Search in:



Docket # : Open Date : Divisions :
CLEAN ENERGY DIVISION / PRIMARY
Case Status : Last Update :
Case Caption :
Showing result(s) 1 - 306 of 306
 Docket #Document TitleFolderUploaded ByDescriptionPosted Date
QO23100719- I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)-1 COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)-110/16/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) -GLENN DELUCA COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) -GLENN DELUCA10/15/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- KENNETH HEAPHY COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- KENNETH HEAPHY10/16/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MARION STEININGER COMMENT COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MARION STEININGER COMMENT10/15/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MICHAEL BROWN COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MICHAEL BROWN10/15/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MICHAEL NELSON COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MICHAEL NELSON10/16/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MONICA MORAIS COMMENT COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- MONICA MORAIS COMMENT10/15/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- PAUL RINALDI COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- PAUL RINALDI10/15/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- PAULA BUSHKOFF COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- PAULA BUSHKOFF10/16/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- RICHARD KRAUSE II COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- RICHARD KRAUSE II10/15/2024
QO23100719- (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- RON DE STEFANO COMMENTSBPU Staff(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)- RON DE STEFANO10/15/2024
QO23100719- _NJBPU PBI HEARING RALLY COMMENTSBPU Staff_NJBPU PBI HEARING RALLY10/07/2024
QO23100719- 101524 BPU object to wind farm COMMENTSBPU Staff101524 BPU object to wind farm10/15/2024
QO23100719- 11-17-23-8G ORDERSBPU Staff11-17-23-8G11/17/2023
QO23100719- 2024.10.01_NJ BPU Hearing Testimony COMMENTSBPU Staff2024.10.01_NJ BPU Hearing Testimony10/08/2024
QO23100719- 2024-08-23Windmills COMMENTSBPU Staff2024-08-23Windmills10/04/2024
QO23100719- 2024-10-15 NJBPU Transmission Infrastructure Comments COMMENTSBPU Staff2024-10-15 NJBPU Transmission Infrastructure Comments10/15/2024
QO23100719- 24-10-04Windmills COMMENTSBPU Staff24-10-04Windmills10/04/2024
QO23100719- ANDRE BERNARD COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffANDRE BERNARD COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- ANDREA RIZZUTO COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffANDREA RIZZUTO COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- ANN WOLF FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffANN WOLF FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/17/2024
QO23100719- ASM KANITRA BPU PUBLIC COMMENTS 2024-10 COMMENTSBPU StaffASM KANITRA BPU PUBLIC COMMENTS 2024-1010/17/2024
QO23100719- ATLANTIC SHORES PBI COMMENTS_DOCKET NO. QO23100719 (1) COMMENTSBPU StaffATLANTIC SHORES PBI COMMENTS_DOCKET NO. QO23100719 (1)10/17/2024
QO23100719- Attentive Energy PBI Letter of Support - October 2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffAttentive Energy PBI Letter of Support - October 202410/08/2024
QO23100719- BARRY TROGU, SR. - COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffBARRY TROGU, SR. - COMMENTS10/07/2024
QO23100719- BECHI CURRIER COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffBECHI CURRIER COMMENTS10/23/2024
QO23100719- Bill.Rate Impacts PJM COMMENTSBPU StaffBill.Rate Impacts PJM10/01/2024
QO23100719- Bluepoint Wind Letter of Support NJBPU PreBuild 10.11.2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffBluepoint Wind Letter of Support NJBPU PreBuild 10.11.202410/15/2024
QO23100719- BPU October 15, 2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffBPU October 15, 202410/15/2024
QO23100719- C.LUTHIN BPU COMMENTS. OCT. 9, 2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffC.LUTHIN BPU COMMENTS. OCT. 9, 202410/10/2024
QO23100719- C.Luthin BPU Comments. Oct. 9, 2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffC.Luthin BPU Comments. Oct. 9, 202410/14/2024
QO23100719- CAROL REED COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffCAROL REED COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- CATHERINE FEE COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffCATHERINE FEE COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- CCSNJ Comments BPU PBI Hearing 10.1.2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffCCSNJ Comments BPU PBI Hearing 10.1.202410/11/2024
QO23100719- CH - NJBPU Stakehlder Meeting Offshore Wind 10-1-2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffCH - NJBPU Stakehlder Meeting Offshore Wind 10-1-202410/16/2024
QO23100719- Comments re Docket no COMMENTSBPU StaffComments re Docket no10/14/2024
QO23100719- CONCERNS REGARDING HIGH-RISK POWER LINES NEAR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES AND EXCAVATING A WHITE SWAN SUPER FUND SITE (DOCKET # QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffCONCERNS REGARDING HIGH-RISK POWER LINES NEAR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES AND EXCAVATING A WHITE SWAN SUPER FUND SITE (DOCKET # QO23100719)10/11/2024
QO23100719- COVER LETTER 10.9.24 COMMENTSBPU StaffCOVER LETTER 10.9.2410/10/2024
QO23100719- DANIEL WEINBERGER COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffDANIEL WEINBERGER COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- DENIS ZAFIROPOULOS COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffDENIS ZAFIROPOULOS COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- DIPALI N COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffDIPALI N COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- DOCKET #Q023100719 COMMENTSBPU StaffDOCKET #Q02310071910/01/2024
QO23100719- DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719 COMMENTS 10-4-2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffDOCKET NUMBER QO23100719 COMMENTS 10-4-202410/04/2024
QO23100719- DOSIER HAMMOND COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffDOSIER HAMMOND COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- ELAINE GOODMAN COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffELAINE GOODMAN COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- ENJ NJBPU PBI COMMENTS 10.15.24 COMMENTSBPU StaffENJ NJBPU PBI COMMENTS 10.15.2410/15/2024
QO23100719- ERIC ALLENDER COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffERIC ALLENDER COMMENTS10/22/2024
QO23100719- Final PBI Comments COMMENTSBPU StaffFinal PBI Comments10/09/2024
QO23100719- FW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DIANE GEARY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DIANE GEARY10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - FRANK BRINCKA COMMENTSBPU StaffFW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - FRANK BRINCKA10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JAMIE FAY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JAMIE FAY10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - LAURA KRAMER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - LAURA KRAMER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MARGARET ELLIS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MARGARET ELLIS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ROBERT MAZZUCA COMMENTSBPU StaffFW [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ROBERT MAZZUCA10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ANNETTER COOMBER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ANNETTER COOMBER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - CAROL LEVIN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - CAROL LEVIN10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - CHRIS NOYES COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - CHRIS NOYES10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - FRIENDS OF LIBERTY STATE PARK COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - FRIENDS OF LIBERTY STATE PARK10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - GARY DUNN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - GARY DUNN10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JAMES TYSON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JAMES TYSON10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JANE LEICHNER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JANE LEICHNER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JANET RAUSCHER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JANET RAUSCHER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JARRETT CLOUD COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JARRETT CLOUD10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JOANN RAMOS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JOANN RAMOS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JOHN WHEELER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JOHN WHEELER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KARL JOHNSON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KARL JOHNSON10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KARYEN LEWIS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KARYEN LEWIS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - LAURENCE ANOUNA COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - LAURENCE ANOUNA10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - OLGA VANNUCCI COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - OLGA VANNUCCI10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PATRICK LENAGHAN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PATRICK LENAGHAN10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - SAMANTHA HARTFORD COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - SAMANTHA HARTFORD10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - TRACEY STEPHENS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - TRACEY STEPHENS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - WILLIAM AMANN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW[EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - WILLIAM AMANN10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] DOCKET #Q023100719 COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] DOCKET #Q02310071909/27/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I DO NOT SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I DO NOT SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE NUMBER QO23100719)10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I FULLY SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DAVID BUCKLEY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I FULLY SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DAVID BUCKLEY10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I FULLY SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JEANNE CAROL MEYERS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I FULLY SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JEANNE CAROL MEYERS10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I LOVINGLY SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) SHOSHANA OSOFSKY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I LOVINGLY SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) SHOSHANA OSOFSKY10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND AND ITS NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN WEBER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND AND ITS NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN WEBER10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ALEJANDRO MESEGUER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ALEJANDRO MESEGUER10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - AMY GREENE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - AMY GREENE10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ANITA KASBARIAN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - ANITA KASBARIAN10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - BONNIE BAYARDI COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - BONNIE BAYARDI10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - CARL FORD COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - CARL FORD10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DANIEL SHIELDS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DANIEL SHIELDS10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DAVID WHITE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DAVID WHITE10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DEREK BIRELLI COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - DEREK BIRELLI10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - FRANK FERGUSON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - FRANK FERGUSON10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JAINCE COOPER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JAINCE COOPER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JASON KEMPLE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JASON KEMPLE10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JEREMY DELANEY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JEREMY DELANEY10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JESSICA O'DOUGHERTY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JESSICA O'DOUGHERTY10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JOHN RICHKUS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JOHN RICHKUS10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JUDY FAIRLESS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - JUDY FAIRLESS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - K.G. VAN HOY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - K.G. VAN HOY10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KARI COOPER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KARI COOPER10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KATHLEEN MAHER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KATHLEEN MAHER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KELLY TURNER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KELLY TURNER10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KRISTINA MCPHEE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - KRISTINA MCPHEE10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - LEONARD NEERING COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - LEONARD NEERING10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MARI ALDRIDGE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MARI ALDRIDGE10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MICHELLE BODDORFF COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MICHELLE BODDORFF10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MURRAY ROSENBERG COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - MURRAY ROSENBERG10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PATRICIA MARINO COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PATRICIA MARINO10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PATTY SANCHEZ COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PATTY SANCHEZ10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PETER BURVAL COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PETER BURVAL10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PRISCILLA WILSON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - PRISCILLA WILSON10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ROBERT TRAVALINE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ROBERT TRAVALINE10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - SRIRAM MOHANAKANTHAN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - SRIRAM MOHANAKANTHAN10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - TIM PAICH COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - TIM PAICH10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - TOYOSI DICKSON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - TOYOSI DICKSON10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - WILLIAM GNADT COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) - WILLIAM GNADT10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ANIS KHALIL COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ANIS KHALIL10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ANN CAHILL-MAKOWSKY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ANN CAHILL-MAKOWSKY10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) BRIAN SCHWARTZ COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) BRIAN SCHWARTZ10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) BRIAN WRIGHT COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) BRIAN WRIGHT10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) CINDY MULLER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) CINDY MULLER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) DAVID CALDERONE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) DAVID CALDERONE10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) DENISE LYTLE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) DENISE LYTLE10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) DONNA NINA COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) DONNA NINA10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EDIE SADOWSKI COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EDIE SADOWSKI10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EDWARD DUMCHUS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EDWARD DUMCHUS10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EDWARD TURNER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EDWARD TURNER10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EILEEN ANGLIN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EILEEN ANGLIN10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EILEEN O'HARA COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) EILEEN O'HARA10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ELAINE PATTERSON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ELAINE PATTERSON10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ERIK HARTTEN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ERIK HARTTEN10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) FREDERICK HILLS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) FREDERICK HILLS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) GEORGE SCHAEFER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) GEORGE SCHAEFER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) GLORIA URIBE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) GLORIA URIBE10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) J M COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) J M10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JANE PAULKOVICH COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JANE PAULKOVICH10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JANIS METZ COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JANIS METZ10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JEANNE BOYLE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JEANNE BOYLE10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JENNA PONTECORVO COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JENNA PONTECORVO10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JOHN DULL COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JOHN DULL10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JOYCE DEILY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) JOYCE DEILY10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) KATHI THONET COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) KATHI THONET10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) KATHY FLOCCO MCMASTER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) KATHY FLOCCO MCMASTER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) KATIA BOVEN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) KATIA BOVEN10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) LAUREL KORNFELD COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) LAUREL KORNFELD10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) LAWRENCE BROWN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) LAWRENCE BROWN10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) LISA VANDEVER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) LISA VANDEVER10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) PAT RICHTER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) PAT RICHTER10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) PAUL JEFFREY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) PAUL JEFFREY10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) RALPH BILLICK COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) RALPH BILLICK10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) RITA MCWILLIAMS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) RITA MCWILLIAMS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ROBERT MEADOWS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ROBERT MEADOWS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ROBERT VON ZUMBUSCH COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) ROBERT VON ZUMBUSCH10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) STEPHEN LEFTLY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) STEPHEN LEFTLY10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) SUZANNE GINDHART COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) SUZANNE GINDHART10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) TERESA MCCLURE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) TERESA MCCLURE10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) TREVANNE FOXTON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) TREVANNE FOXTON10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) VIC SYTZKO COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) VIC SYTZKO10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) VICTORIA MACK COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) VICTORIA MACK10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) VIVIAN HSU COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) VIVIAN HSU10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)ANN KELLY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)ANN KELLY10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)BRYAN WISHIK COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)BRYAN WISHIK10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)CHRIS STOKES COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)CHRIS STOKES10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)EDWARD ATKIN COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)EDWARD ATKIN10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)ELAINE POPLAWSKI COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)ELAINE POPLAWSKI10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)ELISSA HOEGER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)ELISSA HOEGER10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)EVAN PETERSON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)EVAN PETERSON10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)HAROLD WILKES COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)HAROLD WILKES10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)HEIDI DUNIETZ COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)HEIDI DUNIETZ10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN CANTILLI COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN CANTILLI10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN FRAKENBERG COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN FRAKENBERG10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JYH LAY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JYH LAY10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)KC JONES COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)KC JONES10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)LISA CUBERIO COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)LISA CUBERIO10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)LORRAINE RODA-HORTON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)LORRAINE RODA-HORTON10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)MAC S. COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)MAC S.10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)MARIE HERRON COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)MARIE HERRON10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)MICHAEL CARVALHO COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)MICHAEL CARVALHO10/15/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)NANCY MARKALUNAS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)NANCY MARKALUNAS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SANDRA GARCIA COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SANDRA GARCIA10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SARA SOENS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SARA SOENS10/21/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SUNNI VARGAS COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SUNNI VARGAS10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)THEODORE CHASE JR COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)THEODORE CHASE JR10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE TO HELP SAVE HUMANS ABILITY TO LIVE ON EARTH (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN SAUL COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE TO HELP SAVE HUMANS ABILITY TO LIVE ON EARTH (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)JOHN SAUL10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE! (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SCOTT BRUINOOGE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE! (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)SCOTT BRUINOOGE10/17/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES09/27/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] OFFSHORE WIND.SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON REBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] OFFSHORE WIND.SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON REBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE10/09/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] STOP KILLING WHALES AND DOLPHINS WITH YOUR NOAA PERMITS!!!!!(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)CHRIS RITTER COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] STOP KILLING WHALES AND DOLPHINS WITH YOUR NOAA PERMITS!!!!!(DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)CHRIS RITTER10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] URGENT_ BUILD OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] URGENT_ BUILD OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ [EXTERNAL] USE RENEWABLE ENERGY WHERE POSSIBLE - MOTTI SHIMONI COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ [EXTERNAL] USE RENEWABLE ENERGY WHERE POSSIBLE - MOTTI SHIMONI10/16/2024
