Tuesday, June 24

Lawsuits may delay the beginning of New Jersey’s first offshore wind energy undertaking

OCEAN CITY, N.J. — A tangle of litigation may delay the beginning of New Jersey’s first offshore wind power undertaking, as developer Orsted is suing governments to cease delaying needed permits, and residents teams attempt to halt the undertaking altogether.

The newest in a fast-growing thicket of litigation got here July 3 when Danish wind energy developer Orsted sued Cape May County, alleging the federal government is dragging its ft in issuing a highway allow wanted to do take a look at work alongside the route an influence cable would run.

The firm can also be suing town of Ocean City over comparable delays to the undertaking, which the federal authorities has endorsed as a major piece within the White House’s efforts to “jump-start the offshore wind industry across the country,” with a purpose to deal with the catastrophic results of local weather change.



Last month, three residents teams against offshore wind – Save Long Beach Island, Defend Brigantine Beach, and Protect Our Coast NJ – filed an attraction of New Jersey’s dedication that the Ocean Wind I undertaking is according to state coastal administration guidelines.

And a type of teams, Save Long Beach Island, can also be suing a federal company, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, over its creation of offshore wind lease websites off the coast of New Jersey.

Orsted is popping to the courts to attempt to finish authorities inertia that might threaten its objective to start development within the fall.

Its lawsuit towards Cape May County claims the delay in issuing a highway work allow has already delayed the undertaking. The state Board of Public Utilities in February issued an order saying the proposed cable route is important for the undertaking to proceed, and in March approved an easement on county-owned property for the work to happen.

But the county, which opposes the undertaking and has voted to do every thing it will probably to cease it, has but to acknowledge the easement. Michael Donohue, a former state Superior Court decide who’s representing the county within the litigation, mentioned it’s reviewing the lawsuit.

“The giant foreign international offshore wind corporation Orsted has decided to sue the county of Cape May rather than try to sit down and find common ground,” he mentioned. “Demand letters and lawsuits seem to be the only language Orsted knows.”

Maddy Urbish, an Orsted official, declined to touch upon the lawsuit aside from to say, “Ocean Wind I remains committed to collaboration with local communities, and will continue working to support New Jersey’s clean energy targets and economic development goals by bringing good-paying jobs and local investment to the Garden State.”

Orsted has all the main approvals it must construct Ocean Wind I, a 98-turbine wind farm about 15 miles off the coasts of Atlantic City and Ocean City. It nonetheless requires quite a few lesser permits and approvals from native, state and federal authorities.

Earlier this month, Gov. Phil Murphy signed a regulation giving Orsted a tax break, permitting it to maintain federal tax credit it in any other case would have needed to return to New Jersey ratepayers.

Almost instantly afterward, the developer of one other proposed New Jersey offshore wind farm, Atlantic Shores, mentioned it, too, needs monetary help for its undertaking. Murphy mentioned he’s “open-minded” about that request.

Orsted additionally has approval from New Jersey regulators to construct a second wind farm, Ocean Wind II, though that undertaking just isn’t as far alongside within the approval course of as Ocean Wind I.

The initiatives additionally face substantial political opposition, largely from Republicans, who blame web site preparation work for the deaths of 53 whales alongside the U.S. East coast since December. But three federal and one state company all say there isn’t a proof linking offshore wind preparation to the whale deaths.

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC.

Content Source: www.washingtontimes.com