scenario 

defined in Beiter et al. (2017). The “adjusted” German strike prices do not include any 

adjustments for the export system and land-based grid connection costs between the offshore 

substation to shore, which are paid for by the grid operator in Germany. These bid price 

adjustments will be assessed in future work. Therefore, the “adjusted” German auction prices 

presented in Figure 16 and Table 24 will likely increase when these corrections are made. All 

reported strike prices were converted to 2016 USD from their native currency, unless noted 

otherwise.

Note that the “adjusted strike prices” do not comprehensively account for the entire set of 

possible differences between countries and projects (e.g., differences in spatial conditions, 

project-specific risk profiles, or future electricity prices). They also do not capture effects from 

different levels of competitive bidding behavior or nonexecution of the option to build.

Figure 16. Adjusted strike prices from European offshore wind auctions

Sources: Garlick et al. (2017) and NREL analysis

Notes: *Grid and development costs added; **Grid costs added and contract length adjusted; ***Development costs 

added55

 55 Note that these strike price adjustments for Germany do not include export system and land-based grid connection 

costs between the offshore substation to shore, which are paid for by the grid operator in Germany. Therefore, the 

“adjusted” strike price levels are likely underestimated.
58 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

As displayed in Figure 16, auction strike prices indicate a clear trend of price declines over time 

from levels of approximately $200/MWh for projects with a COD between 2017 and 2019 to 

approximately $65/MWh for projects with a 2024–2025 COD. In general, these adjusted costs 

are higher than the unadjusted strike prices56 but still reflect a steep decline in price for European 

offshore wind out to projects installed in 2025 COD.

4.1.1 Germany

On April 1, 2017, Germany held its first offshore wind auction under a market premium model

(Huebler, Radov, and Wieshammer 2017) for a total of 1,490 MW of offshore wind capacity. 

Three of the four winning tenders secured “subsidy-free” bids of €0/MWh with CODs of 2024–

2025; the remaining bid with an earlier 2023 COD was auctioned at $65/MWh (Table 24). The 

projects from DONG Energy and EnBW are located in average water depths of 29–39 m. After 

adjusting for the development costs, which are largely covered by the government under the 

2017 Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), these most recent German tenders are the lowest in 

Europe to date with an adjusted strike price of approximately $70/MWh for the Borkum 

Riffgrund West 2, He Dreiht, and OWP West projects. Key factors that may have contributed to 

these low bid levels include an optimistic expectation of future turbine sizes (in the range of up 

to 15 MW), reduced financing costs, optimized and integrated wind farm controls (Smart 2017), 

and the option of not executing the tender if expected wholesale prices over the lifetime of the 

project do not meet revenue requirements at FID (Huebler, Radov, and Wieshammer 2017).57

Additional factors include project up-scaling and synergies with existing offshore nearby wind 

farms (e.g., He Dreiht is in close proximity to the Hohe See and Albatros projects), the option to 

apply for a lifetime extension of the project to 30 years under the Offshore Wind Act

(WindSeeG), and clustering of multiple projects to aggregate grid connections (Huebler, Radov, 

and Wieshammer 2017).

 56 Depending on the site conditions, adjusting the site conditions was estimated by Garlick et al. (2017) to increase 

strike prices by up to approximately 40%.

57 See for example, NERA (2017) for a discussion on how these recent auction results can be understood in the 

context of “real option” theory.
59 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 24. 2016–2017 German Offshore Wind Tender Results

Sources: NERA (2017); Smart (2017)

Auction First Offshore Wind Auction (§ 26 WindSeeG)

Award Date 04/01/2017

Project Name Borkum Riffgrund 

West 2

Gode Wind 3 He Dreiht OWP West

Capacity (MW) 240 110 900 240

Bidder DONG Energy DONG Energy EnBW DONG Energy

COD 2024 2023 2025 2024

Distance from Shore (km) 67 39 85 58

Water Depth (m) 29–31 30–34 39 29–33

Duration (years) 20

Inflation-Indexed No

Nonexecution Penalty ($/kW) ~112 (Huebler, Radov, and Wieshammer 2017)

Auction Price (2016$/MWh) 0 65 0 0

Adjusted Auction Price

(2016$/MWh)58

~70 ~81 ~70 ~70

4.1.2 Denmark

In Denmark, a nearshore tender (Vesterhav Nord and Syd) and Baltic Sea tender (Kriegers Flak) 

were auctioned during 2016 (Table 25) to Vattenfall. The nearshore 350-MW Vesterhav Nord 

and Syd project is only 4 km from shore (in a water depth of 20 m), whereas the 610-MW 

Kriegers Flak is located at a distance from shore of 15 km (in water depths of approximately 24 

m). Based on the tender results, these two projects were estimated to have an adjusted price of 

$72/MWh (Kriegers Flak) and $87/MWh (Vesterhav Nord and Syd) after adjusting for grid 

connection costs and contract length. Kriegers Flak is expected to have the first interconnection 

installed offshore in which the export system grid system can be shared with the operating Baltic 

1 & 2 projects in German waters. Smart (2016) has noted a range of project-specific factors that 

may explain the low Vesterhav Nord and Syd LCOE levels. These factors include its proximity

to shore, the deployment of an 8-MW turbine, and O&M cost benefits because of its proximity to 

other operating wind farms.

 58 Development costs were added to all four projects. The adjusted strike price for the two project tenders with zero 

bids (Borkum Riffgrund West 2 and He Dreiht) were estimated by Smart (2017). Note that the strike price 

adjustments for Germany do not include export system and land-based grid connection costs between the offshore 

substation to shore, which are paid for by the grid operator in Germany. Therefore, the “adjusted” strike price levels 

are likely underestimated.
60 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 25. 2016–2017 Danish Offshore Wind Tender Results

Sources: Garlick et al. (2017); NREL OWDB

Auction Baltic Sea Tender Nearshore Tender

Award Date 11/9/2016 9/12/2016

Project Name Kriegers Flak Vesterhav Nord and Syd

Capacity (MW) 610 350

Bidder Vattenfall Vattenfall

COD 2021 2020

Distance from Shore (km) 15 4

Water Depth (average) (m) 24 20

Duration (years) 50,000 load hours 50,000 load hours

Inflation-Indexed No No

Nonexecution Penalty ($/kW) N/A N/A

Grid Connection Combined grid solution project (first

offshore interconnection), connecting

Kriegers Flak and the operating 

German Baltic 1 & 2

New land-based substation (60/33, 

150/33, or 150/60 kilovolts) close to 

coastline needed with connection to 

existing substation Lem Kaer and 

Idomlund or Herning

Auction Price (2016$/MWh) 55 71

Adjusted Auction Price (2016$/MWh)59 ~72 ~87

4.1.3 The Netherlands

The Dutch auctions during 2016–2017 indicate an adjusted strike price of $81/MWh and 

$101/MWh for the 2016 tenders Borssele 3 and 4 (740 MW) and Borssele 1 and 2 (760 MW), 

respectively (Table 26). These two projects represent average site conditions with respect to 

water depth (~27 m) and distance from shore (~22 km). LCOE was adjusted for grid and 

development costs. Beyond the site location and Dutch market configuration, some key projectspecific factors that have led to these auction prices include more favorable financing (i.e., 

higher debt-to-equity ratios, lower debt rates), larger turbine size (i.e., optimized 6-MW+ 

turbines), and engineering-procurement-construction contract wrap approaches (Smart 2016).

 59 Grid costs added and contract length adjusted.
61 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 26. 2016–2017 Dutch Offshore Wind Tender Results

Source: Garlick et al. (2017); NREL OWDB

Auction Borssele I-IV

Award Date 7/5/2016 12/12/2016

Project Name Borssele 1 and 2 Borssele 3 and 4

Capacity (MW) 760 740

Bidder DONG Energy Shell, Van Oord, Eneco, 

Mitsubishi/Diamond Generating 

Corporation

COD 2020 2023

Distance from Shore (km) 22 21

Water Depth (average) (m) 27 26

Duration (years) 15 15

Inflation-Indexed No No

Nonexecution Penalty ($/kW) N/A N/A

Auction Price (2016$/MWh) 81 60

Adjusted Auction Price (2016$/MWh)60 ~101 ~81

4.1.4 United States

There are a limited number of early cost signals from U.S. projects. These include:

• The operating BIWF project (PPA)

• Projects that qualify for the recent Maryland OREC award notice

• The Massachusetts competitive solicitation for offshore wind energy generation

• The LIPA PPA with Deepwater Wind.

Table 27 provides details on these U.S. remuneration mechanisms and reported prices, where 

available. The BIWF project signed a 20-year PPA agreement with National Grid for its entire 

capacity of 30 MW. The PPA price is set at $244/MWh for the first year of operation, with an

increase by an escalation factor of 3.5% annually, resulting in $469/MWh in year 20 of its 

operation. On January 25, 2017, LIPA approved a 20-year pay-for-performance PPA with 

Deepwater Wind’s 90-MW South Fork project, allowing the utility to only pay for delivered 

energy without taking construction or operating risk. The project was determined to be the leastcost choice of the competitive solicitation, owing its win in part to its ability to operate at utility

scale, as well as land restrictions limiting the number of possible generation options on Long 

Island.

 60 Grid and development costs added.
62 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 27. 2016–2017 Cost Signals from Early U.S. Projects

Developer/

Project Name

Block Island

Wind Farm

Wind South 

Fork

Deepwater 

Wind 

Skipjack

US Wind Deepwater 

Wind 

Deepwater 

One

DONG

Energy

Vineyard 

Wind

State Rhode Island New York Delaware Maryland Massachusetts

Capacity (MW) 30 90 120 248 400−800 MW61

Offtake 

Agreement Type

PPA PPA Maryland

OREC 

Maryland

OREC

Competitive solicitation for long-term 

contracts

Duration (years) 20 20 20 20 Not yet available

Approval 

Conditions

TBD TBD Maryland 

PSC Order 

No. 88192

Maryland PSC 

Order No. 

9431

Not yet available

Status PPA in effect PPA 

approved

OREC terms 

accepted by 

Deepwater 

Wind

OREC terms 

accepted by 

US Wind

Competitive solicitation issued on June 29, 

2017, with proposals due on December 

20, 2017; Contracts are expected to be 

submitted to Department of Public 

Utilities for approval by July 31, 2018

Counterparty National 

Grid

LIPA Not yet 

available

Not yet 

available

Eversource, National Grid, and Unitil

COD

(announced)

2016 202262 202263 202064 Before June 30, 202765

Price 

(2016$/MWh)

24466 Not 

disclosed

131.93 131.93 Not yet 

available

Not yet 

available

Not yet 

available

As part of the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013, the Maryland PSC issued 

unbundled ORECs for the Deepwater Wind Skipjack (120 MW) and US Wind (248 MW) 

projects on May 11, 2017, requiring buyers to procure a total of 1,369,327 ORECs/yr. The award 

notice specifies an OREC of $131.93/MWh over 20 years. Specifically, 913,845 ORECs per year 

are to be procured from US Wind at a price schedule equivalent to a levelized price of $131.93

per OREC (2012 USD) using a 1.0% price escalator, beginning on January 1, 2021, for a 

duration of 20 years; and 455,482 ORECs per year are to be procured from the Deepwater Wind 

Skipjack project at a price schedule equivalent to a levelized price of $131.93 per OREC (2012

USD) using a 1.0% price escalator, beginning on January 1, 2023, for a duration of 20 years

(Maryland Public Service Commission of Maryland [2017b]). A set of nearly 30 conditions 

applies to this OREC (order no. 88192 and 9431), including that the developers create a 

minimum of 4,977 direct jobs during the development, construction, and operating phases of the 

projects; pass 80% of any construction costs savings to ratepayers; contribute $6 million each to 

the Maryland Offshore Wind Business Development Fund; and use port facilities in the greater 

Baltimore region and Ocean City for construction and O&M activities. A total of at least $76 

million collectively must be invested by the developers in a steel fabrication plant in Maryland 

 61 The Act to Promote Energy Diversity (H.4568) seeks up to 1,600 MW of offshore wind energy generation to be 

contracted by June 30, 2027 (Massachusetts Clean Energy Center [2017]) 62 offshoreWIND.biz (2017b) 63 Maryland PSC Award Notice (2017) 64 Maryland PSC Award Notice (2017) 65 The request for proposals encourages proposals that include committed offshore wind energy generation delivery 

as early as reasonably possible to maximize the Commonwealth’s ability to meet its Global Warming Solution Act

(Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and Distribution Companies [2017]).

66 Subject to an increase of 3.5% annually, starting at $244/MWh in year 1 and ending at $479/MWh in year 20.
63 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

and at least $39.6 million must be invested to support port upgrades at the Tradepoint Atlantic 

(formerly Sparrows Point) shipyard in Baltimore County. On June 29, 2017, Massachusetts 

utilities Eversource, National Grid, and Unitil issued a Request for Proposals for the procurement 

of 400 to 800 MW of offshore wind energy generation. This competitive solicitation permits 

bidders to submit alternative proposals with a nameplate capacity of no less than 200 MW and no 

greater than 800 MW. Proposals are due on December 20, 2017, and contracts are expected to be 

submitted by July 31, 2018, to the Department of Public Utilities for approval.

4.2 Capital Expenditures

Capital expenditures (CapEx) are the single largest contributor to the life cycle costs of offshore 

wind plants and include all expenditures incurred prior to the COD. Figure 17 shows the reported 

CapEx over time for operational projects as well as for those in various stages of the near-term 

project pipeline. Each bubble represents the cost estimate for a single project and bubble size 

represents the project’s rated capacity. The orange line shows the capacity-weighted average 

CapEx and provides an indication of the overall trend from 2000 to 2025.

Figure 17. Capital expenditures of global offshore wind projects capital by commercial operation 

date and project size (in terms of capacity)

Note: Capacity-weighted average shown by orange line. Source: NREL

Costs have been reported for 11,745 MW of global offshore wind projects, or about 91% of the 

total installed capacity as of December 31, 2016. Figure 17 also includes the announced costs for 

nine projects (3,371 MW) that have started construction, 16 projects (4,500 MW) that have 

closed contracts, 18 projects (6,110 MW) that have received regulatory approval, five projects 

(2,238 MW) that are in the permitting process, and two projects (946 MW) that are still in the 

planning phase. Generally, greater confidence can be placed in cost estimates that are in more 
64 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

mature stages of the project life cycle (i.e., costs for projects that have reached FID are typically 

more accurate than for a project that has not yet received permits); however, preliminary 

estimates do provide insight into developer expectations about cost trends.

These CapEx data have some uncertainty associated with them for various reasons: 1) the CapEx 

data shown here are normally self-reported by developers and difficult to verify independently, 

2) there is limited transparency into the financial impact of cost overruns, and 3) it is often 

unclear whether the reported CapEx fully captures the total cost of installing the project and 

connecting it to the grid.67 When viewed together, though, these data can provide insight into the 

long-term cost trends.

Average CapEx has exhibited an increasing trend over the past decade, roughly tripling in real 

terms from a low of approximately $2,000/kilowatt (kW) in the early 2000s to a record high of 

approximately $6,000/kW for the projects installed in 2014. There is also considerable variation 

of CapEx within a given year (e.g., CapEx of projects installed in 2016 ranged from 

approximately $2,900/kW [Lingang phase I, China] to $7,500/kW [BIWF, United States]). As 

described in Smith, Stehly, and Musial (2015), the variation during a given year and the change

through June 30, 2015, in CapEx during this period were driven by a number of factors, 

including:

68

• Spatial variation and associated technical difficulties of installing turbines in deeper 

water, farther from shore, and in more demanding metocean conditions (e.g., wind 

speeds, wave heights, and currents), which pose challenges for both technical design and 

construction

• Project size

• Shortages in the supply chain (e.g., components, vessels, and skilled labor)

• Increasing prices for commodities and energy

• Macroeconomic trends, such as fluctuating exchange rates 

• An improved appreciation of the costs and risks associated with offshore wind project 

implementation, leading to more conservative pricing strategies from equipment suppliers 

and installation contractors.

Since 2014, there are growing indications of a significant decline in CapEx from the existing 

project pipeline. Although a considerable degree of variation in CapEx in a given year may 

continue because of varying conditions among sites, CapEx is expected to decline to a range of 

$4,400/kW to $5,400/kW between 2017 and 2020 and a range of $2,000 to $5,400/kW between 

2020 and 2025 (Figure 17).69 Note that only limited CapEx data are available from 16 projects 

between 2020 and 2025. As a result of this relatively small sample and the projects’ early 

 67 For example, it is unclear if the announced capital expenditure values include soft costs such as construction, 

financing, insurance, or fees.

