Search in:



Docket # : Open Date : Divisions :
CLEAN ENERGY DIVISION / PRIMARY
Case Status : Last Update :
Case Caption :
Showing result(s) 1 - 122 of 122
 Docket #Document TitleFolderUploaded ByDescriptionPosted Date
QO22050347- 1110ORAL_F TRANSCRIPTSBPU Staff1110ORAL_F12/07/2022
QO22050347- 2022 07 13 - NJLM LTR TO BPU - DOCKET NO Q02205347 CORRESPONDENCEBPU Staff2022 07 13 - NJLM LTR TO BPU - DOCKET NO Q0220534707/13/2022
QO22050347- 2-17-23-8C ORDERSBPU Staff2-17-23-8C02/21/2023
QO22050347- 58317569_1 BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8-26-2022 MOTIONSBPU Staff58317569_1 BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8-26-202208/26/2022
QO22050347- 6-29-22-8B ORDERSBPU Staff6-29-22-8B07/01/2022
QO22050347- 8-14-24-8D ORDERSBPU Staff8-14-24-8D08/15/2024
QO22050347- 9-28-22-CONSENT LSA ORDERSBPU Staff9-28-22-CONSENT LSA09/28/2022
QO22050347- BOROUGH OF AVALON MOTION TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffBOROUGH OF AVALON MOTION TO INTERVENE07/28/2022
QO22050347- BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND - CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR PETITIONSBPU StaffBPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND - CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR03/27/2023
QO22050347- BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND - CAPE MAY COUNTY PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER 3-20-2023(62181877.2) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffBPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND - CAPE MAY COUNTY PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER 3-20-2023(62181877.2)03/30/2023
QO22050347- BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY RE REPLY TO ANSWER 9-16-2022 CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffBPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY RE REPLY TO ANSWER 9-16-202209/16/2022
QO22050347- BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8-26-2022 MOTIONSBPU Staff QO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8-26-202209/08/2022
QO22050347- CAPE MAY COUNTY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND 1 MOTIONSBPU StaffCAPE MAY COUNTY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND 106/30/2022
QO22050347- CAPE MAY COUNTY RECSUAL MOTION REPLY QO22050347 MOTIONSBPU StaffCAPE MAY COUNTY RECSUAL MOTION REPLY QO2205034709/09/2022
QO22050347- CAPE MAY COUNTY RECUSAL MOTION PROPSOED ORDER MOTIONSBPU StaffCAPE MAY COUNTY RECUSAL MOTION PROPSOED ORDER08/23/2022
QO22050347- CERT OF K LARE IN SUPPORT OF COUNTY OF CAPE MAY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONSBPU StaffCERT OF K LARE IN SUPPORT OF COUNTY OF CAPE MAY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE06/30/2022
QO22050347- CITY OF WILDWOOD MOTION TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffCITY OF WILDWOOD MOTION TO INTERVENE07/29/2022
QO22050347- CITY OF WILDWOOD PROOF OF SERVICE MOTIONSBPU StaffCITY OF WILDWOOD PROOF OF SERVICE 07/29/2022
QO22050347- CITY OF WILDWOOD PROPOSED ORDER RE. OCEAN WIND MOTIONSBPU StaffCITY OF WILDWOOD PROPOSED ORDER RE. OCEAN WIND 07/29/2022
QO22050347- COMMENTS- CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SOUTHERN NJ COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND WRITTEN COMMENTS 9.29.22 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SOUTHERN JERSEY09/29/2022
QO22050347- COUNTY CAPE MAY RECUSAL MOTIOIN QO22050347 MOTIONSBPU StaffCOUNTY CAPE MAY RECUSAL MOTION QO2205034708/23/2022
QO22050347- COVERLETTER - MOTION TO INTERVENE AND SERVICE LIST 7.12.22 MOTIONSBPU StaffCOVERLETTER - MOTION TO INTERVENE AND SERVICE LIST 7.12.2207/12/2022
QO22050347- DONOHUE COVER LETTER AND SERVICE LIST CAPE MAY COUNTY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS MOTIONSBPU StaffDONOHUE COVER LETTER AND SERVICE LIST CAPE MAY COUNTY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS06/30/2022
QO22050347- DONOHUETRANSMITTALLETTERCAPEMAYRECUSALMOTIONQO22050347 MOTIONSBPU StaffDONOHUE TRANSMITTAL LETTER CAPE MAY RECUSAL MOTION QO2205034708/23/2022
QO22050347- LEGAL 59278414 BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8-26-2022.DOCX MOTIONSBPU StaffLEGAL 59278414 BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8-26-2022.DOCX08/26/2022
QO22050347- LEGAL 59436424 BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ RE TRANSMITTAL LETTER 9-16-2022 CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffLEGAL 59436424 BPU DKT NO QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ RE TRANSMITTAL LETTER 9-16-202209/16/2022
QO22050347- LEGAL 59469957V1 OCEAN WIND 1 - CMC - M KAPLAN REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 9-16-2022 TESTIMONYBPU StaffLEGAL 59469957V1 OCEAN WIND 1 - CMC - M KAPLAN REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 9-16-202209/16/2022
QO22050347- LEGAL 59571092V1 OCEAN WIND 1 - CMC - P PATTERSON REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 9-16-2022 TESTIMONYBPU StaffLEGAL 59571092V1 OCEAN WIND 1 - CMC - P PATTERSON REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 9-16-202209/16/2022
QO22050347- LEGAL 59576873V1 OCEAN WIND 1-CMC- J KALWA REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 9-16-2022 TESTIMONYBPU StaffLEGAL 59576873V1 OCEAN WIND 1-CMC- J KALWA REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 9-16-202209/16/2022
QO22050347- LEGAL 59577104V1 OCEAN WIND 1 -CMC - M URBISH REBUTTAL TESTIMONY_9-16-2022 TESTIMONYBPU StaffLEGAL 59577104V1 OCEAN WIND 1 -CMC - M URBISH REBUTTAL TESTIMONY_9-16-202209/16/2022
QO22050347- LETTER TO BPU 7.7.22 CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffLETTER TO BPU 7.7.2207/08/2022
QO22050347- MICHAEL CHAIT GREATER ATLANTIC CITY CHAMBER OCEAN WIND COMMENT COMMENTSBPU StaffMICHAEL CHAIT GREATER ATLANTIC CITY CHAMBER OCEAN WIND COMMENT10/13/2022
QO22050347- MIDDLE TOWNSHIP BPU MOTION TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffMIDDLE TOWNSHIP BPU MOTION TO INTERVENE 07/28/2022
QO22050347- MJD LTR BPU JOIN RC CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffMJD LTR BPU JOIN RC07/24/2024
QO22050347- MOTION TO INTERVENE IN OCEAN WIND 1 PETITION - UPPER TOWNSHIP - FINAL MOTIONSBPU StaffMOTION TO INTERVENE IN OCEAN WIND 1 PETITION - UPPER TOWNSHIP - FINAL07/12/2022
QO22050347- MOTION TO INTERVENE TOWNSHIP OF DENNIS MOTIONSBPU StaffTOWNSHIP OF DENNIS MOTION TO INTERVENE07/27/2022
QO22050347- NJBPU-2022-09-29-Comments COMMENTSBPU StaffNJBPU-2022-09-29-Comments09/29/2022
QO22050347- NORTH WILDWOOD MOTION TO INTERVENE QO22050347 MOTIONSBPU StaffNORTH WILDWOOD MOTION INTERVENE QO2205034707/29/2022
QO22050347- NORTH WILDWOOD VERIFICATION NL QO22050347 CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffNORTH WILDWOOD VERIFICATION NL QO2205034707/29/2022
QO22050347- OCEAN WIND 1 - MOTION TO VACATE MOTIONSBPU StaffOCEAN WIND 1 - MOTION TO VACATE07/02/2024
QO22050347- Ocean Wind 1 Petition to NJ BPU_Michael Dean Comment COMMENTSBPU StaffOcean Wind 1 Petition to NJ BPU_Michael Dean Comment 10/11/2022
QO22050347- OCEAN WIND LLC - MAYOR'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION - FINAL CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffOCEAN WIND LLC - MAYOR'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION - FINAL07/12/2022
QO22050347- OFFSHORE WIND - CAPE MAY COUNTY - DOCKET NO QO22050347 - ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RECUSE - SIGNED WITH ATTACHMENTS V2 ORDERSBPU StaffOFFSHORE WIND - CAPE MAY COUNTY - DOCKET NO QO22050347 - ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RECUSE - SIGNED WITH ATTACHMENTS V209/28/2022
QO22050347- OFFSHORE WIND - NOTICE (ON LETTERHEAD) - ORAL ARGUMENTS - DOCKET NO QO22050347 - OCEAN WIND 1_CAPE MAY COUNTY - NOVEMBER 10 2022 V2 V3 NOTICESBPU StaffOFFSHORE WIND - NOTICE (ON LETTERHEAD) - ORAL ARGUMENTS - DOCKET NO QO22050347 - OCEAN WIND 1_CAPE MAY COUNTY - NOVEMBER 10 2022 V2 V310/13/2022
QO22050347- OFFSHORE WIND - ORAL ARGUMENT - TRANSCRIPT OF NOVEMBER 10 2022- 1110ORAL_4PP - RECEIVED ON DEC_7_2022 TRANSCRIPTSBPU StaffOFFSHORE WIND - ORAL ARGUMENT - TRANSCRIPT OF NOVEMBER 10 2022- 1110ORAL_4PP - RECEIVED ON DEC_7_202212/07/2022
QO22050347- ORDER INTERVENE NORTH WILDWOOD QO22050347 MOTIONSBPU StaffORDER INTERVENE NORTH WILDWOOD QO2205034707/29/2022
QO22050347- Orsted Capy May petition COMMENTSBPU StaffOrsted Capy May petition09/30/2022
QO22050347- ORSTED-STATE FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - EXECUTED CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffORSTED-STATE FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - EXECUTED08/27/2024
QO22050347- PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICESBPU StaffPROOF OF PUBLICATION12/01/2022
QO22050347- PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffPROPOSED FORM OF ORDER07/12/2022
QO22050347- PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER MOTIONSBPU StaffPROPOSED FORM OF ORDER07/12/2022
QO22050347- QO18121289, QO22020041 & QO22050347 - T. DAVID WAND (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO MOTION TO VACATE CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO18121289, QO22020041 & QO22050347 - T. DAVID WAND (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO MOTION TO VACATE07/17/2024
