Regarding “If not with wind, then how will we address New Jersey’s energy affordability crisis?,” NorthJersey.com, Jan. 9:
Save Long Beach Island has repeatedly asked Atlantic Shores to participate in an open public forum to address significant concerns regarding its offshore wind projects, but has repeatedly been ignored. Instead, AS has embarked on a slick public relations campaign using opinion pieces and paid advertising to champion its message.
This is a shrewd move as its foreign owners await an imminent decision from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on a new bid to secure additional ratepayer subsidies for the projects. Atlantic Shores’ approach betrays its “good neighbor” posturing by avoiding dialogue with the people who will be most impacted and whose concerns have not been addressed with honesty and transparency.
In the recent opinion piece, “If not wind, then how will we address NJ’s energy affordability crisis,” Atlantic Shores Chief Financial Officer Juan Carlos Puente never really answers the question posed in the title. Rather, he recites a litany of alleged benefits of offshore wind projects. Nor does he lay out the expected costs of these projects. Instead he offers a vague claim of “more than $2 billion in positive economic impact” from Atlantic Shores Project 1, or AS1.
As CFO, Puente knows that the costs of this project to the U.S. taxpayer and the New Jersey ratepayer will be multiple times his claimed economic benefit. As noted in an independent economic analysis by Whitestrand Consulting LLC (see https://whitestrandllc.com/), the estimated ratepayer subsidy for AS1 alone will exceed $10 billion and the taxpayer subsidy will be around $2.7 billion.
Puente also chooses to ignore realities that contradict his rosy public narrative, starting with the negative impact that the uniquely bad siting of this project will have on the New Jersey tourism industry and shore communities (estimated at $6 billion). Starting less than 9 miles off the coastline, the project’s towering 1,000-plus-foot turbines will be closer to shore communities than any other large project in the entire world. Puente also ignores the negative impact of the higher electricity pricing Atlantic Shores projects will impose on the New Jersey economy — estimated at $21 billion for AS1 alone.
The Atlantic Shores CFO further makes the truly astounding statement that “…the business case and long-term economics of offshore wind remain rock-solid.”
How is a business case that requires massive subsidies to survive “rock-solid”? In 2023, Ørsted canceled its New Jersey projects even after the NJ BPU granted an additional $1 billion in ratepayer subsidies, and ultimately paid a $125 million penalty for the privilege of canceling. Atlantic Shores is now before the BPU asking for billions of dollars in additional rate subsidies for AS1 — much more than the amount it had previously agreed. Those new numbers have not yet been released, but Whitestrand estimates an increase of $6 billion to the previous rate subsidies. Other projects previously committed to by other developers have been canceled or are on the verge of collapsing due to project economics — despite the massive subsidies.
Other inaccurate and misleading claims are sprinkled throughout Puente’s op-ed piece:
- Yes, some jobs will be created, mostly during construction. But there is no mention that a high percentage of those jobs will be foreign workers. And during the 30-year operational phase, the AS 1 commitment is for a total of 88 annual full time jobs (see the June 2021 NJ BPU decision on AS1). That is a pittance compared to the expected annual loss of thousands of jobs related to tourism, commercial fishing, and increased electric rates (see, for example, the March 2024 Tourism Economics study submitted to the NJ BPU by LBI municipalities).
- Perhaps, as claimed, there have been no individually verifiable marine incidents involving Atlantic Shores’ pre-construction operations. So then what caused the dramatic spike in whale deaths during the period when AS was using high-energy sonar to map the ocean floor? And what assurance can the company give that noise during pile driving and ongoing turbine operations coupled with an increase in marine traffic, will not further disorient and threaten already severely endangered marine life? And where is the admission of damages to New Jersey offshore fisheries and scallop beds, which is significant enough to require a compensation program and for the DEP to propose softening its regulations so that it can then judge the damage to be acceptable?
Finally, Puente ignored several other issues in his op-ed, including (to name a few): noise levels at the shore during construction and operation, decommissioning requirements and feasibility, reliability of the turbines (including during hurricanes and other storms), and additional requirements on the grid for backup power.
The public deserves honest answers before ratepayer money is committed to these projects. Yet Atlantic Shores has not provided any. We agree with Puente’s concluding statement: “Let’s fight skyrocketing energy costs while protecting our environment and growing the economy.” But the close-to-shore Atlantic Shores projects will amplify skyrocketing energy costs, threaten marine and human environments and further drag down the New Jersey economy, which already is burdened by high taxes and high electric costs.
John Deitchman is a longtime supporter and former board member of Save Long Beach Island, Inc.