68 For a full discussion, see Greenacre, Gross, and Heptonstall (2010), Deloitte (2011), and Greenacre et al. (2010). 69 Note CapEx levels that approach $2,000/kW are difficult to assess when these costs were being reported at the 

early stages of the industry. The authors speculate that these earlier costs may have been understated as a result of 

the immaturity of the industry. 
65 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

planning stage in which firm contracts for capital equipment have yet to be executed, the level of 

confidence is relatively low. In a comprehensive expert elicitation conducted by Wiser in 2016, 

key CapEx reduction drivers were identified. A complete list of possible cost reductions can be 

found in Wiser et al. (2016).

4.2.1 Wind Turbine Capital Expenditures

Offshore turbine costs are a significant fraction of the capital cost expenditures, with a 

percentage contribution estimated between 30% and 45%. For this report, turbine costs were 

compiled from publicly available data sources. Typically, turbine price data come from turbine 

supply agreements that are negotiated for each project, but because of their proprietary nature, 

these data are very limited. As a result, these limited data make statistical extrapolation of 

industry trends more difficult and raise some uncertainty in specific cost projections. Table 28

provides a summary of the available turbine supply agreement cost data for 4,378 MW of 

capacity (~34% of total capacity) for projects with CODs between 2012 and 2017.

These publicly available turbine supply agreement prices range from $1,699/kW to $2,141/kW, 

with an average of $1,937/kW, and typically include delivery to the staging port as well as a 5-

year warranty term. The turbine supply deal for Gemini is a clear outlier in this data set and is 

excluded for the purpose of calculating these statistics; the Gemini turbine supply agreement

price is $3,363/kW—57% above the next highest value. This difference is presumably because 

the contract includes turbine supply costs as well as a 15-year long-term service agreement that 

will see Siemens take responsibility for the operation of the project (Radowitz 2014). Variability 

in turbine supply agreement prices is likely introduced by differences in order size, commercial 

terms (e.g., warranty period and availability guarantees), and machine attributes (e.g., turbine 

rating and drivetrain topology). Turbine suppliers who are seeking to gain market share may also 

be willing to offer turbines at lower prices than original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that 

have existing market share and long-term operational experience.70

Table 28. Turbine Supply Agreement Costs

Project Name Country COD Order 

Size

(MW)

OEM Turbine 

Model

Turbine 

Rating 

(MW)

Number 

of 

Turbines

Cost 

($2016/kW)

Dudgeon United Kingdom 2017 402 Siemens SWT-6.0-

154

6.0 67 2,141

Gemini Netherlands 2017 600 Siemens SWT-4.0-

130

4.0 150 3,363

Nordsee One Germany 2017 332 Senvion 6M 6.15 54 2,026

North Sea Various Various 1,800 Siemens Siemens 

SWT-3.6

3.6 500 1,740

Various Germany Various 1,494 Senvion 5M and

6M

5.0 & 

6.0

250 2,080

Wikinger Germany 2017 350 Adwen M5000-

135

5.0 70 1,699

 70 Insight based on NREL’s involvement in the market and discussions with industry contacts.
66 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Because of the proprietary nature of turbine supply agreements, more recent turbine costs were 

not available. Some anecdotal evidence points to expectations within the industry that increases 

in turbine sizes up to 13−15 MW (Shankleman, Parkin, and Hirtenstein 2017)71 within the next 

decade may have the potential to generate significant cost savings (Smart 2017).

4.3 Operational Expenditures

Operational expenditures (OpEx) cover all costs incurred after COD—but before 

decommissioning—that are required to operate the project and maintain turbine availability to 

generate power. These expenditures are generally thought to contribute between 20% and 30% to 

life cycle costs for offshore wind projects, depending on site characteristics. The strongest 

drivers are distance from shore, accessibility limits related to local metocean conditions (e.g., 

wave height), and turbine rating (i.e., fewer, larger turbines suggest lower O&M costs per 

megawatt). To optimize the balance between OpEx and availability, operators adopt different 

logistical strategies for individual projects depending on site conditions (DNV GL 2013).

OpEx for offshore wind projects are subject to considerable uncertainty because of a lack of 

empirical data. Although wind project owners commonly report CapEx, they rarely report OpEx. 

Uncertainty from the lack of available data is further amplified because it is standard practice in 

the offshore wind industry for turbine OEMs to offer 5-year warranties,72 meaning that as of 

2016–2017, only projects that were installed before 2011—approximately 3,400 MW of installed 

capacity—are subject to the full range of operating costs.

4.4 Performance

Improving the performance of offshore wind turbines and arrays has been a continued focus of 

industry and research activities. Figure 18 shows the net capacity factor73 (CFNET) for offshore 

wind projects by COD. These data cover 93% of operating projects (8,290 MW), 78% of projects 

under construction (3,800 MW), and 71% of projects that have reached FID (2,410 MW). The 

data represent modeled capacity factors of offshore projects and come from developer and other 

publicly reported sources. Project performance is based on expected generation levels rather than 

measured generation and should therefore be interpreted with a degree of caution. Figure 18

shows a trend of performance improvements since 2000 with considerable variance in any given 

year because of differences in technology and site conditions. Note that these improvements in 

performance often require higher CapEx investment.

 71 At the time of this writing, Vestas had announced its V164-9.5 MW wind turbine (offshoreWind.biz 2017). 72 Warranty costs are normally wrapped into turbine supply agreement prices. 73 Net capacity factor (CFNET) is a ratio of the actual energy delivered to the point of interconnection in a given 

period (typically a year) over the theoretical potential energy that could be delivered if the plant were to operate 

continuously at nameplate capacity over the same period of time. CFNET accounts for electrical losses, availability 

losses, and losses caused by environmental factors.
67 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 18. Net capacity factor for selected European offshore wind projects

Source: NREL; modeled data

Generally, capacity factors are improving for two main reasons. First, siting decisions for initial 

projects emphasized locations that were close to shore and somewhat sheltered so that 

developers could gain experience before moving into open-ocean conditions. Offshore wind 

development zones are now increasingly located farther from shore to allow for larger projects 

and enable access to a more energetic and consistent wind resource. Second, offshore wind 

turbine performance has improved over the last decade with higher drivetrain efficiency and 

greater energy capture for a given site. For example, offshore wind turbine designers have been 

lowering specific power (expressed as the ratio of nameplate capacity to rotor swept area in 

Watts/m2

). Generally, this means that rotor areas are larger, which increases the amount of 

energy that can be captured. As machines increase in size, the tower heights have also increased, 

and with that, energy output increases because winds at higher elevations are typically more 

energetic because of wind shear. For instance, Walney Phase 1 and 2 are located in close 

proximity to each other but their capacity factors vary significantly. Walney Phase 1 exhibits a 

lifetime capacity factor of 40.70% using the Siemens SWT-3.6 MW turbine with a 107-m rotor, 

whereas Walney Phase 2, using the Siemens SWT-3.6 MW turbine with a 120-m rotor, has had a 

lifetime capacity factor of 47.50% (Garlick et al. 2017).

Capacity factors in the United States are expected to vary widely depending on the project 

location and turbine technology. The northeastern Atlantic has a very strong offshore wind 

resource, with average annual wind speeds between 9 and 10 meters per second (m/s). The 30-

MW BIWF, for example, expects a net capacity factor of 47.5%, which is comparable to net

capacity factors at the best European project locations (AWS Truepower 2012). Wind speeds 
68 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

gradually diminish from the north southward in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico where annual 

average wind speeds are typically between 7 and 8 m/s; however, annual average wind speeds 

exceeding 8 m/s can be found at sites farther from shore and on the western edge of the Gulf of 

Mexico (Musial et al 2016).

4.5 Financing Trends

Offshore wind projects are capital-intensive, with utility-scale projects (>200 MW) generally

requiring investments of more than $1 billion. Because the majority of lifetime costs are incurred 

through CapEx in the development and construction of the project, LCOE is highly sensitive to 

the cost of financing those capital expenditures. The effective cost of financing is typically 

expressed as the weighted-average cost of capital, which averages the cost of all sources of 

capital based on the percentage contribution to the total capital structure. To take advantage of 

the large impact of the weighted-average cost of capital on the all-in cost of energy, offshore 

wind project owners are placing considerable effort on securing access to low-cost capital, which 

involves adopting project structures that minimize risk to investors as well as attracting new 

investor classes to the sector (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2012).

The European offshore wind market saw significant financing activity in 2016 consisting 

primarily of debt and owner equity. WindEurope reports that 11 projects, totaling 4,948 MW, 

closed financing in 2016, with a total value of over €18.2 billion ($20.2 billion USD). The total 

investment activity was an approximate 39% increase over 2015 investment levels (WindEurope 

2017a). Of the total €18.2 billion invested in new offshore wind projects, WindEurope estimates 

that €5.3 billion ($5.9 billion USD) was secured using nonrecourse debt, with the remaining 

funding sourced from a combination of balance-sheet finance and sponsor equity (WindEurope 

2017a).74 The majority of investment activity in 2016 was centered in the United Kingdom, 

Germany, Belgium, and Denmark (WindEurope 2017a). Currently, more than 50 banks have 

participated in the nonrecourse debt transactions for offshore wind projects, with most projects 

requiring more than one lender because of an individual bank’s lending limits. Individual banks 

have reportedly increased the maximum amount that they are willing to underwrite on a given 

deal from $50‒$75 million in 2012 to $100‒$150 million in 2016 (Green Giraffe 2016).

Although there are limited data available on actual transactions, debt for European offshore wind 

projects in 2016 is estimated to be priced at 150 and 225 basis points75 above the London 

Interbank Offer Rate.

Additional debt terms are generally characterized by the following elements:

• Debt percentages reportedly near 75% of total required capital with remaining capital 

needs sourced from primarily sponsor (i.e., owner) equity

• Debt lengths varying between 10 and 17 years, possibly longer, depending on the market;

the length of the loan is limited by the term of the subsidy available to the project to 

 74 Nonrecourse debt is one form of debt investment in which the providers (typically commercial banks) supply 

capital that only has claims on the assets and future cash flows of the project itself. As such, these investors tend to 

be conservative and conduct considerable due diligence to ensure that their downside risk exposure (in which returns 

are lower than expected) is limited. For more detailed information on the different types of capital sources used for 

offshore wind projects, see Green Giraffe (2016) and Arapogianni and Moccia (2013). 75 Note one basis point is equal to 1/100 of a percent and 100 basis points equals 1%. 
69 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

include a 2‒5 year buffer between the loan repayment date and the end of the power 

offtake agreement

• A debt service and maintenance reserve account with enough funding set aside to cover 

3−6 months of debt obligations and maintenance expenditures.

There are several different types of entities that have participated in offshore wind investments

including commercial banks, export credit agencies, and, increasingly, institutional investors 

(e.g., pension funds, insurance funds, and infrastructure investors). International financial 

institutions, such as the European Investment Bank, also continue to play an important role, 

particularly for the financing of new technology solutions, such as floating offshore wind. 

Corporate investors (a nondescript industry term generally comprised of businesses not including 

utility or other energy service providers) appear to offer a relatively new source of capital source 

of capital (WindEurope 2017b).

Harries and Kruger (2017) also note the emergence of oil and gas corporations as well as supply 

chain companies (i.e., manufacturers and marine contractors) as new equity investors in wind 

projects in 2016–2017. These companies may seek to diversify their investment portfolios, 

ensure a market for their product or services, or help secure the developer’s access to financing 

(Harries and Kruger 2017). For example, Enbridge—a Canadian oil and gas pipeline, processing, 

and storage company—took nearly 50% ownership interests in both an operational offshore wind 

farm as well as an offshore wind development company (WindEurope 2017a). Additionally, a 

Royal Dutch Shell-led consortium won a bid for construction of a 700-MW wind project and has 

decided to purchase the output from existing offshore wind projects (OffshoreWIND.biz 2017c).
70 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

5 Offshore Wind Technology Trends

The following section updates trends in offshore wind site characteristics (e.g., water depth and 

distance from shore) for offshore wind technologies to provide context for understanding the key 

drivers behind recent technology innovation. Using NREL’s OWDB described in Section 1,

empirical data of planned projects advancing through the pipeline provide insight into global 

technology trends through 2022, with a focus on offshore wind turbine capacities, substructures, 

electric infrastructure, and logistical approaches for construction and maintenance activities. 

Much of the discussion is focused on fixed-bottom technologies, although some limited 

comparisons to floating technologies are made, such as in substructure trends. Section 6 provides 

a more detailed discussion on floating offshore wind technologies.

5.1 Site Characteristics for Global Offshore Wind Projects

Figure 19 shows the trends of global offshore wind projects that have, at a minimum, advanced 

to the site control phase, as a function of water depth and distance from shore, color-coded by 

project phase. Figure 19 also illustrates the project size. This figure indicates a possible trend 

toward larger projects (i.e., larger bubble sizes) sited farther from shore (i.e., moving to the right 

on the x-axis), particularly for those projects in the permitting and approval phase of 

development.

Figure 19 also highlights a sample of approximately 1,000 MW of future U.S. offshore wind 

projects (shaded in red). Because of the higher fidelity of the data for a U.S.-based project in the 

OWDB, Figure 19 only shows U.S. projects that have advanced beyond the site control phase 

and announced project size. This second screening criteria provides a more specific

characterization of potential future U.S. projects. The U.S. projects appear to be following trends 

similar to the fleet of projects installed or under construction globally in terms of water depth. 

U.S. projects, however, extend to less than 40 km from shore as compared with some European 

projects that are sited up to 200 km from shore. Also, it appears that the first few U.S. projects 

are smaller than the average European project but large-scale projects are already in the planning 

stage. Note that this figure is truncated at a 60-m water depth for scale purposes.

76

As discussed later in this section, wind projects designed for deeper water and greater distances 

to shore will require innovative technologies and approaches to both enable deployment and 

simultaneously lower the cost of energy. Water depth along with seabed soil conditions

influences the selection and design of the substructure including its height, weight, footprint, and 

material thickness. Distance from shore has several impacts on cost including the design of 

subsea electrical cabling and system configuration (e.g., consideration of a high-voltage direct 

current) as well as logistical challenges during the project’s construction and operation phases 

(e.g., transport time, effective length of working day).

 76 Figure 19 does not show floating projects with a water depth greater than 60 meters. The OWDB includes 26 

projects, either operating or under some phase of development, in water deeper than 60 meters, with a combined 

capacity of approximately nearly 3,000 megawatts.
71 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 19. Global offshore wind projects as a function of water depth and distance to shore

Note: Bubble size represents project rated capacity (in MW). Source: NREL

5.2 Offshore Wind Turbine Trends

Offshore wind turbines are continuing their upscaling trend. For example, the completion of the 

Burbo Bank extension in early 2017 was the first commercial project to use a V164 8-MW 

turbine that was first prototyped in 2014. Additionally, an upgraded V164 prototype 9.5-MW 

turbine was debuted in 2017 (MHI Vestas Offshore 2017a, 2017b). Larger turbine sizes are 

enabled in offshore applications, in part, because there are fewer transportation and installation 

limits than for land-based projects. Furthermore, incorporating larger turbines in a project’s 

design may also reduce the nonturbine balance-of-plant costs as well as having fewer turbines to 

service.

Figure 20 shows global offshore wind turbine trends since 2000 along with the capacityweighted77 average turbine rating (blue bars; left axis), capacity-weighted average rotor diameter 

(green line; right axis), and hub height (orange line; right axis). Note that the forecast through 

2022 for weighted average turbine capacity, rotor diameter, and hub height is based on a 

subsample of projects that have announced an agreement or partnership with a turbine OEM, 

which represents 38,856 MW.

 77 A capacity-weighted average weighs the contribution of given characteristic (e.g., turbine rating) by the associated 

amount of capacity (megawatts) based on its percentage contribution to the total capacity installed in a given year.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 50 100 150 200

Depth (m)

Distance to Shore (km)

Permitting

Approved

Contracted

Under Construction

Installed

U.S. Projects

300 MW

560 MW

1200 MW

41

MW
72 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 20. Global turbine capacities, rotor diameters, and hub heights over time

Note: The values for the expected turbine capacities, rotor diameters, and hub heights from 2017 

to 2022 are weighted average capacity determined from projects that have announced turbine 

supply agreements. Source: NREL

Figure 20 shows that the average nameplate capacity of turbines installed in 2016 was 4.7 MW, a 

14% increase from 2015. The capacity-weighted average rotor diameter and hub height increased 

slightly to 127 m (8% growth from 2015) and 93 m (5% growth from 2015), respectively. These 

2016 capacity-weighted averages are consistent directionally with longer-term industry trends. 

