Ports of Opportunity

The impacts of climate change - sea level rise, more frequent and intense coastal storms, heavier, less predictable and more destructive rainfall, and hotter days for longer stretches of time - are here and getting worse. And these impacts, while touching all of us, disproportionately affect communities long disadvantaged by a historic and ongoing legacy of disinvestment and marginalization. If we are to avoid the very worst impacts of climate, dramatic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be a top priority for our region.

New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have each made meaningful commitments to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) reductions bolstered by policies to ensure they are met, including the following:

• New York

  • 70% renewable energy by 2030, 100% clean energy by 2040

  • 85% economy-wide GHG reductions by 2050

• New Jersey

  • 100% clean energy by 2035

  • 80% reduction of all GHGs by 2050

• Connecticut

  • 100% zero carbon electricity supply by 2040

  • 80% reduction of all GHGs by 2050

Investing in the necessary infrastructure to transition to renewable energy like offshore wind is essential. The scale and complexity of offshore wind cannot be understated, and as we dig deeper into these questions - and begin to understand more about the important infrastructure needed to enable our region’s ability to successfully embrace offshore wind as part of our clean energy future - we focused on ports as the keystone to many of these questions.

Without enough of the right ports in the right places, we will not only fail to meet our offshore wind targets on time, we will squander the opportunity for a thriving, domestic offshore wind industry with jobs and benefits for our region’s communities.

As the offshore wind industry finds its footing after weathering global supply chain and inflation-related threats, and as many in the industry now await the outcome of the US presidential election, industry leaders and their partners can and should double down on their commitment to ports. We must advance policies, education, legislation, and investments to ensure that our region has the necessary port infrastructure to meet and fulfill the promise of offshore wind.

To state it simply, there would be no domestic offshore wind industry without ports to support it. Manufacturers of major offshore wind components - called original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) - and other tiers of the supply chain necessary for developing offshore wind projects are selecting locations based on the availability of suitable port space in or near states planning offshore wind projects, and with access to a skilled workforce ready to support these endeavors. The growing pipeline of projects under planning and development will increasingly require adequate space to assemble components into turbines by skilled workers on land and those on specialized vessels to transport and install them. Once projects are up and running, ports near lease areas will serve as the operations centers and launching sites of maintenance and repair efforts. Put another way, ports are the lynchpin of the economic promise of offshore wind. They are the primary place where the offshore wind workforce ​‘goes to work’ and they will span the lifetime of any given offshore wind project (30 years or more, per project), and will play a critical role in the ultimate decommissioning of the projects at the end of their useful life. And, since they’re capital-intensive regional infrastructure, a single offshore wind port can be used to deliver or maintain multiple offshore wind projects.

Types of Ports that Support Offshore Wind

In general, there are three principal offshore wind port functions, and, in turn, three types of ports each involving a specific set of physical requirements that influence planning and investment strategies (NYSERDA, 2017). Some functions can be combined at a given port. Understanding these functions, and what places can best accommodate them, is important as we usher in an offshore wind future.

1. Manufacturing: Port space is needed by OEMs for the fabrication and water-transport of the large components required for offshore wind power generation, including turbines (blades, nacelles, hubs, towers, monopiles/foundations, and other pieces); transmission cables that move the power from turbine and wind farm to grid, and the substations that receive and reallocate the power generated within the transmission system. The components being developed here are so large, they cannot be transported by trucks on the road, so require a waterfront location. Manufacturing ports will be in use as long as offshore wind projects are being developed.
2. Marshaling: The marshaling port is the nexus of the offshore wind supply chain; the place where manufactured components are received from OEMs, stored, moved and assembled, before transporting them out to lease areas to be installed. Generally, a marshaling port will be in use for two years, per each project being constructed.
3. Operations & Maintenance (O&M): Each company with one or more projects needs a location from which to manage the everyday operations of wind farms, as well as a place from which to launch periodic maintenance and emergency repair expeditions. Historically, the O&M port has been dedicated to a single project, but there has been movement toward shared usage by several developers, which can offer greater efficiencies.
4. Combined functions, and other uses: Some ports have the ability to provide combinations of the functions described above. For example, a marshaling port may also have space for O&M uses. In other cases, some port spaces are large enough to include both manufacturing and marshaling, which also reduces costs of component transportation and the time to deliver them.