QO23100719- FW_ SUPPORT OFFSHORE WIND COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ SUPPORT OFFSHORE WIND10/01/2024
QO23100719- FW_ WIND ENERGY COMMENTSBPU StaffFW_ WIND ENERGY10/07/2024
QO23100719- GEORGE HURST COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffGEORGE HURST COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- GEORGIA ZAMBAS FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffGEORGIA ZAMBAS FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/18/2024
QO23100719- GERTRUDE GLAZER - FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffGERTRUDE GLAZER - FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/16/2024
QO23100719- Hon. Sherri L. Golden 10-15 COMMENTSBPU StaffHon. Sherri L. Golden 10-1510/15/2024
QO23100719- JACK GORDON COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffJACK GORDON COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- JAY WIESNFELD FW_ [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT FOR OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffJAY WIESNFELD FW_ [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT FOR OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/18/2024
QO23100719- JCPL PrillAndrews Cable Route COMMENTSBPU StaffJCPL PrillAndrews Cable Route10/05/2024
QO23100719- JCPL PrillAndrews Cable Route COMMENTSBPU StaffJCPL PrillAndrews Cable Route10/09/2024
QO23100719- JEANNE GOLDEN COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffJEANNE GOLDEN COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- JENNY LUDMER FW_ [EXTERNAL] I OFFER 100% OF MYSUPPORT FOR NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffJENNY LUDMER FW_ [EXTERNAL] I OFFER 100% OF MYSUPPORT FOR NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/17/2024
QO23100719- JOANN ECKSTUT FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffJOANN ECKSTUT FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/16/2024
QO23100719- JOE BEAUCHAMP FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffJOE BEAUCHAMP FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/16/2024
QO23100719- JOHN WHEELER - COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffJOHN WHEELER - COMMENTS10/07/2024
QO23100719- JOSHUA NOREUIL FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffJOSHUA NOREUIL FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/16/2024
QO23100719- JOSUE JIMENEZ FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffJOSUE JIMENEZ FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/17/2024
QO23100719- JSE PROWSE COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffJSE PROWSE COMMENTS10/23/2024
QO23100719- KEVIN DEYOUNG FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffKEVIN DEYOUNG FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/18/2024
QO23100719- KEVIN KIMMEL COMMENTS.MSG COMMENTSBPU StaffKEVIN KIMMEL COMMENTS.MSG10/22/2024
QO23100719- LEANNE BENNETT COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffLEANNE BENNETT COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- LORETTA AJA COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffLORETTA AJA COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- MAKI MURAKAMI FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffMAKI MURAKAMI FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/17/2024
QO23100719- Map Atlantic Cable Annotated COMMENTSBPU StaffMap Atlantic Cable Annotated10/05/2024
QO23100719- Map Atlantic Cable Annotated COMMENTSBPU StaffMap Atlantic Cable Annotated10/09/2024
QO23100719- MAREC Action support comments re NJBPU Docket Number QO23100719 COMMENTSBPU StaffMAREC Action support comments re NJBPU Docket Number QO2310071910/15/2024
QO23100719- MARIE CURTIS COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffMARIE CURTIS COMMENTS10/23/2024
QO23100719- MELISSA HONOHAN FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffMELISSA HONOHAN FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/18/2024
QO23100719- Mike Dean_Comments_NJBPU_Solicitation_PBI COMMENTSBPU StaffMike Dean_Comments_NJBPU_Solicitation_PBI10/15/2024
QO23100719- NICHOLAS KUNTZ - FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffNICHOLAS KUNTZ - FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/16/2024
QO23100719- NJ Prebuild Solicitation Comments 10-15-24 COMMENTSBPU StaffNJ Prebuild Solicitation Comments 10-15-2410/15/2024
QO23100719- njdepletterwhiteswan-_latourette COMMENTSBPU Staffnjdepletterwhiteswan-_latourette10/15/2024
QO23100719- NJDRC Comments - OSW PBI Stakeholder Meeting - BPU Dkt. No. QO23100719 COMMENTSBPU StaffNJDRC Comments - OSW PBI Stakeholder Meeting - BPU Dkt. No. QO2310071910/15/2024
QO23100719- NJDRC COMMENTS - OSW PBI STAKEHOLDER MEETING - BPU DKT. NO. QO23100719 COMMENTSBPU StaffNJDRC COMMENTS - OSW PBI STAKEHOLDER MEETING - BPU DKT. NO. QO2310071910/17/2024
QO23100719- NJMEP BPU Letter of Support COMMENTSBPU StaffNJMEP BPU Letter of Support10/14/2024
QO23100719- NJMEP BPU LETTER OF SUPPORT COMMENTSBPU StaffNJMEP BPU LETTER OF SUPPORT10/16/2024
QO23100719- NJS letter of support 10-9-24 attentive COMMENTSBPU StaffNJS letter of support 10-9-24 attentive10/09/2024
QO23100719- PAM HOROVITZ FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffPAM HOROVITZ FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/17/2024
QO23100719- PAMELA BARROWAY COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffPAMELA BARROWAY COMMENTS10/23/2024
QO23100719- PAMELA RENEE FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffPAMELA RENEE FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/18/2024
QO23100719- PBI LETTER TO BPU PDF (002) COMMENTSBPU StaffPBI LETTER TO BPU PDF (002)09/25/2024
QO23100719- Pre-Build Infrastructure (PBI) Support Letter to BPU 9.25.24 COMMENTSBPU StaffPre-Build Infrastructure (PBI) Support Letter to BPU 9.25.2409/25/2024
QO23100719- PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE NOTICESBPU StaffPUBLIC MEETING NOTICE09/16/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - ALEJANDRO MESEGUER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - ALEJANDRO MESEGUER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - BEVERLY KEITZ (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - BEVERLY KEITZ (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - BLUEPOINT WIND LETTER OF SUPPORT NJBPU PREBUILD 10.11.2024 COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - BLUEPOINT WIND LETTER OF SUPPORT NJBPU PREBUILD 10.11.202410/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - BURTON BEEMAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - BURTON BEEMAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/23/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - CAITLYN WRIGHT (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - CAITLYN WRIGHT (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - CAMILLO MUSUMECI (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - CAMILLO MUSUMECI (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/23/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - CHRISTINE KOEHLER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - CHRISTINE KOEHLER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/23/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - COREY SCHODE (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - COREY SCHODE (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/23/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - DAVID TEMPLE (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - DAVID TEMPLE (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - DAWN STRICOFF (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - DAWN STRICOFF (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/18/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - DONNA ENNIS (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - DONNA ENNIS (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - DONNA LIPUMA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - DONNA LIPUMA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - ELIZABETH DE PADOVA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - ELIZABETH DE PADOVA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/23/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - ERIC GASKILL (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - ERIC GASKILL (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - EVELYN LOVITZ (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - EVELYN LOVITZ (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - JAZMENE SMITH (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - JAZMENE SMITH (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - JOHN A. PETERSON, JR. (BOROUGH OF SEASIDE PARK) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN OBJECTION OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - JOHN A. PETERSON, JR. (BOROUGH OF SEASIDE PARK) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN OBJECTION OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/18/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - JONATHON ANDELL (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - JONATHON ANDELL (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - KAREN RUTBERG (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - KAREN RUTBERG (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - KATHY HART (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - KATHY HART (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - KEITH W. MOORE & MIKE DEAN (JERSEY SHORE COASTAL COALITION) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN OBJECTION TO HE ATLANTIC SHORE SOUTH PROJECT COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - KEITH W. MOORE & MIKE DEAN (JERSEY SHORE COASTAL COALITION) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN OBJECTION TO HE ATLANTIC SHORE SOUTH PROJECT10/23/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - LISA CUBEIRO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - LISA CUBEIRO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - LIZ REISMAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - LIZ REISMAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/23/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - LOUIS DISCEPOLA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - LOUIS DISCEPOLA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - MARIA ARAMBURO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - MARIA ARAMBURO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - MARIE D'ANNA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - MARIE D'ANNA (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - MARILYN WECHSELBLATT (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - MARILYN WECHSELBLATT (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - MARLENE Z. ASSELTA (SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERTINING TO PREBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE (PBI) COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - MARLENE Z. ASSELTA (SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERTINING TO PREBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE (PBI)10/08/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - MARTINA CLARK (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - MARTINA CLARK (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - MR. & MRS. KEYSER (SEA GIRT, NJ) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE ATLANTIC SHORES WIND PROJECT COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - MR. & MRS. KEYSER (SEA GIRT, NJ) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE ATLANTIC SHORES WIND PROJECT10/07/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - PHYLLIS BEALS (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - PHYLLIS BEALS (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - RICHARD HARTMAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - RICHARD HARTMAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - ROBERT BOGAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - ROBERT BOGAN (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - SANDRA LUBRANO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - SANDRA LUBRANO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - SANDRA WILKES (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - SANDRA WILKES (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/18/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - SEAN T. KEAN (NJ GENERAL ASSEMBLY) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERTINING TO PREBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE (PBI) COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - SEAN T. KEAN (NJ GENERAL ASSEMBLY) SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE PERTINING TO PREBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE (PBI)10/07/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - STEVE T. (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - STEVE T. (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - SUSAN ADDELSTON (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - SUSAN ADDELSTON (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - VIC SYTZKO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - VIC SYTZKO (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - WALTER KORFMACHER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - WALTER KORFMACHER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 - WILMA WEVER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 - WILMA WEVER (EVERY ACTION CUSTOM) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/22/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 COMMENTS - DIANA VILCEK COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 COMMENTS - DIANA VILCEK10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 COMMENTS - KENNETH HAMMOND COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 COMMENTS - KENNETH HAMMOND10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 COMMENTS - ROBERT ERICKSON COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 COMMENTS - ROBERT ERICKSON10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 COMMENTS - THOMAS BURTNETT COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 COMMENTS - THOMAS BURTNETT10/17/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719 COMMENTS - THOMAS MEASDAY COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719 COMMENTS - THOMAS MEASDAY10/15/2024
QO23100719- QO23100719_LEADING LIGHT WIND_PBI COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffQO23100719_LEADING LIGHT WIND_PBI COMMENTS10/01/2024
QO23100719- QO24020109 - KEITH MOORE & MIKE DEAN (JERSEY STRONG COASTAL COALITION) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN OBJECTION OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffQO24020109 - KEITH MOORE & MIKE DEAN (JERSEY STRONG COASTAL COALITION) SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN OBJECTION OF THE NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/18/2024
QO23100719- r-126-2024_opposing_wind_turbine_6_12_24_clean_0 (1) COMMENTSBPU Staffr-126-2024_opposing_wind_turbine_6_12_24_clean_0 (1)10/15/2024
QO23100719- RAMONA HALLICK COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffRAMONA HALLICK COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- Rep. Chris Smith Letter to BPU on Offshore Wind COMMENTSBPU StaffRep. Chris Smith Letter to BPU on Offshore Wind10/15/2024
QO23100719- RICHARD MASON FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffRICHARD MASON FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/21/2024
QO23100719- ROBERT MACFARLANE FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffROBERT MACFARLANE FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/17/2024
QO23100719- ROBERT SZUTER COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffROBERT SZUTER COMMENTS10/22/2024
QO23100719- sea_girt_bpu_letter_eis COMMENTSBPU Staffsea_girt_bpu_letter_eis10/15/2024
QO23100719- Section 9.3 from Atlantic Shores COP COMMENTSBPU StaffSection 9.3 from Atlantic Shores COP10/04/2024
QO23100719- Sierra Club vs. PJM COMMENTSBPU StaffSierra Club vs. PJM10/01/2024
QO23100719- Slide 14 from Exponent Presentation COMMENTSBPU StaffSlide 14 from Exponent Presentation10/04/2024
QO23100719- SOPHIA ARENA FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffSOPHIA ARENA FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/16/2024
QO23100719- STANLEY HURST COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffSTANLEY HURST COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- Support PBI for Offshore Wind Infrastructure COMMENTSBPU StaffSupport PBI for Offshore Wind Infrastructure10/15/2024
QO23100719- SUPPORT PBI FOR OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTSBPU StaffSUPPORT PBI FOR OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE10/17/2024
QO23100719- SUSAN ECKSTEIN FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719) COMMENTSBPU StaffSUSAN ECKSTEIN FW_ [EXTERNAL] I SUPPORT NEW OFFSHORE WIND INFRASTRUCTURE (DOCKET NUMBER QO23100719)10/18/2024
QO23100719- The Ultimate Fast Facts Guide to Nuclear Energy COMMENTSBPU StaffThe Ultimate Fast Facts Guide to Nuclear Energy10/01/2024
QO23100719- THERESA COOPER COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffTHERESA COOPER COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- THERESA THORSEN COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffTHERESA THORSEN COMMENTS10/22/2024
QO23100719- TIMOTHY CARROLL COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffTIMOTHY CARROLL COMMENTS10/16/2024
QO23100719- TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, BOROUGH OF MANASQUAN, BOROUGH OF SEA GIRT AND TOWNSHIP OF WALL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCEBPU StaffTOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, BOROUGH OF MANASQUAN, BOROUGH OF SEA GIRT AND TOWNSHIP OF WALL RESPONSE09/30/2024
QO23100719- Value_All_Clean_Energy COMMENTSBPU StaffValue_All_Clean_Energy10/02/2024
QO23100719- Wall Superfund Plume Screenshot 9-13-24 COMMENTSBPU StaffWall Superfund Plume Screenshot 9-13-2410/06/2024
QO23100719- WENDY MACAULEY COMMENTS COMMENTSBPU StaffWENDY MACAULEY COMMENTS10/16/2024
Showing result(s) 1 - 1 of 1
Showing result(s) 0 - 0 of 0
Showing result(s) 1 - 180 of 180
Posted ByPosted DateCommentsAttachments(s)
Jerry Keenan10/16/2024 3:57:56 PMThe New Jersey Alliance for Action is a non-partisan and non-profit association representing thousands of business, labor, government, utility, education, professional and other New Jersey leaders. Our mission is to improve New Jersey's economy through the promotion of environmentally friendly capital construction and infrastructure investment. Our members are constantly working to “Build A Better Future” ! Offshore wind, and the infrastructure necessary to support its delivery to our electric grid and into New Jersey homes and workplaces, is a prime example of environmentally friendly infrastructure investment. Whether it has been at a federal, state, county or local level, the Alliance for Action has consistently been a champion for offshore wind power. It is an absolutely necessary piece for this state’s future energy needs, which will only rise as we add more people beyond the nine million three hundred thousand that already live in our state (according to US Census 2023 figures). When speaking on offshore wind, the Alliance for Action also needs to speak for the necessary infrastructure to bring that power into the grid, for use in New Jersey, and to be available in the PJM interconnection. (I will note that just this past week a senior PJM executive expressed concern for the lack of new capacity being integrated into that grid.) Offshore wind will provide a major portion of our new electric capacity in this state, in a way that puts us on a path to realizing the state’s clean energy goals, which are ambitious but very achievable. This PBI solicitation process is vital as well, as it is a “missing link” that will connect the offshore wind into the Larrabee Connector Station. The methods to install this infrastructure are the same that have been used effectively elsewhere. It provides the opportunity to integrate multiple offshore wind proposals into a single point of interconnection. Offshore wind - and its related infrastructure such as the PBI - will provide many well-paying construction jobs, and additional jobs through economic impact and the maintenance of these new facilities. Job number estimates in New Jersey alone are up to 20,000. The industry has already generated $2.5 billion for long-term investments in new ports, factories, transmission systems, and more in New Jersey. Simply put, offshore wind - combined with other power sources - is vital to our clean energy future. It is why the Alliance for Action has also endorsed the state goal of 11,000 MW of offshore wind capacity in operation by 2040. The Atlantic Shores project and the others that follow will benefit from the new infrastructure on land. New Jersey has clear and beneficial plans for moving forward. We must not delay action any longer. CH - NJBPU Stakehlder Meeting Offshore Wind 10-1-2024
Eileen Laszlo10/15/2024 7:46:50 PMI object strenuously to this project. 