The data suggest that turbines increased from largely 3 MW and under in 2010 to more than 4 

MW beginning in 2015, with some year-to-year fluctuations. The average rotor diameter also 

increased from a capacity-weighted 94 m in 2010 to over 127 m by 2016. An increase in rotor 

diameter raises the amount of energy that a turbine can extract from the wind at a given site and 

has contributed to improvements in energy production across the offshore wind industry.

Looking ahead, the forecast of rated turbine capacity does show evidence of continued upscaling, 

with an expected step up to over 6 MW in 2019. This turbine size increase is evidenced by a 

general industry shift to turbines rated between 6 and 8 MW from the previous 2- to 5-MW class 

turbines. Commensurate with turbine size, the forecast in Figure 20 also shows a continued 

growth in rotor diameter to a capacity-weighted average of over 150 m beginning in 2020.

Some notable steps in development that OEMs have taken recently to demonstrate and 

commercialize advanced turbines include the following:

• Siemens installed the first prototype and certification of its 8-MW SWT-8.0-154 turbine 

at the national test center in Østerild, Denmark, in January 2017. The new turbine

increased annual electricity production by approximately 10% and rated capacity by 14% 

over the previous 7-MW model (SWT-7.0-154) (Froese 2017).
73 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• As noted previously, MHI Vestas, a joint venture between MHI and Vestas, completed 

the Burbo Bank Extension project for DONG Energy in the United Kingdom in early 

2017 using V164 8-MW turbines. The project is the first commercial application of these 

turbines and comprises 32 turbines for a total project capacity of 258 MW (MHI Vestas 

Offshore 2017a).

• Adwen, owned by Gamesa, was in the final assembly stages in early 2017 in 

Bremerhaven, Germany, for its 8-MW AD 8-180 turbine. The turbine is contracted for 

multiple projects totaling 1,500 MW (1.5 GW) off the coast of France 

(OffshoreWIND.biz 2017d).

Although it may take some time for the industry to fully adapt to new 6- to 8-MW turbine sizes 

(similar to 2010 through 2015 in Figure 17), further long-term growth in turbine size is still 

likely. Offshore wind turbine OEMs, Siemens, MHI Vestas, and Senvion have indicated that 

they will have a 10-MW+ design in the works (Weston 2017b; Weston 2017b). Fewer largersized turbines reduce the balance-of-system requirements (i.e., less substructures and other 

infrastructure required to achieve the same project size). These larger machines do, however, 

require larger vessels and equipment, as well as enhanced logistical facilities to enable efficient 

transportation, installation, and operation (Elkington et al. 2013). In addition, blade and 

drivetrain validation testing and component manufacturing facilities may require further 

upgrades. These increased infrastructure requirements have the potential to slow the adoption of 

ultra-large turbines in the near term, especially in the nascent U.S. market, which currently lacks 

purpose-built ports and vessels.

5.2.1 Offshore Wind Turbine Original Equipment Manufacturer Activities

There were several notable industry partnerships, mergers, and acquisitions in 2015 and 2016 by 

turbine OEMs. Some of the major announcements include:

• French nuclear group Areva sold its 50% stake in Adwen to Gamesa to focus on its 

nuclear business (Weston 2016b)

• Siemens Wind Power and Gamesa announced a merger in June 2016 (4C Offshore 2016);

the Siemens-Gamesa merger took effect in April 2017 with a new moniker of Siemens 

Gamesa Renewable Energy

• Shanghai Electric Wind Power Equipment (abbreviated as Sewind) built both Siemenslicensed offshore wind turbines as well as some of its own design

• The GE and Alstom power and grid merger process announced in 2014 was completed in 

late 2015 resulting in a GE division titled GE Renewables that is based in Paris 

(WINDPOWER Monthly 2015); the merger was noted as the largest industrial deal in 

GE’s history and was noted in part for allowing GE greater access to the offshore wind 

market (Egan and Kellner 2015).

Figure 21 shows the market share for the top offshore wind OEMs for the operating projects (left 

pane), as well as market share for the project pipeline through 2020 (right pane, shaded blue). Of 
74 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

projects operating by December 31, 2016, (left pane in Figure 21), Siemens has dominated the 

market with a 61% cumulative share, followed by MHI Vestas at 16%, and Senvion at 6%.78

The market share for the announced pipeline (right pane in Figure 21) shows more balance in the 

market in the future. There are approximately 18,564 MW that have disclosed a turbine supplier 

through an unconditional turbine supply agreement, a conditional turbine supply agreement, a 

preferred supplier agreement, or a development partnership agreement. Of the announced 18,564 

MW in the project pipeline, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy remains a market share leader 

with approximately 53% of the announced portfolio but this share is down from the combined 

66% of the operational market when Siemens and Gamesa were independent entities. MHI 

Vestas accounts for 17%, whereas GE79 (formerly Alstom) and Gamesa (formerly Adwen) 

account for 16% and 14%, respectively. As noted by Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015, some of 

the main drivers accounting for increased market share competition include a larger total market 

size and increased geographical diversification.

Figure 21. Global market share for offshore wind turbine OEMs shows increased competition

Source: NREL

5.3 Substructure Technology and Market Trends

Substructures for offshore wind projects are evolving to meet the new demands associated with 

deeper water and larger, heavier turbines. Designers and fabricators are simultaneously 

innovating to lessen costs by:

• Adopting more efficient substructure geometries that seek to minimize material intensity 

and increase the ease of fabrication

• Simplifying installation operations, either by decreasing installation time or reducing 

dependencies on expensive vessels

 78 Gamesa’s 5% share of the operating assets reflects its ownership of Adwen. 79 Note that GE also deployed offshore turbines in 2003 at Arklow Banks using other turbines.

Siemens

61%

MHI Vestas

16%

Senvion

6%

Gamesa

5%

Sewind

5%

BARD

3% Sinovel

1%

GE

1%

Other

2%

Operating (12,695 MW)

Siemens 

Gamesa

Renewable 

Energy

53%

MHI Vestas

17%

GE

16%

Sinovel

5%

Sewind

4%

Other

5%

Pipeline with OEM Announced (18,564 MW)
75 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• Maturing the supply chain by incorporating more efficient, purpose-built equipment and 

processes into manufacturing facilities and staging ports.

Figure 22 shows the market share for offshore wind substructures for the operating projects and 

project pipeline through 2022. Approximately 44% of the 38,856 MW in the development 

pipeline has disclosed a foundation type, although, in many cases, these announcements may 

simply be initial proposals and may not reflect a commercial agreement with a supplier.

Figure 22. Global offshore wind substructure market share

Source: NREL

Figure 22 reveals that monopiles have historically been the dominant substructure, with 9,840 

MW installed as of December 31, 2016, or an 80% market share. Monopiles are followed by 

tripods (6% share), gravity bases (5%), high-rise pile caps (4%), and tri-piles (3%), supporting 

turbines that are already installed and operating. Each of the substructure types are designed 

differently:

• Monopile. Consists of a cylindrical foundation pile and a transition piece (transitional 

section between the tower and monopile); the diameter of the pile is specified by the

water depth and seabed conditions (Yanguas Minambres 2012)

• Jacket. Consists of three or four legs connected by slender braces; the elements are 

tubular and are typically joined by welding

• Gravity base. Relies on the weight and ballast of the base structure (typically consisting 

of steel-reinforced concrete) to keep the tower and turbine in place

• High-rise pile cap. Typically consists of a series of piles that are capped by a rigid 

structure mainly used in Asia in shallow waters and soft soil conditions (Wind Energy 

Update 2013)
76 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• Suction bucket. Combines the properties of a monopile and a gravity-base substructure 

to resist overturning with the interface with the seabed provided by a steel skirt

• Tripod. A three-leg structure made of cylindrical steel tubes connected to a main tubular 

section at the center that makes the connection to the wind turbine tower; the substructure 

is driven into the seabed using foundation piles through sleeves at the end of each leg

• Tri-pile. Made of three tubular steel piles and a three-legged transition piece placed on 

top of them that also connects the turbine tower; the joints between the piles and 

transition piece are grouted together permanently

• Floating. Appeared in the offshore wind market with the tendency of the industry to 

move into deeper water; floating substructures are covered in more detail in Section 6.

Looking ahead, monopiles are expected to remain the dominant substructure type but are 

expected to lose some market share, representing about 59% of the future disclosed pipeline. 

Jackets are expected to gain market share, moving up to 22%, reflecting the industry’s move to 

deeper water sites and larger turbine sizes. However, the adoption of jackets has been much 

slower than expected, largely as a result of the emergence of extra-large monopiles that have 

extended the depth range of monopiles out to 40 m or more while remaining suitable for large 

turbines.

Floating substructures also seem to be emerging and may soon be a significant contributor. 

However, predictions based on the current pipeline may be artificially high. The majority of the

floating projects in the global pipeline (2,905 MW) are driven by some large proposed projects in 

Hawaii and California that are at a very early stage of development. Realistically, these projects 

are unlikely to be built before 2025. To date, several precommercial and commercial floating 

projects are being proposed, but the timing of deployment remains uncertain for many projects.

Gravity-base structures appear to be gaining market share—from 5% of installed turbines to 7% 

of offshore turbines planned. This increase may be an indication of interest in advanced gravitybase structures, which can be installed without the use of expensive heavy-lift vessels, thereby 

potentially making gravity-base substructures more competitive (Snieckus 2014).

5.3.1 Fixed-Bottom Substructure Trends

Monopiles tend to be the most cost-effective, fixed-bottom substructure technology both in terms 

of fabrication and installation. Until recently, many experts thought that monopiles would have 

limited applicability for waters deeper than 30 m or turbine sizes greater than 5 MW. But new 

extra-large monopiles, enabled by improved processes that allow for the fabrication and 

installation of larger-diameter piles and vessels with increased driving capacity, have greatly

expanded the design envelope.

The industry is maturing a number of innovative, fixed-bottom substructures that are expected to 

be adopted for commercial projects in the near term including:
77 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• A three-legged jacket with a suction pile foundation, like the one designed by SPT 

Offshore, may optimize installation procedures and may lead to cost savings (SPT 

Offshore undated)

• The use of a twisted jacket technology, designed by Keystone Engineering, which has the 

potential to optimize installation procedures

• The use of a monobucket foundation (Funk 2015), which combines a monopile with a 

suction bucket, designed for soft soil conditions may solve freshwater and sea icing 

issues (LEEDCo 2017)

• An advanced gravity-base foundation, which can be installed without the use of crane 

vessels, was installed in 2015 to support a met tower at the Fecamp site in France. The 

498-MW Fecamp project expects to use 83 gravity-base foundations supporting 6-MW 

turbines, to be commissioned in 2021 (Weston 2015c).

80

The BIWF is the first offshore wind project to use a gulf-style jacket, in which piles are driven 

through the legs of the jacket after it has been placed on the seabed. Although this design has 

been widely employed in the offshore oil and gas industry, the jackets at the BIWF are the first 

application of the design for offshore wind turbines. The offshore wind industry has historically 

driven piles into the seabed and the jacket placed directly on the piles or the jacket placed on the 

seabed and piles driven through sleeves attached to the jacket legs.

5.4 Electrical Infrastructure Technology and Market Trends

Electrical infrastructure typically has three components: the array cable system, the export 

system, and the land-based transmission infrastructure. The array system collects power from the 

transformers of individual wind turbines and delivers it to the offshore substation transformer via 

a grid of submarine cables (typical rating of 33 kilovolts [kV]). The export system usually 

includes a substation that transforms 33-kV array voltage up to the voltage of the export cable to 

shore (typical rating of 132 and 220 kV). Land-based transmission infrastructure includes

transmission lines and substation upgrades or new construction required to connect to the 

existing power grid on land.

5.4.1 Array Cable System Trends

Array cable systems for commercial projects are typically rated at 33 kV and connected radially 

to the substation. The rated capacity of cables at this voltage is approximately 36 MW for a 

single cable connected to the substation, which has worked well with turbines rated below 6 

MW. Moving to larger turbine sizes limits the number of turbines that can be connected to the 

substation with a single cable, which, all else equal, will increase the length of array cables 

required for a given project, and will contribute to higher electrical losses in the array.

Increasing the array system voltage to ~66 kV would enable more efficient array cable layouts 

for projects using larger turbine ratings and reduce CapEx. Other benefits of 66-kV array voltage 

would be: lighter cables from reduced conductor size with higher voltages, fewer electrical losses 

(up to 75% for the same cable cross-sectional area) within the array cable system, decreased 

 80 http://parc-eolien-en-mer-de-fecamp.fr/le-parc-eolien-en-mer/agenda-du-projet/. The website can be translated to 

English using Chrome. The website provides high level information about the Fecamp project.
78 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

substation transformer weight and number of substations, and the ability to adopt more redundant 

array cable layouts (e.g., ring configurations) to increase reliability. Progress towards highervoltage array systems has been slower than anticipated (DNV GL 2015). The 66-kV cable 

technology has been selected for the Blyth Offshore Wind Farm demonstration project currently 

under construction in the United Kingdom and is planned to be used at the WindFloat Atlantic 

project (EDF Energy Renewables 2017; JDR 2017). In 2016, Nexans completed its qualification 

for 66-kV cross-linked polyethylene array cables as part of the Carbon Trust’s Offshore Wind 

Accelerator program, supported by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change and the

Scottish Government (Nexans 2016).

In 2017, ABB unveiled the 66-kV WindSTAR transformer. As wind turbine capacity has 

reached 8 MW and is still increasing rapidly, transformer technology needs to adapt. ABB’s 

specialty transformers are compact, with a 30-year lifetime to enable the next generation of 

turbines to operate at 66 kV. The WindSTAR transformers will debut in 2017 at the 41.5-MW 

Blyth Offshore Demonstrator Wind Farm Project—the world’s first wind farm to use 66-kV 

technology. ABB will also supply another eleven 66-kV transformers to the European Offshore 

Wind Deployment Centre.

5.4.2 Export System Trends

The trend toward siting projects farther from shore is increasing the length of export cables and 

driving offshore wind project developers to adopt system designs based on higher voltages. 

These changes indicate that export system costs are contributing more to overall life cycle costs, 

and are increasingly becoming a focal point for cost reduction efforts.81

In 2015, Siemens first unveiled its high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) offshore 

transmission module (OTM), which packages the electrical conversion equipment typically 

found on stand-alone offshore substations into smaller, lighter units that can be installed directly 

on (slightly modified) turbine substructures. Each OTM weighs 630 metric tonnes (mT), is 

approximately 10 m high by 30 m long, and can accommodate 250 MW of power (a more than 

50% reduction of weight and volume compared to conventional designs). The compact size and 

light weight means that the units can be installed by the jack-up crane vessel used for turbine 

installation, removing dependencies on expensive heavy-lift vessels that can cost between 

$300,000 and $850,000 per day. It is estimated that the OTM can reduce substation CapEx, 

including procurement and installation costs, by up to 40% (Siemens 2016). The 448-MW Neart 

na Gaoithe project in the United Kingdom announced that it will adopt this technology 

(Mainstream Renewable Power 2014). The transformer for the first OTM module was shipped 

by Siemens for the Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm in May 2017 (OffshoreWIND.biz 2017f).

For projects that are located far from shore, conventional HVAC systems can be prohibitively 

expensive when evaluated in terms of CapEx and potential revenue losses. In these situations, 

developers or transmission system operators (TSOs) have opted for HVDC solutions. An 

example of a case study is shown in Figure 23, which shows a cost comparison between two 

transmission cable scenarios. An AC and a DC submarine transmission cable connecting an 

 81 For developers who are responsible for offshore grid connection. The export system is less of a focus in markets 

in which grid connection responsibility lies with the transmission system operator. 
79 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

offshore substation to a shore power system are compared (note that the cost of offshore 

substation is included) (Van Hertem, Gomis-Bellmunt, and Liang 2016). For 1,500 MW of 

transmission capacity, 245-kV AC and ±320-kV DC voltage-source converter transmission 

options show a break-even distance of 190 km is reached before the active power transmission 

capability of the AC system is reached. Thus, the DC option is not economical for this specific 

case. In general, the break-even distances between HVAC and HVDC transmission depends on 

many factors including transmission distances, capacities, and voltage levels.

