The California Energy Commission on Friday told the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Marine Planning Committee that state staff have nearly completed a phase‑1 feasibility evaluation of wave and tidal energy under Senate Bill 605 and are moving into a phase‑2 assessment that maps areas that could be suitable for marine energy deployment.

The presentation: Danielle (no last name given in the packet), an offshore renewable energy planner with the California Energy Commission (CEC), described mapping and analysis that the agency has produced so far. She said the CEC’s phase‑1 work — published as a consultant report and summarized in the state Integrated Energy Policy Report — concluded that wave energy resources off California are regionally significant but technical and logistical constraints mean nearshore distributed systems and small‑scale devices are most feasible in the near term.

“Wave energy is highest off the north coast of California, whereas tidal energy is really only available near major estuaries and bays,” Danielle said, describing the CEC’s regional breakdown. She noted that tidal power is concentrated around San Francisco Bay and a few other estuaries.

What the maps show: The CEC’s maps, organized by three coast regions (Northern, Central and Southern California), overlaid resource power density with exclusion layers including national marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas, offshore disposal sites, submarine cables and major shipping lanes. Danielle said device‑specific limitations and a lack of high‑resolution nearshore wave models mean the maps are a screening tool — useful for scoping where further device‑ and site‑specific analysis could be targeted.

Key takeaways the CEC summarized for committee members:
- Wave energy is more abundant and broadly available off California’s north and central coast than tidal energy.
- Most current wave technologies are likely to be deployed inside 200 meters water depth and within about 10 nautical miles of shore; the CEC’s screening analysis limited the study to 200 meters or shallower.
- Near‑term activity is most likely to be distributed, local energy applications (for ports, remote facilities or island communities) rather than utility‑scale, grid‑connected projects that would require long, federally regulated licensing and years of permitting.

Fisheries and user conflicts: The CEC overlaid federal and state fisheries datasets and found commercial and recreational fishing effort concentrated nearshore and in bays — for example, Dungeness crab, market squid and salmon effort patterns — and emphasized that these existing uses and marine protected areas limit areas that would be suitable for larger deployments.

The CEC’s timeline: Danielle said the CEC planned to release a draft report in early March with a public workshop to follow, and a separate report to the governor and legislature in mid‑2025 (quarter 3) that would summarize both phase‑1 and phase‑2 results and may include recommendations for the legislature.

Why it matters: The committee’s work on cumulative impacts and research priorities intersects with the CEC’s screening because the commission’s maps and constraints will affect where wave or tidal developers may pursue assessments and permits in California waters. Members asked for the CEC to clarify data sources and make the draft maps available to state and federal stakeholders for peer review.

Quote from the meeting: “This is not a planning document,” Danielle said of the SB 605 effort; “we’re really just doing a feasibility study.”

Next steps: Committee members requested the CEC share the draft report and mapping layers when the draft is published and recommended that the CEC coordinate its phase‑2 work with state fishery agencies and the council’s advisory bodies to refine potential conflicts and mitigation approaches.

Ending: The CEC’s work narrows early attention to certain geographic areas and confirms that fishery‑intensive nearshore waters will be key constraints for any proposed wave or tidal projects.