New Jersey has extended by two weeks the comment period on the plan to hold its third — and largest — offshore wind solicitation in early 2023 after speakers at a public hearing into the plan criticized the way the period straddled the holidays and questioned whether the state is ready for such a big expansion.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on Dec. 22 extended the final date by which the public could submit written comments, from Dec. 29 to Jan. 13, after “several stakeholders requested an extension to the comment deadline.”

The concern was raised at a Dec. 13 online hearing into the proposal organized by the BPU to receive stakeholder input. The solicitation guidance document outlines a plan to award project capacity of between 1.2 and 4 GW early next year with the option to go higher, potentially far larger than the 1.1 GW and 2.658 GW awarded in the first and second rounds, respectively. (See NJ Shoots for 4 GW+ in 3rd OSW Solicitation.)

Environmental groups told the BPU that the large size and speed of its third solicitation was essential to combating climate change, which is already disrupting the state and planet. But other speakers, among them local residents, asked the board to slow down, and written opposition to the plan has trickled in since the hearing.

Speaking at the hearing, Kari Martin, advocacy campaign manager for Clean Ocean Action, criticized the BPU for providing insufficient due process for the project by having the public comment period end Dec. 29 and holding a stakeholder hearing two weeks before Christmas.

“This is the largest offshore wind solicitation for New Jersey thus far,” she said. “There is a short time frame for reviewing these documents and providing comments during the height of the holiday season.”

She added that it “it is clear that New Jersey is unprepared for the third solicitation for offshore wind, as well as offshore wind already being fast-tracked in this region,” and she worried about the impact on marine life.

Martin cited a report published by Rutgers University’s Center for Ocean Observing Leadership on strategies for monitoring offshore wind development that stated that the “pace of offshore wind development is faster than the pace of fisheries science.” She noted that the report said that baseline studies should begin at least two to three years prior to construction and added that it is “premature” for the state to move ahead with the solicitation when “current baseline information is deficient and impacts from projects from previous solicitations are unknown.”

Brian O. Lipman, director of the Division of Rate Counsel, also noted that “the comment deadline was placed in between two major holidays when many commenters may be taking a respite from work and may not be available.”

Lipman’s comments, however, focused mainly on concern about the size of the proposed solicitation, and he urged the agency to be “conservative” and ensure that ratepayers don’t bear an unnecessary burden.

Lipman noted the economic turbulence in the U.S. and said the BPU should think about the risk to ratepayers in deciding the size of projects to award in the next round. He said that parts of the economy are suffering wage stagnation, supply chain disruptions, worker scarcity, and higher prices for commodities and equipment.

“It is not unlikely that bids offered in this solicitation may propose to shift some, or a large number, of these risks onto ratepayers,” Lipman told the hearing, adding that his office has “great concern” that developers may try such a move if they get project approval. “Ratepayers simply cannot afford drastically higher electric bills.”

He said one developer is mulling such a move. Danish developer Ørsted, which is developing New Jersey’s first OSW project, Ocean Wind 1, said during a Nov. 3 earnings call that returns on the project are “not where we want to be” and that it is exploring its options, according to a Seeking Alpha transcript of the call.

“This particular solicitation … will represent the largest potential capacity block or range of any solicitation scheduled by the board,” Lipman said. “Rate Counsel suggests that now may be the time to be conservative in making larger awards, given the fact that times are uncertain and challenging for all large energy investments.”

He added that “there are at least four more solicitations of a fixed 1,200-MW target that could be used to make up any lower offshore wind procurement amounts in the third round of bids.”

Reducing Costs, Increasing Competition

The BPU plans to open the third solicitation in the first quarter of 2023 and accept applications through the second quarter. The agency plans to make one or more awards in the third quarter.

“We really want to encourage competition and see reduced overall prices in this third solicitation,” said Andrea Hart, the BPU’s senior program manager of offshore wind, who made the board’s presentation on the solicitation at the public hearing.

Project applications must include the dollar-per-megawatt-hour price at which the developer would execute the project and the impact on ratepayers, which will account for 70% of the evaluation weight, the BPU said in the presentation. Non-price factors such as the economic impact, the strength of guarantees that those benefits will happen, and the impact on the environment and fisheries will account for the remaining 30%.

The Impact of Meeting Climate Goals

About 20 speakers spoke during the hearing, among them local residents that oppose the projects and a nonprofit opposition group, Save Long Beach Island. Supporters of the solicitation included a business group, New Jersey Alliance for Action, several clean energy companies and developers, including a representative of offshore wind developer Atlantic Shores, and environmental groups.

In a Dec. 29 letter to the board, resident Ken Lagana said he understands the importance of renewable energy but that there are “other locations where windmills could be installed.” He expressed concern at the impact of the turbines on fishing in the area.

“The placement of windmills in such close proximity to our waters could potentially disrupt the migration patterns of fish and other marine life,” creating a negative impact on commercial and recreational fishing.

Doug O’Malley, executive director of Environment New Jersey, called the solicitation proposal “a clear plan on how to reach Gov. [Phil] Murphy’s goal of 11 GW of clean renewable energy from offshore wind by 2040.”

“If we are serious about our climate goals, we need to be able to develop offshore wind in an environmentally responsible way,” he said. “Offshore wind is the best source of powering our economy with clean renewable energy.”

David Pringle, representing Clean Water Action, said, “The science says we have eight years to deal with the climate catastrophe unfolding. The state needs not only the third solicitation, but a fourth and a fifth and a sixth, and a heck of a lot more.”

But some speakers at the hearing expressed concern that the state is moving too fast.

Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, said there are “too many questions” about OSW to move ahead and urged the BPU to hold off doing so.

“From our view, there is little responsible about the current pace, scope and magnitude, literally paving the ocean in wind power plants,” she said. “The solicitation does not provide evidence of how the clean ocean and that economy can coexist with the industrial economy of the future that is planned.”