Beyond wind project construction functions, ports can also serve as points of interconnection (where transmission cables connect to onshore substations), and, if designed properly, can provide functions outside of offshore wind development (such as container ports), when projects are not being constructed.

The Role of Vessels

Vessels are the workhorse of offshore wind development projects. As a water-dependent use, the ability of a port to support the multitude of vessels required to plan for, develop, and maintain an offshore wind project is critical. Vessels range from smaller boats that shuttle crews between ports and lease areas, to larger transport vessels that move components between ports, to specialized vessels that lay cable and install rocks for protection of foundations, to the large wind turbine installation and heavy-lift vessels that will ultimately do the work of installing wind farms in lease areas. Some of these vessels carrying out these activities are required by U.S. law to be built domestically. (see Jones Act Sidebar) As offshore wind turbine components continue to increase in size and weight, both ports and vessels will need to evolve.

Port Characteristics

Whether adapting an existing port into one that can support offshore wind or constructing a wholly new, purpose-built port, there are a number of critical physical characteristics necessary for optimal port operation, depending on the port function. In particular, location, area/size, weight-bearing capacity, and in-water conditions will help to determine how ports best function.

Location

The importance of port location differs depending on the port type, but there are several specific assets the proximity of which determines strategic location for the different ports supporting offshore wind, including:

• Workforce & Communities
  Workforce is the most essential element of the offshore wind industry and ports often act as central nodes within geographic clusters anchoring industry-related jobs. Regardless of the function of a given port, access to a skilled workforce is a critical consideration for ports that support offshore wind. People will be needed to work in jobs that manufacture offshore wind components, large and small, unload and load components between ports and vessels, move components around port facilities with cranes and other equipment, operate vessels and barges, dig trenches, drill, and lay cable both in the ocean and onshore, install offshore wind projects, manage the daily operations of wind farms, maintain and repair turbines in operation, and dismantle the farms at the end of their life cycle. Nationally, the offshore wind industry is forecasted to employ over 60,000 full time employees annually by 2030, with manufacturing and other ports comprising up to 56,000 employees alone. With ports serving as the epicenter of offshore wind employment, the proximity of ports to skilled workers is critically important.
• Lease Areas
  Given their role in managing the day-to-day operations and providing ongoing maintenance, and emergency repair services, it is essential that O&M ports be as proximate as possible to the lease area where an associated offshore wind farm is located. While proximity to a lease area is important for marshaling ports, it is not as essential as some of the other factors described below. In fact, Europe’s largest marshaling port, the Port of Esbjerg in Denmark, which has marshaled a majority of European offshore wind projects, served projects as far as 310 miles away. Proximity to lease areas is even less of an important characteristic for manufacturing ports, given that components will be assembled at marshaling ports before being installed in lease areas.
• Other Ports & Supporting Supply Chain
  With different and complementary functions, the location of the different types of ports in relation to each other and in relation to the greater supply chain are important factors. For manufacturing ports, one important factor - in an optimal domestic supply chain - is the proximity to land-based manufacturers of smaller components (e.g. gearboxes, generators, converters, etc.) needed to build the larger components of offshore wind projects. Large manufacturers will want to strategically locate in places that have access to or can quickly develop the supply chain for these components.
  
  Once the large components are manufactured, the proximity between manufacturing and marshaling ports becomes important. The greater the distance to ship large components to places where they can be assembled will add to project timelines and costs. Some ports are able to combine manufacturing and marshaling, significantly reducing the distance and ensuring multiple efficiencies.
  
  There is less of a need for proximity between O&M ports and either manufacturing or marshaling ports.
• Roadway & Rail Access
  Given their role in the development of offshore wind project components, manufacturing ports benefit most from access to roadways and rail lines, as they can be used to transport the raw materials and smaller parts required to develop larger components. O&M ports could benefit from access to roadways and rail lines, as these ports often store replacement parts needed for repairs and maintenance that could be delivered by road or rail. Access to airports is also important, given that periodic visits from national or international company representatives will be necessary. Given the size of the components being delivered to marshaling ports, however, road or rail access is of lesser importance, as components are mainly transported via waterways.