QO22050347- QO22050347 [EXTERNAL] COMMENT COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 [EXTERNAL] COMMENT10/04/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - 57970863_1 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO ACTING BOARD SECRETARY DIAZ 5-20-2022 PETITIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 - 57970863_1 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO ACTING BOARD SECRETARY DIAZ 5-20-202205/23/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - BRIAN LIPMAN (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE OBJECTING TO THE BD'S ORDER OF 7.5.22 IN REF. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND, LLC FOR A DETERMINATION CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - BRIAN LIPMAN (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE OBJECTING TO THE BD'S ORDER OF 7.5.22 IN REF. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND, LLC FOR A DETERMINATION07/08/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 CAPE MAY COUNTY LETTER OBJECTION TO SCHEDULING ORDER CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 CAPE MAY COUNTY LETTER OBJECTION TO SCHEDULING ORDER07/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 CAPE MAY COUNTY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND 1 MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 CAPE MAY COUNTY MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND 106/30/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 CMC REPLY TO OW1 REPLY TO CMC MOTION TO DISMISS CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 CMC REPLY TO OW1 REPLY TO CMC MOTION TO DISMISS06/27/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 CMC REPLY TO OW1 REPLY TO CMC MOTION TO DISMISS MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 CMC REPLY TO OW1 REPLY TO CMC MOTION TO DISMISS06/28/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 CNTY REPONSE OCEAN WIND RESPONSE INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 CNTY REPONSE OCEAN WIND RESPONSE INTERVENE08/23/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 COMMENT LETTER OBJECTING TO PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC PETITIION TO NJBPU COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 COMMENT LETTER OBJECTING TO PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC PETITIION TO NJBPU10/04/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - DOROTHY F. MCCROSSON (CITY OF OCEAN CITY) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND, LLC CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - DOROTHY F. MCCROSSON (CITY OF OCEAN CITY) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND, LLC09/09/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - GREGORY EISENSTARK (COZEN O'CONNOR) SUBMITTED AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED IN CAPE MAY COUNTY ON BEHALF OF OCEAN WIND LLC (1 OF 2) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - GREGORY EISENSTARK (COZEN O'CONNOR) SUBMITTED AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED IN CAPE MAY COUNTY ON BEHALF OF OCEAN WIND LLC (1 OF 2)09/09/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - GREGORY EISENSTARK (COZEN O'CONNOR) SUBMITTED AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED IN CAPE MAY COUNTY ON BEHALF OF OCEAN WIND LLC (2 OF 2) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - GREGORY EISENSTARK (COZEN O'CONNOR) SUBMITTED AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED IN CAPE MAY COUNTY ON BEHALF OF OCEAN WIND LLC (2 OF 2)09/09/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - JASON KALWA DIRECT TESTIMONY (OW-1) 5-20-2022 TESTIMONYBPU StaffQO22050347 - JASON KALWA DIRECT TESTIMONY (OW-1) 5-20-202205/23/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO (BPU) SUBMITTED AN ORDER RULING ON MOTIONS & MODIFYING THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE ORDERSBPU StaffQO22050347 - JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO (BPU) SUBMITTED AN ORDER RULING ON MOTIONS & MODIFYING THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE08/16/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - MADELINE URBISH DIRECT TESTIMONY (OW-3) 5-20-2022 REDACTED TESTIMONYBPU StaffQO22050347 - MADELINE URBISH DIRECT TESTIMONY (OW-3) 5-20-2022 REDACTED05/31/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - MAURA CAROSELLI (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED A DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MAXIMILIANA CHANGE IN REFERENCE TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - MAURA CAROSELLI (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED A DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MAXIMILIANA CHANGE IN REFERENCE TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION09/06/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - MELISSA RASNER (CITY OF OCEAN CITY) SUBMITTED A RESOLUTION 22-58-394 PERTAINING TO THE OPPOSING OF OCEAN WIND, LLC'S REQUEST FOR EASEMENTS CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - MELISSA RASNER (CITY OF OCEAN CITY) SUBMITTED A RESOLUTION 22-58-394 PERTAINING TO THE OPPOSING OF OCEAN WIND, LLC'S REQUEST FOR EASEMENTS06/22/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (1 OF 4) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (1 OF 4)09/07/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (2 OF 4) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (2 OF 4)09/07/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (3 OF 4) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (3 OF 4)09/07/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (4 OF 4) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - MICHAEL J. DONOJHUE (BLANEY DONOHUE & WEINBERG, P.C.) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERT. TO THE PET. OF OCEAN WIND LLC FOR A DETERMINATION (4 OF 4)09/07/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 MOTION INTERVENE OCEAN WIND MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 MOTION INTERVENE OCEAN WIND07/25/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 MOTION TO INTERVENE OCEAN CITY MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 MOTION TO INTERVENE OCEAN CITY07/27/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - OCEAN WIND BPU LETTER SIGNED CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - OCEAN WIND BPU LETTER SIGNED07/08/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - OCEAN WIND LLC - CAPE MAY PETITION 5-20-2022 PETITIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 - OCEAN WIND LLC - CAPE MAY PETITION 5-20-202205/23/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED A FORMAL REQUEST SEEKING INTERVENER STATUS TO BE AFFORDED DUE PROCESS CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED A FORMAL REQUEST SEEKING INTERVENER STATUS TO BE AFFORDED DUE PROCESS08/30/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED A SUR-REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC (1 OF 2) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED A SUR-REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC (1 OF 2)09/06/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED A SUR-REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC (2 OF 2) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED A SUR-REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC (2 OF 2)09/06/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED ON BEHELF OF 9 MUNICIPALITIES, AN ANSWER & OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FILED BY OCEAN WIND I (1 OF 2) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED ON BEHELF OF 9 MUNICIPALITIES, AN ANSWER & OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FILED BY OCEAN WIND I (1 OF 2)09/06/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED ON BEHELF OF 9 MUNICIPALITIES, AN ANSWER & OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FILED BY OCEAN WIND I (2 OF 2) CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - PAUL J. BALDINI (PAUL J. BALDINI P.A.) SUBMITTED ON BEHELF OF 9 MUNICIPALITIES, AN ANSWER & OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FILED BY OCEAN WIND I (2 OF 2)09/06/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - PILAR PATERSON DIRECT TESTIMONY (OW-2) 5-20-2022 TESTIMONYBPU StaffQO22050347 - PILAR PATERSON DIRECT TESTIMONY (OW-2) 5-20-202205/23/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 REPLY BRIEF OF OCEAN WIND LLC IN RESPONSE TO MOTION OF CAPE MAY COUNTY BRIEFSBPU StaffQO22050347 REPLY BRIEF OF OCEAN WIND LLC IN RESPONSE TO MOTION OF CAPE MAY COUNTY06/21/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME TO APPLY TO INTERVENE CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 CITY OF OCEAN CITY REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME TO APPLY TO INTERVENE07/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 SERVICE LIST 6-27-22 CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 SERVICE LIST 6-27-2206/27/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 SIC LETTER TO EXTEND TIME TO INTERVENE OCEAN WIND V CMC BPU CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 SIC LETTER TO EXTEND TIME TO INTERVENE OCEAN WIND V CMC BPU07/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - SIC LETTER TO EXTEND TIME TO INTERVENE OCEAN WIND V CMC BPU CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - SIC LETTER TO EXTEND TIME TO INTERVENE OCEAN WIND V CMC BPU07/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 SKYKING COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 SKYKING COMMENTS10/12/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 STONE HARBOR BPU MOTION TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 STONE HARBOR BPU MOTION TO INTERVENE07/29/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - T. DAVID WAND (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND, LLC FOR A DETERMINATION COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 - T. DAVID WAND (DIV. OF RATE COUNSEL) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND, LLC FOR A DETERMINATION10/18/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 - VICTOR GANO (LINWOOD, NJ) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCEAN WIND, LLC CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 - VICTOR GANO (LINWOOD, NJ) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCEAN WIND, LLC10/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 -CAPE MAY COUNTY LETTER OBJECTION TO SCHEDULING ORDER CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 -CAPE MAY COUNTY LETTER OBJECTION TO SCHEDULING ORDER07/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 CITY OF WILDWOOD LETTER TO HON. JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 CITY OF WILDWOOD LETTER TO HON. JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO07/14/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 COURTNEY HANSCOM COMMENT WIND PROJECT COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 COURTNEY HANSCOM COMMENT WIND PROJECT10/04/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 DONOHUETRANSMITTAL LETTER CAPE MAY CTY REPLY OCEANWIND CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 DONOHUE TRANSMITTAL LETTER CAPE MAY CTY REPLY OCEANWIND06/27/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 EXTEND TIME TO APPLY TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 EXTEND TIME TO APPLY TO INTERVENE07/07/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 EXTEND TIME TO APPLY TO INTERVENE CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 TOWNSHIP OF LOWER EXTEND TIME TO APPLY TO INTERVENE07/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 LTR TO BPU - REQUEST FOR SERVICE LIST UPDATE CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 LTR TO BPU - REQUEST FOR SERVICE LIST UPDATE08/23/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE BOROUGH OF WILDWOOD CREST MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE BOROUGH OF WILDWOOD CREST07/29/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 NJLM MOTION TO PARTICIPATE MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 NJLM MOTION TO PARTICIPATE07/29/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ RE PROOF OF PUBLICATION CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ RE PROOF OF PUBLICATION09/28/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY - LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ 7-26-22 CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY - LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ 7-26-2207/27/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ RE NINE MUNCIPALITIES CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO ACTING SECRETARY DIAZ RE NINE MUNCIPALITIES09/08/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO SERVICE LIST OF PARTIES RE PUBLIC HEARING CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY LTR TO SERVICE LIST OF PARTIES RE PUBLIC HEARING09/21/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND CAPE MAY COUNTY RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS10/27/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC RE OCEAN WIND LLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OR PARTICIPATE MOTIONSBPU StaffOCEAN WIND LLC RE OCEAN WIND LLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OR PARTICIPATE08/04/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS06/21/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OR PARTICIPATE MOTIONSBPU StaffCozen O' Connor OCEAN WIND LLC TRANSMITTAL LETTER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OR PARTICIPATE08/04/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 OCEAN WIND TRANSMITTAL LTR TO SECRETARY GOLDEN RE REPLY BRIEF (62791443.1) 4-11-2023 CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 OCEAN WIND TRANSMITTAL LTR TO SECRETARY GOLDEN RE REPLY BRIEF (62791443.1) 4-11-202304/13/2023
QO22050347- QO22050347 ORDER MODIFYING THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE ORDERSBPU StaffQO22050347 ORDER MODIFYING THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE07/14/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 ORDER PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE ORDERSBPU StaffQO22050347 ORDER PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE07/06/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 REQUEST BY NJAC CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 REQUEST BY NJAC07/11/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 REQUEST EXTENSION CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffQO22050347 REQUEST EXTENSION07/12/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 REQUEST FOR TIME TO RESPOND TO OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 REQUEST FOR TIME TO RESPOND TO OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO INTERVENE08/12/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 REQUEST FOR TIME TO RESPOND TO OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 REQUEST FOR TIME TO RESPOND TO OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO INTERVENE08/16/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 SKYKING ATT. TO COMMENTS SCREEN SHOT ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND CANCER THE COST OF DOING NOTHING COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 SCREEN SHOT ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND CANCER THE COST OF DOING NOTHING10/12/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 TOWNSHIP OF LOWER - MOTION TO INTERVENE MOTIONSBPU StaffQO22050347 TOWNSHIP OF LOWER - MOTION TO INTERVENE07/28/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347 WIND FARMS WENDY MENTO COMMENT COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347 WIND FARMS WENDY MENTO COMMENT10/21/2022
QO22050347- QO22050347-9 MUN WRITTEN COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffQO22050347-9 MUN WRITTENCOMMENTS10/12/2022
QO22050347- REVISED - OW01 CAPE MAY COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FOR SEPTEMBER 29 2022 (2 SESSIONS) - CONTAINS LINKS FROM CONSULTANT - SEPTEMBER 16 2022 NOTICESBPU StaffREVISED - OW01 CAPE MAY COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FOR SEPTEMBER 29 2022 (2 SESSIONS) - CONTAINS LINKS FROM CONSULTANT - SEPTEMBER 16 202209/16/2022
QO22050347- YEVETTE BRATTEN COMMENT OCEAN CITY, NJ TURBINES COMMENTSBPU StaffYEVETTE BRATTEN COMMENT OCEAN CITY, NJ TURBINES10/13/2022
Showing result(s) 1 - 1 of 1
Showing result(s) 1 - 1 of 1
Showing result(s) 1 - 116 of 116
Posted ByPosted DateCommentsAttachments(s)
James11/16/2022 1:02:40 PMWe need wind turbines. The jersey shore is especially vulnerable to sea level rise, ocean acidification, and existential damage from the burning of fossil fuels. While wind energy is known to be safe and even beneficial for some marine creatures, we already know that the continued burning of fossil fuels and overfishing endanger marine habitats and creatures to an exponentially greater degree than windmills ever could. Over the past few years, I have seen this. I have seen thousands of mollusks dead on Margate beaches. I have seen less fish than I've ever seen while recreationally fishing. To ignore the impact that is in front of us caused by the burning of fossil fuels and overfishing is product of manipulation (more on that further down). With concern to the right whale -- this project should follow what was done at Block Island, which faced a similar concern due to its geographic location within the right whale's migratory path. Simple measures taken during construction can minimize effect to the whale. It's worth noting that the majority of opposition to this effort (including groups such as Protect Our Coast) are products of far-right think thank groups. That is why the donation button to "Protect Our Coast" redirects to the Caesar Rodney Institute, a known think tank. More about that discovery is here: https://popular.info/p/fossil-fuel-industry-dupes-media 
Carolyn Collins 10/24/2022 5:18:58 PMI am against the wind turbines. It will be disastrous for the area marine life and take away what makes the Jersey shore so special. They are too close to the shore. At one time, people cared about wildlife and endangered species. This project only cares about lining its pockets. I am very disgusted with the corruption and greed of our governor and the wind turbine companies 
Carla Spinozzi 10/21/2022 7:09:02 AMWind turbines can be noisy and unattractive aesthetically. These turbines will adversely affect the physical environment around them. Wind power is intermittent Meaning that turbines are reliant On weather and therefore aren't capable of generating electricity 24/7. Turbines will increase ocean noise Which will effect behaviors of fish, Whales and other species. Physical damage to the ocean floor by construction, also stirring up large amounts of sediment . Turbines are a threat to wildlife. Our electricity costs will go up , it will affect fisheries in our counties And destroy our free God-given beautiful ocean ocean Sunrises. 
Mary10/17/2022 9:37:06 AMOcean City, NJ is one of the top ranked family friendly beach towns in the United States. These windmills will forever negatively impact (and possibly destroy) this beloved beach town including it’s marine life, birds, fishing, boating, property values, beautiful wide open ocean views, tourism, and the local economy. Running the transmission lines through 35th Street in Ocean City is a safety and environmental concern. This location makes no sense given the number of residents, visitors, and beach goers in that area as well as the natural beaches and dunes that will have to be disrupted. Please consider our plea to not allow this windmill project or the transmission lines to enter through Ocean City, NJ. 
James McCann10/17/2022 9:06:56 AMI strongly oppose the Ocean Wind project. The lack of research and the negative impacts on the landscape, ocean, sea life, endangered species, fishing industry, economy, housing, navigational concerns make the wind turbine projects a big negative for our region. When negatives far out weigh the positives it is time to scrap the project and look for other energy means. The lack of local input on where cables and easements are located is just one of the many issues where local input from residents and municipalities is not being sought or considered on these wind projects. These projects need to be halted so the research and local input can be considered and completed.  
Thomas E Jones10/17/2022 12:37:02 AMOppose the windmills altogether. Too many negative impacts. No benefits. Too much potential damage to marine life, ocean habitat, property value, beaches, scenic ocean view, tourism, homeowners electric bills! All with no proven studies with evidence of otherwise! 
Robin Alcott10/14/2022 9:17:39 PMI oppose. There are other options. 
Leslie10/14/2022 1:23:27 PMI strongly oppose these wind turn ones - there is not enough research on their true impact on our ocean, marine life, pollution and tourism. The ‘takes’ allowed for just the survey alone and just for Right whales alone should be all that is needed to stop this project. These turbines are NOT worth the damage they will do. Please, I urge people to read about the allowed ‘take’ or collateral damage that is expected merely for the survey, which is going on now from 4/22-4/23 impacting marine life and endangered and protected species. file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/4e/14/A96367F6-DBFA-4A7E-8AEB-65BD1C8F8E39/OceanWind1-DEIS-Vol1.pdf 
Patricia Campanell10/14/2022 12:59:20 PM100% support the installation of windmills - it's time we get away from dependence on fossil fuels. 
Tammy Salvadore10/14/2022 8:49:34 AMExpressing my opposition to the ocean wind 1 offshore wind project. My concern for negative environmental impact to the waters, the sealife and lack of proof this is actually "good" for the environment and lack of proof of cost savings. It appears that use of fossil fuels to maintain these structures negates any benefit of clean energy and there is an extreme negative impact on the aesthetics of the coast. 
Gail DeRitis10/14/2022 8:22:07 AMI am opposes to windmills on the New Jersey coast for the following reasons. They are too expensive, they will destroy the environment- fish (migration and feeding patterns), birds, ocean floor, water quality, and they are aesthetically unappealing.  
Frank Creagh10/13/2022 11:37:24 PMI am opposed to the construction of the wind turbine project. There are so many questions to be answered as to the environmental impact as well as tourism and the real estate values of the island. Until a long term study is performed this project should be suspended indefinitely.  