Figure 23. Cost comparison between AC and DC submarine transmission

Source: Van Hertem, Gomis-Bellmunt, and Liang 2016

The German government is planning the construction of offshore wind power plants with a total 

capacity of 6,500 MW, and TenneT, the German TSO, will be involved in developing 

infrastructural projects in the North Sea utilizing both HVAC and HVDC transmission 

technologies (TenneT 2017). Several of these connections have been completed; however, 

technical and logistical challenges led to significant schedule delays and cost overruns. Major 

contractors, including Siemens and ABB, have announced cost overruns, which total over €1 

billion ($1.3 billion USD) when combined, and expressed that they will be taking a more 

cautious approach to future bids from pricing and risk acceptance perspectives (Smith 2014; 

Webb and De Beaupuy 2014).

82

These developments introduce uncertainty into how future HVDC contracts will be priced; yet, 

available evidence suggests that prices will likely increase. In 2017, researchers from Norway, 

the United Kingdom, and Spain formed a consortium to combat technical barriers currently 

hampering the practical deployment of HVDC grids in the North Sea needed to exploit the 

potential of the region’s wind resource (OffshoreWIND.biz 2017g). Also, in 2017, the First U.K.

HVDC Test Centre opened for business (OffshoreWIND.biz 2017h). The centre is expected to 

 82 For example, ABB indicated that it will no longer provide a wrap on converter system contracts, thereby 

guaranteeing a fixed-price value for executions.
80 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

play a crucial role in the development of HVDC technology projects that are a result of the

increasing number of offshore wind power plants in the United Kingdom.

In 2016, Vattenfall won a bid to build the 600-MW Kriegers Flak offshore wind plant in 

Denmark, the largest in the Nordic region, with a combined grid solution allowing integration of 

offshore wind power into the interconnector between two asynchronous grids—Germany and 

eastern Denmark (part of the Nordic grid). The HVDC back-to-back-based interconnector will 

allow the connection of asynchronous AC power grids of eastern Denmark and Germany, and 

also make it possible to export the wind-generated power to Germany. Part of the wind 

production will be exported to Denmark via a HVAC link because of shorter transmission 

distances (Weston 2016c).

5.5 Vessel and Logistical Trends

Offshore wind projects are expected to move to sites that are farther from shore, in deeper water, 

and subject to more severe metocean conditions. Simultaneously, there is a trend toward larger 

turbine sizes, which are characterized by bigger, heavier components and higher hub heights. As 

a result of this growth in size and weight, new logistical challenges related to construction and 

maintenance activities have surfaced. The U.S. industry has its own particular set of challenges, 

introduced by Jones Act requirements,83 which are leading developers to modify installation 

strategies to match the capabilities of the existing U.S. vessel fleet. These strategies, which are 

generally less efficient than those that can be achieved with the purpose-built fleet of vessels in 

Europe, are likely to result in a cost premium for the initial U.S. projects. The U.S. offshore wind 

industry is currently investigating options to obtain a Jones-Act-compliant turbine installation 

vessel by retrofitting an existing vessel or constructing a new vessel. In July 2017, Zentech Inc. 

and Renewable Resources International announced their intention to deliver the first Jones-Actcompliant, four-legged, self-propelled, dynamically positioned level 2 (DP2) jack-up vessel to 

the emerging U.S. offshore wind industry (Runyon 2017; Clean Energy Group 2017).

5.5.1 Construction Vessels and Logistics Trends

Douglas Westwood (2014) discussed trends in installation vessels that are generally increasing in 

size to handle the bigger components associated with larger turbines. However, there are few 

vessels that can handle the 8- to 10-MW turbine sizes announced for many future offshore wind 

projects. The shortage could be exacerbated when turbines are to be installed in deeper water 

sites (e.g., greater than 40 m); the maximum effective crane hook height is a function of water 

depth, jack-up leg length, soil properties (which determines leg penetration), and crane height. 

Today, the offshore wind industry is installing 6-MW offshore turbines with wind turbine OEMs 

announcing the release of 10-MW turbines. The larger machines will continue to push the limits 

of current offshore installation vessel capabilities.

The 30-MW BIWF remained compliant with the Jones Act as the turbine components were 

transported by U.S.-flagged lift boats from the Block Island, Galilee, Quonset Point, and 

 83 The Jones Act (also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) prohibits the transfer of merchandise between 

“points in the U.S.” unless the owner and crew of the vessel are “American,” as certified by the Secretary of 

Transportation. The Secretary may, however, choose to grant an exemption if no suitable American vessels exist 

(Hamilton et al. 2014).
81 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

ProvPort construction and staging ports to the project site. The turbine installation was 

completed by a foreign-flagged turbine installation vessel named the Brave Tern that remained at 

the offshore site while the balance-of-system installation and assembly activities utilized a fleet 

of U.S.-flagged vessels. The offshore wind industry in collaboration with the U.S. shipping 

industry is looking to identify other efficient turbine installation methods compliant with the 

Jones Act including the potential use of U.S.-flagged turbine installation vessels staged in local 

ports.

5.5.2 Maintenance Vessels and Logistics Trends

Offshore wind O&M costs are expected to vary considerably among offshore wind power plant 

locations. From previous experience, (Maples et al. 2013; Jacquemin 2011; van de Pieterman 

2011) the two largest locational drivers of O&M cost differences between offshore wind projects 

are the distance between the project and maintenance facilities (e.g., O&M port and/or inshore 

assembly area) and the prevailing metocean climate at the project site. The siting of offshore 

wind projects in locations that are farther from shore and in more severe metocean conditions 

(e.g., higher wind speeds and wave heights) has amplified the challenges of safely delivering 

technicians and components to the project site. Operators are addressing these challenges by 

rapidly incorporating next-generation O&M vessels and optimizing related strategies.84

For example, for projects that are a medium distance from port (nominally between 40 km and 

70 km), operators are testing vessels known as surface effect ships, such as the Umoe Wave 

Craft, which increases vessel speed from 20 to 35 knots and increases the limit above which

technician transfers cannot occur from a 1.5-m significant wave height to a 2.5-m significant 

wave height. This type of vessel is being utilized by DONG Energy at the Borkum Riffgrund 1

project, located 54 km from its O&M base in Norddeich (DONG Energy 2014).

For projects that are a greater distance from port (nominally beyond 70 km), operators are 

beginning to use service operations vessels. These vessels are designed to stay on-site for 

extended deployments, with endurance generally exceeding 1 month. These crafts are outfitted 

with the capability to launch small service vessels and typically have motion-compensated 

gangways to allow for technician transfers in harsh weather. Siemens is deploying service 

operations vessels at four projects and estimates that its deployment of one such vessel at 

Westernmost Rough will cut weather-related downtime from the current levels of 40%‒45% 

down to 10%‒15% (Snieckus 2015).

 84 An optimized O&M strategy is one that simultaneously minimizes direct OpEx while maximizing the revenue that 

the project can generate through power sales (maximizing availability).
82 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

6 Floating Offshore Wind Trends

6.1 Global Market Assessment

Globally, the trend toward floating wind turbines continues to accelerate. A number of successful 

proof-of-concept projects and research programs across Asia, Europe, and North America have 

begun to stimulate commercial interest. The push to develop new floating technology is 

motivated by large deepwater resources off the coasts of major energy markets where the 

offshore wind resource in water depths less than 60 m may be limited (Musial 2016; James and 

Ros 2015).

The floating offshore wind industry appears to be evolving from proof-of-concept single turbine 

deployments that characterized the first wave of prototype development from 2009 through 

2015. The current trend is characterized by the deployment of multiturbine, precommercial pilot 

projects. From the 26 worldwide floating wind projects under some phase of development, there 

are about 11 individual projects totaling 229 MW of capacity that have advanced past the 

planning phase and are either under construction, approved, or have significant resources 

committed to move forward with development. These projects are dispersed globally and are 

identified in Figure 24 and Table 29 (green shading in table). The figure shows water depth, 

estimated COD, project-rated capacity, and the development phase. It shows the 26 operating, 

decommissioned, and announced projects (with a total capacity of 2,905 MW) including 21 

demonstration-scale projects, and five commercial-scale projects in Hawaii, California, and 

France. The total number of floating projects in the pipeline has increased more than threefold 

since 2015 when a capacity of 819 MW was reported (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015). The 

projects shown range in scale from 2 MW (Floatgen) to the 50-MW Kincardine (4C Offshore 

2017b).

Figure 24. Global timeline for floating offshore wind projects 

Source: NREL
83 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table 29. Floating Offshore Wind Projects (as of June 2017)

Note: Blue shading indicates projects that have been installed; green shading indicates projects that are described in more detail later; white 

shading indicates future floating projects not highlighted; yellow shading indicates projects that are cancelled and not counted.

Leading countries in the deployment of floating offshore wind are France, Norway, Japan, 

United Kingdom (Scotland), United States, Portugal, and Germany. Other countries such as 

Spain and Denmark are also contributing to the development of floating wind technology.

A significant part of this new phase of development comes from the French tender for floating 

offshore wind projects that was launched on August 5, 2015. The French government is 

supporting the development of four precommercial floating wind farms, each at about 24 MW, 

and all at a similar water depth and distance from shore (see Appendix B-9 through B-12). Three 

of the projects will be located in the Mediterranean Sea and one will be sited in the Atlantic 

Ocean.

Although the industry is reporting significant progress in the development of these nextgeneration pilot projects, the global installed capacity of floating wind did not increase 

significantly since the previous market report documenting industry progress up to June 30, 

2015, (Smith, Stehly, and Musial 2015). The only turbine deployed during this period was the 

Hamakaze spar under Fukushima Forward, Phase 2, using the Hitachi 5-MW prototype in 

September 2016 (see Appendix B-4).

6.2 Floating Offshore Wind Trends

Although still in the precommercial phase of maturity, over the past year floating wind 

technology appears to have gained credibility and mainstream recognition. It is now being 
84 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

considered a viable future renewable technology. The following summarizes the major trends 

identified in this study that point to the likely emergence of a floating wind industry in the next 

decade.

6.2.1 Floating Offshore Wind Resource

Globally, the offshore wind energy resource for floating technology exceeds the resource for 

technologies that rely on fixed-bottom foundations. In Europe, the Carbon Trust (2015) estimates 

that 80% of the available offshore wind energy resource is located in waters with a depth greater 

than 60 m. The same study indicates that in Japan, 80% of the offshore wind resource has a depth 

of greater than 60 m. In the United States, 58% of the resource potential was estimated to be 

located in depths greater than 60 m.

85 In terms of generating capacity, the deep-water technical 

resource was estimated to be 1,196 GW for the entire United States (excluding Alaska) (Musial 

et al. 2016a). In the eastern United States, up to 25 GW of fixed-bottom offshore wind sites may 

be available for near-term development as described in Section 3.0. However, significant 

expansion of the Atlantic resource area beyond this near-term development may require (lease) 

sites that are farther from shore and in deeper waters. In the Pacific, over 90% of the available 

offshore wind resource is located in waters that have a depth greater than 60 m. California, the 

world’s 8th largest economy and a major energy market, has 95% of its available 112 GW of 

offshore wind resource in waters greater than 60 m (Musial et al. 2016a). Musial et al. (2016a)

found that up to 15 GW of that resource may be located in areas without competing or 

environmental use conflicts, so that development may be considered. In the Great Lakes, 

freshwater ice may impede floating offshore wind deployment, but over 500 terawatt-hours/year 

of new resource could potentially be available if new technology is developed to resist floating 

ice (Gilman et al. 2016).

Figure 25 shows a map estimating the modeled economic “break point” for the cost-optimal 

choice between fixed-bottom and floating technology dependent upon certain spatial factors

(e.g., wind speeds, water depth, distance from shore, metocean conditions) for a commercial 

operation date of 2022 (Beiter et al 2016).

 85 Assuming wind speeds greater than 7 m/s and water depths no greater than 1,000 m; excluding all water in the 

Great Lakes above 60 m because of ice limitations (Musial et al. 2016a).
85 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure 25. LCOE break points between fixed and floating technologies in the United States for 

potential offshore wind project locations (2022 COD) 

Source: Beiter et al. 2016

As the current technology for floating wind energy matures beyond the single turbine 

demonstration stage over the next few years, more of this deep-water resource is likely to 

become part of an evolving commercial market for large floating wind energy projects.

6.2.2 Existing Floating Offshore Wind Projects

To date, only six utility-scale floating offshore turbines have been deployed globally. Because of 

the precommercial status, the first floating offshore wind turbines were arguably overdesigned, 

undersized, and not cost optimized. They are shown in the blue shading in Table 29. Their 

purpose was to prove technical viability, and to that end were successful. The early design 

approach used methods that were already demonstrated successfully in the offshore oil and gas 

industry and were modified for wind applications. These early prototypes relied on the use of 

relatively heavy land-based or fixed-bottom offshore turbines designed as independent 

subcomponents. The major components of floating offshore wind systems were integrated after 

the design parameters were already set, allowing only incremental design adjustments to ensure 

survival of the floating systems. In most cases, construction and maintenance of the floating 

offshore wind systems were integrated after the core system designs were already fixed. This 

first wave of floating turbines demonstrated a sufficiently high degree of technological success, 

but, cost and long-term operational issues were still poorly understood. Appendix B-1 through B4 provide more information on these early-stage floating wind projects.
86 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

6.2.3 Floating Offshore Wind Research Investments

Tracking the level of global research funding is one way to gauge the interest in floating offshore 

wind technology. Although an accurate record of historic data is not available to derive trends, 

Figure 26 shows the results of a survey conducted by NREL that focused on offshore wind 

research spending.

Figure 26. Global estimate of floating wind energy research and development spending between 

2013 and December 31, 2015 

Source: NREL Offshore R&D Activities Database86

Figure 26 shows the level of research dollars that are estimated to have been spent in three 

regions of the world—Asia, Europe, and North America (mostly by government sources)—

between 2013 and 2015. It shows funding for projects that have disclosed their funding amounts, 

so the totals may be underestimating the actual amount. The funding is broken down into two 

categories: “demonstration projects” and “other R&D,” which include basic and applied 

research.

R&D funding of $416 million is estimated to have been allocated to nine demonstration projects 

globally. In the United States, the funding for demonstration projects went to Aqua Ventus I & 

WindFloat Pacific, funded by DOE under the ATD program.

87

DOE also devoted $74 million to funding 19 other floating wind R&D projects. Research areas 

that were funded include floating wind project design, foundation design, foundation testing and 

 86 Note: Project list consists of active projects (as of end of 2015 and projects finished after 2013). It does not 

comprehensively encompass all R&D projects for floating wind technology in all regions. Certain projects without 

available funding amounts are not accounted for in Figure 26. 87 Note that Wind Float Pacific received $10.7 million in research funding before leaving the DOE ATD program. 

Similarly, Aqua Ventus received $10.7 million as of July 2017, but DOE has funds set aside to bring the Aqua 

Ventus total to $50 million pending the project’s completion of established milestones.
87 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

evaluation, O&M of floating wind turbines, materials for floating foundations, environmental 

studies and surveying, and simulation of floating wind projects.

6.2.4 Floating Technology Trends

Market analysis indicates that the future potential for new floating offshore wind is considerable

and may eventually exceed the market for fixed-bottom offshore wind energy, based on the 

resource size and estimates of the cost reduction potential.

The next phase for floating offshore wind technology is the deployment of about 11 projects 

around the world totaling 229 MW. These are generally multiturbine, precommercial pilot 

projects with significant committed resources to potentially advance with development. The first 

of these projects is likely to be the Statoil 30-MW pilot wind farm in the Buchan Deep, located 

approximately 25 km off the coast of Scotland. This project is under construction as of June

2017 and expected to be commissioned before the end of the year. It is comprised of five 6-MW 

Siemens wind turbines mounted on Statoil’s Hywind 2 spar platforms.

A variety of other pilot projects, similar in size to the Statoil Hywind 2 demonstration in 

Scotland, are also underway and are individually described in more detail in Appendix B. 

Collectively, these projects will provide the first commercial industry benchmark for floating 

offshore wind costs and will help the industry take a necessary step toward cost reduction and 

bankability.

One way to differentiate the next generation of floating pilot projects from their first generation 

predecessors is to consider the scale of these projects, which are generally an order of magnitude 

larger on a power capacity basis. Although the cost per megawatt is expected to drop 

considerably from the nominal 2-MW prototype phase, these 20- to 30-MW projects are 

considerably more costly on a total project cost basis and can usually not be financed solely 

using research funding.

88 Most projects are typically the beneficiaries of some support from 

government programs that provide funding intended to be leveraged to help garner the balance of 

the project’s financing under more traditional financing methods. These next-generation pilot 

projects are therefore structured as public/private partnerships to share the risk of this new 

technology development. The government programs sponsoring these projects include the 

French Tenders (ADEME 2015) in France, the ATD Projects in the United States (DOE 2012), 

and direct funding from METI in Japan (Carbon Trust 2014). Because private capital must be 

raised, each project will be subject to additional due diligence with the expectation of long-term 

survivability and a predictable revenue stream.