Michael R Dean10/15/2024 5:09:06 PMOctober 15, 2024 Ms. Sherry L. Golden Secretary of the Board New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Ave. 1st Floor Post Office Box 350 Trenton, NJ 08625-0350 Re: In the Matter of the Opening of a Solicitation for Transmission Infrastructure Project To Support New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Public Policy Docket No. QO23100719 Dear Ms. Golden, NJBPU Commissioners and Staff, Please accept my comments on NJBPU PBI Solicitation Docket No. QO23100719 as a ratepayer, concerned citizen and resident of Monmouth County New Jersey. These comments supplement my October 1, 2024 testimony at the IBEW Hall in Wall Twp. For the following reasons, the PBI Solicitation process must be halted in the best interest of residents and New Jersey Ratepayers. I. PBI Solicitation Process is out of Order o Announced in November 2023, this PBI Solicitation SGD came in a new order, with a new docket number. o According to the SGD Applications and bids were due 4/3/24 and awards were expected 3Q. o An October 1 hearing was announced 9/17 and a public comment period opened. o Until that announcement, the general Public was kept in dark and not given opportunity to participate in this secretive process that directly impacts our homes and communities. o October 1st public hearing was held after final applications and bids and were submitted. II. Administrative Procedure Violations o This inordinate process raises procedural questions. Notably: i. How are public comments and concerns now being incorporated into the applicant plans and bids already submitted? ii. Will applicants now have an opportunity to resubmit plans and bids now that the public has been given an opportunity to raise legitimate concerns? iii. Can the NJBPU consider these public comments independently with BAFOs already in hand? iv. Has Rate Counsel submitted an analysis of the bids, applications? If so, where can public access that analysis? And why was it not available during the comment period? v. Has BPU Staff held meetings with Board and/ormade recommendation on Award prior to Public Comment period? vi. Will public be given another opportunity to comment once the awarded applicant’s cable routes and other details are made public? In conclusion, it is recommended that in addition to bringing this PBI Solicitation process back in order and restoring the Public’s rights, NJBPU needs to stop exceeding its authority by attempting to advance and subsidize the Governor’s “green energy” agenda with public ratepayer dollars. Instead, the Board should re-focus on its stated authority and mission which is – to provide SAFE and RELIABLE utility services to the people of New Jersey at AFFORDABLE rates. And STOP destroying our Ocean and coastal communities. We are a proud coastal state and we treasure our NJ Shore. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, MD Mike Dean Middletown, Monmouth County mikerdean@verison.net Mike Dean_Comments_NJBPU_Solicitation_PBI
Representative Chris Smith10/15/2024 4:38:25 PMSee attached for comment. Rep. Chris Smith Letter to BPU on Offshore Wind
Richard Isaac10/15/2024 4:24:09 PMDear BPU, As someone who has had a residence in Asbury Park for many years, I can say that I fully support the proposed Pre-Build Infrastructure project, which would create a single interconnection point from Sea Girt to the connection point in Howell at the Larrabee Collection Station and allow several offshore wind projects to connect to our state’s energy grid. I support the Pre-Build Infrastructure project because it would both reduce environmental impacts and increase competition to fully fulfill the State's offshore wind goals to help address climate change while minimizing risks and costs to ratepayers. Respectfully, Richard Isaac 
David P. Rible10/15/2024 3:48:51 PMOn behalf of the Utility and Transportation Contractors Association of New Jersey, please accept this letter of endorsement for the Pre-Build Infrastructure (PBI) solicitation to install the infrastructure to allow the transmission of offshore wind-generated energy from the Sea Girt National Guard Training Center to the Larrabee Collection Station. The Utility and Transportation Contractors Association of New Jersey is a non-profit trade association that represents approximately 1,000 member firms in the public and private sectors, active in all phases of heavy, highway, utility, and marine construction, as well as site work including remediation of brownfields and contaminated sites. Our member companies are prepared to construct the critical infrastructure that will facilitate the transmission of this energy. Moreover, they possess the experience and expertise to ensure these components are installed in a safe manner with minimal disruption to the affected communities. The construction of these and other facilities to support the offshore wind industry would also provide tremendous economic benefits to our members and the thousands of employees working in the infrastructure construction industry. Therefore, we are pleased to provide our support for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ Pre-Build Infrastructure solicitation, and we urge you to provide the necessary approvals to ensure these and other critical infrastructure projects can move forward. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence and please feel free to contact me if I can ever be of assistance in this or any other matter. Sincerely, David P. Rible Executive Director Support PBI for Offshore Wind Infrastructure
Monica St Claire 10/15/2024 3:46:28 PMAs a NJ resident and the owner of a small business that supports the installation and maintenance of offshore wind projects all over the world, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for the growing offshore wind industry in NJ. Through our work and experience abroad, we have seen first hand the transformative, multi-generational economic benefits enjoyed by the communities that host these projects. These communities have also demonstrated and allowed us to observe the long term safety of these projects, specifically and importantly the lack of harm caused to the residents who live in the communities nearest to the projects (and cables) - some for decades now. With this is mind, it is my sincere hope that generations of NJ residents and communities are strengthened by the many opportunities and benefits of this industry, including the cleaner air that will result from these projects off our coasts. Thank you.  
Kevin E. Kennedy, Esq.10/15/2024 3:44:30 PMPlease see attached letter of objection.101524 BPU object to wind farm
Susan Sharp10/15/2024 3:37:59 PMMyself and my family strongly object to the Atlantic Shore Wind Project. This is a reckless project that has not done the proper studies for safety to the public or the environment. 
Kris Ohleth10/15/2024 3:31:24 PMMy name is Kris Ohleth and, in addition to being a long-term offshore wind professional and proponent, I am also a New Jersey native and resident. Spending over 20 years working in the offshore wind sector, I have learned of the nearly incalculable and undeniable benefits of this energy resource. Offshore wind will deliver on New Jersey’s triple bottom line: energy, environment, and economic. From an energy perspective, New Jersey needs more electrons. Recent power plant retirements in the state and region have decreased supply. Meanwhile, electrification of buildings, transportation, and so many of the devices in our lives, increase the demand, as Bob pointed out earlier this evening. Offshore wind is the only at-scale resource of any power plant type ready to provide reliable power directly to our state. From an environmental perspective, offshore wind is a home run. It will help clean our air and reduce impacts from climate change. Any type of development has impacts but it is clear from numerous robust environmental reviews at the state and federal level: the net environmental impacts are all below thresholds for significant impacts, and certainly far below that of any fossil fuel resource. From an economic perspective, offshore wind is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift up entire communities by providing good-paying jobs. The installation of underground onshore cables to connect offshore wind farms to the electric grid is a proven, safe, and effective method currently used both globally and in New Jersey to integrate renewable energy into local and regional energy systems. The Pre-Built Infrastructure concept is a pro-active, thoughtful initiative for New Jersey that will save rate payers money, create multiple efficiencies, and reduce environmental impacts overall as we continue to pursue our offshore wind goals. It is smart and solutions-orientated approach that is visionary, and is not being undertaken by any other state, even though they have offshore wind goals and projects to interconnect. As is typical, New Jersey is playing their role as a national leader. Thank you to the Board for your great work on this important project, and thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 
Shayna Steingard10/15/2024 3:28:44 PMOn behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, please accept our comments on docket # QO23100719.NJ Prebuild Solicitation Comments 10-15-24
FLORENCE ABRENICA10/15/2024 3:27:11 PMGood afternoon, I am a resident of Ocean County NJ and I live approximately 1 mile from the beach. Since the tragic events of Super Storm Sandy, I have been more aware of climate change and the devastating effects of hurricanes, rising sea levels, and the warming of our ocean. My family and I love the beach and nature. We are aware of the devastating effects of the burning of fossil fuels and the need to transition to renewable energy. Part of this energy transition requires offshore wind development in New Jersey and the necessity to connect the offshore wind farms to the electric grid at one landing site, at the Sea Girt National Guard Training Center. Effectively, this will minimize any environmental impacts development of offshore wind construction and any associated construction disturbance would incur. New Jersey is a leader in offshore wind development and this project would prove to be another innovative and important decision in propelling the energy transition forward to making renewable and clean sources of energy accessible and affordable to me, my family, my neighbors, and friends. 