Maureen Keating 10/13/2022 10:58:49 PMThis project is being done without the proper research into overall environmental and economic impacts. Clean energy is important but we need to be sure it is being done in the most sustainable and least destructive ways. Please allow time for unbiased, science based studies to be conducted with input from the proper environmental and economic input.  
Maureen Martina Keating10/13/2022 10:42:23 PMAs a proud NJ Homeowner and tax payer I am strongly opposed to the current proposed construction/placement and operation of the ocean wind turbines. The size, scope, location and impact of said turbines were not appropriately vetted with citizens, fishermen and environmental agencies- particularly those who the proposed projects would directly negatively impact. Also, the succinct transparency related to the timelines, budgetary accounting re: lease purchasing, funding, profits short and long term and actual/factual energy savings to those impacted short and long term, as well as other NJ citizens have not been transparent. The taxpayers of New Jersey deserve better- and should not be ignored or discredited for their concerns as has been the case in attempts to push current plans through as "done deals"- since all are concerned for the future/ positive re: clean energy and labor/union jobs but this plan as currently proposed will significantly. permanently negatively impact certain taxpayers , laborers/fishing industry professionals, environments, wildlife ( specific segments of NJ coastline) more than others and were respectfully not given the facts/opportunity to raise questions/require and hear alternate effective/safer plans. Also transparency re: the elected officials/the roles (and communication to their constituents) involved in the process/current proposal to date. Appreciate the opportunity to submit comment and opposition in this case as currently proposed. Thank you 
William I Strasser10/13/2022 10:22:03 PMI strongly object to the installation of any wind turbines less than 35 miles from the coastline. Any construction to the contrary will result in a detrimental effect to the environment, and, in addition, will cause severe economic damage to the coastal communties. 
Eileen Moran10/13/2022 10:15:18 PMStrongly oppose proposal. We need to take into account the impact on the ecosystem and wildlife.  
Kathleen Keating10/13/2022 10:09:00 PMThe current proposed wind turbine farm projects located just offshore from Long Beach Island and Cape May, New Jersey poses marine life/migration harm, decrease in business/tourism, decrease in property value, and more. Re-locating the proposed wind turbine projects farther offshore - at least 35 miles off Long Beach Island and Cape May shorelines will help mitigate damage to New Jersey's beautiful shoreline, tourism, business and residential communities. 
Eduardo10/13/2022 10:06:39 PMI am strongly against the current project which sits only nine miles away from the Brigantine coast. It will be a huge eyesore. Those proposed windmills are gigantic. At that height, they should be placed much further away from the coast. They will permanently destroy our beautiful horizon. 
Emily McGeehan10/13/2022 10:00:09 PMI am all for projects that will help mitigate climate change and solve environmental issues. However, I am deeply concerned by the environmental impact this project will have on ocean life, particularly the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the Fin and Humpback whales. Collectively, we are currently trying to find solutions to human-made environmental issues. Mother Nature should not face further negative impacts because our proposed solutions cause further, net new harm. This project would do that. Additionally, this will substantially impact our local fishermen, whose work is critical to our community. These small businesses are fishing ethically and sustainably, and are feeding the local community. Finally, the lack of environmental studies and public input is highly concerning and disheartening. I have no doubt that we can find environmental solutions that are safe, effective, and supported by the communities impacted but this current project is not reflective of that. Please consider the full picture of the project before it is too late.  
William Annechini10/13/2022 9:47:51 PMI strong oppose the ill conceived wind turbine project which proposes to construct win turbines off Of Long Beach Island 
Claire Annechini10/13/2022 9:38:43 PMI strong oppose the wind turbine off of lbi 
Kristin Loeb10/13/2022 9:35:30 PMI urge you to hold off on this project. Not only will it be an eyesore to the community but there is not a tangible benefit to Ocean City  
Jonah Smith10/13/2022 9:32:45 PMOriginally, over two years ago, we shore residents were told that the wind farms would be "25-30" miles offshore. Then, without any announcements, it shrank to "15-25". And now it turns out they will be from 9 to 15 miles! At such short distances, these 900-foot tall turbines will be lining the horizon over our pristine ocean in virtually full view of everyone on the shore, and for those of us in high rises and even two-story homes, they will be dominating the view like a field of giant lollipops. And at night, our views of the beautiful night sky, and of the moon and planets rising, will forever be shrouded by blinking red lights well up into the sky. This will NOT be insignificant! I could possibly have accepted these monstrosities at 30 miles away (and I was prepared to), but to be lied to so blatantly is an unacceptable pathway for Orsted AND the NJ administration to have taken. This project must be put on hold until "full disclosure " is made to the public, and an open discussion and debate is held with ALL the affected parties. Aside from the lies and the negative effect these will have on our lives and those of visitors, the facts are that these windmills will damage the environment, affect fishing and other marine life, are notoriously unreliable, will increase our energy costs, and not affect the "climate" one iota. If the US is gung ho on making such wind farms part of our future, they should be placed in the giant open fields of our midwest, where they would negatively impact no one. I am a retired engineer who regularly found solutions for complex problems. This one has clearly not been well thought out, and the effects can be devastating. We shore residents deserve to be engaged and respected. I implore you to back off on this project before it's too late. 
Michael DiLoreto10/13/2022 9:30:33 PMI feel this project is being rushed through without proper environmental studies being completed. Furthermore, it appears local residents concerns are not being heard or acknowledged with an open mind. I am concerned with the proximity to our shoreline and impact to marine life.  
Suzanne Moore10/13/2022 9:11:26 PMI urge you to consider the negative impact on the many communities because of the industries you will destroy. At the very least tourism and property values will be severely impacted because of the visual blight of wind turbines. Studies and surveys have shown the negative impact to tourism. Other states have moved offshore wind turbines 26 miles or more from the shore due to these factors. Fishing industry, marine life will also be negatively impacted. The communities are just recovering from COVID and have not had time to digest the complexity of this project. Also the population in Atlantic city with a very high poverty rate and English as 2nd language has further hindered their ability to provide input into this project. And, they are one of the communities that have wind turbines closest to their coastline. One would think that you are taking advantage of the minorities, non-English Speaking population and low-income citizens of Atlantic City. You are promising jobs and lots of funding for this and that. What if the jobs and funding do not happen? What transition plans are in place to move the shore towns from their current industries to the wind industry? What if the wind projects fail? You will have destroyed the other industries in the communities and then what? There will be nothing? What performance standards are in the contracts and how are these companies being held accountable? Way too many questions to move forward on these life altering projects. I find it unbelievable that you don't understand the impact that these projects will have on the shore communities. There has got to be a way for alternative energy and the traditional industries and way of life in the shore communities to exist in harmony. Your proposal is not the way. 
Mary Smith10/13/2022 8:59:20 PMI am totally against the Offshore Wind Project. This project is going to further pollute our already polluted ocean. It will gravely endanger the sea mammals and creatures that occupy the waters. It will also cause major disruptions in the migration paths of several species, including birds. The project has not been thoroughly researched, transparency is nonexistent and citizens should have the right to vote on the need for this extremely expensive undertaking. In addition, our area is prone to hurricanes. Damage to turbines, which are also prone to lightning strikes, will be costly. I also wonder, how this group of coastal "targets" be protected from terrorists? Much more research is needed, along with protections for those that have earned their living from fishing these waters. Fracking the waters and making targets for terrorists, while ruining the natural habitat of many sea creatures certainly does not seem to hold any promise, not to mention the tremendous costs that will be incurred to install these turbines, maintain and repair them and replace them when their lifespan of 20-25 years is over. I don't see that this will ever be a profitable endeavor.  
George Saul10/13/2022 8:14:53 PMThese windmills need to be out of sight of the beach. This is achievable. Don't take value away from the beaches that so many people enjoy. 
Marilyn ODonoghue 10/13/2022 8:03:23 PMI wholeheartedly object to any and all aspects of this project. There has been limited time for the public to comment and most of this has been done in secrecy. More studies should be done to determine the long term ramifications to the environment. The fact that the Governor is using executive orders for this project says it all. The citizens of NJ deserve transparency and a voice  
Mark Porzuc10/13/2022 7:12:08 PMObtaining Easements should be required for any and all projects 
Craig Broitman10/13/2022 7:08:18 PMI OPPOSE the wind turbine projects being built off the coast of New Jersey! Transmission lines being run under our land MUST receive approval from homeowners! For the real facts, please read SaveLBI.org and ProtectOurCoastNJ.com and see why THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF OUR OCEANS MUST BE STOPPED! . We must vote out all politicians in favor of this! 
Craig Broitman10/13/2022 7:01:12 PMI OPPOSE the wind turbine projects being built so close off the coast of New Jersey and all transmission lines should be approved by homeowners. Move the Wind Turbine projects further out and preserve the beauty of our shoreline and save our environment! Please see Clean Ocean Action, SaveLBI.org and ProtectOurCoastNJ.com for all the facts about why THIS MUST BE STOPPED. STOP THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF OUR OCEANS. Our politicians who approve this plan must be voted out!!!  
Luke Beshar 10/13/2022 6:13:07 PMIN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF OCEAN WIND LLC PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 48:3-87.1(F) FOR A DETERMINATION THAT CERTAIN EASEMENTS AND CONSENTS NEEDED FOR CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS IN, AND WITH RESPECT TO, THE COUNTY OF CAPE MAY ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF THE OCEAN WIND 1 QUALIFIED OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT 
Jill Falcone10/13/2022 5:48:39 PMThese easements will kill the wildlife.  