Floating platform types may be a good indicator of technology trends and industry maturation. 

Platform types have been classified based on their method of achieving static stability as 

buoyancy stabilized (e.g., semisubmersible, barge), mooring line stabilized (tension-leg 

platform), or ballast stabilized (spar) (Musial and Ram 2010). In practice, most platforms are 

hybrids that rely on one dominant method. For example, most semisubmersibles also incorporate 

ballast for stability. The early-stage designs were limited to semisubmersibles and spars, with 

 88 Pilot project costs for 30-MW-scale projects have been in the range of $300 million USD using the Block Island 

Wind Farm as an example, although these costs are expected to drop. 
88 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

semisubmersibles making up the majority of deployed systems. This approach was primarily to 

simplify installation because semisubmersible platforms could be assembled at quayside, and 

towed to an offshore site in a stable configuration with minimal concerns about water depths in 

port or stability during installation. Within the next fleet of floating pilot projects, this trend is 

likely to continue. Out of the 11 most advanced projects in the pipeline (Table 29), six projects 

use semisubmersible platforms. However, the first demonstrations of tension-leg platforms are 

also expected with two pilot projects using technology developed by SBM and GICON. These 

new tension-leg-platform concepts promise to overcome some of the stability disadvantages by 

designing configurations that are stable without mooring system connections to facilitate 

installation and tow-out. In addition, there are two spar concepts underway, by Statoil and an 

advanced 5-MW spar concept as part of the Fukushima Forward consortium. Finally, Ideol 

continues to develop their barge concept (similar to the semisubmersible in terms of static 

stability), in two separate floating projects; the 2-MW Floatgen project and the 24-MW Elomed 

project awarded as one of the French tenders.

Most of these projects that are under development are being led by platform technology 

developers with foundational expertise and knowledge in offshore oil and gas and marine 

operations. Almost all projects continue to use wind turbines that were designed for fixed-bottom 

applications, and are therefore not optimized for floating platforms.

89 Considerations to 

minimize weight, control nacelle motion, manage construction and O&M logistics, and 

maximize floating wind power plant yield have generally not yet been fully addressed. It is likely 

that turbines optimized for floating platforms will not be available until there is sufficient market 

visibility in the floating offshore wind pipeline and will require additional cooperation between 

turbine manufacturers, platform designers, and project developers.

Beyond these pilot-scale floating wind farms, the next phase of floating technology design and 

development is likely to address the functional requirements of the full system, optimized on a 

life-cycle cost basis. This future phase of floating turbine development would move toward fully 

integrated holistic designs. These systems would consider all aspects of development and 

operation including supply chain utilization, manufacturability of major components, minimizing 

costly construction bottlenecks, building in maintenance procedures that eliminate major 

operations and repairs costs, and eventually optimizing the wind turbines themselves.

6.2.5 Floating Cost Trends

The cost of floating wind technology is currently based on a small set of data from the first 

prototype machines. These baseline costs are relatively high, with initial LCOE estimates 

exceeding $200/MWh. However, the potential for cost reduction for floating wind is significant. 

Cost estimates from NREL’s geospatial analysis (Beiter et al. 2016; Gilman et al. 2016) indicate 

that floating costs may show a steeper rate of cost reduction over the next 15 years with the 

potential for approaching cost parity with fixed-bottom wind turbine technology. The basis for 

technology-specific cost reduction potential comes from a range of factors, including (but not 

limited to) the technology’s ability to:

 89 One exception is the inflow project, which uses the Vertiwind vertical-axis turbine concept. This turbine is under 

development at subscale and is undergoing land-based testing at a 600-kW scale (4C Offshore 2017). 
89 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

• Eliminate construction steps 

• Take advantage of automated production in fabrication of the floating platforms

• Increase energy production to offset higher costs resulting from harsher conditions and 

increased O&M at further distances from shore.

For a more detailed discussion of possible methods to reduce cost in floating systems see Beiter 

et al. (2016). Ultimately, floating system optimization may lead to lighter systems and increased 

modularity, making better use of existing supply chains (OffshoreWIND.biz 2017e).
90 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

References

4C Offshore. European Offshore Wind Overview

(2015). http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/downloads/overviewsample.pdf.

“Siemens and Gamesa announce merger of wind businesses,” 4C Offshore, June 17, 2016,

accessed June 2017. http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/siemens-and-gamesa-announcemerger-of-wind-businesses-nid4024.html.

“Offshore Wind Farms,” 4C Offshore, 2017a, http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/.

“Kincardine Offshore Windfarm Project,” 4C Offshore, 

2017b, http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/windfarms.aspx?windfarmId=UK2H.

“Floatgen Project Offshore Wind Farm,” 4C Offshore, 

2017c, http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/floatgen-project-france-fr59.html.

“French Call for Floating Wind Tender” (Appel a projets – Fermes pilotes eoliennes flottantes),

ADEME, August 2015, https://appelsaprojets.ademe.fr/aap/AAP_EolFlo2015-98#top.

T. Andresen, “Offshore Wind Farms Offer Subsidy-Free Power for First Time.” Bloomberg, 

April 13, 2017, accessed June 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-

13/germany-gets-bids-for-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-farms.

A. Arapogianni and J. Moccia, Where’s the money coming from? Financing offshore wind 

farms, European Wind Energy Association. November

2013. http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/reports/Financing_Offshore_Win

d_Farms.pdf.

Arent, D., P. Sullivan, D. Heimiller, A. Lopez, K. Eurek, J. Badger, H. Ejsing Jørgenson, M. 

Kelly, L. Clarke, P. Luckow. 2012. Improved Offshore Wind Resource Assessment in Global 

Climate Stabilization Scenarios (Technical Report). NREL/TP-6A20-55049.National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55049.pdf.

AWS Truepower. 2012. Block Island Wind Farm Energy Production Estimate. Prepared for 

Deepwater Wind. http://dwwind.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BIWF-EnergyProduction.pdf.

Banister, K. 2017. Wind Float Pacific Project Final Scientific and Technical Report (DOE-F 

241.3. DE-EE0005987. Principle Power, 

Inc. https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1339449.

Barnes, J. “Vineyard Wind opens New Bedford office.” South Coast Today (2017). Accessed 

June 2017. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20170629/vineyard-wind-opens-new-bedfordoffice.
91 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Beiter, P., W. Musial, A. Smith, L. Kilcher, R. Damiani, M. Maness, S. Sirnivas, T. Stehly, V. 

Gevorgian, M. Mooney, G. Scott. 2016. A Spatial-Economic Cost Reduction Pathway Analysis 

for U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Development from 2015−2030 (Technical Report). NREL/TP6A20-66579. NREL, Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66579.pdf.

Beiter P., W. Musial, L. Kilcher, M. Maness, A. Smith. 2017. An Assessment of the Economic 

Potential of Offshore Wind in the United States from 2015 to 2030 (Technical Report). 

NREL/TP-6A20-67675. NREL, Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67675.pdf.

Berger, R. 2016. Offshore wind power. Takeaways from the Borssele wind farm. Roland Berger 

Think Act Beyond Mainstream. Accessed June 

2017. https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/tab_offshore_wind.pdf.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “Renewable Energy Project Database,” 2016. Accessed 

December 2016.

“Governor Brown Signs Landmark Climate Legislation,” Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown 

Jr. (2015), accessed June 2017. https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19153.

“Bundesnetzagentur announces successful bids in first auction for offshore wind farms,”

Bundesnetzagentur, April 13, 2017, accessed May 

2017. https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2017/13042017_W

indSeeG.html.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2013a. Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf. OCS-A 

0486. https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/RI/Executed-LeaseOCS-A-0486.aspx.

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

the Outer Continental Shelf. OCS-A 0483. https://www.boem.gov/VA-Lease-OCS-A/.

BOEM. “BOEM issues first wind energy research lease in Federal offshore waters.” March 24, 

2015. https://www.boem.gov/press03242015a/.

“Oregon Activities,” BOEM, 2017a, https://www.boem.gov/Oregon/.

“Commercial Wind Leasing Offshore Massachusetts,” BOEM,

2017b, https://www.boem.gov/Commercial-Wind-Leasing-Offshore-Massachusetts/.

BOEM. 2017c. Cape Wind Energy Project: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement. OCS EIS/EA; BOEM 2017-0006. https://www.boem.gov/Cape-Wind-EnergyProject-Draft-Supplemental-Environmental-Impact-Statement/.

“New York Activities,” BOEM, 2017d, https://www.boem.gov/New-York/.

“Commercial Wind Leasing Offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts,” BOEM, 

2017e, https://www.boem.gov/Commercial-Wind-Lease-Rhode-Island-and-Massachusetts/.
92 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

BOEM. 2017f. Atlantic Wind Lease Sale 7 (ATLW–7) for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power 

on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Kitty Hawk, North Carolina— Final Sale Notice; 

MMAA104000. Federal Register, Volume 82, Number 11, January 18, 2017, Notices: p. 

5600. https://www.boem.gov/82-FR-5600/.

BVG Associates. 2012. Offshore wind cost reduction pathways: Technology work stream. The 

Crown Estate. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5643/ei-bvg-owcrp-technologyworkstream.pdf.

Campbell, S. “Europe’s offshore leader faces slower year.” WINDPOWER Offshore (2015), 

accessed June 2017, http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1335234/europes-offshoreleader-faces-slower-year.

“Carbon Trust awards funding to cut offshore wind costs by up to £100m per year,” Carbon 

Trust, July 15, 2014. Accessed August 2015. http://www.carbontrust.com/aboutus/press/2014/07/carbon-trust-awards-funding-to-cut-offshore-wind-costs-by-up-to-100m-peryear.

James, R., and M. C. Ros. 2015. Floating Offshore Wind: Market and Technology Review. 

Prepared for the Scottish Government. Carbon Trust, United 

Kingdom. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/670664/floating-offshore-wind-markettechnology-review.pdf.

Cardwell, D. “Offshore Wind Farm Leases Draw Few Bids From Wary Industry.” New York 

Times (2015), accessed June 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/business/energyenvironment/offshore-wind-farm-leases-draw-few-bids-from-wary-industry.html.

“Cost Reduction Monitoring Framework,” Catapult Offshore Renewable Energy, 2017, accessed 

July 2017, https://ore.catapult.org.uk/our-knowledge-areas/knowledge-standards/knowledgestandards-projects/cost-reduction-monitoring-framework/.

Chesto, J. “Wind turbines off of Block Island first of their kind.” Boston Globe (2017), accessed 

June 2017, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/06/13/wind-turbines-spin-off-coast-blockisland/xhvkrlopZazWVOwqYk7UaI/story.html.

“Governor Chris Christie Takes Action on Pending Legislation from the 216th Legislative 

Session,” State of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (2016), accessed June 

2017, http://nj.gov/governor/news/news/552016/approved/20160119a.html.

Clean Energy Group, “The Case for Building a U.S. Offshore Wind Vessel + Other 

Opportunities for the U.S. O&G Sector in Offshore Wind,” (webinar presented on June 6, 

2017.) http://www.cleanegroup.org/webinar/case-building-us-offshore-wind-vesselopportunities-us-og-sector/.

Consolidated Edison and Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). 2009. Joint Con Edison – LIPA 

Offshore Wind Power Integration Project: Feasibility 

Assessment. http://www.offshorewindhub.org/sites/default/files/resources/lipaconed_3-20-

2009_feasibilitystudy_0.pdf.
93 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

“Governor Cuomo Presents 25th Proposal of 2017 State of the State: Nation’s Largest Offshore 

Wind Energy Project Off Long Island Coast and Unprecedented Commitment to Develop up to 

2.4 Gigawatts of Offshore Wind Power by 2030,” New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo 

(2017), accessed June 2017, https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-presents-25thproposal-2017-state-state-nations-largest-offshore-wind-energy.

“RI Supreme Court Upholds Block Island Wind Farm Power Contract,” Deepwater Wind, 

2015a, http://dwwind.com/press/ri-supreme-court-upholds-block-island-wind-farm-powercontract/.

“Deepwater Wind Proposes Innovative Offshore Wind, Energy Storage Solution to Meet 

Growing Energy Demand on Long Island’s South Fork,” Deepwater Wind,

2015b, http://dwwind.com/news/deepwater-wind-proposes-innovative-offshore-wind-energystorage-solution-to-meet-growing-energy-demand-on-long-islands-south-fork/.

Del Franco, M. “DONG Talks Up Bay State Wind in Advance of State Legislation.” North 

American WINDPOWER (2016), accessed June 2017, http://nawindpower.com/dong-talks-upbay-state-wind-in-advance-of-state-legislation.

Deloitte. 2011. Analysis on the furthering of competition in relation to the establishment of large 

offshore wind farms in Denmark. The Ministry of Climate and Energy 

(ENS). https://stateofgreen.com/files/download/382.

de Vries, E. “MHI Vestas launches 9.5MW V164 turbine in London.” WINDPOWER Monthly

(2017), accessed June 2017, http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1435504/mhi-vestaslaunches-95mw-v164-turbine-london.

DNV GL. (2015). Cost Reduction Monitoring Framework: Summary Report to the Offshore 

Wind Programme Board. ORE Catapult and The Crown Estate. 

https://ore.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CRMF-ORE-Catapult-report-to-theOWPB.pdf.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011. A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an 

Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Washington, D.C.

(US). https://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf.

“EERE Funding Opportunity Exchange. DE-FOA-0000410: U.S. Offshore Wind: Advanced 

Technology Demonstration Projects,” 2012, DOE, accessed July 19, 2017, https://eereexchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx?Search=410#FoaId5bfa6fc8-0b9b-4983-868d-5ec8537a585a.

DOE. 2015. WindVision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States. DOE/GO-102015-

4557. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Washington, D.C. (US).

http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/WindVision_Report_final.pdf.
94 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

“Dong Energy Wind Power U.S. Inc. and Eversource Announce Partnership to Make LargeScale Offshore Wind a Reality in the United States,” DONG Energy, 

2016, http://www.dongenergy.com/en/media/newsroom/news/articles/partnership-to-make-largescale-offshore-wind-a-reality-in-the-us.

Douglas Westwood. 2014. Assessment of Vessel Requirements for the U.S. Offshore Wind 

Sector. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. http://wind.energy.gov/pdfs/assessment_vessel_requirements_US_offshore_wind_report

.pdf.

EC Harris. 2012. Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Pathways—Supply Chain Work Stream. The 

Crown Estate. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5614/ei-echarris-owcrp-supply-chainworkstream.pdf.

“EDF Energy Renewables starts work on the Blyth offshore wind farm.” EDF Energy 

Renewables, 

2016. http://media.edfenergy.com/r/1103/edf_energy_renewables_starts_work_on_the_blyth_off

shore.

Egan, M. and T. Kellner. “New Power Generation: GE-Alstom Energy Deal Redefines Power 

Industry in Coming Decades.” GE Reports (2015), accessed June 

2017. http://www.gereports.com/new-power-generation-ge-alstom-energy-deal-redefines-powerindustry-coming-decades/.

Elkington, C., A. Blatiak, H. Ameen. 2013. Assessments of Ports for Offshore Wind 

Development in the United States. GL Garrad Hassan. Accessed August 

2015. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f14/Assessment%20of%20Ports%20for%20Offs

hore%20Wind%20Development%20in%20the%20United%20States_1.pdf.

Federal Register. 2009. “Renewable Energy and Alternative Uses of Existing Facilities on the 

Outer Continental Shelf. A Rule by the Minerals Management 

Service. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/04/29/E9-9462/renewable-energy-andalternate-uses-of-existing-facilities-on-the-outer-continental-shelf.

Federal Register. 2016. “Atlantic Wind Lease Sale 6 (ATLW-6) for Commercial Leasing for 

Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New York – Final Sale Notice; 

MMAA104000.” Volume 81, Number 210, October 31, 2016, Notices: p. 

75429. https://www.boem.gov/NY-FSN/.

Froese. M. “Siemens’ 8-MW wind turbine is up and running.” Windpower Engineering &

Development (2017), accessed June 

2017. http://www.windpowerengineering.com/featured/business-news-projects/siemens-8-mwwind-turbine-running/.

Funk, J. “Lake Erie wind turbines would cost less with new European invention.” The Plain 

Dealer (2015), accessed June 2017.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/06/lake_erie_wind_turbines_would.html.
95 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Garlick, R., R. Aukland, B. Zhang. 2017. Market Overview Report – February 2017. 4COffshore 

Wind Farm Subscription. Accessed February 2017.