Area/Size

The area required to support offshore wind port operations depends on the particular function of a given port. The largest ports are typically the marshaling ports, as they need space to receive, store, move, assemble, and load –for transport to the lease area– the largest components of offshore wind projects. Some analyses have determined the minimum required space for a marshaling port to be 25 acres (~19 football fields), while another analysis suggests that at least 54 acres (~41 football fields) would be needed to allow for the marshaling of a 1GW project over two years. Based on the projected turbine size, a minimum of 30 acres is likely for marshaling ports. Denmark’s largest port, Esbjerg, is a marshaling port that is over 1,000 acres (over 750 football fields) and has shipped out over three dozen of Europe’s offshore wind projects. The larger the marshaling port, the more projects that can be installed out of that port. Similarly, because they are responsible for producing and storing the largest components of offshore wind projects, manufacturing ports also require significant space (between 15- 60 acres). O&M ports, on the other hand, can be smaller (5-10 acres for one project, more for multiple), with enough area to house offices, a warehouse/storage for spare parts, and other uses such as training facilities.

Load-Bearing Capacity

Load-bearing capacity could be defined as the ability of a port to support the weight of components. Today’s offshore wind turbines are significantly larger than they once were, and are only going to become even larger in the future. With increased size, comes increased weight. One nacelle alone for a wind project today weighs around 661 tons while a single blade is 61 tons. And with increased weight comes the need for heavier machinery, including cranes, to move these weighty components. That means that both manufacturing and marshaling ports must have the capacity to bear heavy loads (2,000 - 6,000 lbs/sqf ) , particularly in the lift areas of marshaling ports, as components are produced, stored, assembled and moved to vessels.

Vessel-related Conditions

1. Navigable Depth. Ports that utilize the largest vessels (including manufacturing and marshaling ports) require adequate channel and berth depths to accommodate them: a depth of 13-38 feet (4-11.5m), depending on the type of vessel. O&M ports require a minimum depth of approximately 8 feet (2.5m), although this can grow to over 20 feet (6.1m) depending on other vessel moored.

2. Tidal Currents. If tidal currents are too strong along a manufacturing or marshaling port, it may make it difficult for larger vessels to turn. A current of 5 knots or less is ideal.

3. Tidal Range. In order to ensure best conditions for loading vessels, a smaller range between high and low tide is preferred, particularly at manufacturing and marshaling ports.

4. Wharf/Quay Length. The length of the wharf (or quay) is critical for loading and unloading components at manufacturing and marshaling ports. A length that exceeds the desired vessel length by 33ft (10m) is typically recommended and room for two vessels is ideal at marshaling ports, so a minimum of 1,300ft (400m) is ideal. This is roughly the size of an average container ship. O&M ports require significantly less length (around 150m or 492ft).

5. Adjacent Seabed Conditions. At marshaling ports, certain lift operations of the heaviest components with jack-up installation vessels require the floor of the sea at the port to be both free of navigational hazards (pipes, cables, submerged structures, etc) and composed of stable materials (dense sand, gravel, rock, etc).

Height Clearance

When considering planning for offshore wind ports, distance between the ports and lease areas is not the only consideration for water-based routes, so is the height clearance along those routes. The vertical distance between the surface of the water and any obstructions above it - or air draft - is an important factor as obstructions (e.g. bridges, utility lines, flight paths, defense radar, etc.) may restrict both the vessel types used to install offshore wind projects, and the method by which assembled turbines are transported.

In a perfect world, there would be no air draft restrictions between ports and lease areas. However, given the challenges of developing offshore wind ports and factors like pre-existing infrastructure (like bridges), the industry works within air draft restrictions. 400ft vertical air draft (120m) could be considered a minimum vertical clearance. Alternative transport methods, including horizontal shipping, feeder barges, or partial assembly would allow vessels to tolerate greater air draft restrictions, but would come at a trade off of a higher project/rate cost.

