Impact Needs Study For Offshore Wind Project, Ocean City Says

OCEAN CITY, NJ — Officials and residents are asking for the environmental impact to be better studied before offshore wind comes to Ocean City.

Opponents and supporters of the Ocean Wind 1 project voiced their thoughts in a public hearing with the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in the morning of Sept. 29.

The focus of the two-hour hearing was on Ocean Wind 1's petition for easements through Ocean City and Cape May County for transmission cables. It would come onshore at beach lots owned by Ocean City. This is "reasonably necessary" for the project, said Ocean Wind 1 representative Madeline Urbish.

However, this was criticized by some in the hearing, as the night before the BPU had approved the transmission line under Ocean City's streets and coming up at the beach lots at 35th Street during a meeting.

The vote, which came as a surprise as it happened the day before the meeting with Ocean City and county officials, raised concerns with some of the commenters.

"The process to date has been a farce. It's been a joke," said former Ocean City Council Vice President Michael DeVlieger. "It should be insulting to the citizens of Ocean City."

He questioned why the topic was being discussed if the BPU had already voted on it.

"That's moronic and insulting," DeVlieger said.

Many residents and officials have been opposed to the project for a long time, which was brought up in the hearing. George Savastano, Ocean City Business Administrator, questioned the BPU's authority to even grant the easements.

He asked for the case to instead be referred to the Office of Administrative Law. Savastano also asked that alternate routes, such as a Great Egg Harbor route, be considered, to not go through sensitive land.

"It appears that Ocean Wind is promoting the most economically expedient route at the expense of the communities of Ocean City and Cape May County," Savastano said.

He also requested to wait until the environmental impact was fully understood before moving forward. Read More: Offshore Wind Needs More Review Time, Conservation Groups Say

Michael Donohue, representing Cape May County, said that ten of the 16 municipalities in the county object to the current process and want their issues to be heard.

"Under this process, which happens at the BPU in the context of utilities from time to time, the unelected members of the Board of Public Utilities stand in the shoes of the elected officials of Cape May County in order to make these decisions," Donohue said. "We believe it is incumbent upon Cape May County and our supporting municipalities to come to the defense of home rule."

Maura Caroselli from Rate Counsel spoke to represent New Jersey ratepayers and said that Ocean Wind 1 should provide cost estimates for the preferred and alternative routes.

"There may be alternatives that may be longer than the preferred route and may impact fewer stakeholders," Caroselli said.

These ideas were repeated throughout the hearing by the project's opponents.

"I feel that we're putting the cart before the horse by even talking about having the cable going through when we have not addressed the environmental impact statement," said Ocean City resident Barbara McCall. She accused the BPU and Ocean Wind of having "deceptive strategies."

"This is why the legality of these actions need to be reviewed through an impartial court," McCall said.

"I think it's clear that these matters belong in our judicial system, where rights are properly adjudicated, and not by an unelected Board of Public Utility commissioners," said coastal resident Mike Dean.

Others said that the project would not benefit the environment.

"No rational person would propose putting industrial power plants on the rim of the Grand Canyon," said Ocean City resident Charles Durkin. "Is this really protecting our environment or is it destroying it?"

He said that the Jersey Shore is treasure because of its natural beauty, and asked why they would voluntarily destroy something that so many people enjoy.

However, supporters of the project said it would benefit the economy and the environment. They said there was no time to wait.

"I want to state clearly that offshore wind is our best strategy to fight climate change in New Jersey," said Doug O'Malley, director of Environment New Jersey.

"This is not a question of if we should move forward with offshore wind," he said. "This is a question of how quickly can we responsibly build offshore wind, not just off the coast of New Jersey, but the entire Atlantic coast."

The easements are necessary, said William Healey, representing the New Jersey Alliance for Action, a nonpartisan non-profit association that represents businesses, labor, government, utility and other leaders across the state.

"Frankly, if we don't do something about climate change and ocean rise, Ocean City may not exist at the end of this century," Healey said.

Christina Renna, president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce Southern New Jersey, said the project would positively impact the economy, citing an "enormous number of jobs" that it would create in the area.

"Our chamber strongly supports this project," she said.

Those who still wish to comment can submit theirs electronically through the BPU. Emailed comments may also be filed with the Acting Secretary of the Board, in pdf or Word format, to board.secretary@bpu.nj.gov. Comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Oct. 12.

Read more on previous offshore wind hearings here:

Ocean City Pushes Against Offshore Wind Farm Cables On Beaches

Ocean City Residents Say Wind Farm Shouldn't Tear Up Beach