By MADDY VITALE
A day after the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities approvals for the Danish energy company, Orsted, to run a transmission line through Ocean City to connect an offshore wind energy farm to a land-based power grid, the public had their say.
In two separate Zoom meetings, one in the morning, Thursday, and the other in the evening, the BPU heard from the parties that would be affected, Ocean City, Cape May County, and other stakeholders.
They voiced concerns that the line could disrupt an environmentally sensitive portion of Ocean City at the beach lots of 35th Street. Both Ocean City and Cape May County officials said there could be alternative routes, and it would appear that Orsted is just trying to push through the most convenient, “expedient route” for the company, without concerns for those being affected, the residents of Ocean City and the county.
On Wednesday, the BPU granted easements and other permits related to what is called the Ocean Wind 1 project. Orsted filed its petition to bypass the city and county for approvals back in June, after the parties could not reach an agreement.
Ocean City Business Administrator George Savastano spoke during the hearing. He said Ocean Wind is “completely disregarding” the potential impact of running the line through a section of the city.
“Ocean Wind is completely disregarding the consideration of the most impacted community, the elected officials and their constituents,” Savastano said. “The failure of Ocean Wind to consider Ocean City and Cape May County and the route, should be startling to this board.”
Savastano said that the BPU should refer the Ocean Wind petition to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case for hearing and disposition.
Some attendees were in favor of the transmission line and the wind farm project, saying it would provide clean, renewable energy and create jobs.
But the majority of speakers in the morning meeting Thursday strongly opposed the transmission line, the way the company appeared to be rushing it through without looking at alternatives, the way the BPU voted to approve the easements without first holding a public hearing and the overall potential impact of the wind farm project.
Savastano emphasized the point that Ocean Wind has “refused” to look at alternative routes.
“Ocean Wind should be required to disclose the cost of the proposed routes,” he said adding that it appears Ocean Wind is proposing the most economically expedient route.
He also said that no decision should be made on the transmission line until an environmental impact analysis of the wind farm is completed.
Orsted’s proposal is to put 99 wind turbines in the ocean, 15 miles offshore from Atlantic City to Stone Harbor, passing by Ocean City in the process.
The wind farm is currently in the planning and permitting phase and is scheduled for completion by 2024. Construction, if all is approved, would begin in 2024. Plans call for a 1,100-megawatt project that would create thousands of construction jobs and power over 500,000 homes.
Madeline Urbish, a spokeswoman for Orsted, gave a statement at the hearing
She spoke of Orsted’s intention to run a line under Ocean City’s streets and bring the electricity onshore in Ocean City through a cable to connect the offshore wind turbines to the power grid at the former B.L. England Generating Station in Marmora.
But Urbish stressed that the parties were unable to reach an agreement.
“Since 2019, the project has engaged in extensive outreach with Cape May County and made a formal offer with Cape May County,” Urbish said.
Urbish continued, “The discussions have continued through early 2022,” she said, adding that the county has not agreed to approvals. “Therefore, the petition was filed for the easements.”
She said that Orsted believed the transmission line location through Ocean City is “reasonably necessary.”
“The board has the jurisdiction. Ocean Wind would have preferred a voluntary agreement with Cape May County,” she said. “Time is of the essence.”
Mike Donohue, an attorney representing Cape May County, said that the cost of the route should be revealed by Orsted and other routes should be taken into account.
Donohue said that the petition by Orsted clearly sets aside the elected officials of Cape May County and certain local officials, giving the decision-making on the easements to the BPU, unelected officials.
“We believe Cape May County should come to the defense of home rule to make sure the people in Cape May County are addressed,” he said.
He said, considering the county residents could have “an industrial facility on our horizon for 30 years,” and impact to the economy, culture, fisheries, migratory bird paths, among other issues, home rule should be taken into account, when decisions are made.
Donohue noted that there are other feasible routes that could be taken.
Attorney Paul Baldini, who is also the solicitor for Sea Isle City, spoke on behalf of Sea Isle City, Dennis Township, Lower and Middle Townships, Avalon, Stone Harbor, North Wildwood, Wildwood and Wildwood Crest.
“The municipalities strongly urge the BPU to refer this matter to the Office of Administrative Law. Collectively, I represent the majority of Cape May County residents,” Baldini said. “The failure of Orsted to involve the stakeholders, Ocean City and Cape May County is troubling.”
Critics have said that the project could harm the environment and marine life, fisheries, create a visual blight of “an “industrial park” on the horizon and hurt tourism.
Ocean City resident Suzanne Hornick of Protect Our Coast NJ, a group that is fighting to stop the Ocean Wind 1 wind turbine project, said she was upset with the meeting and how it was handled Wednesday night.
“I watched the meeting last night and the BPU gave approval, so why am I here? Putting this cable through our island, through our playground and beaches, is insanity. Ocean City is a very small island, and the only thing that we have to keep us afloat is tourism,” Hornick said.
She added that as a member of Protect Our Coast, she is extremely upset.
Former Vice President of Ocean City Council, Michael DeVlieger, has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the wind farm project.
He expressed his dismay over the way the matter was voted on a day before the public were able to address the matter.
“The topic at hand is whether the easement should be granted. Why are we talking about it when the board voted on it yesterday? It is moronic. Why are you bothering? You can’t tell me there is an honest effort here to hear from the public or understand the environmental impacts,” DeVlieger said.
He continued, “You have wind farm supporters coming on talking about the economy and green energy. They are not the topics at hand. The topics at hand are the easements. Given the way these hearings have been conducted, I guess that I should thank you, because you are opening the doors to a ton of appeals and litigation. But it is just horrible to see how flagrantly disingenuous this has been.”
A few of the stakeholders said job creation was a major positive point of the wind farm project and that they were not opposed to the transmission line. Others said it would benefit the environment.
Christina Renna, president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce Southern New Jersey said, “The Ocean Wind project has it all set up for success, great benefits to South Jersey’s workforce and giving back to the community at large. Our Chamber supports the project.”
Eric Ford said people have to look at the overall positive impact of the project and the amount of jobs it could create.
“There is a great opportunity for New Jersey to lead in workforce development in this sector,” he said.
A meeting is being hosted by Orsted at the Flanders Hotel at 11th and Boardwalk on Monday, Oct. 3 at 6 p.m. Ocean City residents and second homeowners are strongly encouraged to attend this public hearing on the transmission line.
The public can email or write their comments about the easements to the BPU. The deadline for submissions is Oct. 12.
To send a written comment to the BPU write to Carmen Diaz, Acting Board Secretary, Board of Public Utilities, 44 South Clinton Ave., 1st Floor, P.O. Box 350, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350. Or email comments to board.secretary@bpu.nj.gov. You must include Docket Number QO22050347 on your submission.
A transcript and recording of Thursday’s hearings will be posted at: https://www.nj.gov/bpu/newsroom/public/
