LONG BEACH ISLAND — Bob Stern, Ph.D., president of Save Long Beach Island, a group formed to fight the development of wind farms off the New Jersey coast, is calling for an end to subsidies for the first Atlantic Shores offshore wind project pending a thorough cost examination.
Save LBI is one of three citizen organizations, along with Ocean City-based Protect Our Coast NJ Inc. and Defend Brigantine Beach Inc., that filed suit in Superior Court in New Jersey challenging the state Department of Environmental Protection’s approval of Ørsted’s Ocean Wind 1 project.
While Ocean City and Cape May County officials were celebrating the decision Oct. 31 by Ørsted to walk away from its planned projects directly off the coast, Stern said the Danish wind power company still holds the lease to the area and could sell it or develop it at a later date.
“You can’t really say that it’s over in that area,” Stern said.
Ocean Wind 1 called for as many as 98 wind turbines 15 miles off the coast of Atlantic and Cape May counties meant to produce 1,100 megawatts of power for New Jersey homes and businesses.
Meanwhile, there are multiple wind farms in various stages, from proposed to working through the regulatory process, planned for the East Coast.
Save LBI and Defend Brigantine stand to be much more directly affected by Atlantic Shores, a three-phase project slated to include 350+ wind turbines as close as 9 miles off the New Jersey and New York coastlines.
According to a letter from Stern, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities approved electric rate guarantees in June 2021 that included subsidies of as much as $7.7 billion for the first Atlantic Shores 1.
In addition, New Jersey electricity consumers will pay for certain additional costs to upgrade the transmission system to receive that power.
“In the wake of the New Jersey Legislature acting to redirect about $1 billion from New Jersey ratepayer relief to (Danish company Ørsted) the developer of the Ocean Wind 1 project (off Cape May and Atlantic counties) and the subsequent comments reported in the press by the Atlantic Shores CEO seeking additional financial relief, we expect negotiations are under way to provide additional subsidies for the Atlantic Shores 1 project,” Stern stated. “Such proposals should be tabled pending a complete and transparent review of the New Jersey Master Energy Plan as it pertains to offshore wind and quantifying the total costs and benefits expected for the full planned offshore wind program.”
Stern said a recent study by Whitestrand Consulting LLC calculated that for the first project alone the costs would exceed the benefits by $13.65 billion over the project life, including $6.5 billion in losses to the New Jersey tourism industry and $5.86 billion to the state economy due to the associated electricity price increases.
“The added cost to the typical residential ratepayer from the price subsidy alone would be $865 over the first 20 years of operations. With such large costs associated with the current agreed plan, additional project subsidies should be avoided,” Stern stated.
He said despite being championed as a major weapon in the fight against climate change and as a catalyst in creating New Jersey jobs, the project falls short on both fronts.
“While it would result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the contribution to reduced global warming would be insignificant and many decades out. This is recognized in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) — which says that Atlantic Shores projects 1 and 2 combined will have ‘negligible impact on climate change in the global context,’” Stern stated.
He said the jobs promises are also misleading, noting the DEIS estimates that there will be 18,555 direct and 22,193 indirect and induced job years over the life of the project. But most of those job years are during construction and decommissioning.
“Only 88 ongoing jobs are expected during the 30 years of operations. And per the DEIS, as many as 65 percent of the construction jobs will be filled by [foreign] workers. Using their full estimated job year totals, the average number of full-time equivalent workers in a given year is 1,198.
“But this project will be the closest, most visible modern large project in the entire world — fewer than 10 miles offshore. As such, based on the lead federal agency’s own study, it is projected to cost 1,757 tourism jobs annually. And the increased electricity prices are expected to cost the New Jersey economy another 2,219 jobs annually. So the project may actually produce a net loss of 2,778 New Jersey jobs annually,” Stern stated.
Considering only the additional ratepayer prices, the cost would be $189,000 per promised job year, he stated. Including the impacts on tourism and the New Jersey economy, that figure rises to $1.1 million per job year.
“That’s a very expensive and inefficient way to create jobs. Additional subsidies would exacerbate that picture,” Stern stated.
Another analysis done by Whitestrand on the full New Jersey offshore wind program, targeting 11,000 megawatts, predicts a total ratepayer subsidy for the projects and transmission upgrades in excess of $100 billion — not including federal and state taxpayer subsidies, according to the statement.
“It’s crucial for New Jersey citizens to understand the full impact of the planned offshore wind projects before any additional subsidies are granted,” Stern said.
By CRAIG D. SCHENCK/Sentinel staff