Lois Perry10/13/2022 5:46:29 PMI am opposed to this poorly planned project and do not approve of the granting of easements. This is an environmental disaster and will impact our ocean negatively. The harm it will do far outweighs any perceived benefits. New Jersey tourism will never recover.  
Lisa Campbell10/13/2022 5:23:12 PMI oppose the use of land without owners consent for this project.  
Angela Conover10/13/2022 5:17:47 PMI am against the wind turbines off our coast!! They will cause harm to the sea life! Please do not allow this to take place!  
William Ammoro10/13/2022 5:16:44 PMNo windmills please Keep the view beautiful The sea clean The animals protected And our power on and protected 
AJ Sonnick10/13/2022 5:08:33 PMAs a tax payer and property owner on Long Beach Island I am extremely against the disruption to the view, ecosystem, and the economy that this offshore project would cause. The amount of devastation and destruction that would be caused is inconceivable to me how this would be done so close to home for many. I strongly urge this to be moved out to a better location, as approved areas are available 30+ miles nearby. I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS LOCATION. 
Harry Rutter10/13/2022 5:08:30 PMOpposed ! 
James Anglin10/13/2022 4:58:51 PMAs a member of the Long Beach Island, NJ community I am vehemently opposed to this offshore windmill project. I do not believe proper due diligence has been performed to ensure our NJ shoreline, wildlife and migration patterns of protected animals have been properly evaluated and protected. It is prudent to take a step back and ensure that proper analysis and studies are conducted before irreparable damage is done.  
John White10/13/2022 4:47:15 PMI STRONGLY oppose the installation of windfarms off the New Jersey coast. I believe that not enough environmental studies have been undertaken to truly understand the impact these wind farms will have on all ocean life and the local communities of the Jersey Shore. In addition these companies should not have the rights to impact citizens personal property for underground transmission lines! This is a bad idea in this location!! Move them out!! 35 miles.  
Ina Cabanas 10/13/2022 4:41:53 PMI am against the wind turbines that are planning to be built-in the ocean. Please do more research! Other townships, states, & countries have voted them down. Why are we putting them up? There's a lot of maintenance to them & they do not last too long. I voted down! 
Kristina Tool10/13/2022 4:31:08 PMI am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the wind turbine projects being proposed off of the NJ coast. In regards to this project and the easement, I am opposed to this as well. Damage, destruction and disruption of one area for "green" projects is antithetical to projects that are supposed to protect our environment. 
Leslie Long10/13/2022 4:12:52 PMI am against the wind turbines off our coast. When I first heard wind power was being looked at for offshore New Jersey I honestly thought it may be something good, however, looking deeper into the potential damage to the ocean and it’s habitants, I am now adamantly against this project. There is no data to acknowledge their safety and longevity in our unique coastal area. We cannot and must not gamble with our coastal health. Our coast is beautiful habitat with sustainable seafood industries as well as our natural attraction for tourism. Wind turbines off New Jersey’s coast will NOT ensure the health of our coastline and therefore should not be allowed.  
Christine Murray10/13/2022 4:00:24 PMI would like to express my opposition to the Wind Turbine projects being built off the NJ coast. There has not be enough consideration to the harm that would come from these turbines. No other state has allowed turbine built so close to shore. I am against using public land to run wires beneath without getting consent from homeowners.  
Yevette Bratten10/13/2022 3:54:03 PMI am opposed to the offshore wind turbines. The disadvantages of Offshore Wind Energy: 1. Threat to the ocean. 2. Noise and visual pollution. 3. Undetermined cost. 4. Technology immaturity. 5. Corrosion of the ocean and its species. 6. Generates a lot less power than fossil fuels. 7. Creates a new and ongoing environmental problem? 8. Unreliable: a. Will not last a decade. b. Last 4-5 years. c. Sea air and water will expedite the corroding, repair, replacement, and decommissioning cost. 9. Lucrative to companies because of federal and state subsidies. This includes the government officials that are on the boards of the companies lobbying for this ocean’s destructive energy. 10. From 2016 to 2020 taxpayers paid up to $23.7 billion in subsidies. 11. Wind farm investors and operators have underestimated the installation, preventive maintenance, and removal. 12. Texas and California have 1 / 4 of the wind farms. To cover their fault the government is passing a law requiring homeowners to eat the cost of decommissioning the turbines. The American Wind Energy Association lied; they said the value over time will cover the cost. How? The turbines are non-recyclable. 13. Hawaii and California operators have abandoned the turbines creating an unexpected cost to the taxpayers. 14. In 2020 decommissioning cost on land is equal to or greater than $100K per turbine. Fact: decommission costs are between $400K - $500K. This is for land, not the ocean. 15. Small operators have persuaded permitting jurisdictions to lower how much they are required to put aside leaving homeowners with a mess. 16. Blades are unrecyclable. Will they just be left in the ocean? 17. Landfills are refusing the blades because they take hundreds of years to break down. How will this affect our ocean? October 13 - Turbines Ocean City - NJ - Yevette Bratten
Dan Breen10/13/2022 3:36:02 PMWhy don’t you build a nuclear power plant in barnegat bay? I can’t imagine building 200 one thousand foot windmills which will need to be serviced year round is as cost effect I’ve as a plant on shore. Then again, most of the “bulls windmills” types are brainless clowns, but I digress 
Joanne LaQuaglia10/13/2022 3:34:13 PMI am a summer resident on LBI: 11east Sigsbee Ave. Brant Beach, NJ 08008 I am opposed to wind turbines so close to the shore. 
Melissa Raleigh10/13/2022 3:16:04 PM I strongly oppose the construction of The Wind Turbines along the New Jersey Coastline. Studies prove the placement of these turbines would adversely affect the migration of our Whale population, Fishing industry, Island Economy, Tourism and cause future health and safety hazards of the residents of Coastal Communities. The idea of Clean Energy to save our planet while destroying it is an OXYMORON! This seems to be a Political Move rather than an environmental one. As a 22 year resident and Tax payer of LBI, I am bewildered by the lack of study and reckless approval of such a project! I SAY "STOP THIS PROJECT BEFORE IT DESTROYS OUR BEAUTIFUL ISLAND!!" 
Mary Kirby10/13/2022 3:14:51 PMI am opposed to the construction of wind turbines off the NJ coast.  
Ted Finkelthal 10/13/2022 3:07:37 PMI oppose everything about this greedy and despicable process. See: Clean Ocean Action, SaveLBI.org and ProtectOurCoastNJ.com for all the facts about why THIS MUST BE STOPPED. STOP THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF OUR OCEANS. I vote and I will vote out all politicians in favor of this horrid plan! 
Yvonne finkelthal 10/13/2022 2:59:21 PMI oppose everything about this greedy and despicable process. See: Clean Ocean Action, SaveLBI.org and ProtectOurCoastNJ.com for all the facts about why THIS MUST BE STOPPED. STOP THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF OUR OCEANS. I vote and I will vote out all politicians in favor of this horrid plan! 
Andrew W Maron10/13/2022 2:56:58 PMI adamantly oppose these Wind Turbines off the coast of the New Jersey Coast. Move them 35 miles out.  
Sherri Broitman 10/13/2022 2:42:57 PMI OPPOSE the wind turbine projects being built off the coast of New Jersey! Transmission lines being run run under our land MUST receive approval from the homeowner and ocean city!  
Tim Keough10/13/2022 2:35:42 PMI strongly appose the consideration of wind farms / mills off of the NJ coastline. It will damage our economy, harm marine life, impact livelihoods, impact property values and might have conflicts of interest in that certain politicians stand to gain financially through affiliation investments....therefore decisions are not being made independent of personal gain. Hundreds of thousands of NJ and local residents visit the NJ shore for its beauty and aesthetic - to relax, recharge, and commune with nature. Windmills will blight the beauty of that scene - with noise, visual and real pollution and will impact that vital economic engine within NJ. Noise pollution and the windmill blades themselves will harm marine wildlife and migratory species of birds. Consider this video that elaborates on why this tech is NOT the answer to our energy needs: https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w I am against this initiative - DO NOT DESTROY OUR SHORE. You will be the cause of economic and wildlife ruin.  
John Deputato 10/13/2022 2:34:06 PMI am opposed to this wind project turbine project. It will permanently reduce the tourism on LBI. (According to surveys done -17). Destroy the pristine beauty of Long Beach Island. Devalue property. Reduce commercial fishing capability and cause undue harm to the commercial fishing industry. It will forever impact endangered wildlife and whale migration. The coast guard and US Navy will encounter extreme challenges in protecting the NJ coastline against threats to US SECURITY.  
Joseph E Colen10/13/2022 2:12:45 PMI would like to formally oppose the proposed location of this wind farm. I am currently an oceanfront property owner on Long Beach Island and have been visiting Long Beach since I was a child. Having a Wind Farm like this within sight is something I never thought would happen and would really take away from the appeal of Long Beach Island for all. 
Anthony Veteri 10/13/2022 2:08:53 PMDo not go ahead with wind turbines or at least move them at least 35 miles from LBI. 
Mazie colen10/13/2022 1:56:58 PMOpposing wind turbines 
Ashley Donahue10/13/2022 1:41:32 PMI oppose the project and current placement as currently proposed. The wind turbines need to be pushed out further in order to protect our Island’s hospitality and tourism industry, but, more importantly, these turbines, need to be pushed out of the migration path of the right whale which is an endangered species. These turbines need to be pushed out to a location where they will have as little impact as possible on the ocean animals as possible. I am also concerned that the installation will disturb many ocean creatures. I oppose the project in its entirety; there are other alternative sources of energy that could be implemented that would have a less detrimental effect on the environment. However, if the project must continue, it needs to be pushed out further to have less of an impact on the island’s tourism industry and the right whale and other ocean creatures. 