Evan Vaughan10/15/2024 3:21:26 PMPlease see attachmentMAREC Action support comments re NJBPU Docket Number QO23100719
Justin Macko10/15/2024 3:10:59 PM*** Letter submitted on behalf of Mayor Donald E. Fetzer, Mayor, Borough of Sea Girt October 15, 2024 Hon. Donald E. Fetzer, Mayor Borough of Sea Girt 321 Baltimore Blvd. Sea Girt, New Jersey 08750 dfetzer@seagirtboro.com Hon. Sherri L. Golden, Secretary New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor PO Box # 350 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350 Subject: Comments on the Solicitation for Transmission Infrastructure Project Supporting New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Policy Docket # QO23100719 Dear Madam Secretary, On behalf of the Borough of Sea Girt, I would like to formally reiterate our strong objection to the awarding of this project at the current time. While we appreciate the ongoing discussions between the Board and our community since May 2024, we still harbor significant concerns regarding the implications of proceeding with this project. Our reservations stem from several critical factors: 1. Exclusion from Decision-Making: The Borough of Sea Girt was not included in the discussions surrounding the cable landing point on our coastline. First and foremost, we continue to prioritize concerns regarding the health implications of running the cables so close to residences, and possibly the school. Any health analysis should be an “apples to apples” comparison. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that our infrastructure—and the access to it- could be severely disrupted, leading to substantial inconveniences for both our citizens, visitors and your awarded contractors and system operators. 2. Inadequate Comparisons: The comparative transmission infrastructure projects provided by the Board do not adequately reflect the scale of power nor the proximity to residential areas. This raises questions about the appropriateness of the proposed project in our community, most importantly from a health standpoint. 3. Impact on Ratepayers: As outlined in our letter to the Board of Public Utilities dated August 16, 2024 (attached), we are alarmed by the anticipated increase in electricity rates that will not only burden our residents but will also affect ratepayers across New Jersey. Such financial implications warrant a thorough re-examination before moving forward. 4. Borough Council Resolution: In June 2024, the Borough Council adopted Resolution No. 126-2024, which opposes the proposed placement of wind turbine clusters off our coast, the installation of transmission cables through critical fish habitats, and the construction of cable banks within our Borough (attached). Two key aspects of this resolution include: o The governing body’s strong opposition to constructing offshore wind turbine clusters and laying extensive transmission lines through vital marine ecosystems, as well as their proximity to existing Borough infrastructure. o A call for state and federal authorities to engage in open, transparent discussions with our community prior to any final decisions or bid awards. We urge that these discussions also allow adequate time for comprehensive studies to assess both potential and actual adverse impacts of these projects. 5. Concerns Regarding Superfund Sites: The proposed infrastructure project is likely to intersect with the White Swan Laundry & Cleaner Superfund Site. In a letter addressed to Commissioner La Tourette of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection dated September 23, 2024 (attached), I highlighted several key concerns: o Risk of Trenching: The underground installation of high-voltage cables is projected to traverse two Superfund sites, including areas currently undergoing active remediation (see attached map). The risks associated with trenching in these areas, particularly the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, were not sufficiently addressed in prior discussions. o Threat to Borough Infrastructure and Groundwater: There is a substantial risk of damaging our underground infrastructure and exacerbating groundwater contamination. When this issue was raised with EPA representatives, their response indicated a troubling lack of coordination: “That’s their problem since their work will follow ours.” This dismissive attitude is concerning, especially given the potential long-term environmental and public health ramifications. o Interagency Coordination Issues: There appears to be a significant lack of communication between agencies, as EPA representatives seemed unaware of the infrastructure project set to follow their cleanup efforts, despite acknowledging that these projects are likely to intersect. o Long-Term Cable Integrity: We have serious questions regarding the long-term effects of the high-water table on the integrity of the cables and their coatings. We seek information on any existing studies or data from the DEP regarding wire durability and the potential contamination risks under these conditions. Lastly, we believe that the public comment period for this docket has been insufficiently brief. While we appreciate the public hearing held on October 1, 2024, at the IBEW Union Hall, many residents have informed me that they did not have the opportunity to provide their comments online. We strongly advocate for additional informational sessions to be conducted, ensuring they are widely advertised, so that our community has fair and ample opportunity to voice their concerns. This would also enable the BPU to continue its outreach efforts effectively. Thank you for considering our community's perspectives on this important matter. We look forward to your response and hope for a collaborative approach moving forward. Sincerely, Donald E. Fetzer Mayor Borough of Sea Girt Hon. Sherri L. Golden 10-15
r-126-2024_opposing_wind_turbine_6_12_24_clean_0 (1)
njdepletterwhiteswan-_latourette
sea_girt_bpu_letter_eis
Howard Stein10/15/2024 3:09:29 PMI was in the audience at the Brick Township Presentation. The presentation was scientifically accurate and well thought out. There is no reason that the BPU should not enact the plan as written. My only comment is for the sake of redundancy more than two landfalls and grid interconnect points should be considered. 
Carrie Buchanan10/15/2024 2:59:15 PMI am adamantly opposed to this project and all projects related to Offshore Wind.This is a giant experiment on our ocean and coastal residents. The scale, scope and speed at which you are pushing OSW and transmission infrastructures is reckless! What about the locals have/will they be notified about the years long construction and 24/7 noise when cables make landfall? No they will not. The people of Virginia have spoken and are living a nightmare because they were lied to and kept in the dark about construction of Dominion Wind. What happens to the habitats for fish larvae, crustaceans, mollusks etc. when these foreign companies plow through the ocean floor with mass amounts of EMF spewing cables? You don't know. What happens to the zooplankton and krill, the main diet of Baleen Whales? You don't know. What happens to the whales when their food source is gone and their home is invaded by geophysical surveying/sub bottom profiling and pile driving? YOU DON'T KNOW! What about the utility costs? Which will sky rocket. What about the safety of mariners? OSW is creating navigational challenges, radar clutter and false targets in Block Island now and that's only 5 turbines. What about the 1,000's of generational jobs that will be lost by our fisherman who bring us healthy sustainable food? OSW and commercial fishing can not coexist and that is a fact! What about the nor'easters and hurricanes? How can you be sure these monstrosities won't break or fall especially considering the Vineyard Wind blade broke on a nice day and 2 months later the mess still isn't cleaned up. Wake up, we the people say no and we're not going away. FULL STOP 
Grace Hanlon10/15/2024 2:55:57 PMThe Jersey Shore Partnership (JSP) welcomes the opportunity to comment TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT TO SUPPORT NEW JERSEY'S OFFSHORE WIND PUBLIC POLICY Docket Number QO23100719 JSP is a New Jersey not-for-profit non-partisan organization that advocates for stable funding on the state and federal levels for coastal protection and beach replenishment, and on related issues and initiatives that are important to the State’s Coastal communities, the tourism economy, and our quality of life. In 1992, JSP successfully advocated for the enactment of an annual $15 million (now $25 million) dedicated Shore Protection Fund, the first such legislation to be passed in the nation, to provide the local cost share for federal shore protection projects. The Jersey Shore Partnership continues to raise awareness among state and federal officials and the public as to the need for safeguarding the shoreline through beach restoration and other shore protection methods, including safeguarding the sand resources needed to continue to maintain the 127-mile-long New Jersey shoreline into the future. With sea level rise and the threat of increasing extreme weather, it is likely that nourishment will be required more frequently and in greater volumes in the future. Access to sediment resources will only become more critical. Access to sand is a critical issue to the future of our Jersey Shore coastal beaches, the infrastructure they protect, and the economy they support. The Jersey Shore Partnership’s immediate concern is avoiding conflicting uses of sand resource areas for offshore export cable corridors (OECCs) designed to transmit power to the rapidly developing wind power industry along the New Jersey coast. They include proven, potential, and unverified sand resources. The Jersey Shore Partnership respectfully requests prioritizing research on the impacts of Off Shore Wind (OSW) energy development on the seafloor, in particular, related to the impact of OSW development on proven, potential, and unverified sand resources for beach replenishment for current and future projects. The North Atlantic Regional Assessment of the National Shoreline Management Study, published by the Institute of Water Resources in March 2022, identified that, since the 1990s, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has invested heavily in beach nourishment for Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM). USACE has constructed over 250 miles of CSRM projects with beach nourishment components, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region, reflective of the region’s desire to provide storm protection by restoring natural coastal lands and habitat rather than using hard structures such as seawalls. Many projects rely on offshore sand from the continental shelf. Resource agencies and environmental interest groups have long raised concerns about the long-term sustainability of these efforts as these resources become scarcer in the future. New Jersey is not immune from the potential lack of sand resources for future shore protection projects. New Jersey has already placed 208.5 million cubic yards of material along the state’s shoreline between 1936 and 2020. Sea level rise combined with a projected increasing frequency and intensity of coastal storms will further reduce our limited sand resources. It is crucial that the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) prioritize the impact of offshore wind (OSW) energy projects on proven, potential, and unverified sand resources. This focus should aim to minimize conflicting uses and mitigate the rising costs of dredging, which are driven by the Offshore Export Cable Corridor (OECC) and the challenges of locating sand resources.BPU October 15, 2024
John Casey10/15/2024 2:48:00 PMI do not support the proposed wind farm off the coast of New Jersey with supporting power transport routing thru Sea Girt. Other route options likely exist where local residents are not so severely potentially negatively affected. Additionally, the proposed rate structure is 3 times higher than current rates and since a plan as proposed has never been constructed anywhere, it further possible rate could grow substantially more. Also problematic is the potential disruption of the super fund plume and its possible negative effects on local residents. This seems to be a poorly conceived plan for those and other reasons. 
Karen Forbes10/15/2024 2:47:38 PMNJDRC Comments - OSW PBI Stakeholder Meeting - BPU Docket No. QO23100719NJDRC Comments - OSW PBI Stakeholder Meeting - BPU Dkt. No. QO23100719
John Casey10/15/2024 2:46:19 PMI do not support the proposed wind farm off the coast of New Jersey with supporting power transport routing thru Sea Girt. Other route options likely exist where local residents are not so severely potentially negatively affected. Additionally, the proposed rate structure is 3 times higher than current rates and since a plan as proposed has never been constructed anywhere, it further possible rate could grow substantially more. Also problematic is the potential disruption of the super fund plume and its possible negative effects on local residents. This seems to be a poorly conceived plan for those and other reasons. 
Sylvana Gregg10/15/2024 2:32:28 PMAttached are the Oceantic Network's comments regarding the NJBPU's Transmission Infrastructure solicitation. 2024-10-15 NJBPU Transmission Infrastructure Comments
Elizabeth Gannon10/15/2024 1:27:23 PMI am not a scientist, nor an expert on wind turbines. I am speaking as a lifelong resident of Spring Lake, N.J., now Spring Lake Heights, N.J, who is very concerned about what is happening in our oceans. Tax-paying citizens were never informed about plans to install wind turbines off the coast of N.J. and elsewhere on the Eastern seaboard. We became aware when whales and dolphins started washing up dead on our beaches, in unprecedented numbers on or around December, 2022. For the wind industry and the politicians who support it, to say these unprecedented numbers of marine mammal and fish deaths is unrelated to the preparations for offshore wind turbines is ridiculous. Any intelligent adult knows that loud sonar activity will adversely affect marine mammals, which rely on their own sonar and echolocation systems for survival. As for the subject at hand, the installation of high-voltage cables is rife with safety and environmental concerns. I venture to guess that anyone sending you letters supporting this debacle does not live in an area directly affected by such an installation, nor would they want their children or grandchildren anywhere near these cables. I hope you have plenty of data outlining the inherent dangers and potential problems that might arise, and that you are not simply ignoring it all, the way the issue of marine mammal and fish deaths is being grossly ignored. Here in NJ, we are due for a big hurricane-we haven't had a doozy since Sandy. How will turbines and underground cables withstand a major catastrophic hurricane? Who will pay for this clean up? You guessed it, the tax payers, many of whom are opposed to the concept of industrializing the ocean in the name of so-called "green energy". How much will our electricity bills go up? We, the tax paying citizens of NJ deserve a clear explanation of how rates will be affected, and this should not change dramatically higher, ever. Ask commercial and recreational fishermen who they feel about industrializing the ocean-it will kill their livelihood, the same way it is killing marine mammals and fish. This plan for offshore wind turbines is a debacle. The carnage to wildlife has only just begun. Please listen to hard-working tax-paying citizens like myself. Thank you, Elizabeth Gannon 
William Amann10/15/2024 1:14:58 PMI am a professional engineer and fully support the PBI project. As an electrical engineer I understand and appreciate the need for this infrastructure to allow the growth of our offshore clean energy. As a grandfather I know how important this is for the future of the New Jersey Shore and the world we leave to future generations.  
Jennifer Coffey10/15/2024 12:50:59 PMThe Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) supports the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) “Transmission Infrastructure Project to Support New Jersey’s Offshore WInd Public Policy” commonly known as the Pre-Build Infrastructure (PBI). ANJEC is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote local action to protect and restore New Jersey’s natural resources and to ensure healthy communities for today and the future. ANJEC advances its mission by engaging in equitable and inclusive practices through leadership, partnerships, education, advocacy for strong public policy and in support of environmental commissions, public officials, and communities throughout New Jersey. ANJEC supports the transition away from fossil dependence and towards clean renewable energy including responsible, renewable offshore wind. Offshore wind is a clean, renewable energy source that is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating sustainable jobs and manufacturing opportunities, and positioning our state as a leader in the green economy. It is imperative that New Jersey not only embraces offshore wind but also facilitates the infrastructure necessary to fully realize its benefits. The installation of onshore cables to connect offshore wind farms to the grid is a proven, safe, and effective method used globally to integrate renewable energy into local and regional energy systems. The onshore cables are essential to unlocking the opportunity that offshore wind will bring to New Jersey. Offshore wind energy has the potential to drastically reduce harmful air pollution in New Jersey. The reduction of pollutants from fossil fuels will improve air quality, providing both immediate and long-term health benefits to residents across the State. By transitioning to offshore wind energy, we will help New Jersey meet its climate goals under the New Jersey Global Warming Response Act and achieve 100% clean energy by 2050. Moreover, the economic benefits of offshore wind are significant. Offshore wind projects are expected to create thousands of high-quality, unionized jobs across a wide array of sectors, from construction to operations and maintenance. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) has already invested in a state of the art wind port, positioning the state as a hub for offshore wind manufacturing and supply chain activity. By activating the necessary onshore cable infrastructure, we ensure that these broader economic opportunities are realized, boosting local economies and businesses and providing long-term, sustainable employment.  
Dorothy O'Reilly10/15/2024 11:40:52 AMMany politicians are constantly pushing multi-million dollar projects that they claim will save the environment without considering how these projects will actually damage the environment. I oppose the power cable which will run through the federal Superfund sites which contact toxic contamination and the wind farms which are killing whales and other marine life.  
