Small Wind Project Would Undermine Larger Energy Goals

Today the Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee released a bill on Wind Energy. The bill, A2485 (Mazzeo) requires BPU consideration and approval of amended application for qualified wind energy project offshore in certain NJ territorial waters. Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, released the following statement:

“We normally support wind projects in New Jersey, however; we have concerns that this legislation will end up hurting our ability to get to our goal of 3500 MW by 2030. We need to focus on putting together programs and mechanisms to get the 1100 MW built further off the coast. This will help make our long-term goals a reality. Offshore wind is the most reliable and cost-effective form of offshore power. Instead of being visible so close to shore, we should build 15 to 20 miles off the coast where there is more sustainable wind and fewer environmental impacts. This project was designed ten years ago and today we have better ones designed. We believe we should be pushing for these long-term goals before funding any other, smaller, projects.

“We believe that the project covered by this legislation will undermine the ability to get larger offshore wind projects. This is due to the expense of the project itself as well as the loss of federal money from Christie dragging his feet. The proposal for this project is $210 million for 24 MW. The cost-to-scale would make this project three to four times more expensive than doing a large-scale project further off the coast. Our concern is that if the project becomes too expensive or has environmental impacts because it’s too close to shore, it could also undermine public support for the larger offshore wind projects. Instead of building these 4 towers 2.8 miles from the shore, we should be building 200 of them 15 to 20 miles from shore.

“Our biggest concern is that this legislation is being tied to the nuclear bill that undermines larger wind projects as greencover. The bill would give PSEG $300 million in subsidies annually to support their nuclear plants. Unlike nuclear subsidy bills in other states, this one does not have any language that protects or promotes renewable energy. PSEG does not need the subsides because their plants are not in danger. They are also already getting subsidies from the federal government and PJM. Under energy deregulation these plants also received $2.5 billion dollars in subsidies as Stranded Assets, despite being profitable. PSEG still want to take billions of NJ ratepayer money to subsidize nuclear their power plants that are already making money.

“This is part of a package of bills and the other bill has problems as well. The bill would block us from reaching renewable goals by extending an expensive sola program. Our concern is that given the cost of solar SREC program, which have been analyzed to take up 6% of the cap, whether it’s a 7% or 9% cost cap. This leaves no room for New Jersey to move forward to meet targets of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (50% by 2030). Whatever little is purchased would come from out-of-state. The bill’s cost cap does not exclude offshore wind ORECs, although its supposed to.

“New Jersey should be either getting ride of the Net Benefits Test or change it to adequately price the impacts of carbon and air pollution. This will allow us to maximize the positive impacts and monetary benefits from protecting the environment and public health. We’ve done studies to find the best places for wind that have the least environmental impacts six years ago. Offshore wind off our coast could feasibly power 1.2 million homes with clean energy. New Jersey has enough potential of offshore wind to meet 1/3 of our electrical needs. We have to make sure we’ll planning and spending with comprehensive legislation in the right way to maximize our potential for offshore wind power.”