Sharon Lonsdale 10/13/2022 1:37:00 PM these wind turbines should not be placed so close to our beautiful beaches. They are an eyesore. Tourism is a huge part of the New Jersey coastline and beautiful views. They will interfere with our fishing businesses. They will interfere with the migration of fish and birds. There is no reason why these, if even needed, cannot be placed further out on the ocean like many other wind fields. I am totally opposed to this.  
*10/13/2022 1:25:40 PMOpposed 
JASON SCHEPIS10/13/2022 1:20:31 PMI oppose everything about this greedy and despicable process. If you need to do it move it further offshore… it’s the oil companies money not the states correct??? So if the state isn’t in bed with the oil companies then show us, Move them out of view. Only reason you aren’t is because it will Cost the oil Companies more to do it. Solar is the future anyway not wind. This isn’t sustainable at a reasonable cost.  
Richard Smith10/13/2022 1:12:57 PMMove them out 35 Miles 
Danielle DeBouter10/13/2022 1:09:15 PMI am opposed to the wind turbine project. This will be a detriment to our marine life. In a cost benefit analysis it is not beneficial. The only one benefiting from this is the pay out to the company and any payoff made to the politicians.  
George Salvadore10/13/2022 1:06:56 PMNo consent! 
Peggy O'Hara10/13/2022 12:59:44 PMSomehow like everything in the world these days, this has become a political issue. It just seems so illogical to me that people who say they are interested in green energy or saving the planet have given no thought or research onto how this will effect the whales, birds, or the rest of the ecosystem. I support Green energy, but not just for the benefit of humans! Please do more research before plowing ahead because one party has committed monetarily to making this change.  
Kara Fic10/13/2022 12:56:38 PMwrong site for this project - they must be moved 
Katie Widmeier10/13/2022 12:53:40 PMAll for environmental initiatives, but push these out further -- LBI doesn't need an eyesore off shore! 
Mary Coughlin10/13/2022 12:33:11 PMI oppose everything about this greedy and despicable process. See: Clean Ocean Action, SaveLBI.org and ProtectOurCoastNJ.com for all the facts about why THIS MUST BE STOPPED. STOP THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF OUR OCEANS. I vote and I will vote out all politicians in favor of this horrid plan.  
Carol Sziklay10/13/2022 12:11:41 PMWHY WOULD anyone want to put these gigantic turbines all over our pristine ocean is beyond me. It’s taken years to get the ocean clean. When this company did blasting a number of years ago they WERE NOT HONEST as to why they were surveying the ocean. Now they are putting in turbines that WILL NOT cover our electric costs, will electrify half a million homes “maybe” in NJ but we have to pay for all this? Why would anyone want these in their backyard? Ugly,expensive etc…. What is the cost to put each one in? What fuel will be used to get these in? What about the constant blinking red ligh which will be apparent all night long? I u deist and that the DANISH company doesn’t care out our OCEAN. BUT I DO as does anyone who uses the NJ shore. Maybe put this in a ballot, find out what people think. I was not forwarded about these turbines, no one asked my opinion yet I’m going to be stuck with them financially as well as an eyesore. My electric has already gone up 25% recently. NOT A HAPPY NEW JERSEAN!!!  
nancy pino10/13/2022 11:04:32 AMI am 1000% against this offshore wind project which will have catastrophic environmental impacts to our ocean and our shore coastal towns. There are significant health hazards that are just beginning to be studied stemming from exposure to EMFs including cancer. To needlessly expose residents to these health dangers rather than go around the island through the water to connect to BP is dangerous and reckless with human life!! There haven't been enough or thorough studies on the environmental impact to marine life for these projects. The visibility of the turbines will harm our shore town's only economy. The costs to upgrade the power girds to handle the electricity will be astronomical and the increased costs of electricity to the ratepayers will take away jobs and further destroy the area's economy. This is being pushed through without proper impact studies. Home rules has been taken away from the very towns it impacts -This is not remotely reasonably necessary. 
David Shanker10/13/2022 10:58:25 AMI am 1000% against the gov't taking this liberty without resident and homeowner input. This is an over-reach of what the gov't should be allowed to do. Please stop! 
Charles10/13/2022 10:11:02 AMI am 100% opposed to the installation of any wind turbines proposed to be built off the coast of Long Beach Island. This is a short-sighted vision with little to no consideration to the environment and/or to the future upkeep of these turbines; or how they will be maintained in salt water and air. I fear these turbines will eventually decay, fall apart and collapse into the ocean. This entire project appears to cost more than it will ever produce, thus making it obsolete before it is ever built. DO NOT WASTE TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN THIS MANNER. Windmills in decay (2)
Gail johns10/13/2022 8:33:40 AMI strongly oppose windmills in our ocean! Yesterday I witnessed hundreds of dolphins migrating and whales too! These windmills are going to interfere with these beautiful animals and birds. More research needs to be done before you destroy what God gave us to enjoy. Man has already destroyed our land with cell towers and above ground wires . Leave our oceans alone! 
Mary Ellen Smith10/13/2022 8:22:21 AMPlease stop this money grab by this foreign company. It is not good for our environment despite what they are feeding everyone. They will destroy our ocean and sealife with little benefit. This form of energy is also outdated. There are better ways. Within a short time we will be left with massive amounts of garbage sitting in our ocean. Your decisions will impact future generations.  
Joseph Pallante10/13/2022 7:00:40 AMI am opposed to the aforementioned project, it is a negative impact project and a contradiction to what it is supposed to be achieving. It is going to destroy our horizon line at our shore. This is one of the most precious jewels of the jersey shore, a place I call home all year round. How can they consider putting these turbines 9 miles off the shore. Most projects in Europe are 45 to 50 miles out. The company that is trying to destroy our shoreline should be aware of this distance since they are from Europe. How could you not consider the residents of LBI and our neighbors. There are not considering marine life migration, how is this Green? What about the birds that will die flying into the Turbines? Surely this was not thought out holistically. If we are going to approve this debacle of a project, at the very least PUSH them out so you don't destroy our shore line. Please think about residents, marine life, and birds. This project has been pushed right past our noses without any notice. Such a shame.  
Brigid caricich10/13/2022 6:35:00 AMI urge you not to destroy our beautiful shoreline and the natural habitat of many animals because you think that this will be a good source of energy. There are so many new technologies that can produce energy without doing the irreversible damage that these windmill will. There is no reverse course once they are out in. Not only will they destroy the coastline but will destroy our property values and future tax base. Think about the future. Encourage other sources of renewable energy that is better for our environmental well being ,our town, and our sea life.  
R Dalesandro 10/12/2022 10:57:42 PMTotally opposed to Granting an easement for a project that will harm marine life-endangered right whale-endangered red knots-birds-fisheries-fishermen’s livelihoods-ecosystem-coastal communities- emf concerns-and industrialize our stunning ocean water shed. I have drawn this conclusion from reading BOEMs own environmental -visual impact statements.  
Laura Stinziano 10/12/2022 10:53:16 PMI urge you to NOT to grant easements for the Ocean Wind project. The project is unpredictable, it will create noise, destroy wildlife, have a negative effect on real estate/tourism, negatively affect fishing industries, and the unknown radiation/electromagnetic fields from power lines to beach goers. These are just a few reasons why the BPU should NOT agree to this. 
Timothy Feeney10/12/2022 10:41:23 PMThe fact that legislation was quickly written and hastily passed to to disallow the municipality's concerns on this project is obscene. What research has been done to verify the safety of EMF emitting cables under a beach?  
Cathy Biondo10/12/2022 10:28:00 PMI am opposed to the offshore wind project…  
Mark Hornick 10/12/2022 10:18:26 PMProject should be on hold until environmental impacts are known. Fishing industry will be severely impacted and ruined in some areas. Endangered species including Right whales most likely wiped out. Home rule should not have been taken away to further interests of foreign entity.  
Suzanne Hornick10/12/2022 10:09:25 PMThis plan should never be allowed! It’s insane to allow any company (Orsted is NOT a public utility it’s a private company) to forcibly take our land or to place radiation emitting cables in our island directly where we live, families play on our beach, near our playground, basketball courts, crew team etc is irresponsible! The studies have not been done! There are other viable alternatives and yet the public ( the people paying for this through public subsidies) is being ignored while groups with a financial interest in this project are being rewarded. We, the people of OC have turned out en masse against this! WE DONT WANT IT! The BPU, who’s president is taking gifts from Orsted as reported in the press, has disregarded the stakeholders and rate payers by aiding Orsted in fast tracking this without the proper environmental impact studies, public input or giving us the complete financial disclosure. Of course they don’t want to go around the island because it will cost much more than cutting our bucolic island in half. They aren’t saying that though. They say there are no viable alternatives. Nonsense! We who live here know that’s not true. Moreover the BPU voted to approve this BEFORE the public had our say! I hope that’s a legal offense I can start a legal action over. You all need to actually READ and enact the BPU mission statement which states the BPU is required to ensure that the rate payers of NJ get the best possible electricity at the best price. This is neither and by allowing this you put our children, our families, our homes, our communities and our quality of life in jeopardy! You are supposed to protect us not destroy our coastal environment and communities! JUST SAY NO! Photo- BPU Pres. Fiordaliso wearing a gift from Orsted which I consider a deep betrayal of the people of New Jersey 
Terry G.10/12/2022 9:54:04 PMThe project should be delayed to further study both the economic and quality of life impact that this wind farm would have on coastal towns and tourism as well as the impact to marine life and birds. Alternatives should also be studied such as placing the turbines farther out.  