Eric Henry10/15/2024 11:15:16 AMBluepoint Wind Letter of Support - In the Matter of the Opening of a Solicitation for the Transmission Infrastructure Project to Support New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Public Policy - Docket #QO23100719Bluepoint Wind Letter of Support NJBPU PreBuild 10.11.2024
Nicholas Cullen10/15/2024 11:11:54 AMThe purpose of our letter is to express our opposition to offshore wind and the infrastructure project associated with it, specifically the power cables running through the ocean floor into Sea Girt and surrounding areas. We implore you to pause the plan to build offshore wind turbines on the Jersey Shore. We implore you to pause the plan to run risky high-powered wind energy cables along residential streets and recreational areas along the Jersey Shore. We don’t believe offshore wind is the best alternative for renewable energy from a cost, infrastructure, and environmental standpoint. In addition, the proposed power lines are transmitting an unprecedented amount of power within 10-15 yards of residences, schools, recreation facilities and parks. This is ten times the power of the recently closed Oyster Creek nuclear plant. We believe there should be more research and testing done to see how this amount of power will effect residents and sea life. In addition to the risk placed on our local community and other neighboring shore towns, we are concerned about the effects on ocean life, how the structure will be maintained and protected from hurricanes, national security risks, energy costs, fishing industry impact, and tourism impact. This is a high-risk, high-stake endeavor that has moved forward with an unacceptable lack of risk assessment and transparency. As a government agency, this is a violation of the public trust and a failure of the BPU to live up to its leadership responsibilities. This project must be put on hold until the risks and rewards are objectively evaluated and openly communicated to the people effected by these decisions. Nick and Mindy Cullen 
Alex Ambrose10/15/2024 10:41:48 AMThank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. My name is Alex Ambrose and I am a policy analyst with New Jersey Policy Perspective. I am writing in support of offshore wind and the advancement of pre-build infrastructure (PBI) in New Jersey. Offshore wind is a safe and responsible way to generate clean energy that reduces our greenhouse gas emissions and provides good union jobs in a new green economy. At a time when the effects of the climate crisis are becoming more and more evident, it is essential that we rapidly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and transition to clean energy. And as a coastal mid-Atlantic state, New Jersey is uniquely positioned to thrive in the offshore wind sector. PBI is an essential part of the clean energy transition. It helps reduce harm to the environment and risks from development, and onshore cables are a safe and effective way to bring wind energy into our local energy systems. The concerns about onshore cables can be addressed responsibly by following best practices, doing proper siting, and causing minimal disruption during construction. All projects are subject to rigorous state and federal regulations to ensure the benefits of offshore wind prevail. PBI is critical to achieving our goals of emissions reduction under the Global Warming Response Act and of 100% clean energy by 2050. I highly encourage the Board and the Administration to continue moving forward with offshore wind and its associated infrastructure.  
Rik van Hemmen10/15/2024 10:24:45 AMThis statement is in support of Offshore WInd. I am the President of Martin & Ottaway, a NJ Professional Engineering company and personally am I licensed Professional Engineer. Under the Professional Engineers code we can only provide truthful and technically correct testimony. I personally, and as the president of the company, have been involved in the review and evaluation of all issues surrounding offshore wind. Moreover, I am on the record as a committed environmentalist as President of Navesink Maritime Heritage Assocation and proposer of National Marine Sanctuaries in New Jersey. Global warming requires carbon reduction. There is no single solution, but, for New Jersey, offshore wind is extremely viable and poses no risk to the public or individuals. The environmental impact will be less than continued use of fossil fuels and concerns with regard to whale impact, or EMF are pure fabrications without any factual substantiation.  
Doug O'Malley10/15/2024 12:41:04 AMComments on behalf of Environment New Jersey are attached as part of this submission.ENJ NJBPU PBI COMMENTS 10.15.24
Kevin Ludwig 10/14/2024 11:45:24 PMHow is disruption and destruction of sea life (see recent dead whales and dolphins), terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the safety of human beings good for the environment? Who has made such a decision if not the people it will affect? Where is the evidence to ensure that such a project never done to this magnitude is safe for all considered? Clearly the local thousands were not considered as they were kept in the dark. How will the safety of the thousands of school children in Manasquan Elementary and High Scools (including Brielle, Sea Girt, Spring Lake, Belmar) be guaranteed during the massive construction, operation (and malfunction), and ongoing necessary maintenance for years to come? Rest assured, the European companies have your children's best wellness front and center. When something goes wrong as it inevitably will ( in any never done before massive undertaking), causing illness, property damage, loss of value, loss of quality of life, loss of affordable energy, loss of peace and quiet, loss of life due to a range of scenarios, loss of fishery industries, loss of quality ocean and community, WHO will be held responsible and accountable? Will the governor? Will some big name European company care about John, Meghan, and Sally, a d the thousands of others who develop cancer from repeat exposure to high frequency waves only yards away from their school and workplace? Is money more important than people's well being and lives? The love of money is the route of all evil. Hmm is this ringing any bells? Well, we know where the government and Union stands. How about the consent of the people it serves? Where was the vote? Silence, except the trucks during the night. Transparency and communication? I don't see it. I don't hear it Follow the money. This proposal is unacceptable, if for no other reason than our knowledge of the dishonesty and darkness surrounding it. But we know of many other reasons. Thank you for following your God given conscience to do the right thing and respect your fellow human-beings made in His image and likeness.  
Jacqueline Merse10/14/2024 11:18:11 PMI am a resident of Sea Girt NJ and have 4 children. I am in favor of green energy, but running untested high risk cables near my home is terrifying. The health effects of cables this powerful have never been tested, but the BPU is willing to put children's health at risk in order to streamline this project. The majority of the people who commented at the BPU meeting that were in favor of the project, represent groups of people that will benefit financially. Children's health is more important than the money that these groups stand to make. Please consider the health concerns of the citizens that will be directly affected by this project over the wants of special interests. Thank you.  
Anastasia Ratliff10/14/2024 10:57:28 PMI fully support the offshore wind project and Sea Girt’s inclusion in this initiative. I have lived in Sea Girt for 30+ years, therefore I care deeply about this town. As a Leader for the Climate Reality Project, as well as an employee of a company who’s vision is “100% clean energy across America” , and a vegetarian of 15 years, I am very passionate about the environment and know this is the right thing for our future. There has been a lot of misinformation spread on this topic lately and I really appreciated the details and facts shared in the PBI meeting. I took away new pieces of information from that educational session that gives me the confidence that we will be on the right side of history and the next generations will be grateful for New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Project 
Heather Scaturo10/14/2024 10:21:06 PMI am opposed to the pre-build infrastructure project. There are too any unanswered questions that the BPU has not addressed regarding the financial impact, size, and location of the offshore wind project planned for the New Jersey Coast. Without proper due diligence, this project should NOT continue. The lives and the pocketbooks of New Jersey residents are at stake. Governor Murphy wants to leave a legacy, but without doing the proper analysis, examination, and investigation beforehand, it may very well be a legacy of imprudent, heedless, negligence. As taxpayers we should insist that our government does their job of protecting the interests of their constituents.?? After months of requests for a public hearing, the BPU finally held a presentation at the local electrical workers union hall to listen to public comments. The BPU staged their meeting at a location and with a room full of people who have an economic interest in seeing the project approved. During that presentation, the BPU failed to address several major issues that directly impact the citizens of New Jersey.? 1) What are the financial implications to both our electric bills and our tax bills? There was no cost benefit analysis provided that outlines the amount each NJ household will be paying for this project through their electric bills. While the project may be providing “energy to power 1 million homes” it failed to state at what cost. Also, the companies that have ALREADY been awarded these contracts have been provided significant tax incentives. How will those incentives be absorbed by the New Jersey taxpayers? ?2) The BPU continues to state that similar projects are commonplace. They listed three projects with 1250 megawatts, 2250 megawatts, and 3100 megawatts. The PBI cable is expected to be 6400 megawatts. It’s simple math - NONE of the BPU examples are even half the size of the proposed project. To label them as “similar” is ridiculous, misleading, and insulting to the residents of NJ. BPU - provide examples of any project in the world that is at least 6000 megawatts, and goes through residential neighborhoods. ? 3) The proposed cable route is directly through an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Site. The site has contaminated soil and groundwater that the EPA labeled as one of the most toxic sites in the country. When the Sea Girt National Guard Base constructed a new building they required a pre-construction assessment to ascertain if there are any contaminated soils that may be present or other hazards to the employees. This assessment was required because any construction can contribute to the chemical contamination plume. Where is the BPU’s pre-construction assessment? Have they presented it to the companies and the workers that will be digging in the contaminated soil? This Superfund site contains chemicals that are known to cause nervous system depression, birth defects, and certain types of cancers. Also, are the companies aware that they are liable if they contribute to the chemical plume, covering every inch of the cable route through the Superfund site? ??In conclusion, there are just too many questions that have yet to be answered before this project should continue. Why the rush? We should all oppose this project until the proper background work is completed, and presented to the public. The current administration is spending the taxpayers money, but has not done the work to determine if it is economically feasible, and environmentally safe for the citizens of New Jersey. 
Rich Ludwig 10/14/2024 7:55:47 PMPoliticians (particularly democrats)are liars and thieves. They also kill whales and dolphins. They are doing this against humans and animals. And the best--$$$money! 
catherine Luthin10/14/2024 4:28:31 PMplease see my attached comments , a copy has been seen to the board sec for QO23100719C.Luthin BPU Comments. Oct. 9, 2024
Robert Mazzuca10/14/2024 2:37:39 PMThe New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program (NJMEP) is proud to play a key role in supporting the Prebuild Infrastructure initiative, designed to accelerate the growth of the offshore wind industry in New Jersey. As offshore wind power expands, it promises to be a transformative force for the state's manufacturing sector, generating tens of thousands of well-paying, high-quality jobs while driving billions of dollars in local supply chain development and capital investment. This emerging industry represents a unique opportunity to strengthen New Jersey’s economy by fostering innovation, modernizing infrastructure, and cultivating a skilled workforce prepared to meet the demands of renewable energy production. Additionally, the growth of offshore wind plays a critical role in advancing energy independence, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and enhancing environmental sustainability. New Jersey’s commitment to developing its offshore wind capacity underscores not only the potential for substantial economic growth but also the importance of safeguarding national security by investing in domestic energy sources. By supporting the offshore wind industry, the state is positioning itself at the forefront of a clean energy revolution, ensuring a more sustainable future while bolstering the nation's energy resilience. NJMEP is eager to continue collaborating with industry leaders, government agencies, and local stakeholders to make this vision a reality. About The New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program In 1996, the New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program (NJMEP) was established by the Department of Commerce and The National Institute of Standards & Technology. MEP’s work with U.S. manufacturers to help them become more profitable and globally competitive. The MEP network is comprised of more than 60 individual MEP centers, which span across all fifty U.S. states and Puerto Rico. Each MEP center has programs and services geared towards helping manufacturers improve efficiencies, boost productivity, embrace innovation and spur job creation. Since inception NJMEP programs and best practices have expanded to include planning, energy, tech transfer, innovation engineering and a host of other tools to drive the quality levels, productivity levels and profitability of the businesses it has served in New Jersey. NJMEP BPU Letter of Support
Richard Lawton10/14/2024 1:54:52 PMAs a network of New Jersey businesses working together to advance sustainable business practices and related policy change, I am writing on behalf of NJSBC to urge the BPU to prioritize the development of offshore wind and related transmission infrastructure. Offshore wind is a clean, renewable energy source that is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating sustainable jobs and manufacturing opportunities, and positioning our state as a leader in the green economy. The installation of onshore cables to connect offshore wind farms to the grid is a proven, safe, and effective method used globally to integrate renewable energy into local and regional energy systems. The onshore cables are essential to unlocking the opportunity that offshore wind will bring to New Jersey. First, offshore wind energy has the potential to drastically reduce harmful air pollution in New Jersey. The reduction of pollutants from fossil fuels will improve air quality, providing both immediate and long-term health benefits to residents across the State. The economic benefits of offshore wind are significant. Offshore wind projects are expected to create thousands of high-quality, unionized jobs across a wide array of sectors, from construction to operations and maintenance. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) has already invested in a state of the art wind port, positioning the state as a hub for offshore wind manufacturing and supply chain activity. By activating the necessary onshore cable infrastructure, we ensure that these broader economic opportunities are realized, boosting local economies and businesses and providing long-term, sustainable employment. The industry has already generated $2.5 billion for long-term investments in new ports, factories, transmission systems, workforce development, and innovative environmental research for New Jersey. This includes nearly 900 New Jersey companies that have raised their hands to participate in a local offshore wind supply chain registry. That number continues to grow every month as projects continue to progress in their milestones and onboard local businesses and workers. Finally, the concerns about onshore cables can be addressed responsibly. Similar infrastructure projects for underground cables and utility systems have been executed for decades without significant disruption to communities. By following best practices in environmental science and engineering, such as proper siting, minimal disruption during construction, and adherence to all state and federal regulations, this infrastructure can be safely integrated into our communities. Thank you for the opportunity to offer this comment in support of offshore wind and the pre-build infrastructure project. Richard Lawton Executive Director NJ Sustainable Business Council 