Getting to Yes: Port Development

Because offshore wind is an emerging industry in the United States, very few existing ports possess the necessary port characteristics described above; particularly for manufacturing and marshaling. To support the full pipeline of planned and ongoing offshore wind projects, those with the intent to develop offshore wind ports must either alter existing port sites or create new ports. Across the country, states, regional entities, OEMs, developers, port operators, and waterfront landholders are working together with the intent to update and create new ports for the development of offshore wind. But moving from intent to development requires three essential elements coming together: space, a favorable regulatory and political landscape, and capital.

Space

Integral to the intent described above is the need for adequate space to develop an offshore wind port. It is not just the amount of space that matters, but also meeting specific criteria based on the type of port being developed. This space can be classified in the following ways:

• Existing ports
  Most waterfronts benefit from a series of ports that are part of existing local and regional supply chains. They largely serve as container ports for the import and export of various goods, and also include more specialized uses for autos, warehousing, and break-bulk facilities, among others. As a new industry, offshore wind development has not yet manifested as a primary port use for more than a handful of ports nationally, but a number of port operators are beginning to leverage their strategic locations and available funding to convert them.
  
  Existing ports have both pros and cons compared to waterfront land that is not already being used as a port. Current port land is typically located strategically proximate to population centers, workforce, and infrastructure, and already possess several of the required characteristics for offshore wind development, including vessel access (navigable channels, berths, etc.) and facility operations (lifting infrastructure, warehousing, etc). But, due to the distinct requirements of ports used in offshore wind development, significant investments are required to make these ports suitable for the industry.
• Waterfront land not currently used for port activities
  Waterfront land that is not currently developed for port uses could be useful for developing a new, purpose-built port. Such land could include undeveloped natural or open ​“greenfield” spaces, lightly developed or underutilized property, and Brownfields or otherwise compromised land. This type of land - if in the right place for a given offshore wind port purpose - has its own set of pros and cons. The biggest pro is that the land is more of a blank canvas that can be designed for a desired purpose, including multiple uses (e.g. manufacturing and marshaling, or O&M and marshaling, etc.) If it is land outside of a major urban core, it could be both more affordable, and less populated nearby, which could make it more feasible to develop and less prone to potential opposition. These same qualities might also serve as cons, as limited access to workforce would make it auto-dependent. The current uses of nearby land is also a factor, particularly if there are public amenities such as parks, hiking trails, and other open space uses. Such land in an urban core would likely be very expensive and could have significant environmental issues that would require cleanups and a longer development process.
  

Given the pros and cons that must be weighed, the importance of stakeholder input balanced with the responsibility of the state to deliver and be responsible with taxpayer dollars must be weighed at the local level, sometimes resulting in decisions that may divide stakeholders.

A Favorable Policy and Political Landscape

If there is an intent to pursue the development of offshore wind ports, and the space to do it, there must then be the proper policy and political landscape to move toward reality. Changing uses at an existing port or developing a new port for offshore wind - and attracting interest from the private sector as investors or lessees - will not likely happen without changes in the policies and programs that drive those investments, nor will it move forward without the proper political support from executive levels to the grassroots. Successful policy changes could include land use and zoning changes that help to usher in port and port-related uses, updated port master plans to target offshore wind uses, streamlined regulatory processes to speed up port development, and incentive programs to make the economics more favorable to port development, among others. These policy changes will require both champions in state and local government, as well as stakeholder groups to organize community support and education through the various phases of development. Without these changes, offshore wind ports will remain a vision that doesn’t come to fruition.

Capital

Where intent to develop aligns with space and a positive regulatory and political landscape, the final essential element of port development is the capital required to convert or develop into an offshore wind port. Whether investing relatively small amounts ($20 million) into O&M/Crew Transfer facilities or spending close to $1 billion to convert or develop new manufacturing or marshaling facilities, ports cost money. A recent analysis found that 25 ports along the East Coast have been or are being developed for the support of offshore wind at a price tag of $4 billion. These dollars are a mix of public and private investments, and various programs at the federal and state levels help to facilitate and leverage these critical investments.