Jennifer H10/12/2022 7:30:07 PMThis project has brought a lot of people at the Jersey shore to reconsider keeping their family homes where memories are made. The windmills are a complete eye sore and obstruction of view of our beautiful beaches. Let’s not forget that this will hurt the fishing industry tremendously. This is people’s livelihood at the end of the day. Please consider pushing the windmills out at least 35 miles out or not installing them at all. I can guarantee that nobody on LBI is in favor of this project.  
Barbara McCall10/12/2022 7:26:46 PMAs a New Jersey stakeholder this letter is written to express a deep concern about the conduct of the Board of Public Utilities (BPU). In 2021, the BPU was granted additional authority that had previously been held by local governments in the State of New Jersey. This action was taken for the express purpose of allowing a foreign company to gain access to onshore lands that were previously subject to home rule. Orsted, the foreign company, intends to install an onshore cable through the island of Ocean City that requires a fifty foot corridor and thirty foot easement beyond the corridor. The cable route also requires land designated as Green Acres to be confiscated. Ocean City would not have agreed to this action due to the detrimental impact on the people, economy, and environment. For this reason, the power of Ocean City residents and elected politicians to protect their home was usurped. BPU’s role in this scheme runs counter to the interests of New Jerseyans and clearly demonstrates that those in power have been compromised. In addition to the issues of conduct, the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which addresses the larger project of Ocean Wind I project has not been finalized. The DEIS was found to have inherent defects demonstrated by faulty baselines that impact the validity of the study. Therefore, there is no legal basis to address a potential for onshore cables. That being said, this behavior is further evidence of the ethical concerns previously noted. On September 28, 2022, the BPU voted to allow the confiscation of Green Acres within Ocean City prior to a public meeting on September 29, 2022, when stakeholders could voice their comments and concerns. Although an attempt was made to downplay this action by the BPU it was duly noted and is video recorded. In summary, The BPU colluded with a foreign entity to the detriment of the people it should be protecting. Moreover, there is a concerted effort to convince New Jerseyans that they have no recourse and to hurriedly move this initiative before a full public outcry. The chronological sequence of events clearly demonstrates BPU’s culpability in the grand scheme and provides evidence of compromised leadership.  
Eric Schaeffer10/12/2022 6:50:34 PMMove the windmills 35 miles out so they can not be seen from land! I just built a new house on LBI because of it's view of the ocean. I don't want that view ruined. 
John Hill10/12/2022 6:02:30 PMAs a 35 year veteran of PSEG Nuclear I feel totally betrayed by my former employer and especially the trusted people of power in the state of New Jersey. PSEG is in on the "Green" money grab by leasing the land and barge slip to a foreign company to assemble/ship these Monstrosities to their final destination a beach near you! This ill advised project will be 30-35% efficient on their best year. Germany the world leader has found out first hand that the cost is 50% than the nuclear fleet they abandoned. They doubled down with Russian oil and are experiencing rolling black outs. It's clear our rates will go up for this sham of a energy project, trust me the rate payer bailout is coming. Florida's latest hurricane should give the powers at be to pause and really think this through, would off shore wind have survived that hurricane or the more likely scenario is a ocean littered with windmill fragments and toxic oil spewing from every turbine. You should see the MSDS sheet, it reads like a superfund clean up site. Have you ever gone into a situation knowing it is wrong and the out come bad but you have already invested too much, thats what has happened here. I have not even mention the most important thing, the wild life and views we will NEVER get back.The right thing to do is slow your roll and possible put up a few 35 miles out and see if its even close to what you thought it would be.  
Linda Ciccarelli 10/12/2022 5:37:23 PMI am outraged at the prospect of industrializing our oceans at the cost of so very much we worked so hard to achieve over the years. I’ve been coming to the Jersey shore my entire life and remember how dirty the water was with medical waste washing ashore. Now we are faced with the decimation of the prestige beach and ocean we share with ALL marine beings. They too matter NOT just human beings. I pray that the environmental impact this WILL have is reviewed and discussed thoroughly before decisions are made. I know of other places that maybe more suitable such as Cumberland county near the Delaware bay which is on land and wouldn’t disrupt or kill the endangered North Atlantic whales dolphins and other marine life or the migratory waterfowl that call this ocean their home. We beg you on their behalf.  
louie petraglia10/12/2022 5:04:34 PMWe don't want to see this beautiful oasis destroyed  
Ann Maysek10/12/2022 3:59:21 PMPlease deny these easements and permits. Allowing them to move forward with this project will destroy some of the most beautiful ocean vistas in the world. New technology allows for platforms to be placed anywhere, and where wind is better. Why is NJ rushing forward with old technology that forces them to be placed so close to shore? This project will be an economic disaster for the State of NJ. People don't go to the beach to see windmill farms. They go to see wild life and spectacular views. I spent Sunday watching whales swim just 40 yards off the coast. They were there for hours. Lots of them. What happens to them? What happens to all the other sea life? What is the secondary environmental impact of these turbines? What happens when they break? Who is responsible for servicing them? Can they even be serviced, or do they just sit there and rot? Caring for the environment goes well beyond developing alternative sources of energy. The total impact on the environment has to be considered. Why is NJ rushing to develop these farms? Who is really benefitting? I am pretty confident it wont be the consumers. This plan is so short-sited it is incomprehensible. 
Pat Jones10/12/2022 3:31:55 PMAlthough I am for alternative means of energy this plan to install Turbines at such a close distance will disturb the natural beauty of Long Beach Island and am strongly opposed to the close vicinity to the shore line and believe the same can be achieved by locating them 35 miles or more out to sea, the majority of the residents of LBI feel the same way and is a clear dereliction of duty of the government to press this calamity of a decision on the American people and residents of LBI. 
Kevin Kernan10/12/2022 11:53:01 AMMany other practical alternatives for clean renewable energy already exist on land. WE DO NOT NEED TO INDUSTRIALIZE THE OCEAN. Offshore wind turbines have poor efficiency and a high cost are vulnerable to adverse weather conditions, inability to provide adequate security and are an impediment and reduced safety for navigation. This would cause irreversible harm to the environment, endangered right whale, Red Knot, Eagles, Pelicans, Sea Ducks, fishing industry and culture economic well-being of affected communities. There is no need to be rushed into a bad decision based on insufficient data and lack of a track record in the US to support off-shore wind projects of the magnitude planned off the coast of NJ.  
Theodore Rosenberg10/12/2022 11:42:24 AMThis proposed project would be a significant step towards ruining a beautiful area of our state. Our shore line and beaches are a natural wonder and should remain as such without this project. 
Carmela Marucci10/12/2022 11:01:51 AMIf these turbines are to be erected, put them at least 18 miles out. Do not destroy our beaches. 
Paul Sedlak10/12/2022 10:52:00 AMI categorically reject and am appalled that our State of New Jersey would even consider much less move forward with destroying our Signature NJ Shore with these hideous Wind Farms. New Jersey is know for the beauty of our NJ Shore and coastline. I respectfully ask that the Wind Farm initiative be cancelled now and forever. Aside from the impact to the beauty and the environment of our coastline, there will be significant impact to home values, rental rates, and tourism dollars spent. Why would any pay to vacation on a coast that has a wind farm??? Tourism will move away and their wallets will spend elsewhere where the coast line beauty is in obstructed. Please stop the madness and cancel the wind farm initiative!! 
Mary C Shappell10/12/2022 10:20:21 AMGrowing up at the New Jersey beaches was magical. PLEASE stop this wind project. Save the ocean and the sea life within it. The studies have been done all over the world and wind projects kill, and the only benefactor is the company building them. 
Pete Costanzo10/12/2022 9:43:00 AMPlease do not destroy the Jersey shore and the entire Atlantic coast. Look at Germany, over 850 billion spent over the last 15 years on a failed initiative. Now they’re back using coal! Too expensive with negligible if any benefit!! Please consider all the money lost to local business owners and homeowners, endangered species being destroyed, renters and vacationers never coming back for the Jersey shore, and the most beautiful horizon on the planet being compromised!! Please don’t let this crazy movement continue. Our country is already in peril!! 
Vincent Donlevie10/12/2022 9:41:07 AMI have owned a home in Ocean City since 1984. I am very much opposed to this project. It will be harmful to sea life, ruin the pristine ocean view that attracts tourists to the town, and I do not support the easements required in Ocean City to accommodate this project. We cannot afford the economic/tourism impact or the environmental impact that this project risks. Please stop it while we still can. This is not what the people want1  
Marie Donlevie10/12/2022 9:09:34 AMPlease reconsider the lines connecting the wind turbines to BL England generators. The people of Ocean City do not want our beautiful island dug up and decimated by a foreign company that wants to destroy our pristine environment. We, the people, are against the wind turbines which will destroy our ocean life as well as the beautiful natural horizon off our shores.  
Ellen Petraglia10/12/2022 8:20:02 AMI was born and raised in NJ and many years spent and still spending time on the Jersey Shore. I continue to drive over 200 miles once a week every summer from Sullivan County NY to enjoy this beautiful paradise. If this project goes through , it will surely deteriorate the natural habitat and destroy the elements of what NATURE AND OUR GOD GIVEN GIFT OF THE OCEAN AND ITS PURPOSE have been given to us! ! Stop the greed! Look at the production of these turbines and KNOW in your heart of hearts it is a horrible presence to this community. NOT GREEN AT ALL!  
