Mayor lays out timeline; council seeks input but notes concerns, says public most against turbines
By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
OCEAN CITY – In what has become a theme over the past two months, Mayor Jay Gillian and members of Ocean City Council voiced their concerns over the Ørsted wind farm planned off the coast.
At Thursday evening’s meeting, the mayor explained the timeline of the project and council members weighed in, saying most people who have talked to them oppose the project, which could bring up to 99 853-foot-tall wind turbines to a large parcel in the Atlantic Ocean 15 miles off the coast, but visible to people on the barrier islands from Brigantine to Stone Harbor.
“I will do everything I can to make sure that whatever happens Ocean City benefits from this project,” Gillian said, noting that the project’s transmission lines don’t have to run through the resort. Ørsted has proposed three routes for transmission power lines from the wind turbines to connect to the southern New Jersey power grid to power 500,000 homes over a 25-year lifespan. The routes include running through Ocean City to the former B.L. England generating station in Beesleys Point, to Atlantic City and to the former Oyster Creek generating station in Ocean County. Ørsted said it needs to choose two of the three routes.
Gillian said the administration met with representatives of the Danish company and can set up meetings between the company and council members.
He also offered the timeline on the project, which should give considerable time for public input and comment.
The timeline
On June 21, 2019, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and conducted a cost-benefit analysis and granted the state’s first award for off-shore wind power to Ørsted, Gillian said. The BPU determined the project would create 15,000 jobs over the project life, $1.17 billion in statewide economic benefits and enough power for 500,000 homes for an extra $1.46 a month for each ratepayer for 20 years.
That’s how Ørsted won the project, he said.
On Aug. 27, 2019, Ocean City hosted its first town hall meeting and council learned more about the project. On Feb. 8, 2020, the city hosted a town hall meeting for the public. On Oct. 20, 21 and 24, 2020, Ørsted hosted three more sessions for the public.
At the end of March, he said, Ørsted expects to complete a contruction and operations plan. In the spring or summer of 2021, the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management will issue a notice of intent about the proposed project. That will open public comment and review period.
“So spring and summer of this year, that’s when we all get a chance to talk about it. We’ll be on top of that and make sure everyone knows how to do that,” Gillian said.
The next 24 to 27 months the BOEM will rule on the safety and environmental impact on federal waters, Gillian explained. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will review environmental impact in state waters where transmission lines will cross the bay.
“These are just the facts,” he said. “We’ve been bringing the facts to let people know how it has gotten to this point and where it is headed. There will be many opportunities for the public to express their support or opposition with the people who make the decisions.”
He said he will make sure council and the public keep getting updates on the project.
“One thing I did learn, if this happens, they don’t have to come through Ocean City,” Gillian said. If they do want to come through Ocean City, he added, “we have to make sure if it benefits the taxpayers.”
Negative reactions
Councilman Michael DeVlieger saidpublic opinion he has received has been against the project, but there was one person who supported it.
“The overwhelming public response so far has been that it will not be bringing us any positive attributes but could jeopardize things we care about,” he said.
He added a researcher noted because the Atlantic flyway is a critical route for bird migration and goes through the area, the wind farm could impact that migration.
“I hate to start messing with migratory patterns of birds and Mother Nature,” he said.
Although he has kidded people who support the project, he does want their input. “I do want to hear from folks who are for it as well. I might rib you a little bit but your opinion matters.
“I have no intention of stopping talking about it. We need to know how it will impact us because we’ll have to live with it for 25 years.”
Councilman Tomasi Rotondi said in his research, “The more I look into it the scarier it is.”
Rotondi said people in the fishing industry are worried about it and the council members “have to pay attention to see what’s the smartest option for Ocean City.”
Councilman Keith Hartzell said although there has been a lot of negative reaction, he did hear from some people who are definitely for the project and a common thread among those who oppose it is the lack of information.
“We have to take a pause and let the process go, hear what’s said, then do what’s right for Ocean City,” Hartzell said.
Barr: No threat to sue to stop project
Council President Bob Barr said he was misquoted in an Ocean City Sentinel story in the Jan. 20 edition and that he never said the city “should sue” to stop the project.
“I was misquoted that I said we should sue Ørsted. I never said that at the last meeting and I do not feel that will be necessary,” he said. “I do think there are some tools in our toolbox to slow them down and I’ll stand by that, but I don’t think suing is necessary and I never said that in the first place. I just want to correct that for the record.”
Contacted after the meeting, Barr said he never used the word “sue” in his comments.
The Sentinel story paraphrases Barr that the city could sue. Later in the story it quotes him: “Based on my research, if we do sue, we can slow them down. If that’s what we choose to to. We can make things more difficult for them if we choose to.”
Barr’s quote comes around the 36:40 mark in the video of the City Council meeting, which can be found on the city website. (Look under city meetings for the Jan. 14 council meeting. The link to the video is there.)
Barr said where he is quoted as saying “if we do sue,” he actually said, “if we choose to, we could slow them down.”
Editor’s note: A review of his comments confirms Barr’s statement that he did not use the words “if we do sue.” Barr did say, “if we choose to.”
