Focus is on support, opposition of project more than diversion of Ocean City land
OCEAN CITY – The virtual public hearing Monday evening was supposed to focus on Green Acres land the Ocean Wind 1 project wants to use to run its transmission cables through Ocean City to connect to the power grid at the former B.L. England generating station in Beesleys Point.
Instead, like other public hearings before it, the comments dominating the hearing were mostly about fully opposing or supporting the massive electricity-generating wind farm planned 15 miles off the coast of Cape May and Atlantic counties. In spite of attempts to get commenters to weigh in on the diversion of less than an acre of parkland on the beach at 35th Street and by the Roosevelt Boulevard bridge, there was less of that and little new ground was broken in the comments.
Many attacked the project as being bad for Ocean City, the Jersey shore tourism economy, sea life, wildlife and commercial fishing. Others argued the project is vital in the big picture to protect the coast from the effects of global warming aggravated by burning fossil fuels and how Ocean Wind and similar projects will be a boon for jobs as New Jersey becomes the epicenter for an industry based around green energy.
Underlying it all is that the state Board of Public Utilities already ruled that the diversion of the Green Acres land in Ocean City is reasonably necessary to move the wind farm project forward, essentially making the Zoom hearing moot.
Background
Katherine Perry, permit manager for Ørsted, the Danish company teaming up with PSEG in a 75/25 partnership on Ocean Wind 1, and PSEG’s David Hinchey started the public hearing with background.
Perry explained the Green Acres diversion is to allow Ocean Wind 1 (OW1) to use the land for something other than preservation or recreation, to grant permanent easements to run cables beneath the sand at 35th Street and through the city. OW1 applied to the BPU in February for the right to install the cables, there was a scoping hearing March 7 and on June 10 applied to the state Department of Environmental Protection to permit the diversion. On Aug. 29 the Green Acres program authorized OW1 to proceed with a public hearing and on Sept. 28 the BPU issued an order that the easements were reasonably necessary for the construction and operation of the project.
She said there will be up to 98 wind turbines in a plot 15 to 27 miles off the coast that will generate 1,100 megawatts of power starting at the end of 2024. The wind farm would connect to the power grid in Beesleys Point, requiring the access through Ocean City, and also at the former Oyster Creek nuclear power station in Lacey Township, Ocean County.
Hinchey said less than an acre of land is needed on the island where cable will be buried underground using horizontal directional drilling (HDD), a method that causes the least disruption of the surface land. The drilling creates a duct and the power cables will be pulled through it.
Most of the construction will be done on the rights of way on roads, outside peak tourist season, and all will be restored to preexisting conditions except for a manhole.
There would be no change in the use of the beach or easement.
The land totals 0.674 acres on four different parcels, most of that to create the 30-foot easement on the beach at 35th Street. The cables will be 50 feet below grade on the beach, he said.
The other part of the parcel is just north of the Roosevelt Boulevard bridge, but the project is considering a route south of the bridge to avoid needing Green Acres land. Hinchey said a decision on that route will be made before the end of the month.
Perry said OW1 must show a compelling reason for the diversion and cited state directives requiring New Jersey to reach a goal of 11,000 MW of wind power by 2040, a total that began at 3,500 MW, increased to 7,500 MW and in September hit the new goal.
With Green Acres regulations, Perry said, there is currently no feasible, reasonable and available alternative routes for the cables.
She said OW1 offers to pay the city $205,000 for the diversion of Green Acres land and had previously offered to pay the resort 10 times the appraised value.
Comments for, against
During the public comment portion of the Zoom hearing, residents from Ocean City and outside weighed in on the project.
Suzanne Hornick of Ocean City, representing Protect Our Coast NJ, called the hearing a farce because the BPU already voted to approve the diversion, that 3 minutes each was not enough time to comment and that people from outside Ocean City shouldn’t be allowed to comment.
Hornick said Ocean City doesn’t want the project and that the “radiation-emitting cables” will pose problems on land and in the ocean.
Alice Andrews and Laird Holby were in favor of the project and the diversion of city land, saying their family has had a house in Ocean City for more than 100 years and through six generations of family, which includes civil engineers, teachers, biologists and environmental professors from across the country who all come to Ocean City.
They said for the sake of everyone’s children and grandchildren there should be no delay of the wind farm project because the shore must be saved from sea level rise and excessive warming, which should override aesthetic and other objections.