Each stage of offshore wind port planning, development and operations involves a complex ecosystem of stakeholders ranging from government agencies and private developers to community based organizations, business owners, and neighborhood residents. These overlapping entities play crucial roles, starting from port conception to the delivery of clean wind energy, ensuring that port infrastructure is developed in consideration of regulatory requirements, environmental impacts, and community needs. The diagram above illustrates the roles that various stakeholders have in ensuring that offshore wind ports are meeting social, environmental, and economic goals, while building the energy of the future.

With a clear understanding of the essential role that ports supporting offshore wind play in developing offshore wind farms, advancing the industry in our region, and bringing benefits to communities, how far along are we in planning for, investing in, developing, and operating ports - and the vessels that operate from them - in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut?

To truly understand the kind of offshore wind port ecosystem - and the domestic supply chain connected to it - that could be achieved in our region, it’s important to get a sense of how the ideal system functions, and determine what needs to be done to reach that state.

The Ideal, Regional Offshore Wind Port Ecosystem

In an ideally functioning, US-based offshore wind port ecosystem, manufacturing of all or most of the components of offshore wind projects would be based domestically, with states hosting manufacturers of various components at ports distributed throughout the region and supplying the parts for offshore wind projects up and down the coast. Producers of sub-components would be strategically located in close proximity to the manufacturing ports. Marshaling ports would be large enough and located strategically in and around the region in enough quantity to support the development of multiple offshore wind projects, simultaneously. (Too few and too small marshaling ports would lead to a bottleneck in offshore wind development, while too many would reflect poor planning and investing.)

Operations & Maintenance (O&M) ports would be strategically located throughout the region, in close proximity to the lease areas where respective projects are located. O&M ports could either be associated with one offshore wind company across multiple locations, or there could be fewer ports with space for multiple companies’ operations. There would be enough of the appropriate vessels to successfully transport components and crews, and install, maintain, and repair all of the projects being developed and operating over the next few decades, including being Jones Act-compliant.

Manufacturing ports would produce components on an ongoing basis and continue for as long as offshore wind projects were being developed. Marshaling ports would support the development of one project at a time (more, if larger) and begin the next upon completion. O&M ports would remain active for the life of any given project.

Taking a big step back, the offshore wind port ecosystem would thrive and generate positive benefits beyond what this report has described thus far. With more jobs, more spending, more construction, ongoing operations - general economic activity increases in the areas that host offshore wind ports. This means that those areas can expect to see increased income from taxes, and spillover effects like other businesses also doing better. (Think about the grocery stores and gas stations that will serve more customers, the food trucks and uniform makers who will provide increased services, the doctors offices who will see more patients. This is all increased economic activity spurred by the offshore wind port ecosystem.)

In other words, there would be an ecosystem of ports located strategically throughout the region, providing local and statewide benefits, but also contributing regionally, with the infrastructure and workforce talent ready and delivering all that is needed to support the growing offshore wind industry. In so doing, the billions of dollars of spending and investment that we know is coming via offshore wind projects would be captured locally, both in the tri state region, and throughout the United States.

The Current Offshore Wind Industry Ecosystem in our Region

As the US offshore wind industry works through the early kinks of launching and finding its footing in the wake of a global pandemic and resulting inflation, the NY-NJ-CT region nor the United States is nowhere near the ideal and steady state described above. Currently, most offshore wind turbine components are manufactured abroad since local manufacturing ports are not yet operational and countries such as Spain, France, Denmark, Germany, and China which have a significant head start supporting long established offshore wind markets. As a result, most components are shipped across the sea to the only nearby marshaling/staging port in our region in New London, CT where they are partially assembled, then barged out to lease areas in the ocean where they are fully assembled and installed. This process is further complicated by an overall shortage of vessels, especially those compliant with the Jones Act.

As is, we are leaving a lot on the table - in terms of jobs, in terms of money to invest into the region, and in terms of big steps to meet our regional GHG goals.