Renee R. Jones10/14/2024 12:50:51 PMAs a life-long resident of the Jersey Shore with over 38 years professional experience as an environmental specialist/planner, I am opposed to the proposed wind farm project off the coast of New Jersey and its accompanying land based infrastructure, specifically identified by NJ’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU) as Docket #QO23100719. My opposition to this current wind farm proposal does not come lightly since I am an advocate for sustainable alternative energy sources. However, BPU, along with its partner State and Federal agencies, have NOT completed their due diligence in properly assessing the myriad short term and long term impacts of (1) the proposed wind farm project in the ocean and (2) its land based infrastructure of high risk, underground power transmission cables as to its massive size and scope, specifically relating to the following: - Impacts on the ocean ecosystems and its habitats (marine mammals, fisheries, etc.); - Impacts on migratory and non-migratory birds; - Impacts to the local economy and businesses (commercial and recreational fishing industries and tourism industry); - Impacts of the land based infrastructure, specifically the high energy transmission cables underneath the land; ie., impacts to streets, local utility lines, residences, schools, parks, recreational trails, etc.; - And, most importantly, impacts of these high energy transmission cables to the health of the residents who live here, the children who go to school and play in the parks, and all who ride bikes and walk on the streets and along the recreational trails where these transmission cables are proposed to be located in southern Monmouth County. BPU has stated that the energy generated by the wind turbines is proposed to transmit 6,400 megawatts of energy via underground cables though our neighborhoods, streets, parks, recreational trails and close by to residences and our local schools. As we have learned, the transmission of such a massive amount of energy is 10 times the power of the now-closed Oyster Creek nuclear facility and more power than that of Three Mile Island. It is completely irresponsible of BPU to say they have assessed impacts to public health because there are NO comparable wind farm projects of this magnitude on the East Coast, transmitting massive, high amounts of energy through underground transmission cables located so close to homes, schools, parks and recreational trails. As such, BPU must conduct further assessments so there is a clear understanding of the potential impacts and harm to human health from the proposed magnitude of these high energy underground transmission cables. BPU must address these serious issues before it proceeds any further and the public needs to be properly informed. People should not be placed in harm's way given the proposed locations of the high energy, underground transmission cables. Clearly, there is NOT full knowledge to date of the potential outcomes on public health of this proposed, massive wind farm project and its associated land based, high energy transmission lines. Sensible land use planning would dictate the siting of this type of large-scale, industrial wind farm project and its associated land based infrastructure to be located within an existing industrial region of the State that can support this type of new industry. The current proposal to locate the land based transmission infrastructure in southern Monmouth County is clearly incompatible within these suburban, residential communities. The transmission infrastructure and its massive electromagnetic energy does NOT belong in our suburban towns, underneath our residential streets and highly used bike and walking trails, in our neighborhoods, and near to schools and parks. It is clear BPU and the State NJ are moving forward too fast on this aspect of the proposed wind farm project. This results in serious questions for BPU to address: Why locate the transmission infrastructure within the residential streets, near residential homes, schools, parks and recreational trails in this part of the State? Were alternative analyses performed for the location of the proposed wind farm project and its associated land based infrastructure outside this suburban region of the State and in other areas of NJ? Did BPU consider locations for this type of large scale facility where there are existing industrial uses which would better serve and be compatible with this new industry? It is clear that BPU and the State of NJ must consider alternative and more compatible locations for this proposed massive wind farm project and its land based infrastructure and examine the fact that southern Monmouth County is NOT the feasible location for this massive wind farm and land based infrastructure project. Again, these are all serious questions that have not been adequately answered and must be addressed by BPU before moving forward on this project. Worse yet, if this proposed wind farm project moves forward, it will “open the door” for further industrialization of the State owned National Guard/State Police Training Center property (the “Army Camp”). With a wind farm project of this scale and size, there is no doubt that the Army Camp property will become the primary center for expansive growth to support this new industry. This is NOT a compatible type of land use in this region of the State, surrounded by suburban Jersey Shore communities and adjacent to the ocean. Another potentially catastrophic risk of the wind farm project comes with the larger and more dangerous storms associated with climate change. The potential destruction of offshore wind turbines from extreme weather events was made shockingly clear off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts when a single blade from a wind turbine broke, resulting in devastating amounts of harmful debris washing ashore, impacting the marine and coastal environment, and the people who live and work there. Now imagine the devastation of a major storm on a large-scale wind farm in the Atlantic Ocean. It’s unimaginable, but it can happen and we are not prepared for it. Further studies must be conducted by BPU to properly understand the consequences and impacts of stronger, more dangerous storms in the Atlantic on offshore wind turbines constructed in the ocean. Who bears the costs and responsibility of cleanup and environmental restoration after the destruction of wind blades and other wind farm structures and energy transmission pipes in the ocean? The public should NOT be expected to pay for these costs. Has it been adequately demonstrated that these offshore wind farms are economically viable considering the potential harmful and detrimental impacts to the environment? Again, serious, real questions for BPU to address regarding the proposed wind farm project that have not yet been adequately answered. The public, along with the business community, public interest groups, local officials, and State and Federal representatives who have spoken out, are demanding answers to these questions (and many more serious questions). BPU, our public agencies, and government officials have failed, thus far, to adequately answer them. Until there is a more thorough, comprehensive assessment of this proposed massive wind farm project and its land based infrastructure, and with a more open public participation process, BPU and the State of NJ should NOT move forward on this proposed wind farm project. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Sincerely, Renee Raffetto Jones  
Christian Coniglio10/14/2024 12:19:42 PMThis PBI is an cost-saving, efficient initiative to encourage the development of the OSW industry in the state. The numerous concerns of the wind farms are understandable, however the industry has been established for decades and has proven to be a safe and much needed environmental alternative to fossil fuel power generation.  
Mark S.Campagna10/14/2024 10:12:02 AMComments re Docket no. 0023100719- Prepared by : 14 October 2024 Mark S. Campagna PMP Captain USNR (Ret) 293 First Avenue Manasquan, NJ 08736 Mobile-910-409-6860 (OFFICE)Email-markcampagna1975usna@gmail.com TOBEY-CAMPAGNA RANCH, LLC [Principal & Owner] ( 1) LACK OF PROPER REVIEWS-General- Other functional/environmental Federal & State of NJ agency reviews- Where are the complete set of certifications/public and official government agency authorizations- that all aspects-phases of this project have/will be done in compliance with various requirements.? We should have a complete set of authorizations prior to the most invasive first step is taken. Specific example as below is US Army Corps of Engineers >> PART 320—GENERAL REGULATORY POLICIES Authority:33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1344; 33 U.S.C. 1413. Source:51 FR 41220, Nov. 13, 1986, unless otherwise noted. (2) NO SUFFICIENT/COMPLETE HARD DATA EXISTS-What proof/engineering evaluations exist that demonstrate how such an invasive and deep incursion into the beach area would not have deleterious effects in the near future or down the road? No evidence of actual relevant functional precedence for a shore incursion of this magnitude. (3) NO COMPELLING JUSTIFICATION EXISTS-Why is a RUSH- FAST TRACK for the option of wind energy so important when other options are more reliable and stable/load following on the power grid? Examples include natural gas plants, additional ( small and/or large advanced) nuclear plants installed at previously licensed sites such as Salem/Hope Creek and Oyster Creek and if more immediate- importing power while a more balanced approach can be planned properly. Certainly, there are very extensive negative considerations such as bad mid- long-term carbon footprint re maintenance and replacement, weakness to damage with energetic storms, LOW capacity factor vs other base load options such as nuclear, hazards to navigation and danger to ocean wildlife. Also, seems like the current trend is that wind is OVER subscribed already- who is planning this without due consideration of these and other relevant factors? Comments re Docket no
Debra Coyle10/14/2024 9:45:44 AMMy name is Debra Coyle and I am the Executive Director of NJ Work Environment Council. A coalition of 70 labor, community and environmental organizations. WEC is a strong advocate for offshore wind because of the environmental and the immediate and long-term public health benefits that it brings in addition to creating thousands of good paying, union jobs. Studies project that offshore wind can bring 20,000 jobs in NJ alone from construction to manufacturing, maintenance, and assembly. For New Jersey to keep our competitive advantage of being early adopters of offshore wind on the East Coast we must continue to move forward in an environmentally responsible way. The PBI allows the state to have one point of cable landing instead of multiple points of interconnection for offshore wind projects across the shore. This coordinated onshore clean energy transmission corridor will provide savings for consumers and significantly reduce the development risk and environmental impact. The installation of onshore cables to connect offshore wind farms to the grid is a proven, safe, and effective method used globally to integrate renewable energy into local and regional energy systems. Submarine power cables have been installed, operated, and maintained for almost 150 years. These cables, like those used in offshore wind farms, emit low-frequency, non-ionizing radiation. This type of EMF falls on the non- harmful side of the electromagnetic spectrum. And according to the National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health organizations that use the precautionary principal are themselves recommending the use of buried transmission lines. Also worth noting, the most recent "cell phone cancer" study released last month by the World Health Organization shows no link between cellphone use, brain cancer. It's not the same thing as power line radiation but does fall in the same class regarding a human health threat --that being non-ionizing radiation. The review included 11 experts from 10 countries who sifted through decades of research, 5,000 studies published between 1994 and 2022 to be exact. The final analysis was published in the journal of Environmental International. Offshore wind is the largest scalable source of emission-free energy that New Jersey can deploy while also establishing a local economic engine. It is a clean, renewable, reliable source of energy generation through turbines located off the coast. Offshore wind is perfectly located to address our growing energy needs in the years ahead. This is a once in a generation opportunity to make investments in local U.S. infrastructure and manufacturing. As the late great Governor Jim Florio use to say – offshore wind can be to New Jersey’s economy what Silicon Valley was to California. In conclusion, we urge the BPU to prioritize the development of offshore wind and related transmission infrastructure. By following best practices in environmental science and engineering, such as proper siting, minimal disruption during construction, and adherence to all state and federal regulations, this infrastructure can be safely integrated into our communities.  
Susan jablonski10/13/2024 1:47:16 PMAs a life long resident of NJ I am totally against the devolpment of offshore wind turbines. Our beautiful coastline needs to be protected not destroyed.  
Louise Neal10/13/2024 1:07:23 PMThe plans for wind turbines to be built in the ocean right off the New Jersey shore and for the transmission of the possible energy to be run through shore communities will destroy NJ’s tourism, fishing, and general economic security. The only real sights of New Jersey are ‘the shore.’ This will not be a clean energy alternative and will quite frankly, blow up in your face, if it hasn’t already. Cancel these projects and get out with a bit of grace and forethought  
Rob McBurnie10/13/2024 12:13:57 PMFor anyone making a statement that this project will help union workers, it is UNACCEPTABLE to justify destroying the COUNTRY's OCEAN for a handful of union workers and related parties. This is NOT THEIR OCEAN. It is OUR OCEAN. We cannot destroy the ocean for the benefit of special interest groups.  
Michelle McBurnie10/13/2024 12:06:37 PMThere are better alternatives to this "alternative". Please stop the destruction of our ocean and surrounding shore line. Please do not run these lines into our ocean. Please don't construct costly turbines that will be difficult to maintain and that will actually result in increased prices to consumers. Consider nuclear power. There are better options available.  
Robert Raffetto10/13/2024 9:37:47 AMNJBPU, The proposal for transmission power cables and offshore wind farms are a threat to our shores. I oppose the project that plans to deliver massive megawatts of power through cables that run through our communities. According to an article in the British Journal Cancer published in 2016, there is a small increased risk for childhood leukemia to children living within 50 meters of transmission lines carrying lesser amounts of power. The radiation emitted from these cables is a risk to the health and welfare of our residents. The proposed cables may carry more than ten times the amount of power from the now closed Oyster Creek nuclear facility and may come as close as ten or fifteen meters from schools, homes and businesses. In addition, there is a plume of toxic materials from a superfund site running in the vicinity of the proposed route. The plan to insert these transmission cables near schools and homes is ludicrous. I am also concerned about the effect of the power cables’ magnetic fields have on railroad crossing gates. Has there been any testing of the effect of magnetic fields on the electric relays controlling railroad crossing gates? The public deserves answers before proceeding with this proposal. In conclusion, I oppose the proposal to run harmful transmission lines through populated areas. Robert Raffetto. US Navy CDR (ret) 
Willis Wells10/13/2024 9:37:24 AMEven though I don’t live in this area I do agree with all the people who are concerned about this intrusion of these power lines. Wind energy is the least efficient way to produce electricity especially in the ocean. I’ve done my research and these Wind Mills are environmentally unfriendly, unsightly, don’t produce enough electricity to offset their costs of production, installation, maintenance and decommissioning after their lifetime. The taxpayers will be on the hook for all the costs which we are already experiencing in the rise in cost of our electricity bills! This is just a political ploy and a money grab! We should be using nuclear energy to power our grid with the newly developed and advanced micro reactors. 
Teri Kirckof10/13/2024 9:29:11 AMWe oppose anything and all related to wind turbines. This is a horrible project for many reasons and should have been something that was voted on not just implemented by politicians that benefit from it.  
Margaret Bagley 10/13/2024 9:24:41 AMI strongly oppose this and all offshore wind industrial power plants along our NJ coast. There are other more viable energy sources that must be considered. OSW is intermittent, unreliable and unaffordable while posing damage to our marine life, residents, tourism, fishing industry, security and all around quality of life in NJ. Do not approve these shortsighted, ill conceived projects.  
Teresa Silletti10/13/2024 9:22:11 AMNew Jersey's offshore wind public policy raises serious concerns: Environmental Impact: Offshore wind projects have been associated with harm to marine ecosystems, including disruption to habitats and migration patterns of marine life. Fishing Industry: The construction and operation of offshore wind infrastructure will interfere with commercial fishing activities, Most definitely impacting the livelihoods of those in the fishing industry. Tourism: The visual and operational presence of offshore wind farms will affect coastal aesthetics, tremendously reducing tourism appeal in affected areas. Economic Uncertainty: The long-term economic benefits of offshore wind projects will be devastating to the NJ ratepayer. Grid Capacity and Integration: There are challenges with integrating offshore wind energy into the existing transmission grid, which will require significant infrastructure upgrades. In conclusion, all of these project poses significant risks to New Jersey, including potential harm to marine ecosystems, disruption of the fishing industry, and negative impacts on tourism. These factors combined could lead to long-term economic and environmental detriment for the state. Therefore, I am against the progression of any of these projects.  
Barbara McWhorter 10/13/2024 9:21:40 AMPlease do not allow the wind turbines in our ocean and the buried electricity to run through our towns. 
Wyatt Earo10/12/2024 4:17:07 PMThis is proven technology, and this project t will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.  