William Healey, representing the New Jersey Alliance for Action, “a strong proponent” of wind power, said it was ironic the original in-person public hearing on the diversion was canceled because of coastal flooding on the island. The alliance represents a continuum of construction interests including labor that promotes environmentally friendly construction. He said they support the project to stem the impact of climate change and that OW1 has done its due diligence, and the project is a vital step in the creation of a new industry in New Jersey.
Ocean City’s public information officer, Doug Bergen, read a statement into the record on behalf of Ocean City government that it was opposed to the disruption of wetlands on the grounds that the city’s rights over the diversion were usurped and because of the process that has allowed the project to move forward despite the environmental impact statements not being finalized and made public.
Charter boat owner and operator Capt. Paul Eidman supported the diversion, saying it was time to make the connection between the wind farm project and building a stronger coastal economy, fighting sea level rise and sunny day flooding, creating new jobs, limiting the burning of fossil fuels and creating more fishing opportunities.
Former Ocean City councilman Michael DeVlieger, who spearheaded the resort’s opposition to OW1 while in office, blasted the project and its partners for “strong-arming” the resort even before the impact statement is turned in. He said a whole new impact statement is needed because of a patent infringement lawsuit filed against GE’s wind turbines.
The project, he said, is trampling on citizens, visitors and home rule and ignores a viable alternative route for the cables through Great Egg Harbor Inlet.
Chris Farschon, who described himself as a 30-year resident of the county who traveled around the world for business, said he believes the bases of the wind turbines will provide habitat and attract a variety of gamefish. As someone who has fished off the coast for 30 years, often from 10 to 20 miles out, he said the turbines will be visible from shore, but not all of the time. He said the benefits of the project are numerous and negatives are minor.
Seth Grossman of Atlantic City, who runs Liberty and Prosperity in Somers Point, said wind turbines are not an answer to energy needs because wind energy “doesn’t work,” doesn’t save money or fossil fuel, that has to be burned to make up for times there isn’t enough wind to power the turbines.
He said according to the state Constitution people can demand a referendum on the project.
Rosanne Serowtka said greed is what is fueling the project and the environment needs protection much like President Theodore Roosevelt did when creating national parks.
She is completely opposed to wind energy and said the project is the biggest assault on marine life ever on the Atlantic Coast and that it is inefficient, unreliable and expensive.
“Please don’t use Ocean City as an experiment,” she said.
Heidi Yeh, a Ph.D. candidate at Rutgers, said she supported the project and that geology has proved “a blessing and a curse” for the coast. The curse is that it is vulnerable to climate change and the blessing is that the relatively narrow continental shelf creates “a golden opportunity” to harness the power of the wind.
As a marine scientist, she said, she doesn’t believe the wind farm will be detrimental and that climate change is posing just as much of a danger to the North Atlantic right whale because of its impact on whales’ food supply.
Twenty-year-old Burlington County resident Erik Heyman-Meltzer said New Jersey should take the lead in wind energy because oil and coal will run out in 50 to 100 years “and my generation will have to deal with it.”
Barbara McCall said Ocean City residents are being used as pawns, that Ørsted has “a bold disregard” for the citizens of New Jersey, the process has stripped Ocean City of home rule and that damage of the project to the economy, tourism, the fishing industry and wildlife “can’t be understated.”
Bob Forman said he supported the others who spoke in opposition to the wind farm plans and noted that if OW1 can run transmission cables all the way to Oyster Creek, why can’t they run them through Great Egg Harbor Inlet?
Craig Wright and his wife Joan Ebert said the project won’t stop coastal flooding, “will decimate one of nature’s greatest gifts,” and that the only people supporting it are those who will get a paycheck from it. She said the wind farm should be pushed 30 more miles away from shore.
Chris Cole, a business agent with unions representing 3,500 craft workers, support the projected.
Mary Fleming, a year-round resident of Ocean City, said she supports the Green Acres diversion and, like a commenter before her, noted the irony of the hearing being postponed because of coastal flooding in October.
She said the city’s attempt to disrupt the project is misguided and the transmission lines are the least of the city’s problems. “Rising tides and drowning wetlands” are the biggest problems facing the resort, Fleming said.
Submit comments
Written comments must be submitted by Nov. 28 to Tom Suthard, Orsted Ocean Wind 1, 600 Atlantic Ave., Suite 2, Atlantic City, NJ 08401 or via email at Info@OceanWind.com. Please include “Proposed Diversion” in the subject line.
By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