But, as more ports come into focus, we are beginning to move past this first, scrambled stage, and toward a steadier stage with greater certainty and increased benefits - and with a clearer understanding of what is needed across the industry and each type of port, we can take the necessary steps to advance the ideal port ecosystem for our region that builds the projects of the coming decades.

Below is a status of ports in the region, by type:

Manufacturing Ports

Currently there are no fully operational manufacturing ports in our region. Two ports - Coeymans in New York, and Paulsboro in New Jersey - are partially operational, with phases still in development, while two - Albany in New York, and NJ Wind Port in New Jersey - are in development as manufacturing ports. One port - Rossville on Staten Island - is currently being planned. Paulsboro Marine Terminal will complete its transformation from a petroleum terminal into a monopile foundation manufacturer by 2026, while the second phase of the NJ Wind Port, which will include 60-70 acres of manufacturing space, will be completed by 2027. The Port of Coeymans had been targeted for state and private investment to develop manufacturing facilities for blades and nacelles, but that deal fell apart in early 2024, when GE announced it would not be building the turbines it had planned to manufacture there. It is producing some foundation components for Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind. The Port of Albany is poised, fully permitted - and partially developed - to manufacture towers, but absent additional investment in the port and commitment from manufacturers, the site’s future remains uncertain.

Marshaling Ports

Currently, there is one port - the State Pier in New London, CT - that was used to assemble the components of the region’s first offshore wind farm, South Fork Wind. It is currently marshaling Connecticut’s Revolution Wind, and will follow with New York’s Sunrise Wind. New Jersey is currently completing construction of the first phase of its purpose-built marshaling port in Salem County, set to be complete in 2024. It will marshal the Atlantic Shores 1 project, as well as future NJ-procured efforts, and possibly others. Construction on the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal in New York began in June, 2024 to develop an assembly/pre-staging facility and will be used for Equinor’s Empire Wind 1 and future New York projects when it is complete in 2026. Beyond our region, the Port of New Bedford in Massachusetts is currently operating, marshaling Massachusetts’s Vineyard Wind 1 project.

O&M Ports

Given that there is only one completed offshore wind farm in the region - South Fork Wind, whose O&M Port is located in Davisville, Rhode Island - there are currently no operating O&M ports in the region. Planned O&M Ports include South Brooklyn Marine Terminal for the Empire Wind 1, and Port Jefferson, Long Island, for Sunrise Wind, in New York. Other ports have been proposed, including Ravenswood in Queens, NY for future offshore wind projects, Atlantic City for the Atlantic Shores project, in New Jersey, in addition to port locations being considered in Northern New Jersey, including Buckeye Port Reading Facility in Port Reading, N.J, the preferred site for Leading Light Wind. Connecticut’s Revolution Wind will also use Davisville, Rhode Island as its O&M port location.

Investments

In total, nearly $1.6 billion of Federal, state, and local dollars have been committed ($422 million in New York; $925 million in New Jersey; and $210 million in Connecticut), to upgrade existing or construct new ports to support the manufacturing, marshaling, and operations and maintenance of offshore wind projects constructed, being constructed and planned for construction in the coming years. These public investments have already catalyzed an initial $1.4 billion of direct private investment, with more promised to come.

Connecticut: Ports in operation

New York: Partially operational/in-development

New York: Ports in development

New York: Planned ports

New Jersey: Partially operational/in-development

New Jersey: Ports in development

As New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut work to advance offshore wind goals in our region, different approaches to port development have been carried out by each to varied levels of success. The following broadly summarizes two different approaches, highlighting the risks and benefits of each, using real examples of the ports described above:

Approach 1: Government-Led Process to Develop Port with Taxpayer Dollars

Approach 2: Private-Led Process to Develop Port

This approach involves a private entity - either an offshore wind project developer, a port developer, or another investor - taking the lead to develop a privately-held site - either existing port land, or land in other uses - into an offshore wind port. They can pursue public dollars - through grants, earmarks and other government support - but they are responsible for identifying the site, developing the vision for it, and accruing the capital to bring the vision to reality. Once developed, the port can then attract further private investment through leases for use of the site, and agreements to improve the site for particular uses by the lessees.

