A proposed wave‑to‑hydrogen pilot near the Port of Grays Harbor drew technical questions and fisheries concerns when committee members reviewed a port briefing presented to the Marine Planning Committee.

Presentation summary: The project proposers described a floating wave energy converter that would power an onboard electrolyzer to produce hydrogen and oxygen; hydrogen would be offloaded for shore use. The port slide deck described a deployment site roughly five miles offshore near Westport and showed hardware details including substantial anchor chain and a large anchor. The project team said they had applied for DOE grant funding and that a full‑scale deployment test was scheduled for May 2027, with an initial six‑month test season through October.

Fisheries and operational concerns: Committee members and fisheries representatives said the proposed site overlaps commercial fishing areas and noted the risk to the Dungeness crab fleet in particular. Scott McMullen and others warned that large anchor arrays and single‑point mooring designs can have limited swing radii that still require substantial safety zones; the presenter’s slides showed a difference between drawn watch circles and the likely seafloor anchor spread once water depth and chain scope are accounted for. Committee members also highlighted conflicts with nearby marine protected areas, disposal sites and navigational corridors in some regions.

Technical notes from marine users: Presenters said the device would be deployed in relatively shallow water (on the order of tens of meters) and would use heavy stud link chain and multi‑hundred‑pound anchors; presenters also noted plans to use a barge and tug for deployment and periodic maintenance. Some committee members questioned the plan’s ability to recover or tow the anchored unit in winter storms and the operational logistics of anchoring, anchor recovery and maintenance windows.

Project timeline and permitting: The presenters indicated they had support from the Port of Grays Harbor and partner services for deployment logistics, and that a DOE funding application timeline aligned with their deployment plans. Committee members noted that, because the site is in federal waters, project proponents will need to coordinate with BOEM, NOAA and U.S. Coast Guard permitting and consultation processes if they pursue a funded demonstration project.

Committee responses and next steps: Members asked the port team to make slide materials available; the presenter said the deck is part of the public meeting record for the Port of Grays Harbor and can be shared. Members recommended the project proponents engage early with state and federal fisheries managers and the council’s advisory groups to address site‑specific consequences for crab, squid and salmon fisheries as the design advances.

Ending: The committee did not take formal action on the proposal; the port presentation provided an early view of potential engineering challenges and user conflicts that regional managers will want to consider if the project moves forward and gains funding.