Marina Raimondo 10/12/2022 7:40:53 AMI am against this project the nature of the ocean will be destroyed, I want to be able to enjoy the shore view as nature intended. 
Jan Sloat10/11/2022 9:02:35 PMWhat in the world is going on. Do you really think this is a good idea? Why would you okay permits knowing many tax payers don’t want these eyesores, sea-life and environment potential destroyers. Who is holding you hostage? Do the right thing and not pass these permits. If our Governor wants these so made to please his Wall Street friends, put them in the north jersey coast because they do not belong down here.  
Deb Reilly 10/11/2022 8:23:37 PMhttps://conservation.reefcause.com/the-effects-of-offshore-wind-farms-on-marine-life/ Besides the pollution factor of these giants, our Jersey Shore is the Diamond of our state. Lord forbid we use straws or plastics because it will harm sea life ,,, so Jersey State officials say, but putting tons of steel and concrete, disturbing to a great extent, the ocean floor that houses much sea life is no problem. This isn’t clean energy nor is it safe and efficient. The ocean is a force that must be respected and these large unnatural structures will cause great damage to biggest New Jersey resource and asset. This all happening through a foreign company. Let’s imagine a beautiful summer day on the beach. The water, once beautiful is a murky color of unknown substance, dead fish and sea life lines the shoreline and smells of rotten dead animals. Looking out to the beautiful horizon one sees giant vessels, giant ugly steel masses that reflect the sun and blind you. Dead eagles and seagulls wash ashore. These beasts are a permanent reminder of greed and political clout that will for eternity destroy our coast. The result higher energy costs for middle Americans and not clean, renewable or reliable. There are endless unpin endless of documented horrors of these ugly hideous giants. Just take a ride through the desert to palm springs and see the sad, ugly graveyard reminder of the results.  
Lou Ann Caldwell 10/11/2022 8:04:20 PMTo whom it may concern: I believe you do not have the right to make a final decision on a matter of this importance. You were not elected by the people of this state and therefore cannot make a final ruling. You don’t have that authority. I also believe the initial filing has been reconfigured which under the circumstances must be sent back as a new filing to begin the legal process from the beginning. Ocean City and the coastal communities will not benefit from this project. Considering that Atlantic, Cape May and Ocean counties make up 48.6 percent of New Jersey’s yearly income, it seems unfathomable that you would risk the collapse of this state. We the people of the Jersey shore object to your right in making this ruling without any authority or do process. Lou Ann Caldwell  
Joan-Marie Ebert10/11/2022 7:29:45 PMThe lease easements for Ocean Wind I and II were determined in 2009 when wind turbines were 1/2 the size of the proposed wind turbines for this project. The project needs to be modified to account for the massive turbines now being planned by pushing the leased areas back to no less than 30 miles from shore. The public is being misled and misinformed of the visual impact of this project planned under 15 miles from the coast. The worlds biggest offshore wind farm, built by Orsted called Hornsea, is fully operational 75 miles off the coast of England. Our state and federal government should be working to ensure their is no visual impact as to preserve our coastal communities. England has! Additionally, with Ocean City being the largest market for second homes in the country, the absentee homeowners representing >65% of the homeowners in South Jersey’s coastal communities have not been informed to even make a public comment period legitimate. 
SMurray10/11/2022 6:44:57 PMWhile I understand concerns regarding climate, people must also consider the visual pollution involved with these projects. They are too close to shore. There are also many, many negative environmental impacts on ocean life, migration and food industries. Do the right thing, pause this project and do a true, thorough investigation. (I won't even go into the financial gains some people stand to make on this.)  
Dennis M. Koski10/11/2022 5:48:30 PMI urge you to consider the negative impacts on tourism and property values that the visual blight of wind turbines on the coast would cause. Studies have shown the negative impact to tourism such as the in the link below. Other states have moved offshore wind turbines 26 miles or more from the shore due to these negative factors. https://cals.ncsu.edu/news/near-shore-wind-farms-would-have-affect-coastal-tourism 
Michael Dean10/11/2022 4:15:54 PMComments attached.Ocean Wind 1 Petition to NJ BPU_Michael Dean Comment
John Hullihan10/11/2022 11:49:32 AMI request that all permissions, permits and easements relating to the Ocean Wind offshore wind turbine project be withheld pending a public evaluation of complete detailed environmental and economic impact analyses. The lack of public information on the impact of the placement of wind turbines offshore on the NJ coast without a public discussion of the impact on avian and marine species is scandalous. The NJ shoreline is the major route for bird and butterfly (including several endangered) species in eastern North America. What would the effect be of putting 3,000 windmills reaching nearly 1000 ft high in their path? The port of Cape May/Wildwood is the home of t he largest commercial fishing fleet in NJ and the second largest on the east coast. What would the impact of forcing these vessels out of coastal fishing beds and further out to sea in access to valuable food species and time of transport? This industry is one of the largest and most important in southern NJ. Sport fishing is an enormous attraction for NJ shore counties with many thousands of fishing boats moored in local marinas and properties on the barrier islands and coastal communities. The Coast Guard has already deemed the panned array of offshore wind turbines to have a degree of hazard to navigation. What will be the impact on helicopter search and rescue? The effect of obstructing the visual landscape by placing thousands of wind turbines on the near horizon, visible to hundreds of thousands of vacationers and residents will presumably have a substantial negative impact on the economies and real estate values of shore counties. BPU has not revealed the projected cost of off-shore energy generation to rate payors over the next 25 - 30 years nor compared it to land-based or alternative projects. It is not difficult to project a prohibitive expense to construct, maintain and replace even very well-designed devices in the challenging and dangerous environment of coastal waters. I understand that the measurement of numerous environmental metrics will be gathered by studies planned by local universities (many funded by Ocean Wind PLC) after the placement of the turbines. Too late! Why aren't comprehensive analyses of these and other economic and environmental issues available for public and legislative discussion before decisions are made to progress this project? Is it appropriate to potentially ruin the environment of the NJ shore and devastate the two largest industries in the region for a project that may not be competitive with alternative energy sources?  
Walter A Rockey, III10/8/2022 9:17:43 AMTo the NJBPU, I am a resident of Ocean City NJ since 1984. I support the proposed Ocean Wind LLC project off shore of Ocean City NJ. I support the appropriate implementation of transmission cables on shore at 35th St in OC. I support the efforts of quick dispatch to bring clean energy to NJ utilities and its distribution to the citizens of NJ. I support and commend the NJBPU on the decision to approve the Ocean Winds plans to bring energy to the former BL England generation station for distribution. In my opinion, the need to move away from fossil fuel energy sources to limit CO2 emissions is the highest priority of federal, state, county and municipal elected or appointed officials. I am disheartened of fellow Ocean City residents, city council members, realtors, developers, board walk merchants that fail to grasp the urgency and magnitude the effects of climate crisis. Perhaps one day they will understand that this is a “we” rather than “us versus them” issue for everyone, especially future generations. I will continue follow and support moves to limit carbon dioxide, methane and various green house gases by the BPU. I appreciate the hours of listening to the public, days of data review and interpretation of current laws and the courage and conviction to make difficult decisions for the greater good of NJ residents, Thank you to all members of the BPU. With kind regards, Walter A Rockey, III  
K Hullihan10/7/2022 9:07:32 AM I am a resident of North Wildwood, Cape May County,, New Jersey. I am completely opposed to the entire Offshore wind project. This industrialization of our ocean will be pointed to for generations to come as an Ill-conceived science experiment that was rammed thru hurdles by NJ political machinations. In the name of green energy, this will ruin our ocean, coastline, marine life, bird and monarch migration, the fishing industry and tourism. How is overturn of Home Rule Protection constitutional? II am completely opposed to the easements being sought in Cape May County. The request for easements is vaguely worded, conditional and not in the best interest of the residents of Cape May county. This project will harm the successful, proven tourism and commercial fishing industries for generations. Overturning the home rule protection is usurping the county’s constitutional rights and must be appealed. Why is this progressing full speed ahead without an Environmental Impact Study? This study is critically important. Why are easements being sought before an environmental impact study is completed? How can something be positioned as reasonable and necessary when the entire project has not been vetted appropriately? What will be the costs to me, a North Wildwood homeowner, in terms of energy rates today, tomorrow and 30 years from now? I have read offshore wind projects are 6 times more expensive than onshore. Again easements are being sought but no one can answer the critical question of what the project will cost the ratepayer? Why has BPU voted on easements before the required public meetings occurred? Why has BPU voted on easements before written public comments were due? Critical questions have not been answered yet the BPU is speeding full speed ahead and will harm the ocean and coastline communities for generations to come in the name of an unreliable, massively expensive and politically driven offshore wind project. Thank you.  
Raymond Cantor9/30/2022 12:03:46 PMComments are in attachment.Orsted Capy May petition
Barbara ROWLEY 9/30/2022 10:16:37 AMI support this project. With global warming ramping up, we have to take on big projects to at least slow it down. 
John A Feairheller, Jr.9/29/2022 11:41:10 AMThree minutes for spoken comments resulted in abbreviated and rushed comments, please accept the written attached.NJBPU-2022-09-29-Comments

Follow NJBPU on Social Media

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram YouTube
NJBPU on Twitter
NJBPU on Facebook
Statewide: NJ Home | Services A to Z | Departments/Agencies | FAQs
BPU: Home | About BPU | Commercial Customers | Residential Customers | Newsroom | Customer Assistance | Board Agenda Business | Related Links