The clearest example of this in our region is the Arthur Kill Terminal in Staten Island, where a private developer, AKT, has secured a site, courted private investors and political support, and has been pursuing public dollars to transform the 32-acre, undeveloped site into a marshaling port. Despite receiving a $48 million grant from US DOT, the port needs additional public funding to be constructed.

The domestic offshore wind industry is at a pivotal point in its development. As the first wave of large scale projects move from planning to implementation in our region, with more to follow, the complete picture around ports and supply chain is not yet in focus. How successful the region is in advancing ports and the offshore wind supply chain in the next few years will determine both how successful we will be in meeting our climate change and GHG reduction goals, and how soon we will be successful in doing so. The following section summarizes the inherent threats and opportunities around ports and supply chain, determined from research and conversations with a dozen government, industry, and local stakeholders engaged in ports issues.

Industry

• Threats: The uncertainties around a new, continuously evolving industry launching in dynamic economic times
• Opportunity: The promise of a new industry taking root, creating favorable conditions for public support, private investment and economic development

Launching a new industry nationally is a formidable undertaking, and that is certainly true for the offshore wind industry. Multiple factors need to align, including stable costs, reliable access to supply chain, the right locations, political support, and local buy-in, among others. And while some of these factors have been aligning for the offshore wind industry, there have also been some significant bumps in the road as the industry begins to take root. Most notably, project assumptions and timelines used to develop offshore wind bids and agreements with states have been upended by changes in costs driven by the global pandemic and the resulting inflation and supply chain shortages, as well as changes in commitments made by OEMs to produce certain components. As a result, some projects in our region were canceled. Some developers have already rebid or are in the process of rebidding to adjust to the new assumptions. Others remain uncertain. Additionally, local factors, including community resistance to issues like cable landings, have further complicated planned projects.

Where these opportunities - the promise of a new industry taking root in our region - and threats - the uncertainties inherent in launching a new industry - intersect with ports largely comes down to risk and capital. Are governments and other investors willing to take a risk with public and private dollars to invest in ports amidst a time of uncertainty? The port investment examples described above illustrate how each of the approaches still have challenges. For example, the state of New Jersey has committed to spend at least $700 million of public funds for a manufacturing and marshaling port that will sit idle for a few years because the offshore wind developer that was planning to use it canceled the project, and the next project won’t need the port immediately. In New York commitments were made and dollars spent to usher in a manufacturing port along the Hudson River in Coeymans, but a last minute change by the OEM dissolved the opportunity for now. Investors - whether public or private - seek certainty, yet a new industry taking root is rife with uncertainty.

Government

• Threat:The perception of being poor stewards of taxpayer dollars, in an uncertain environment
• Opportunity: The chance to advance ports in support of a new industry that meets climate, social, and economic goals

The role of government in advancing ports that support offshore wind cannot be understated. As described above, the domestic offshore wind industry is new and is working to gain its footing nationally and here in our region. As with many new industries, government support is essential, and the federal government, as well as the governments of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are wholly supportive of the offshore wind industry taking root. This is clear through examples such as statewide targets for offshore wind procurement that manifest in agreements with offshore wind developers that benefit the state and boost the industry. The picture is a bit more complex when it comes to ports. As has been summarized in this report, there is no one way for the government to advance them, and different approaches have been tried, including incentives to attract manufacturers and other private investments, and more direct port investments through public-private partnerships or through direct public investment into ports, as described above.

In determining how to best support offshore wind ports, the government has a number of factors to consider, including risk of project delays/changes, as described above, comfort with a given level of public dollars spent, the interest in spreading benefits to multiple locations throughout the state, the potential payback in jobs and other benefits to the state (e.g. additional revenue), appetite to change existing port uses or develop new ports from greenfield or underutilized land, among others. Ultimately, a state that is eager to advance offshore wind projects must choose both how much (amount), and how (strategy) to invest public dollars into port projects. If they fail to adequately invest in ports or pursue a strategy of investment that relies too much on circumstances beyond their control (e.g. industry challenges described above), or tries to spread limited funding across too many different places, it could leave a state in a position where they don’t have the necessary ports to complete offshore wind projects in a timely manner, if at all, or will have missed opportunities for workforce and economic goals in addition to revenue generation, missing or diminishing the promise of offshore wind ports.

