Wind Energy Discussion

Local residents, state officials, and policy mediators gathered for an in‑person public meeting on Oregon’s emerging Offshore Wind Energy Roadmap, part of a 45‑day public review process that runs until April 3. Hosted by Team Oregon Consensus, the main presentation delivered by Jeff Burright of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Burright has been leading the state’s offshore wind roadmap effort for the past year and a half as part of Oregon’s Coastal Management Program.

Burright emphasized repeatedly that the roadmap is not a green light for offshore wind projects and not a decision that Oregon “will or will not” host turbines.

Instead, the roadmap is intended to:

• Lay out standards and expectations the state would apply to any future offshore wind proposals

• Identify gaps in current state policies that limit Oregon’s leverage over federal decisions

• Recommend concrete actions the state, tribes, and local governments can take now to prepare for multiple possible futures

The roadmap was ordered by the Oregon Legislature in 2024 under House Bill 4080. Lawmakers directed DLCD to “define standards to be considered in any future processes related to offshore wind energy” and to look closely at state policies to see where new rules, legislation, or clarification may be needed.

Where Oregon Stands On Offshore Wind Today

Right now, there are:

• No offshore wind turbines off Oregon

• No active lease areas

• No active project proposals

In previous years, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) identified two “wind energy areas” off the south coast: one roughly 18 miles off Brookings and another about 32 miles off Coos Bay/Reedsport. A lease auction had been expected in 2024, but four of five potential bidders withdrew, a coastal tribe filed suit, fishing groups and others raised strong opposition, and the Oregon Legislature moved ahead with the roadmap requirement.

Those events, plus a request from the Governor to pause leasing, led BOEM to halt its Oregon auction plans. With a subsequent shift in federal policy and a new administration, BOEM rescinded all previously designated wind energy areas on the West Coast, effectively moving Oregon a step back from where it was in 2024. Meanwhile, California now has five active offshore wind leases and is looking to offshore wind to help meet its energy goals. Washington has taken a different tack, signaling that it does not want turbines off its own coast for now, but is interested in using its ports and industrial base to support the offshore wind supply chain elsewhere. Oregon currently sits between those two approaches, trying to determine whether, when, and how it wants to participate.

Why Offshore Wind Is On The Table At All

Burright reminded attendees that Oregon law now calls for 100% clean, non–greenhouse‑gas emitting power from the state’s major utilities by 2040.

Today’s power mix is roughly:

• 40% hydropower (Columbia River system and other dams)

• 26% imported coal power from other states

• 22% natural gas

• 7% onshore wind

• About 3% nuclear from a plant in Washington

• About 3% solar

At the same time, state energy planners expect electricity demand to roughly double by 2050 as more vehicles, home heating, and industry switch from fossil fuels to electricity. That means Oregon will need a much larger and more flexible power system in just a couple of decades — essentially rebuilding in about 25 years what took the region a century to construct.

Five Possible Futures – Including “No Turbines”

A major focus of the roadmap is a set of five “alternative futures,” laid out on a series of large posters around the room. They range from no offshore wind development at all, to full build‑out with major port upgrades. The options include:

1. No offshore wind arrays and no intentional economic participation – essentially maintaining the status quo.

2. Economic participation only – Oregon does not host turbines but participates in the supply chain: anchors, moorings, cables, fabrication, marine services, and related industries.

3. A small pilot project – similar in concept to the PacWave wave energy test site off Newport, focusing on learning from a limited‑scale project before any larger build‑out.

4. Full offshore wind development using existing port infrastructure as much as possible.

5. Full development coupled with major port expansion, with Coos Bay mentioned as the most likely candidate due to available developable land and proximity to stronger wind resources, but also significant complications.

For each of these futures, the roadmap charts “pathways” phase by phase — from early siting and planning, through leasing and permitting, to construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning or renewal after roughly 30 years of operation. At several stages, the roadmap highlights “checkpoints” where the state could decide whether to keep going on a given path, change course, or halt a particular direction altogether.

After a year of nearly monthly meetings with a 50‑plus member advisory roundtable and parallel discussions with tribes, youth, tourism groups, utilities, fishing industry representatives, ports, and others, four overarching guiding principles emerged:

• Meaningful engagement, starting early and continuing throughout any process

• Credible information, available when and where decisions are being made

• Regionally considered and coordinated decisions, recognizing the broader California Current ecosystem and multi‑state energy system

• Holistic and accountable decision‑making, including mechanisms to respond if unexpected impacts occur over time

  
  

Community Concerns: From Whales To Housing

During the Q&A portion of the meeting, attendees raised a number of concerns that have surfaced throughout the roadmap process:

• Marine life: Questions were asked about whales getting tangled in cables, and more broadly about ecological impacts. Burright noted that the main power cables are large and unlikely to entangle whales directly, but “secondary entanglement” could occur if fishing gear such as crab pots or nets snag on them. He also pointed out that offshore wind arrays could displace certain fishing activities, especially mid‑water trawling, and could affect endangered species “take” limits that fishing fleets already operate under.

• Fishing and navigation: Fishing interests have warned about potential insurance problems if vessels operate inside turbine arrays, as well as complications for search and rescue, radar interference, and navigation safety.

• Birds and ecosystem dynamics: Potential impacts to seabirds and migratory species remain an active area of research. Some scientists have also begun asking what happens if energy is removed from the wind field that currently drives coastal upwelling, the base of the marine food web. These questions are included in a research agenda appendix, but answers are not yet definitive.

• Visual impacts and tourism: Tourism groups told the state that a very high percentage of visitors come to the coast primarily for its natural beauty and leave “highly satisfied.” Attendees asked how much weight visual and spiritual values will carry. Burright said the roadmap acknowledges that some stretches of coast may be too visually important to site turbines offshore, and that this needs to be part of future siting decisions.

• Port and community impacts onshore: On land, large turbines would mean major port facilities, large cranes, modifications to navigation channels, and expanded industrial activity. That, in turn, could bring new jobs and people to coastal communities, increasing pressure on already strained housing, infrastructure, and social services. Several participants connected this to a broader pattern of “deferred maintenance” they see across Oregon cities and stressed the need to build capacity ahead of demand, not after systems are already failing.

The document also calls for:

• Stronger protections for cultural and natural resources

• Clearer consultation requirements

• Investments in tribal capacity so that tribes can fully participate in complex, technical processes around offshore wind and related energy infrastructure

Upcoming roundtable meetings are scheduled for April 20, May 27, and June 23. Burright’s goal is to deliver a revised, final roadmap to the Legislature by around July, in time for lawmakers to review it ahead of their next long session. For now, offshore wind off Oregon’s coast remains an open question. The roadmap is the state’s attempt to be ready — with clearer rules, stronger policies, and a more informed public — before that question is put to the test.