1. Marine Renewable Energy: Asset Based Planning – A Case Study
Thanks for the opportunity.
I represent the POET, a regional organization born of the OWET.
Past 10 years we’ve been focused on paving the path to commercialization for marine renewable energy – waves, tides, ocean currents, and more recently, from floating OSW.
With only a few minutes to present today, there’s no benefit in getting bogged down in the details, so I’m going more or less straight to the conclusion, and I’d be happy to bore you with the details over a cup of coffee.
First a note about opportunities. Some knock politely and others just kick in the door. When it comes to energy generation, they will not force themselves on us. At least not at first. We have to create the right conditions to allow them to reach their full potential. It was true for wind and solar, and it will be true for ocean energy as well.

3. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Proverb:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Meaning:
Having something that is certain is better than taking a risk for more, because you might lose everything.
Start by stating the obvious.
Not everyone agrees that ocean planning is good idea. I suppose it’s a simple dynamic. If you’re already using the ocean without a plan, then you might conclude that you have nothing to gain from a new planning process.
If you’re a new user, then a planning effort that seeks merely to fit you in where there are no other conflicting uses is hardly promising.
And yet, the imperative is there. As we move forward as a society, it is abundantly clear that we all benefit from healthy oceans that are used appropriately and sustainably. As new uses come online, our already busy oceans will need a more thoughtful approach for management.
And that’s where good planning comes in.
I’m going to touch on two planning efforts as examples. One that is complete, and one that is in process.
The Oregon experience related to wave energy, and California’s planning process for offshore wind. There’s also a federal process that has made some progress under the NOC of the previous administration. But we’ll leave that for a different day….or different administration.

4. One of the most important, if a bit disappointing, things that has come from the data collection process has been the recent DON maps.
Combined with the Monterey National Marine Sanctuary, and pretty much the entire southern half of the state looks like it might be off limits.
However, I’m hopeful that there can be some flexibility, even with these vast swaths of red.
That’s where good data comes in, and the willingness to get down to specifics.
It’s far better to negotiate the details of micro-siting, than to just apply a broad brush approach. The former can result in good projects getting done, while the later is unnecessarily general and overly protective.
There’s a lot of water out there. I think we can find a way to make the various interests work together for a good outcome.

5. Start by stating the obvious.
Not everyone agrees that ocean planning is good idea. I suppose it’s a simple dynamic. If you’re already using the ocean without a plan, then you might conclude that you have nothing to gain from a new planning process.
If you’re a new user, then a planning effort that seeks merely to fit you in where there are no other conflicting uses is hardly promising.
And yet, the imperative is there. As we move forward as a society, it is abundantly clear that we all benefit from healthy oceans that are used appropriately and sustainably. As new uses come online, our already busy oceans will need a more thoughtful approach for management.
And that’s where good planning comes in.
I’m going to touch on two planning efforts as examples. One that is complete, and one that is in process.
The Oregon experience related to wave energy, and California’s planning process for offshore wind. There’s also a federal process that has made some progress under the NOC of the previous administration. But we’ll leave that for a different day….or different administration.

7. Start by stating the obvious.
Not everyone agrees that ocean planning is good idea. I suppose it’s a simple dynamic. If you’re already using the ocean without a plan, then you might conclude that you have nothing to gain from a new planning process.
If you’re a new user, then a planning effort that seeks merely to fit you in where there are no other conflicting uses is hardly promising.
And yet, the imperative is there. As we move forward as a society, it is abundantly clear that we all benefit from healthy oceans that are used appropriately and sustainably. As new uses come online, our already busy oceans will need a more thoughtful approach for management.
And that’s where good planning comes in.
I’m going to touch on two planning efforts as examples. One that is complete, and one that is in process.
The Oregon experience related to wave energy, and California’s planning process for offshore wind. There’s also a federal process that has made some progress under the NOC of the previous administration. But we’ll leave that for a different day….or different administration.

8. Northwest Energy Innovations Azura Technology
Wave Energy Test Site - Hawaii 8

9. M3 Wave Energy – Oregon Grown
Ocean Energy, USA – Oscillating Water Column 9

10. Wello Oy Penguin

12. Marine Renewable Energy
Wave and Floating Offshore Wind
Renewable Energy – Clean, Emissions Free, Free Fuel, Highly Predictable, Endless, and Approaching Cost Parity
Locally Available and Improves Local Resilience
Grid Benefits - West Side Generation Source, Lower Integration Costs, High Capacity Factors
Significant Potential for Local Investment and Jobs
Very Low Environmental Impacts
Compatible with Other Users
No Permanent Changes 12

13. One of the most important, if a bit disappointing, things that has come from the data collection process has been the recent DON maps.
Combined with the Monterey National Marine Sanctuary, and pretty much the entire southern half of the state looks like it might be off limits.
However, I’m hopeful that there can be some flexibility, even with these vast swaths of red.
That’s where good data comes in, and the willingness to get down to specifics.
It’s far better to negotiate the details of micro-siting, than to just apply a broad brush approach. The former can result in good projects getting done, while the later is unnecessarily general and overly protective.
There’s a lot of water out there. I think we can find a way to make the various interests work together for a good outcome.

14. POET Executive Director Jason Busch
Questions?
POET Executive Director Jason Busch 14