Port Ecosystem

• Threat: Failure to recognize the interconnected nature of offshore wind ports within a given region, and the opportunity to plan for a cohesive ecosystem that supports various supply chains
• Opportunity: Working across jurisdications to best utilize space and capital for ecosystems of ports that connect to each other, local supply chains, and other regions

This report describes how there is something of an ideal form of ​“port ecosystem” that can be achieved in a given state or region with multiple ports working together to get offshore wind projects built, and keep them operating and maintained, while producing jobs up and down the connected supply chain, all while advancing a new industry. The opportunity for governments, port operators/agencies, landowners, and other port-related stakeholders is to align space and capital in ways that best contribute to a complete port ecosystem that delivers projects and offers local, state and regional benefits. Absent a strategic approach, states could miss opportunities for investments in ports that complement the ecosystem, or focus more on one portion - say, manufacturing - than another, say marshaling, or vice versa. States might also miss opportunities for regional port ecosystems by focusing purely on individual state benefits, which could result in either over-investment into ports locally that are unnecessarily redundant regionally, or under-investing into ports needed regionally, but don’t align with a given state’s approach.

Vessels

• Threat: Too few Jones Act Compliant (US built) vessels to support current and future projects
• Opportunity: Investing in a robust fleet of vessels to ensure projects are completed on time and on budget

The Port Ecosystem described in this report can only function as an interconnected system if there are the vessels to move components and people between ports and lease areas. As described above, the offshore wind industry requires a variety of specialized vessels to do the necessary work, most prominently installation vessels with the ability to lift and install large, heavy wind turbines in less-than-stable conditions. What’s more, the US Jones Act requiring vessels that move goods from US ports be US-built adds an extra layer of complexity to this issue. Put simply, the major threat around vessels is that we currently have too few US-built vessels, creating a scenario where vessels become the bottleneck for developing projects on time and on budget. The opportunity - if it is taken - is to have a built out fleet of Jones Act-compliant vessels, built in the US, effectively supporting the development of offshore wind projects, and facilitating a thriving domestic offshore wind industry.

Time

• Threat: Continuing to advance offshore wind projects, without having the necessary ports in place or in development
• Opportunity: Leveraging the alignment of federal and state commitments to climate and infrastructure spending to invest in ports and ensure climate targets are met

On multiple dimensions, time is both a driving and limiting factor for the domestic development of offshore wind, including port development. The immediate and worsening climate crisis is spurring an accelerated timeline that shifts states toward renewables, including offshore wind. As a result, policies and incentives are creating opportunities for the offshore wind industry to quickly try and take root here. States are trying to quickly build multiple projects at the same time they are aiming to build an industry that lasts. Key to a lasting industry are ports that manufacture, assemble, and maintain daily operations of these projects. But with the pressure to get projects built quickly, steps have been taken to work around the lack of ports/port investment, and projects are being built without the local port ecosystems that would be required. This gets projects done, but delays and scrambles a more orderly creation of investments in ports and supply chain.

Climate/Environment

• Threat: Inability to balance tradeoffs between local environmental concerns and broader climate action
• Opportunity: Accelerating the shift to renewable energy through investments in port infrastructure to build offshore wind projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the very worst impacts of climate change

Addressing the climate crisis through large projects such as offshore wind, and the ports that support them, often come with sets of tradeoffs that must be considered carefully. For ports, either developing a new offshore wind port from either an existing port, or on non-port land could result in some environmental impacts, including those from dredging, threats to nearby habitat, and impeding on adjacent open space, for example. These threats, which tend to be more localized, must be weighed against the opportunity to support the acceleration to renewables, reducing greenhouse gas emissions that increase warming, worsening global climate change and the resulting, damaging impacts. If these tradeoffs aren’t weighed thoughtfully, investments could be delayed or stymied, and the opportunity to build offshore wind could be diminished.

Environmental Justice