“An Act to Promote Energy Diversity (H.4568)”. 2017. General Court of the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H4568.

Gilman, P., B. Maurer, L. Feinberg, A. Duerr, L. Peterson, W. Musial, P. Beiter, J. Golladay, J. 

Stromberg, I. Johnson, D. Boren, A. Moore. 2016. National Offshore Wind Strategy; Facilitating 

the Development of the Offshore Wind Industry in the United States. U.S. Department of 

Energy; U.S. Department of the Interior. DOE/GO-102016-4866. Washington, D.C.

(US). https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/National-Offshore-Wind-Strategy-report09082016.pdf.

Global Wind Energy Council. 2017. Global Wind 2016 Report. http://www.gwec.net/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Global-Offshore-2016-and-Beyond.pdf.

Greenacre, P., R. Gross, and P. Heptonstall. 2010. Great Expectations: The cost of offshore wind 

in UK waters – understanding the past and projecting the future. UK Energy Research 

Centre. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/great-expectations-the-cost-of-offshore-wind-in-ukwaters-understanding-the-past-and-projecting-the-future.html.

Hamilton, B., M. Bielecki, C. Bloch, T. Decker, L. Frantzis, K. Midura, J. Paidipati, F. Zhao. 

2014. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis; 2014 Annual Market Assessment. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. Navigant Consulting, Inc., Burlington, 

Massachusetts.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/09/f18/2014%20Navigant%20Offshore%20Wind%20Mar

ket%20%26%20Economic%20Analysis.pdf.

Harries, T., Kruger, K. 2017. A Guide to New Offshore Wind Investors. Bloomberg New Energy 

Finance. March 2017. https://about.bnef.com/.

Harrington M. “Wind farm’s long-term cost will be high for power projects.” Newsday (2017), 

accessed June 2017, http://www.newsday.com/long-island/wind-farm-s-long-term-cost-will-behigh-for-power-projects-1.13142127.

Hill, J. “Record Low Offshore Wind Prices Not Yet Affecting European Policymakers.” Clean 

Technica (2017), accessed June 2017, https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/01/record-lowoffshore-wind-prices-not-yet-affecting-policymakers/.

House Bill 226: Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act (HB226). General Assembly of 

Maryland. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/hb/hb0226E.pdf

House Bill 1106: An Act Concerning Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Revisions. General 

Assembly of Maryland. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/bills/hb/hb1106e.pdf.

House Bill 1312: New Hampshire Law 362-F; An Act Establishing a Committee to Study 

Offshore Wind Energy and the Development of Other Ocean Power Technology. State of New 

Hampshire. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB1312.html.
96 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Huebler, D., D. Radov, L. Wieshammer. 2017. Hart am Wind: Einsichten aus der 

Optionsbewertung zu den Ergebnissen der ersten deutschen Offshore-Wind-Ausschreibung und 

ihren Auswirkungen. NERA Economic 

Consulting. http://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2017/PUB_Offshore_EMI_Ger

man_A4_0417.pdf.

Hundleby, G. “Borssele Tender Revealed.” offshoreWIND.biz (2016), accessed June 

2017, http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/10/28/borssele-tender-revealed/.

Hundleby, G. “Germany’s zero-subsidy offshore wind could generate at €31/MWh: BVG.”

Recharge News (2017), accessed June 

2017, http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1251841/germanys-zero-subsidy-offshore-windcould-generate-at-euro-31mwh-bvg.

IEA Renewable Energy Technology Deployment (IEA-RETD). 2017. Comparative Analysis of 

International Offshore Wind Energy Development; Rewind Offshore. Accessed June 

2017. http://iea-retd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IEA-RETD-REWind-Offshore-report.pdf.

Jacquemin, J., D. Butterworth, C. Garret, N. Baldock, A. Henderson. 2011. Inventory of location 

specific wind energy cost. Intelligent Energy Europe. EIE/07/759/S12.499460. Accessed August 

2015. 

http://www.windspeed.eu/media/publications/WINDSPEED_D2_2_revised_May_2011.pdf.

“JDR Selected as Preferred Cable Supplier for WindFloat Atlantic Project,” JDR, 

2017, http://www.jdrcables.com/jdr-selected-preferred-cable-supplier-windfloat-atlanticproject/#sthash.dIfTx8rB.dpbs.

Johnson, P. “Fishermen’s Energy ocean wind project tries again for governor’s approval.”

National Wind Watch (2016), accessed June 2017, https://www.windwatch.org/news/2016/03/24/fishermens-energy-ocean-wind-project-tries-again-for-governorsapproval/.

Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute. 2013. Establishment of a Large-Scale 

Offshore Wind Farm in the South-west 

Coast. http://www.eiskorea.org/03_Business/02_Report_down.asp?schMenuCode=MB200&sch

TabCode=&strIdx=886&strFileIdx=1&schCom=&schSearch=&intPage=1.

Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation (LEEDCo), accessed June 

2017, http://www.leedco.org/.

Public Law Chapter 270; An Act to Facilitate Testing and Demonstration of Renewable Ocean 

Energy Technology; LD1465. 

2009. http://www.mainelegislature.org/ros/LOM/lom124th/124R1/PUBLIC270.asp.

Mainstream Renewable Power. 2014. Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm Supply Chain 

Plan. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429410/UK

02-1701-005-MRP-SUPPLY_CHAIN_PLAN-RPT-A2_-_final_redaction_applied.pdf.
97 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

MAKE Consulting. 2017. Global Offshore Wind Power Project Databases, accessed July 

2017. http://www.consultmake.com/research/databases.

Maples, B., G. Saur, M. Hand, R. van de Pietermen, T. Obdam. 2013. Installation, Operation, 

and Maintenance Strategies to Reduce the Cost of Offshore Wind Energy (Technical Report). 

NREL/TP-5000-57403. NREL, Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57403.pdf.

“Maryland PSC Awards ORECS to Two Offshore Wind Developers Projects to Create Jobs, 

Economic Development in New Industry,” Maryland Public Service Commission, 

2017a. http://www.psc.state.md.us/wp-content/uploads/PSC-Awards-ORECs-to-US-WindSkipjack.pdf.

Maryland Public Service Commission. 2017b. “Order Number 

88192.” http://www.psc.state.md.us/wp-content/uploads/Order-No.-88192-Case-No.-9431-

Offshore-Wind.pdf.

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. 2017. Request for Proposals for Long-Term Contracts for 

Offshore Wind Energy Projects. https://macleanenergy.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/section83c-request-for-proposals-for-long-term-contracts-for-offshore-wind-energy-projects-june-29-

2017.pdf.

“Baker-Polito Administration Announces $700,000 in Funding for Offshore Wind Research 

Projects,” Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, 2016. http://www.masscec.com/aboutmasscec/news/baker-polito-administration-announces-700000-funding-offshore-wind-research.

McNamara E. “What really toppled Cape Wind’s plans for Nantucket Sound.” Boston Globe

(2015), accessed June 2017, https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/01/30/what-reallytoppled-cape-wind-plans-for-nantucket-sound/mGJnw0PbCdfzZHtITxq1aN/story.html.

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). 2015. Long-term Energy Supply and Demand 

Outlook. http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2015/pdf/0716_01a.pdf.

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. 2015. National Offshore Wind Energy Policy. No. 

51/58(Cab.)/2011-WE. http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/UserFiles/National-Offshore-WindEnergy-Policy.pdf. 

“Dong Energy and MHI Vestas celebrate opening of Burbo Bank Extension” Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries (MHI) Vestas Offshore Wind, 2017a. http://www.mhivestasoffshore.com/burbo-bankextension-inauguration/.

“The world’s most powerful available wind turbine gets major power boost” MHI Vestas 

Offshore Wind, 2017b. http://www.mhivestasoffshore.com/category/v164-9-5-mw/.

Moné, C., A. Smith, B. Maples, M. Hand. 2015. 2013 Cost of Wind Energy Review (Technical 

Report). NREL/TP-5000-63267. NREL, Golden, CO 

(US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63267.pdf.
98 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Moné, C., M. Hand, M. Bolinger, J. Rand, D. Heimiller, J. Ho. 2017. 2015 Cost of Wind Energy 

Review (Technical Report). NREL/TP-6A20-66861. NREL, Golden, CO 

(US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/66861.pdf.

Musial, W., Z. Parker, J. Fields, G. Scott, and C. Draxl. 2013a. Assessment of Offshore Wind 

Energy Leasing Areas for the BOEM Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (Technical Report). 

NREL/TP-5000-60942. NREL, Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60942.pdf.

Musial, W., D. Elliot, J. Fields, Z. Parker, G. Scott, and C. Draxl. 2013b. Assessment of Offshore 

Wind Energy Leasing Areas for the BOEM New Jersey Wind Energy Area (Technical Report). 

NREL/TP-5000-60403. NREL. Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/60403.pdf.

Musial, W., D. Elliott, J. Fields, Z. Parker, G. Scott. 2013c. Analysis of Offshore Wind Energy 

Leasing Areas for the Rhode Island/Massachusetts Wind Energy Area. NREL/TP-5000-58091. 

NREL. Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58091.pdf.

Musial, W., D. Elliott, J. Fields, Z. Parker, G. Scott. 2013d. Assessment of Offshore Wind 

Energy Leasing Areas for the BOEM Maryland Wind Energy Area (Technical Report). 

NREL/TP-5000-58562. NREL. Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58562.pdf.

Musial, W., D. Heimiller, P. Beiter, G. Scott, C. Draxl. 2016a. 2016 Offshore Wind Energy 

Resource Assessment for the United States (Technical Report). NREL-TP-5000-66599. NREL. 

Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66599.pdf.

Musial, W., P. Beiter, S. Tegen, A. Smith. 2016b. Potential Offshore Wind Energy Areas in 

California: An Assessment of Locations, Technology, and Costs (Technical Report). NREL/TP5000-67414. NREL and BOEM. Golden, CO (US). https://www.boem.gov/2016-074/.

Musial, W., “California Offshore Renewable Energy.” Presentation to the California Energy 

Commission on March 3, 2017. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-MISC01/TN216301_20170301T105552_3317_Presentation_by_Walt_Musial.pdf. 

Musial, W. and B. Ram. 2010. Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: 

Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers (Technical Report). NREL/TP-500-40745. NREL. 

Golden, CO (US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf.

National Energy Administration. 2014. 国家能源局关于印发全国海上风电开发建设方案

National Energy Administration Notice on National Offshore Wind Project Development and 

Construction Plan. http://zfxxgk.nea.gov.cn/auto87/201412/t20141212_1869.htm.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Offshore Wind Database.

“Nexans to supply cables for the world’s first 66 kV offshore wind farm,” Nexans, 

2016, https://www.nexans.com/eservice/Corporate-en/navigatepub_333663_-

35319/Nexans_to_supply_cables_for_the_world_s_first_66_k.html.

Senate No. 2036: Offshore Wind Economic Development Act. State of New Jersey 214th 

Legislature. New Jersey 2010. ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20102011/S2500/2036_R2.PDF.
99 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Senate No. 1925: Approved July 23, 2012: P.L. 2012, Chapter 24. New Jersey. 

2012. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/AL12/24_.PDF.

Docket No. EO11050314v: In the Matter of the Petition of Fishermen’s Energy Atlantic City 

Wind Farm, LLC for the Approval of the State Waters Project and Authorizing Offshore Wind 

Renewable Energy Certificates. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU). 

2014. http://www.state.nj.us/bpu/pdf/boardorders/2014/20140423/4-23-14-8F.pdf.

“Renewable Portfolio Standard,” New York State Energy Research and Development 

Administration (NYSERDA), 2017. https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/CleanEnergy-Standard/Renewable-Portfolio-Standard.

“Kansai Electric’s Takahama 4 Resumes Commercial Operations,” Nuclear Energy Institute, 

2017, https://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/Japan-Nuclear-Update.

“UK to Set Sail to Subsidy-Free Offshore Wind Farms.” OffshoreWINDbiz (2017a), accessed

June 2017. http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/06/16/uk-to-set-sail-to-subsidy-free-offshorewind-farms/?utm_source=emark&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-update-offshorewind-2017-06-19&uid=58497.

“LIPA Says Yes to First Offshore Wind Farm in New York.” OffshoreWIND.biz (2017b),

accessed June 2017. http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/01/26/lipa-says-yes-to-first-offshorewind-farm-in-new-york/.

“Shell Eyes More Action in European Offshore Wind.” OffshoreWind.biz (2017c), accessed 

June 2017. http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/02/23/shell-eyes-more-action-in-europeanoffshore-wind-development/.

“Adwen 8MW Prototype Enters Final Stretch in Bremerhaven.” OffshoreWIND.biz (2017d), 

accessed June 2017. http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/03/30/adwen-8mw-prototype-entersfinal-stretch-in-bremerhaven/.

“Stiesdal TetraSpar Floating Offshore Wind Foundation Put to the Test.” Offshore WIND.biz 

(2017e), accessed June 2017 http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/06/15/stiesdal-tetraspar-floatingoffshore-wind-foundation-put-to-the-test/.

“Siemens Sends Off 1st Beatrice OTM Transformer.” OffshoreWIND.biz (2017f), accessed July 

2017. http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/05/18/siemens-sends-off-1st-beatrice-otm-transformer/.

“IDeCON Consortium Tackles HVDC Grid Design and Control Issues.” OffshoreWIND.biz 

(2017g), accessed July 2017. http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/01/31/idecon-consortiumtackles-hvdc-grid-design-and-control-issues/.

“First UK HVDC Test Centre Open for Business.” OffshoreWIND.biz (2017h), accessed July 

2017. http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/27/first-uk-hvdc-test-centre-open-for-business/.
100 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Ohnesorge, L. K. “Avangrid CEO: Offshore in North Carolina coming ‘well beyond 2020’.” 

Triangle Business Journal (2017), accessed June 

2017. https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/04/25/avangrid-ceo-offshore-in-northcarolina-coming.html.

Orrell, A., N. F. Foster, S. L. Morris, J. S. Homer. 2017. 2016 Distributed Wind Market Report. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, 

Washington (US). https://energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2016-distributed-wind-market-report.

Ouzts, E. “Even after Avangrid’s winning bid, ‘no urgency’ for offshore wind in North 

Carolina.” Southeast Energy News (2017), accessed June 

2017. https://southeastenergynews.com/2017/03/28/even-after-avangrids-winning-bid-nourgency-for-offshore-wind-in-north-carolina/.

PNE Wind USA. 2016. Unsolicited Application for an Outer Continental Shelf Renewable 

Energy Commercial Lease under 30 CFR 585.230. Lease application for OCS-A0503. https://www.boem.gov/PNE-MA4-503-Lease-Application/.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2012. Offshore wind cost reduction pathways study – Finance work 

stream. The Crown Estate. London. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/451398/ei-km-inpe-cost-052012-offshore-wind-cost-reduction-pathways-finance-workstream.pdf.

“WindFloat Pacific Project Overview,” Principle Power,

2015. http://windfloatpacific.com/about/.

Radov, D., A. Carmel, C. Koenig. 2016. Gale Force Competition? Auctions and Bidding 

Strategy for Offshore Wind. NERA Economic 

Consulting. www.nera.com/publications/archive/2016/PUB_offshore_wind_A4_0916.html.

Radowitz, B. “Siemens nails 600MW Gemini deal.” Recharge News (2014), accessed June 

2017. http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/offshore/864753/siemens-nails-600mw-gemini-deal.

Radowitz, B. “New lows mean new highs for offshore wind in 2017.” Recharge News (2017), 

accessed June 2017. http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1206452/new-lows-mean-new-highsfor-offshore-wind-in-2017.

Runyon, J. “First US Offshore Wind Installation Vessel to be Built with Oil and Gas Expertise.”

Renewable Energy World (2017), accessed June 

2017. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/06/first-jones-act-compliant-usoffshore-wind-jack-up-installation-vessel-to-be-built-with-oil-and-gas-expertise.html.

“BRIEF-Avangrid acquires major stake in Massachusetts off-shore wind project with Vineyard 

Wind,” Reuters Staff, 2017, http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFASA09O5N.

Title 39 Public Utilities and Carriers: Chapter 39-26 Renewable Energy Standard: Section 39-26-

4. Rhode Island 2016. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE39/39-26/39-26-4.HTM.
101 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Roggenkamp, E. “LIPA Approves Power Purchase Agreement for Nation’s Largest Offshore 

Wind Farm.” Sive, Paget, and Reisel P.C. (2017), accessed June 

2017. http://www.sprlaw.com/lipa-approves-power-purchase-agreement-for-nations-largestoffshore-wind-farm/. 