Robin Koenig10/11/2024 11:30:20 AMThis project is dangerous! It will ruin my home, ruin my health, ruin my future and the planets future. How anyone can propose, support and push through this project is horrible and cares nothing about the people of the Jersey shore. If it is such a good plan, put it through Middletown, Gov Murphy's hometown - not mine!!!!!!!!! 
Hilary Chebra10/11/2024 11:23:56 AMCCSNJ Comments attachedCCSNJ Comments BPU PBI Hearing 10.1.2024
Ron Doles10/11/2024 5:11:47 AMThese untested and unproven power cables will be within 100 yards from my home. U til proven safe by an independent third party I am against then in Manasquan  
Geraldine O'Keefe10/10/2024 1:52:39 PMDONT' MESS WITH MOTHER NATURE Doesn't anyone have a consciousness or have even any common sense? Does carrying up to 6400 megawatts of power running within 10-15 yards of homes, near schools, businesses and recreational facilities make any sense? A project of this scale in residential neighborhoods has not been tested anywhere in the world. Do cables creating heat in the ocean and under our sidewalks seem 'green' to you? How does laying miles of cables and industrializing our pristine, majestic coastline, blasting our sea bottom, killing marine life, messing with the sonar of whales, etc. make any sense? Has any one researched the audible or inaudible noise of the cables, what it is doing to our wild life, marine life or humans? Veterinarians are now reporting the cows and cattle are becoming ill from the vibrations in the ground near wind farms. Hasn't anyone even thought about the noise or light pollution ? Greta Thunberg, Nobel prize nominee, prevented a wind farm from being built because the deer were terrified of the noise, the look and the vibrations in the ground. There is nothing good about the cables that are carrying thousands of mega watts from the wind turbines farms. Why help them exist? Wildlife: * Wind turbines are killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of birds, (including those endangered), bats, every year. These animals are important to the agricultural sector because they eat destructive insects. Marine life: * Mammals that are drawn to warm water that gathers at the wind turbines sites at sea are shocked and killed when the "cool pools" come in. Wind turbines create noise and visual pollution. The blasting is affecting the sonar of the whales Noise and Light Pollution: * Cables and turbines create noise and visual pollution. Has any one researched what the audible or inaudible noise is doing to our wild life, marine life or humans? The blasting is affecting the sonar of the whales Veterinarians are reporting the cows and cattle are becoming ill from the vibrations in the ground near wind farms. Wind farms at sea can look like lit up cities. We want to see the stars! I'd like to send a very strong, loud message to the Governor, BPU and all involved, that I am against this project. I am all for the real 'green' energy that has been researched and proven safe. Please tell me what is green about wind turbines, the chemicals they use, the fuel used to transport them, the noise, and light pollution, etc?  
Diane Raver10/10/2024 10:12:59 AMNO NO AND NO! I am opposed to this plan. PERIOD! 
William Wagner10/10/2024 7:17:08 AMI am opposed to offshore wind! 
Robert S. Prill10/9/2024 11:28:16 PMAlternate-Pre Build Infrastructure (A-PBI) bypasses Sea Girt, Manasquan, and Wall Township... The attached two annotated Google Maps contrast NJBPU's proposed PBI best possible cable route (via Sea Girt Ave, N Main St, Bikepath) from ocean landfall at Sea Girt to the Larrabee Substation in Howell... The Prill/Andrews proposed Alternate-PBI (A-PBI) connects to the 4 Windfarm Export Cables near the Inlet to the Manasquan River and travels under water 5 miles up-river to and area adjacient to Lightning Jacks Marina #3 area where they make landfall in a rural area completely bypassing the streets, roads, and Bikepath in of Sea Girt, Manasquan, and of Wall. This route is “An Unbelievably Simple Solution to a Nightmare NJBPU Proposed Route that disrupts and devalues property along its path and leaves nearby residents threatend with possible long term health concerns ”... The proposed A-PBI solution is not just an annotated line on a map! The full Proposal/Briefing has an enormous amount of engineering data behind it. It addresses Navigation and Environmental Costal Zone Management Rule 7.7 issues and how they are mitigated during the Cable Laying Process and how they are mitigated during the Operational Lifetime of the A-PBI.... The Proposal/Briefing also addresses perceived obstacles in Laying the Cable in the Riverbed of the Manasquan River, like existing narrow RR Bridge widths and a 3 foot high RR tressel, existing Cable and Pipe runs, shallow depths in the river, heating of brackish back water and excessive algae growth form the heat given off (175 F) from the high power cables … The Proposal/Briefing has mitigation plans for all of these… I helped put a man on the MOON in 1969…I’m sure between us we can find a way to Lay 4 Export Cables in the riverbed of the Manasquan River in 2025!... Please setup a time and place for a face to face interchange meeting to discuss the Prill/Andrews Briefing/Proposal, then hopefully delay the PBI contract award by 3 months to do your own engineering and cost tradeoff analysis between PBI and A-PBI... I am confident that when you take into account the Super Funded sites around the Sea Girt land fall, and even assuming the least disruptive Sea Girt Av/N Maine St super funded area, plus all the litigation that will happen during the construction and lifetime operation phases, the A-PBI route will be 25% the over all cost of the PBI route! JCPL PrillAndrews Cable Route
Map Atlantic Cable Annotated
Jo Jackson 10/9/2024 10:43:53 PMAs is, the vote is no. This project should not move forward without an applicable, certified cost benefit analysis has been presented before the taxpayers for a vote. In addition, disruption, modification or imposition or impact to private property and or to any public property requiring taxpayer funding must also be disclosed and cited upon. Finally, the viability, sustainability, long term funding of the project plan and a factual impact study by any and all marine industry, marine life, environmental protection and any coastal community impact.  
William Watkins 10/9/2024 10:25:37 PMDo support wind turbines. #1 Insufficient environmental impact studies. #2 Cost of construction and maintenance don't make financial or environmental sense. 
Paulina O'Connor10/9/2024 8:50:16 PMNew Jersey Offshore Wind Alliance supports offshore wind and related critical infrastructure that is necessary to fight climate change and realize environmental and economic benefits. Final PBI Comments
Carole10/9/2024 1:51:54 PMWe did not vote for this. We do not want this. It will destroy our oceans and the innocent wildlife that live there. It is already effecting marine life. What happens if we get another Superstorm Sandy. It would be devastating! Sandy was hard enough for us barrier island residents. We don't need windmills falling apart complicating matters. 
Eric Richard10/9/2024 1:03:56 PMDear Members of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities: RE: SUPPORT FOR THE SOLICITATION FOR THE TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT TO SUPPORT NEW JERSEY’S OFFSHORE WIND PUBLIC POLICY Docket No. QO23100719 The New Jersey State AFL-CIO has been advocating for and working hand-in-hand with stakeholders for well over a decade to begin building the essential infrastructure needed for offshore wind energy. For this reason, we strongly support the transmission infrastructure project being discussed today. Our organization represents union workers from several different sectors that would directly benefit from this project. In addition to our members in the Building and Construction trades, union workers in the transportation sector, the manufacturing sector and other supply chain related industries, would see strong employment opportunities. These are family sustaining middle class union jobs, with strong compensation and benefit packages. The New Jersey State AFL-CIO is in the business of supporting job creation. We are in the business of developing and training workers for long-term stable careers. The development of the energy infrastructure and transmission facilities contained in the solicitation would do exactly this. This is a smart proposal which will minimize adverse impact on the environment and local communities, as well as ensuring rate payer dollars are used in the most efficient fashion. Finally, a word of support for the positive economic and environmental impact the wind industry in New Jersey will have. This is a transformative moment for our state. If done correctly, it will set a path toward a long-term reduction in our carbon footprint, which will result in increased health for our citizens as well as implementing New Jersey’s commitment toward mitigating the harmful impact of climate change. This noble pursuit will also bring with it tremendous economic growth. This is a win-win for workers, the environment and economic development, that will benefit generations to come. We look forward to continuing our partnership with stakeholders in the business community and state and federal governments to do the work essential to realizing the promise of wind energy in our state. Sincerely, Charles Wowkanech President Laurel Brennan Secretary-Treasurer CW:LB:jd OPEIU:153  
Cheryl Stowell10/9/2024 11:21:40 AMThank you for the opportunity to share our support of PBI NJS letter of support 10-9-24 attentive
Rose Pergola10/9/2024 10:16:10 AMWe did not vote for this and we do not want to destroy our beautiful ocean for energy we do t need.  
James Jude Plaia10/9/2024 9:57:42 AMFor the record, note my strong objection. Proposing a 6400 megawatt power cable through our residential streets just yards from homes, schools, and businesses is just irresponsible, untested and dangerous. If proponents of this plan say that the dangers of such hyper wattage has not been proven, it begs the question: has it been proven to be safe? Has this project been thoroughly vetted? Can’t we agree that the health and environmental dangers are real? Won’t a proposed cable route landing on the National Guard Training Center and continuing west on Sea Girt Avenue to the Larabee substation in Howell possibly disrupt municipal and county infrastructure such as water, sewer, natural gas? How far apart and deep will the cables need to be? How disruptive will the excavation and installation be? How often will the cables need to be maintained. Will the cables add heat to the streets? Is there a risk of “arcing”? These are just some of the concerns raised as a lay person. Have environmental, engineers rendered expert opinions on these questions? If so, please disclose. Also please disclose the alternative routes that were redacted from your studies. Aside from the health and environmental concerns, how will this negatively affect property values and businesses along the route? Where is the NJ DEP Fish and Wildllife regarding the protected beach that is off limits to protect the piper plovers and endangered plant life? The NJ DEP conducted a study that revealed that a plume of shallow ground water contamination approximately 2.5 miles long and a mile wide extended from Wall Township into Manasquan Township and Sea Girt Borough. How will a proposed route through these towns affect the migration and further contamination of the plume? Have there been interaction and conversation between these two State agencies? At the Oct 1 meeting at the IBEW Local 400 facility, there was a one page handout which stated "...the Board is encouraging the use of existing utility pathways, road rights-of-ways, and previously disturbed areas to minigize community disruption and reduce environmental impact." How ironic. Be aware that this project is no longer under the radar. Our concerns are real.  
Denise Lupo10/9/2024 9:07:25 AMI oppose this project. I live 200' from the proposed installation of these power cables. There is not enough research to guarantee safety to the residents who live close to this project. There are many concerns regarding putting these cables so close to residential homes. Further, the remediation of the superfund project which is still being remediated to this day is a concern that needs to be thoroughly investigated. 
Kathy Abline10/9/2024 8:07:46 AMI am strongly opposed to the high voltage power cables that are planned to bring offshore wind energy into land and through neighborhood streets and towns in Monmouth County. This type of power has not been proven nor tested as safe. Running high voltage power so close to homes and schools may have adverse affects to the people living along those routes, my family included. I ask that they be rerouted in locations that are not residential.  
Karen Ramundo10/9/2024 1:46:06 AMI vehemently oppose the Offshore wind project and the projected path of the cables. A project of this size has NEVER BEEN done before anywhere in the world and the dangers to humans and wildlife is unknown. Dolphins and Whales have been washing up dead on our shoreline ever since the Windmill project began. The running of these high voltage cables through residential areas, schools, parks and businesses is outrageous!! Please stop this from happening. Governor Murphy seems to be in an awful RUSH to push this through without weighing all of the potential consequences and adverse effects. The scale and voltage of this size project has NEVER BEEN DONE in residential neighborhoods!!  
Marianne Critchley10/8/2024 8:15:07 PMI am opposed to the construction of the proposed wind turbines and high-power transmission lines along the coast in New Jersey. This project will disrupt and destroy local ecosystems and wildlife habitats, causing long-term environmental damage. The involvement of foreign investors is un- American and unacceptable. At the meeting I attended in Wall NJ, mention was made of the local community getting "new sidewalks". Sea Girt does not want this. Profits from this project will not benefit our towns. Instead of focusing on large-scale industrial wind farms, we should prioritize sustainable, community-based energy solutions that address local needs while preserving New Jersey's natural beauty and the livelihoods of its residents. DO NOT PUT THESE HIGH POWER LINES AND WINDTURNBINES ON OUR COAST!!!. 
Lorelei Kelly10/8/2024 6:10:36 PMI am concerned about the effect of the underground cables in our communities. I think more studies need to be done and more information forth coming.  
Alfred H Sauer10/8/2024 12:54:09 PMI would like to hear how the completed system will increase electric rates before you approve this phase of the project. You should not allow this project to be approved until you can demonstrate that the polluted sites will not be adversly affected. It did not appear at the October 1 presentation that you were even aware that these sites existed and could be impacted by this project. Since you have stated that this project will only supply a minor percentage of forseeable electric needs in NJ, you should consider allowing nuclear power plants to be constructed to replace fossil fuel power plants. 
John J Ward III10/8/2024 11:06:43 AMI urge the BPU to halt any further advancement of this matter until proper due diligence has been completed on the many concerns the public has brought forward. There are many health, environmental, and financial red flags that must be addressed before any further work proceeds. Those opposing this appear to be driven only by their personal economics, not science nor concern for the broader community. The BPU must adhere to its own regulations (N.J.A.C. 14:8-6.5.(a).11) in regard to environmental and economic criteria. I am confident that if this is done this project will not pass muster. 
