Many Oppose Offshore Wind at CMCo Information Session

OCEAN CITY – The Ocean City Tabernacle accommodated several hundred people who turned out for an information session on offshore wind activities March 15.
The session, organized by Cape May County, included over an hour of public comment, during which about 35 individuals came to the microphone to express opinions on the state’s offshore wind initiative. Only two of those individuals spoke in favor of the initiative.
The vast majority of those who came to the microphone did so to express opposition to the state wind farm plan. For many, it was an emotional moment in which the offshore wind initiative was called “criminal” and the state override of local elected bodies called “tyrannical government.”
The session began with Cape May County Commissioner Director Leonard Desiderio and Ocean City Mayor Jay Gillian welcoming the audience and promising that the session was the first of more to come “around the county.”
The podium was then turned over to the county’s special counsel Michael Donohue. Donohue is an attorney in private practice, a retired Superior Court judge and the chair of the county Republican organization.
Donohue walked the audience through a presentation on the offshore wind project. This was not a meeting that focused on the recent spike in fatalities among sea mammals. The session was intended to address the offshore wind initiative as a whole.
Donohue moved through a list of concerns with the offshore wind project. Reminding his audience that “to question the project is not to engage in climate denial.” He then proceeded to articulate the concerns.
The issues ranged from the impact of the turbines on the ocean view to environmental dangers, from a potentially negative effect on tourism to almost guaranteed harm to the fishing industry and from projected navigation problems to unpredictable increases in individual electric bills.
Often citing statements from the wind industry itself or from the lead federal agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Donohue made his case for a pause in offshore wind activity, while more is learned about its potential impact on the environment, the economy and even on its supposed benefits for the struggle to adapt to climate change.
Donohue focused on the threat to home rule brought about by the transfer of ultimate authority for land use issues from local elected officials to a five-member, appointed New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, a board he maintained has been instructed by the governor to move the wind farm agenda forward with all due speed.
To give a sense of the size of the turbines scheduled to be constructed off the county shoreline, Donohue compared the 900-foot behemoths to landmarks like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. He went on to describe the three ocean-based substations that will collect the energy before moving it to shore via the high-voltage transmission lines on a route across Ocean City approved by the NJBPU.
Donohue spoke of the many unknowns, like the cause of sea mammal fatalities and a Rutgers study that he said projected the potential loss of clam farming off the state’s coast.
Using a claim by BOEM that 85% of tourists would return to the county’s resorts after the wind farms are installed, Donohue used calculations from the county Department of Tourism to show the devastating impact a 15% loss in annual visitors would be to the local economy.
The meeting plan called for about 30 minutes of public comment. What it had was over an hour of comment calling for a stop to the offshore wind activities. A line that kept growing filtered people to a microphone to voice their opinions.
There were those who attributed climate change to a cycle as old as the Earth itself. There were those who accepted the projected dangers of man-induced climate change but who failed to see the connection between the wind farm initiative and benefits in the struggle with rising seas and more frequent storms.
Some called the state “evil,” accusing it of using fear over climate change to engage in a “money grab.” Others argued that the state had failed to make its case to the public and had instead relied on a poorly executed top-down push with little study and deliberate planning. One individual even claimed that children are being brainwashed to “honor the turbines” in school.
The whale fatalities were seen as the “canary in the coal mine” – an early indicator of potential danger or failure – that opened the whole project to greater public scrutiny.
State Sen. Michael Testa (R-1st) joined the line for public comment, arguing that the situation would be very different “if even one whale had died in an area with offshore drilling” for fossil fuel. Testa called out what he termed was the “utter hypocrisy” of the state and federal administrations.
The evening gave county and municipal officials a glimpse of the local public support they can expect as they seek a pause in offshore activities. 
Contact the author, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.