Posted on July 12, 2023
OCEAN CITY — With a wind power project proposed off the beach taking a big step forward this week, Mayor Jay Gillian on Thursday criticized the approval process and called offshore energy production “a crazy gamble.”
City officials have expressed skepticism about the Ocean Wind 1 project since its proposal, but at the City Council meeting, Gillian went farther than usual, offering a blunt assessment of the project, describing the approval process as rushed and suggesting most of the benefits would flow to a foreign company.
Ocean Wind 1, owned by the Danish energy company Ørsted, received its record of decision from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on Wednesday, clearing a major hurdle and opening the way for construction to begin.
The company expects to begin onshore work in the fall and start offshore work on 98 huge wind turbines starting about 15 miles off the beach in 2024. A recent projection indicates the turbines will begin generating power in 2025, and when completed the project is expected to power about 500,000 homes.
An announcement from the company Wednesday included quotes from elected officials and environmental advocacy groups describing the project as a vital step toward a cleaner energy future, and stating the new wind industry will bring good-paying jobs to the state, in the construction phase and in the long term.
As proposed, it will be the largest offshore wind power project on the East Coast and the first such project in New Jersey, but many more projects are working through the planning and approval process.
Gov. Phil Murphy and company representatives celebrated the approval Wednesday.
“By preparing to begin onshore construction this fall, Ocean Wind 1 will help bring New Jersey one crucial step closer to achieving a 100% clean energy economy by 2035 and 11,000 MW of offshore wind power by 2040,” Murphy said.
But the reaction was far different in Ocean City.
During his report to council, Gillian painted the project as reckless and the approval process as exceedingly fast, with the potential impacts and costs still largely unknown.
“Despite the thousands of pages of paper masquerading as a complete review of the project’s impact, we still have absolutely no idea what this will cost the state’s taxpayers and ratepayers, and what benefits we might see in return,” Gillian said, reading from a prepared statement. “One thing is certain, everyone’s electricity bill is going up.”
Ocean City and Cape May County held off on approving the route power lines will use to land wind turbine-generated electricity. As proposed, the lines will run under Ocean City at 35th Street and along Roosevelt Boulevard in Upper Township to reach a new substation at the former B.L. England power plant in the Beesleys Point section.
In 2021, a state law took the decision on the use of the right-of-ways from Ocean City and the county, instead giving it to the Board of Public Utilities. Local officials condemned the move as a significant erosion of New Jersey’s principal of home rule.
Both Gillian and city Administrator George Savastano alleged the approval process moved far too quickly. Gillian cited the extensive approval process required for beach replenishment projects and for a proposal to used dredged material to rebuild a marshy island in the bay known as Shooting Island.
“I can’t even move mud from Snug Harbor over to build up Shooting Island because of environmental issues,” Gillian said.
He criticized the recent state approval to transfer federal tax credits to Ocean Wind 1, money he said should have gone to ratepayers and taxpayers.
“That’s over $20 million out of our pockets into Ørsted’s,” Gillian said. “Instead of worrying about what the Kardashians are wearing, maybe we’ll worry about where the money is going.”
He added that the billions to be spent on offshore wind could be spent to help communities and residents deal with the effects of climate change, including raising homes and infrastructure above future flood levels.
“They’re scaring everybody with global warming,” he said.
Savastano, who is an engineer, argued the federal environmental impact statement and other documents compared the proposed project to the potential harm from climate change, as though the single project could reduce the impact of carbon in the atmosphere.
“Vague references to climate change replaced actual specifics across much of the documents,” Savastano said. He suggested that at thousands of pages, the federal environmental impact statement seemed designed to keep people from reading it all.
“Everyone here, I believe, here is for green energy. We all want to help with climate change,” Savastano said. But that does not mean he supports the offshore wind project. Gillian suggested nuclear power or solar energy as potentially better options for electricity without burning fossil fuels that release carbon into the atmosphere.
Council member Bob Barr said the federal decision infuriated him.
“Can we appeal? Can we challenge?” he asked. “To me, this is complete and utter nonsense.”
He asked city attorney Dottie McCrosson what could be done. She said she would be happy to speak with him outside of the public session.
“I don’t think this is the time or place,” she said.
Gillian compared the project approval process at the state and federal levels to the government’s pandemic response.
“If COVID taught us anything, it’s that they’re going to tell us what to do: The few,” Gillian said.
He also suggested that once the project reaches the end of its useful life, the huge monopiles could be left in the ocean.
“There are a lot of politicians who are desperate to see clean energy as a part of their legacy,” Gillian said. “It sure seems that in the rush to achieve green energy, the legacy will be an obstacle course of failed and wildly expensive structures running the length of the East Coast.”
Officials with Ocean Wind 1 said the project is expected to have an operational life of 35 years, after which the structures will be removed from the ocean.
In an emailed response to questions Friday, Ørsted spokesperson Stephanie Francoeur said, “It is anticipated that all structures above the seabed level or aboveground will be completely removed.”
Citing federal law governing the offshore construction, she continued, “The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence, will involve similar types and numbers of vessels, and will use similar equipment.”
Plans call for up to 98 wind turbine generators within the project lease area, which will be visible from the beach. The upper tip of the wind turbine blade will be more than 900 feet above the water, with each turbine describing a circle with a diameter of more than 500 feet, set on a monopile in an underwater foundation.
The structures will be visible from the beach, if built as proposed.
“Be assured, we will continue to fight,” Gillian said.