Schaps K. “Shell bolsters offshore wind interests with bid in U.S. tender.” Reuters 

(2017). http://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-renewables-usa-idUSKBN1522LN. 

Schwartz, M., F. Heimiller, S. Haymes, W. Musial. 2010. Assessment of Offshore Wind Energy 

Resources for the United States (Technical Report). NREL/TP-5000-45889. NREL, Golden, CO 

(US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/45889.pdf. 

Shankleman, J., B. Parkin, and A. Hirtenstein. “Gigantic Wind Turbines Signal Era of SubsidyFree Green Power.” Bloomberg (2017). Accessed June 

2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-20/gigantic-wind-turbines-signal-eraof-subsidy-free-green-power. 

“An offshore substation slims down,” Siemens, August 17, 2016, accessed June 

2017, https://www.siemens.com/customer-magazine/en/home/specials/shaping-the-backbone-offuture-energy-systems/an-offshore-substation-slims-down.html. 

Smart, G. 2016. Offshore Wind Cost Reduction. Recent and future trends in the UK and Europe. 

Catapult Offshore Renewable Energy. https://ore.catapult.org.uk/download/offshore-wind-costreduction/. 

Smart, G. 2017. Moving Toward a Subsidy-Free Future for Offshore Wind. Understanding the 

April 2017 Germany Auction. Catapult Offshore Renewable 

Energy. https://ore.catapult.org.uk/download/subsidy-free-offshore-wind/. 

Smith, P. “Costs force ABB to abandon offshore converter work.” WINDPOWER Offshore 

(2014), accessed June 2017. http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1322618/costs-forceabb-abandon-offshoreconverter-work. 

Smith A., T. Stehly, W. Musial. 2015. 2014-2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report 

(Technical Report). NREL/TP-5000-64283. NREL, Golden, CO 

(US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64283.pdf. 

Snieckus, D. “IN DEPTH: How gravity can bring down offshore costs.” Recharge News (2014), 

accessed June 2017. http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/europe_africa/868293/in-depth-howgravity-can-bring-down-offshore-costs. 

Snieckus, D. 2015. “Siemens puts giant service vessel to work.” EWEA OFFSHORE 

2015. http://static.ow.ly/docs/EWEA_ReCharge_SOV_Mar15_34Mb.pdf. 

Snieckus, D. “Offshore wind’s dream set for reality in the energy mainstream.” Recharge News 

(2017). http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1274078/offshore-winds-dream-set-for-reality-inthe-energy-mainstream. 
102 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

“Suction Piles for Wind Turbines,” SPT 

Offshore. http://www.sptoffshore.com/en/solutions/suction-piles-for-wind-turbines.

“Statoil wins offshore wind lease in New York,” Statoil Wind, 

2016. https://www.statoil.com/en/news/statoil-wins-offshore-wind-lease-new-york.html.

Steiner-Dicks, K. “Policy uncertainty biggest threat to France’s 2030 renewable targets and long 

awaited offshore wind plans.” New Energy Update (2015), accessed June 

2017. http://newenergyupdate.com/wind-energy-update/policy-uncertainty-biggest-threatfrances-2030-renewable-targets-and-long-awaited.

Stromsta, K. E. “Deepwater nails PPA for second US offshore wind project.” Recharge News

(2017a). http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1209971/deepwater-nails-ppa-for-second-usoffshore-wind-project.

Stromsta, K. E. “Dong joins Dominion to build Virginia’s first offshore wind farm. Recharge 

News (2017b). http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1303721/dong-joins-dominion-to-buildvirginias-first-offshore-wind-farm.

Tegen, S., M. Hand, B. Maples, E. Lantz, P. Schwabe, A. Smith. 2012. 2010 Cost of Wind 

Energy Review (Technical Report). NREL TP-5000-52920. NREL, Golden, CO 

(US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52920.pdf.

Tegen, S., E. Lantz, M. Hand, B. Maples, A. Smith, P. Schwabe. 2013. 2011 Cost of Wind 

Energy Review (Technical Report). NREL TP-5000-56266. NREL, Golden, CO 

(US). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56266.pdf.

“About offshore projects Germany,” TenneT, 2017, https://www.tennet.eu/our-grid/offshoreprojects-germany/about-offshore-projects-in-germany/.

“Consumer Price Index,” United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

2017, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

“International Macroeconomic Data Set,” United States Department of Agriculture Economic 

Research Service, 2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-macroeconomicdata-set/.

“Salazar Launches ‘Smart from the Start’ Initiative to Speed Offshore Wind Energy 

Development off the Atlantic Coast.” U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 

2010, https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Launches-Smart-from-the-Start-Initiativeto-Speed-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Development-off-the-Atlantic-Coast.

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), “Cape Wind Lease Suspension Order,” Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management. July 24, 2015. http://www.boem.gov/Lease-Suspension-Order/.

D. Van Hertem, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, J. Liang. HVDC Grids: For Offshore and Supergrid of the 

Future, (Wiley Online library, 2016). http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd1118859154.html.
103 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

van de Pieterman, R., H. Braam, T. Obdam, L. W. M. M. Rademakers, T. J. J. van der Zee. 2011. 

“Optimisation of maintenance strategies for offshore wind farms.” Energy research Centre of the 

Netherlands. Presented at the Offshore 2011 Conference, November 29‒December 1, 

2011. http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2011/m11103.pdf.

Verbruggen, S. “30MW Tamra offshore wind farm delivers first power.” WINDPOWER

Monthly (2016), accessed June 

2017. http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1410934/30mw-tamra-offshore-wind-farmdelivers-first-power.

“SB 413 Renewable energy portfolio standard program; credits for investments.” LIS, Virginia’s 

Legislative Information System. Virginia General Assembly. 2012. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgibin/legp604.exe?121+sum+SB413.

Webb, A. and F. DeBeaupuy. “Siemens Missing Profit Estimate Shows Alstom Tie-Up Risk.” 

Bloomberg Business (2014). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-07/siemensprofit-misses-estimates-on-more-power-charges.

Green Giraffe. “Offshore wind finance – 2016 update.” Energy Talk. December 8, 

2016. https://green-giraffe.eu/file/2187/colorbox?width=900px.

Weston, D. “Denmark seeks nearshore contractors for 350MW.” WINDPOWER Offshore

(2015a), accessed June 2017. http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1335062/denmarkseeks-nearshore-contractors-350mw.

Weston, D. “Taiwan boosts offshore ambition.” WINDPOWER Offshore (2015b), accessed June 

2017. http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1360496/taiwanboosts-offshore-ambition.

Weston, D. “Seatower gravity-base foundation installed.” WINDPOWER Offshore (2015c), 

accessed June 2017. 

http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1333039/seatower-gravity-base-foundation-installed.

Weston, D. “CIP Acquires U.S. Offshore Project.” WINDPOWER Offshore (2016a), accessed 

June 2017. http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1406984/cip-acquires-us-offshoreproject.

Weston, D. “Areva sells Adwen stake to Gamesa.” WINDPOWER Offshore (2016b), accessed 

June 2017. http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1409013/areva-sells-adwen-stakegamesa.

Weston, D. “Vattenfall wins Kriegers Flak with €49.9/MWh bid.” WINDPOWER Offshore 

(2016c), accessed June 2017. http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1414947/vattenfallwins-kriegers-flak-%E2%82%AC499-mwh-bid.

Weston. D. “MHI Vestas Upgrades V164 to 9MW.” WINDPOWER Offshore (2017a), accessed 

June 2017. http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1422223/mhi-vestas-upgrades-v164-

9mw.
104 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Weston. D. “Siemens teases a 10MW+ turbine.” WINDPOWER Monthly (2017b), accessed 

June 2017. http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1399841/siemens-teases-10mw+-turbine.

WindEurope. 2017a. The European offshore wind industry; Key trends and statistics 

2016. https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/statistics/WindEuropeAnnual-Offshore-Statistics-2016.pdf.

WindEurope. 2017b. Financing and investment trends; The European Wind Industry in 

2016. https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/reports/Financing-andInvestment-Trends-2016.pdf.

WindEurope. 2017c. Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Statement. https://windeurope.org/wpcontent/uploads/files/policy/topics/offshore/Offshore-wind-cost-reduction-statement.pdf.

“GE concludes Alstom purchase.” WINDPOWER Monthly (2015), accessed June 

2017. http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1363497/ge-concludes-alstom-purchase.

“Inside Offshore Wind - Fukushima Floating Offshore Wind Farm Demonstration,” Windfair, 

2015, http://w3.windfair.net/wind-energy/news/17254-inside-offshore-wind-fukushima-floatingoffshore-wind-farm-demonstration-project.

Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger. 2017. 2016 Wind Technologies Market Report. Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory. https://energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2016-wind-technologies-marketreport.

Wiser R., K. Jenni, J. Seel, E. Baker, M. Hand, E. Lantz, A. Smith. 2016. Forecasting Wind 

Energy Costs & Cost Drivers: The Views of the World’s Leading Experts. International Energy 

Agency. https://www.ieawind.org/task_26_public/PDF/062316/lbnl-1005717.pdf.

Wind Energy Update. 2013. How choosing the most economic foundation structure can help an 

evolving industry power into the future. http://www.windenergyupdate.com/offshorefoundations-report/documents/WEUFoundationsArticle.pdf.

Yanguas Minambres, O. “Assessment of Current Offshore Wind Support Structures Concepts: 

Challenges and Technological Requirements by 2020.” Thesis, Karlshochschule International 

University. https://earchivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/16597/PFC_Oscar_Yanguas_Mina

mbres.pdf?sequence=5.
105 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Appendix A. U.S. Offshore Wind Policy Types

Table A1. U.S. Offshore Wind Policy Types and Examples

Policy Type Existing U.S. Examples

Market Scale & Visibility

These policies determine the minimum or 

maximum market size for a given technology or 

set of technologies and provide certainty for 

developers to make long-term investment 

decisions. For the offshore wind market, 

procurement policies and renewables portfolio 

standard (RPS) carve-outs require a set amount of 

offshore capacity to be deployed by a certain 

date. Technologically crosscutting RPSs provides 

additional clarity about states’ goals to deploy 

renewable energy.

Massachusetts’s “H.4568” requires the procurement of 1,600 MW of 

offshore wind capacity by 2027 and creates a solicitation process for longterm offtake agreements.

New York’s Governor Cuomo committed New York to procuring 2,400 

MW of offshore wind by 2030.

Maryland’s “HB 226” requires a maximum of 2.5% of the state’s total 

retail electric sales come from offshore wind sources starting in 2017. 

Exact yearly totals will be set by the state’s Public Service Commission. 

New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Economic Development Act mandates that 

the state develop 1,100 MW of offshore wind capacity and creates 

offshore renewable energy credits to make it easier for developers to sign 

offtake agreements. 

Rhode Island’s RIWINDS Program has a goal of meeting 15% of Rhode 

Island’s electricity demand with wind energy but has not set a specific 

date.

California’s RPS requires the state’s utilities derive at least 50% of their 

total sales from renewable energy technologies by 2030.

Hawaii’s RPS requires the state’s utilities to provide 100% of their net 

electricity from renewable energy technologies by 2045. 

Offtake Policies

Offtake policies provide codified mechanisms to 

reduce uncertainty and/or subsidize the cost for 

utilities signing long-term offtake contracts with 

offshore wind developers. In the United States,

these types of policies have mainly taken the 

form of organized long-term solicitations or 

offshore renewable energy credits. Grid 

connection policies in conjunction with 

procurement policies provide developers with a 

high level of transparency and certainty about 

their ability to construct a project and find a 

buyer for the project’s energy.

Massachusetts’s “H.4568” requires load-serving entities to conduct 

competitive long-term contract solicitations every 2 years, starting in June 

2017, and allows utilities to pass up to 2.75% of the cost to their rate base. 

Each subsequent round of offshore wind developers will have to 

demonstrate lower levelized costs to enter into long-term power purchase 

agreements. 

Incentive Mechanism

Incentives are used to catalyze the growth of 

nascent industries or markets until they become 

self-sustaining.

U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s production tax credit is an inflation 

adjusted per kilowatt-hour tax credit awarded for renewable electricity 

generation. Projects that commence construction after January 1, 2017, 

will be awarded $0.0184/kilowatt-hour during the first 10 years of 

operation. IRS Notice 2016-31 provides additional guidance on what 

constitutes the start of construction. IRS’s guidance increases developers’ 

eligibility to receive the production tax credit for 4 years if they start 

physical construction or spend 5% of the project’s total costs. The credit 

decreases by 20% each year before expiring in 2020. 

U.S. Internal Revenue Services’ investment tax credit provides a 30% tax 

credit on a renewable energy project’s capital costs. Both wind and solar 

are eligible to claim this credit. For wind projects larger than 100 
106 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Policy Type Existing U.S. Examples

kilowatts, the investment tax credit decreases in value by 6% annually and 

expires in December 31, 2020. The IRS also has additional guidance on 

what constitutes construction activities for the investment tax credit. 

Regulatory Support

Regulatory support policies encourage 

collaboration between various types of 

government organizations and stakeholders to 

accelerate and reduce uncertainty in the site 

selection, environmental review, and auction 

processes.

BOEM’s “Smart from the Start ” initiative works with state-level task 

forces to identify sites with the highest amount of resource potential and 

the lowest number of potential use conflicts in an effort to reduce costs, 

provide additional certainty, and streamline the offshore wind leasing 

process.

Supply Chain Development

Supply chain development policies focus on 

catalyzing capital investment in port 

infrastructure, manufacturing, maritime assets, 

and workforce development for the offshore 

wind industry.

Maryland’s offshore renewable energy credit award requires recipients 

to invest $76 million in a steel fabrication plant in Maryland, $39.6 million 

in port infrastructure upgrades, and $6 million in the Maryland Offshore 

Business Development Fund.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center upgraded the New Bedford 

Marine Commerce Terminal for offshore wind activities.

Innovation Support

Research and development policies are used to 

improve the efficiency and drive down the cost of 

offshore wind systems. In some instances, these 

policies can be used to reduce technological risk 

by supporting the evaluation and validation of 

new offshore wind components or systems (e.g., 

floating platforms).

Maine’s LD 1465 created University of Maine’s Deepwater Offshore Test 

Site to evaluate floating substructures in real-world conditions.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and the U.S. Department of 

Energy funded the Wind Technology Testing Center in Boston to test new 

blade designs that can improve reliability and reduce project costs.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center’s Renewable Energy Trust 

funded three offshore wind analyses focused on workforce training, blade 

integrity, and project/component cost reductions.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement’s Technology Assessment Program funds 

research and development that supports industry development and 

improves operational efficiency, safety, and pollution prevention.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s advanced technology demonstration 

program supports the validation of the latest offshore wind technologies 

by working with developers to deploy full-size demonstration projects in 

the field.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Technologies Office funds 

energy science research and development to enable innovations that 

drive down offshore wind system costs, eliminate market barriers, and 

minimize siting and environmental impacts.
107 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Appendix B. Floating Projects

Existing Floating Offshore Wind Projects

B-1 Hywind 1 Demo

The Hywind demonstration project is the world’s first full-scale floating wind system. Deployed 

in 2009, the single 2.3-megawatt (MW) system is still producing energy today. As the first 

project deployed, Hywind had to overcome many obstacles and uncertainties. A spar platform 

was used to simplify construction and build on the knowledge Statoil gained from the oil and gas 

industry. A novel control system was developed to ensure stability of the floating system during 

pitch-motion excursions that could induce instabilities when using a land-based wind control 

system. The system was designed to endure the harsh conditions of its location in the North Sea, 

surviving a 100-year extreme condition in 2011.

Figure B1. Statoil’s 2.3-MW Hywind 1 demonstration turbine during loadout in 2009

Source: Photo by Siemens AG, NREL 27845

Table B1. Details of the Hywind Demo Project

Developer Statoil

Location Rogaland, Norway

Turbine Siemens SWT-2.3

 No. of Turbines 1

 Rotor Diameter 82.4 meters (m)

Hub Height 65 m

Platform Spar

 Draft 100 m

 Displacement 5,000 m3

Distance to Shore 10 km

Water Depth 210 m

Year Deployed 2009
108 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

B-2 Hywind Scotland Pilot Park

Following the success of the Hywind demonstration project, Statoil was awarded an exclusivity 

agreement by The Crown Estate to develop a pilot wind farm in the Buchan Deep, located 

approximately 25 kilometers (km) off the coast of Scotland. The project is expected to be 

commissioned in 2017, making it the first multiunit floating wind farm. It will include five 6-

MW Siemens wind turbines that will be mounted on the Hywind 2 spar platform. Hywind 2 is a 

similar spar platform to that used in the Hywind demonstration project in 2009, but has been 

optimized to be lighter with a shallower draft (that is, the length of the buoy that is submerged 

under the water), for lower cost and greater siting potential. Installation methods have also been 

updated to lower costs compared to the original Hywind 1 demonstration project. This project is 

counted as an “existing project” but it will not actually be commissioned until later in 2017.

Table B2. Details of the Hywind Scotland Pilot Park Project

Developer Statoil

Location Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, Scotland, 

United Kingdom

Turbine Siemens SWT-6.0-154

 No. of Turbines 5

 Rotor Diameter 154 m

Hub Height 101 m

Platform Spar

 Draft Not applicable (NA)

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 25 km

Water Depth 95−120 m

Estimated Commercial Operation Date 2017

Figure B2. Hywind 2 30-MW demonstration project to be commissioned in Scotland in 2017

Source: Statoil
109 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

B-3 WindFloat I Prototype

The 2-MW WindFloat demonstration project was deployed in 2011 in Portugal. It was the 

second full-scale floating wind system deployed in the world. The system was completely 

assembled and commissioned at quayside, and then towed at sea over 400 km to its installation 

site. The structure is a three-column semisubmersible, with an active ballast system in the 

columns to keep the mean pitch offset of the structure near zero degrees to maximize power 

capture. WindFloat operated successfully for 5 years, and was decommissioned in July 2016.

Table B3. Details of the WindFloat I Prototype Project

Developers Principle Power, Damen Shipyards, WavEC, LNEG, ISQ, Caixa, 

SgurrEnergy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), WindPlus

Location Norte, Portugal

Turbine Vestas V80-2.0 

 No. of Turbines 1

 Rotor Diameter 80 m

Hub Height NA

Platform Semisubmersible

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 5 km

Water Depth 50 m

Years Deployed December 2011–2016

Figure B3. WindFloat I Prototype on station in Portugal—deployed 2011–2016

Source: Principal Power Inc.

B-4 Fukushima Forward

The Fukushima offshore wind consortium, funded by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade 

and Industry, developed three separate floating wind systems (illustrated in Figure B4) over a 

span of 3 years and two separate phases. In Phase I (2013), a traditional three-column 

semisubmersible called the Mirai system was deployed with a 2-MW Hitachi downwind turbine, 

along with a 25-megavolt Ampere floating spar substation located approximately 20 km 

southeast of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Phase II (2014–2015) then introduced two new 
110 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

systems: a V-shaped semisubmersible called the Shinpuu that supports a Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries (MHI) 7-MW turbine, and an advanced spar called the Hamakaze that supports a 5-

MW downwind Hitachi turbine. Full power generation is expected in 2017 (4C Offshore 2017).

Table B4. Fukushima Forward Project

Developers Marubeni Corporation, University of Tokyo, Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries, Japan Marine United, Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building, 

Nippon Steel Corporation, Hitachi, Furukawa Electric, Shimizu Corp., 

Mizuho Information and Research

Location Fukushima, Japan

Turbine 2-MW Hitachi downwind, 7-MW MHI, 5-MW Hitachi downwind

 No. of Turbines 3 (one of each type)

 Rotor Diameter 80 m, 164 m, 126 m

Hub Height 65 m, 105 m, 86 m

Platform Semisubmersible, V-shape semisubmersible, advanced spar

 Draft 16 m, 17 m, 33 m

 Displacement Unknown, 10,000 t, 8,000 t

Distance to Shore 20 km

Water Depth 120 m

Years Deployed 2013, 2015, 2016

Figure B4. Fukushima Phase 1 and 2 turbines from 2013 to 2016

Source: Windfair 2015

B-5 Kabashima/Goto Spar

Prior to the development of the Fukushima project, the 2-MW Goto spar, funded by the Japanese 

Ministry of Environment, was deployed off Goto Island in the Kabashima area off the southwest 

coast of Japan. This one-turbine demonstration used a concrete spar structure with a Hitachi 2-

MW downwind turbine. This turbine was installed in the fall of 2013 and was the first 
111 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

commercial-scale floating wind turbine in Japan. It operated for 3 years but was expected to be 

decommissioned in 2016. Its current status has not been confirmed.

Table B5. Details of the Kabashima/Goto Spar Project

Developers Toda Corporation, Kyoto University, Fuji Heavy Industries, Fuyo Ocean 

Development & Engineering

Location Kabashima, Japan

Turbine Subaru 80/2.0

 No. of Turbines 1

 Rotor Diameter 80 m

Hub Height 56 m

Platform Spar

 Draft 100 m

 Displacement 3,400 tons

Distance to Shore 10 km

Water Depth 96 m

Year Deployed 2013–2016

Figure B5. Kabashima spar near Goto Island in 2014

Source: Walt Musial, NREL

Floating Wind Projects Under Development

B-6 WindFloat Atlantic

After the successful demonstration of the 2-MW WindFloat prototype, Principle Power is 

planning multiple new projects. The project that is most likely to be commissioned next is a 

three-unit 25-MW wind farm with an updated version of the WindFloat I prototype 

semisubmersible design in Portugal. The project, which has now been approved for deployment 

in Viana do Castelo, Portugal, plans to use the new MHI Vestas 8.33-MW turbine. A follow-on 
112 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

commercial phase of this project is expected, with a deployment of 30 turbines, producing 150 

MW of power.

Table B6. Details of the WindFloat Atlantic Project

Developers Principle Power, WindPlus, Energias de Portugal (EDP)

Location Viana do Castelo, Portugal

Turbine MHI Vestas V164-8.33

 No. of Turbines 3

 Rotor Diameter 164 m

Hub Height 112 m

Platform Semisubmersible

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 20 km

Water Depth 100 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2018

B-7 Dounreay Trì

The Dounreay Trì project is a demonstration project in Inverness, Scotland, showcasing the first 

multiturbine support structure. The platform is a three-column semisubmersible with a 5-MW 

turbine placed on each of the two back columns. The system is moored using a turret bearing, 

allowing the system to freely rotate into the wind. The two 5-MW turbines will be produced by 

CSIC Haizhuang Windpower. Construction of the system began in March 2017, and is expected 

to be completed in 2018.

Table B7. Details of the Dounreay Trì Project

Developers Hexicon AB

Location Inverness, Scotland, United Kingdom

Turbine H 151-5MW

 No. of Turbines 2

 Rotor Diameter 151 m

Hub Height 124 m

Platform Semisubmersible

 Draft 15 m

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 9 km

Water Depth 75 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2018 

B-8 Kincardine

The 49.2-MW Kincardine offshore wind farm is under development about 15 km off Scotland’s 

coastline. The project will contain a total of eight 6.15-MW Senvion wind turbines, making it the 

largest near-term floating wind pilot project (4C Offshore 2017b). The support structure is a 

novel spar/semisubmersible hybrid developed by Cobra. It consists of a central cylinder and 

three outer cylinders, similar to a traditional semisubmersible. A lower slab and solid ballast 

tanks at the bottom of the structure lower the center of gravity, giving it ballast-stabilizing 

attributes similar to a spar. The system will also have active ballasting to decrease the tilt angle 

during operation.
113 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table B8. Details of the Kincardine Project

Developers Kincardine Offshore Windfarm, Pilot Offshore 

Renewables, Atkins

Location Aberdeenshire, Scotland, United Kingdom

Turbine Senvion 6.2M126

 No. of Turbines 8

 Rotor Diameter 126 m

Hub Height 107 m

Platform Semisubmersible/spar hybrid

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 15 km

Water Depth 62 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2018

B-9 Elomed (Gruissan) French Tender

The French government is sponsoring the development of the 24.6-MW Elomed Gruissan project 

to be located 15 km into the Mediterranean Sea near Gruissan, France. It is comprised of up to 

four 6.15-MW turbines. This project will use the barge substructure developed by Ideol, which 

uses a central moon pool (see Figure B6) to help damp the motion of the floating structure.

Table B9. Details of the EolMed Gruissan French Tender Project

Developers Quadran, Senvion, Ideol

Location Gruissan, France

Turbine Senvion 6.2M152

 No. of Turbines 4

 Rotor Diameter 152 m

Hub Height NA

Platform Barge

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 20 km

Water Depth 50–72 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2021
114 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Figure B6. EolMed Gruissan floating wind project under French Tender

Source: Ideol/Bouygues Travaux Publics

B-10 Les éoliennes flottantes de Groix & Belle-Île (La Groix) French Tender

The 24-MW Groix offshore wind pilot project—another of the four French tender projects—will 

be located in the Atlantic Ocean. It will use a three-legged floating semisubmersible developed 

by DCNS. There will be four substructures each supporting a GE Haliade 6-MW wind turbine. 

Figure B9 provides details on one of these systems.

Table B10. Details of the Les éoliennes flottantes de Groix & Belle-Île (La Groix)

French Tender Project

Developers CGN, Eolfi, Alstom, DCNS, Vinci

Location Groix, France

Turbine GE Haliade 150-6MW

 No. of Turbines 4

 Rotor Diameter 150 m

Hub Height NA

Platform Semisubmersible

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 22 km

Water Depth 54–71 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2020

B-11 Provence Grand Large (Faraman) French Tender

The 24-MW Provence Grand Large offshore wind project is another of the French tender awards, 

and will be located near Faraman, France, approximately 22 km into the Mediterranean Sea. The 

Provence Grand Large project will use three 8-MW Siemens wind turbines. The support 

structure is a tension-leg platform, developed by SBM. The substructure design is unique, using 

a light, modular solution with angled, tensioned mooring lines to limit both rotational and 
115 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

translational motion (Figure B7). The angled lines also create a rotation point for the system 

above the nacelle, limiting the amount of turbine acceleration.

Table B11. Details of the Provence Grand Large (Faraman) French Tender Project

Developers EDF Energies Nouvelles, SBM

Location Faraman, France

Turbine Siemens SWT-8.0-154

 No. of Turbines 3

 Rotor Diameter 154

Hub Height NA

Platform Tension-leg platform

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 22 km

Water Depth 94–104 m

Year Deployed 2020

Figure B7. Illustration of SBM Offshore wind turbine system to be deployed in the

Provence Grand Large project under the French tender at Faraman, France

Source: SBM Offshore

B-12 Les eoliennes flottantes du Golf du Lion (Leucate) French Tender

The 24-MW Leucate floating offshore wind project is the final project awarded under the 2015 

French tenders, and is located near Leucate, France, in the Mediterranean Sea. This project uses 

four GE Haliade 6-MW turbines on the WindFloat semisubmersible substructure described 

earlier.
116 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table B12. Details of the Les eoliennes flottantes du Golf du Lion (Leucate) French Tender Project

Developers Engie, EDP, Caisse des Depots and Eiffage, Alstom

Location Leucate, France

Turbine GE Haliade 150-6MW

 No. of Turbines 4

 Rotor Diameter 150 m

Hub Height NA

Platform Semisubmersible

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 21 km

Water Depth 57−84 m

Estimated Commercial Operation N/A

Figure B8. The WindFloat prototype with the substructure technology that will be used to support 

6-MW Haliade turbines for the Les eoliennes flottantes du Golf du Lion (Leucate) floating project

Source: Principle Power Inc.

B-13 New England Aqua Ventus I

The New England Aqua Ventus I project is one of the two advanced technology demonstration 

projects being supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. The project follows the deployment 

in 2012 of a 1:8 scale VolturnUS turbine, which was the first grid-connected offshore wind 

turbine in the United States. The support structure is a three-column semisubmersible, made with 

concrete to extend its life and better utilize local content and manufacturing.
117 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table B13. Details of the New England Aqua Ventus I Project

Developers Maine Aqua Ventus I (University of Maine, Cianbro, 

DCNS)

Location Monhegan Island, Maine, United States

Turbine 6 MW

 No. of Turbines 2

 Rotor Diameter TBD

Hub Height N/A

Platform Semisubmersible

 Draft N/A

 Displacement N/A

Distance to Shore 21 km

Water Depth 61−110 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2019

Figure B9. Illustration of the New England Aqua Ventus I offshore wind turbine system 

awarded under the advanced technology demonstration projects

Source: University of Maine
118 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

B-14 FLOATGEN

Floatgen is a floating demonstration project funded through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 

consortium. The goal of the project is to prove the technical, economic, and environmental 

feasibility of floating wind technologies. The project includes one 2-MW Vestas turbine installed 

on the Ideol barge platform. Work has begun on this project, and is expected to be completed by 

2018 (4C Offshore 2017c).

Table B14. Details of the FLOATGEN Project

Developers Gamesa, Ideol, ECN, Zabala Innovation, University of 

Stuttgart, Fraunhofer IWES, RSK Environment

Location France

Turbine Vestas V80-2MW

 No. of Turbines 1

 Rotor Diameter 80 m

Hub Height NA

Platform Barge

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 22 km

Water Depth 30 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2018 

B-15 GICON Pilot

Germany’s first venture into floating wind involves the GICON pilot project. GICON has been 

developing a floating tension-leg platform over several years, and has validated the technology 

based on multiple tank testing campaigns. Tension-leg platforms are less common than other 

platform types but have the advantages of lower weight and less system motion (see SBM 

tension-leg platform in Appendix B-11). The disadvantage of tension-leg platform designs is the 

potentially more complex and risky installation procedure. These issues are being addressed in 

the next-generation designs. The GICON project was put on hold in 2016, but new activity gives 

the project a deployment trajectory. GICON representatives say that permits and contracts are in 

place for adding the GICON-SOF with a 2.3-MW turbine to the existing Baltic1 wind farm as an 

additional commercially operating turbine. The unique tension-leg platform substructure is 

reported to be under construction and is planned to be installed and commissioned in 2018. In 

addition, a next-generation development of the “SOF” design utilizing modular steel-reinforced 

concrete components is ongoing, with scale model tests scheduled for late 2017 and an 

anticipated installation of a 6-8 MW pilot plant in 2019.
119 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Table B15. Details of the GICON Pilot Project

Developers GICON

Location Germany

Turbine Siemens SWT-2.3

 No. of Turbines 1

 Rotor Diameter 93 m

Hub Height NA

Platform Tension-leg platform

 Draft NA

 Displacement NA

Distance to Shore 21 km

Water Depth 18 m

Estimated Commercial Operation 2018

Figure B10. Illustration of the GICON-SOF floating offshore wind turbine system under 

development in Germany

Source: GICON
120 | 2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

Appendix C. Cape Wind Overview

In 2001, Cape Wind Associates LLC became the first company to apply for an offshore wind 

lease in the United States. Although the Cape Wind project had many supporters, it experienced 

a number of legal challenges that crippled the project. Nevertheless, Cape Wind was truly a

groundbreaking project, which paved the way for many of the offshore wind projects in the 

United States today. When Cape Wind Associates applied for an offshore lease permit from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, there was no precedent for the regulation of offshore wind 

energy. Their application challenged numerous agencies that lacked any energy expertise and 

raised questions nationally about how the United States should proceed with renewable energy 

development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Motivated by the Cape Wind project, Congress 

assigned regulatory authority for renewable energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf 

to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service under the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005. This policy required Cape Wind Associates to reapply for a commercial lease in 

2005. In 2009, the Department of the Interior released their final regulations (30 CFR 585) for 

leasing renewable projects on the Outer Continental Shelf and issued their first commercial lease 

for an offshore wind farm to Cape Wind shortly after in 2010. However, the project was fraught 

with public concerns about its conflicts with tourism on Cape Cod as well as its presence within 

the viewshed of many prominent community stakeholders. From 2003 to 2014, a number of 

groups primarily led by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound initiated 23 lawsuits against 

Cape Wind Associates to prevent the development of the Cape Wind project. The lawsuits 

drained Cape Wind of capital, created significant projects delays, and increased risk to make 

financing more difficult. In January 2015, National Grid and NSTAR dissolved their contracts 

with Cape Wind because the project missed deadlines to obtain financing and begin construction 

or post financial collateral to extend the deadline (McNamara 2015). Regardless of the final 

outcome, Cape Wind Associates were pioneers for the U.S. offshore wind industry. The 

company propelled offshore wind into the federal spotlight, accelerating the development of 

formal offshore wind site assessment, environmental evaluation, and federal leasing procedures. 

The lessons learned from leasing the Cape Wind site helped streamline the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management’s “Smart from the Start” leasing process by providing valuable experience 

and practical knowledge about offshore wind. Others have also benefited from Cape Wind, using 

the project as a case study to avoid facing the similar regulatory, legal, and financial obstacles.
2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

For more information visit,

energy.gov/eere/wind

DOE/GO-102017-5031 • August 2017

Cover photo from Dennis Schroeder, NREL