Katie Mettle10/8/2024 10:09:55 AMGood evening. My name is Katie Mettle, and I am the Policy Principal for the state of New Jersey for Advanced Energy United. We are an industry association that represents the full spectrum of technologies that are needed to power the transition to a 100% renewable energy economy. I am here today to speak in favor of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ opening a solicitation for a prebuild transmission infrastructure project to support the development of offshore wind. This project will enable 3,742 MW of offshore wind generation to connect to the grid, accommodating up to four Qualified Projects. It will be the most cost-effective way to connect multiple offshore wind projects to a single point of interconnection. It will have only one landing point instead of multiple points of interconnection across the shore. Building offshore wind will be a critical piece to transitioning to a clean, renewable, and resilient grid. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower air pollution while sustaining jobs. It is predicted that offshore wind will create thousands of sustainable union jobs in multiple sectors, including manufacturing, construction, operations, and maintenance – right here in New Jersey. New Jersey has already positioned itself as a national leader in offshore wind generation by developing the New Jersey Wind Port, the country’s first greenfield port dedicated exclusively to supporting offshore wind projects. The offshore wind industry has already generated $2.5 billion for long-term investments in new ports, factories, transmission systems, workforce development, and innovative environmental research for New Jersey. Nine hundred and thirty-four companies have joined the offshore wind supply chain registry. Completing the prebuild transmission infrastructure project is necessary to realize the full potential of offshore wind to grow New Jersey’s economy, improve public health, and mitigate climate change. This investment will reap benefits for generations to come. 2024.10.01_NJ BPU Hearing Testimony
Lisa Alexandrian10/8/2024 10:09:33 AMThis whole project is smoke and mirrors. The BPU is proposing clean energy while destroying people and wild-life. Stating this is “clean” energy is a farce. While the process requires fossil fuel to support the build out. The fact that these Turbines will kill and destroy our Oceans with fiberglass non-recyclable material. When we have seen what has happened north of NJ. On top of this ridiculousness the disturbance to Supersites in our area creates more problems for keeping our water clean and our health is at stake. Not to mention our kids health and neighborhood property values will be destroyed. Our local governments are not on board and neither are our citizens. Stop loading your pockets and let our earth rest from human interventions. Save our oceans and wild life. Do not support poisoning us!  
Caroline Tkachuk10/8/2024 9:04:16 AMAttentive Energy provides the attached Letter of Support for the Prebuild Infrastructure.Attentive Energy PBI Letter of Support - October 2024
Cathy Pierce10/7/2024 1:29:02 PMI am imploring you to stop moving forward on this project until the effects of running over 6000 megawatts in a populated area can be studied, especially the effects on children and the unborn. I had a friend who lived in Chatham during the cancer cluster in the 70’s, and he suffered from childhood leukemia and died as a young adult. If this project causes similar illnesses and deaths, it will be on your heads. Plus the negative effects from digging in 2 Superfund sites. A project with this many megawatts running through a populated area near homes, schools and parks has never been done before, so you cannot just approve this blindly as it has the potential to destroy lives, tourism, and our home values. PLEASE do not force us to be guinea pigs for Murphy’s vanity project.  
Joni Fiore10/7/2024 11:42:16 AMSTOP THE HIGH RISK POWER CABLES. STOP THE HIGH RISK POWER CABLES. 
Steven Leischner10/7/2024 10:56:49 AMWhile I understand the need for alternative energy sources they need to be WELL THOUGHT OUT. The project to bring electricity from wind turbines off Atlantic City to Howell MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. The cost and environmental impact to lay high voltage cable under the ocean floor for about 75 miles and then dig up residential streets for many more miles, including through supposedly super fund sites is totally ridiculous. Whoever the decision makers are - they need to step back, maybe be slapped in the face, and start to use some simple common sense. 
Neal Campbell10/7/2024 9:37:46 AMI am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed transmission infrastructure project in our state and township for the following reasons...... Enviromental impact including disruption to local Ecco systems threats to wildlife habitats including habitat fragmentation. The effect of living above these high voltage lines and the health hazards it possess. I have no trust that these cables are being properly looked at and objectively investigated prior to moving ahead. 
Allison Vercelli10/7/2024 8:52:31 AMFor the record, I object to this transmission infrastructure project. I am a Sea Girt resident and can't believe this is even being considered! This has NEVER been tested! Over 40% of FDA approved drugs are later found to require a black box label (ie can serious harm or death)...and those are tested! You want to install something that has never even been tested on this magnitude. We all know there will be health consequences and increased cancer rates down the road. Who will take responsibility for that? Governor Murphy has banned plastic bags to save the environment, but driving pilings into our ocean wont affect our environment or harm that animals?? In my 51 years i have never heard of a whale washing up dead on the Jersey shore but suddenly there were 14 when you began testing for this disastrous project. So wheres the concern for the environment there? We all saw what happened to the Jersey shore in Hurricane Sandy. Who has tested how the windmills would handle those winds and storms? That could be a deadly disaster so who would bear responsibility for that? When sea animals and possibly humans are impailed with blades, who is responsible? When cancer rates go thru the roof because of sulphur hexaflouride, and 6400 MW of power right near private homes, who is responsible. It is not "green" if it harms in other ways. What is the lifespan of the turbines? What will happen to them once their lifespan is up? Has any of this been considered? There has been no thought to the true costs to the residents, tax payers, children, State Troopers training on the property of the National Guard, the many sports teams practicing on the fields, the marine life and mother nature! If you truly cared about the environment you would consider the long term consequences and not rush to jam something thru that we all know will have long term negative impacts. I implore that we stop the madness of this project immediately.  
Patrick Kenny10/7/2024 7:43:22 AMI will go full John Dutton Yellowstone against this project. This is where i have spent 42 years of my life.  
Nicole Citarella10/6/2024 4:05:20 PMI do NOT want high power cables or turbines in, on or around my town or NJ or any other location. I feel like this is a rushed project, not enough studies as far as the health risks involved (high watts, EMFs, local superfund sites, noise pollution, etc.). Not only that, property values will go down and taxes will go up. This project has unintended consequences and I do NOT support this project. 
Kimberly Paterson10/6/2024 2:09:14 PMBPU’s stated mission is to ensure that safe, adequate, and proper utility services are provided at reasonable, non-discriminatory rates to all members of the public who desire such services. To develop and regulate a competitive, economically cost-effective energy policy that promotes responsible growth and clean renewable energy sources while maintaining a high quality of life in New Jersey. The Pre-Transmission Infrastructure to Support Offshore Wind needs to be rejected because it fails to comply with BPUs stated mission. One. his plan doesn’t ensure safety, it increases risk. This is an unproven untested plan that puts the public at risk. The high heat created by these lines, exposure to EMFs and/or static electromagnetic fields, the use of highly-toxic chemicals like SP6, and random shock pose significant hazards. To compound the risks, the proposed route runs through two superfund sites - one still under remediation. We don’t need more health risks. Under state and federal regulatory agencies, New Jersey has the highest cancer rates per capita and most hazardous waste sites in the nation. It’s why we are skeptical of BPU’s assurances and want proof that the proposed plan is safe. When asked about safety, BPU defends its position by offering research studies and other projects that bear no resemblance to magnitude of the power in the proposed transmission lines. They say the EMF exposure from these lines are basically non-existent. Yet their supporting proof documents talk about EMFs. Instead, they say the exposure is to static magnetic fields which are harmless. They provide no supporting research on that statement. Two. This plan doesn’t improve cost-effectiveness, it hurts it. Study after study shows that offshore wind energy increases costs for consumers. BPU’s own studies will support that. In addition to driving up utility rates, NJ Jersey tax and rate payers are being forced to subsidize a profit-making industry. Three. This plan doesn’t maintain high quality of life, it hurts it. Industrializing our beach, installing dangerous power cables lines, jeopardizing our town infrastructures, destroying the natural habit that helps protect our coastline against rising tides, compromising endangered species and wetlands, and creating an ongoing source of noise pollution do not improve quality of life for the for the hundreds of thousands who live and work here and visit our communities. I also have major concerns about BPUs process of community engagement. A union headquarters with which the BPU clearly has close ties was inappropriate. A Pro-Wind protest was staged at the entrance to the building. Pro-wind forces had the first and last word in the public comment section of the meeting. What is also worth noting is that all those who spoke in favor of the plan appeared to be financially incented to do so – either through employment, fees, profits or donations. Those who spoke against the plan were citizens motivated by concerns for their health, their families and communities. People came to the BPU meeting in search of two things: answers to their questions and the chance to weigh in on what’s planned for their community, Participants were denied the opportunity to hear answers to their questions. Coming to the public for comment after the project has been bid and without transparency about project specifications, clarity on the transmission cable routes under consideration and the economic impact is insulting and is not stakeholder engagement. I urge the BPU to say no to the proposed transmission plan because it makes New Jersey consumers the losers. We get unquantified health and safety risks, higher utility costs and reduced quality of life. For what? The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management admits that this plan will have no impact on climate change. There are only two winners: Governor Murphy in achieving his goal of 11GW of alternative energy and the developers who stand to profit on the backs of hardworking NJ tax and rate payers.  
G McGee10/6/2024 11:22:32 AMPlease do not run this cable through the small streets of Sea girt and Manasquan etc. the environmental concerns and superfund impacts are to great to risk the community.  
Lynette F Viviani10/6/2024 10:24:33 AMI am a resident who lives directly along a proposed route for your offshore wind pre-build infrastructure and, while we appreciate the BPU’s meeting in Wall last week, it was too little, too late and held at too biased a location to be a sincere expression of transparency, honestly or respect for the communities impacted by this plan. My home at 1 Sea Girt Avenue, Manasquan is in the bullseye of the PBI route, and your proposed cables will be buried 30 feet from my living room. I am opposed to the project for myriad reasons but the fact that it will disturb the White Swan/Sun Cleaners EPA Superfund site, still under remediation, is the most disturbing of all. My home was tested six or seven years ago as part of the original EPA/DEP remediation project. I received a certificate that there was no contaminates found. But what will the EPA, DEP or BPU do to assure me that this remains the case once you start to dig a huge trench and place high-powered transmission lines three feet deep, 35 feet from my living room? What kind of ongoing monitoring will ensure that it stays contaminate free? Can you guarantee that the plume will not move once digging begins? What responsibility do the NJ DEP, BPU and EPA have to ensure that the actions of the state are not compromising the integrity of the ongoing remediation? What contingency plans are in place to mitigate any dangerous vapors that may result from disrupting this area? Contamination remains just 15 feet below at beach and your team stated on October 1 meeting that drilling will go 60-70 feet down at the beach landing. How will it be mitigated and at what cost to NJ ratepayers? Did the BPU do the appropriate due diligence before issuing the RFP for the PBI? And what plans are in place to step up monitoring throughout this massive plume of contamination? The developers and the BPU make great statements about good paying union jobs but what provisions are being made to protect these workers from the contaminated water and soil they may contact in the course of their work? By the reactions on the faces of the IBEW leaders and workers at the October 1 meeting, it appears that they were not even aware of contaminated area in which they’ll be working. Equally concerning is the fact that EPA Superfund Project Manager Mazeeda Kahn admitted at the EPA’s September 17th meeting in Wall that she was not aware of the BPU’s PBI plans. Neither were the contractors hired by the EPA to start the next phase of remediation along Sea Girt Avenue in the coming months. Have any of these issues even been considered in the headlong rush to move this project along to meet arbitrary political objectives? Who is ultimately responsible to ensuring the safety of the residents within this area? Is it the EPA, DEP or the BPU? Are we simply “collateral damage” in the eyes of regulators and public officials? These questions and others must be answered, and the safety of residents ensured before any PBI contracts are awarded. Thank you, Lynette Viviani Sea Girt Avenue Manasquan, NJ 08736 Lynette Viviani | lynette.viviani@vivianipr.com | 973-534-1004 Wall Superfund Plume Screenshot 9-13-24
Chris Kaisand10/6/2024 9:50:00 AM1. Have not seen the financial impact of this project on residents' energy prices or if NJ itself benefits and if so, how? Why is NJ bearing the brunt of the 'liabilities' and potential harm without significant benefits? 2. Need longer period of study to more clearly understand the impact to the environment (sea life, debris from the equipment left in the ocean, NJ residents within certain distance of project) before implementing any larger projects. 3. Where is the study to show that wind turbines in the ocean is a better choice than wind turbines in large fields/on land? is it purely a cost of acquisition of space argument (sea beds used are supposedly without initial purchase costs, or are they?) Why is NJ granting this use of our shoreline and sea beds vs other possible uses (fish farming, etc.)? 4. Any ideas on the impacts of the drilling process and depths to the sea, land, animal and plant life, etc? 
Kathleen Brown10/5/2024 5:15:16 PMNO to the power cable ....stop pushing something that you have no idea if it is safe! You can not go thru Superfund sites & you should not be going thru such populated areas. How bout you put it in YOUR backyard????  
Robert S. Prill10/5/2024 4:16:39 PMSUBJECT: Alternate-Pre Build Infrastructure (A-BPI) For Atlantic Offshore Wind Project Please add this document to the minutes of the NJBPU Stakeholders’ Meeting of October 1, 2024. At the Stakeholders’ Meeting, held on October 1, 2024 numerous residents of Sea Girt, Manasquan and Wall Township expressed their concerns, fears and opposition to the PBI Project. One concern, among many others, is what the construction of such an infrastructure will do to a Super Fund site which is still being remediated. I have found an Alternate Route that completely bypasses the streets, roadways, and bikepath in the Bouroughs of Sea Girt, Manasquan, and the Township of Wall, AND the route does not shift the burden to other townships. I believe the people and every other Stakeholder deserve the right to have this alternate route that I am proposing reviewed by the NJBPU! I contacted the President, Commissioner and Ombudsperson of the NJBPU by certified mail dated September 3 about this proposed Alternate Route and never received a response. The NJBPU claims to be responsive to Stakeholders, yet when I brought this alternate route forward to NJBPU it was ignored to thid date of October 5, 2024. So that the NJBPU had some idea of my background I listed my credentials in the September 3 letter, but briefly I hold a BS & MS in Electrical Engineering, worked for a Defense Contractor for over 50 years, hold 14 patents, invented PDR/SDR that brought in close to 2-billion dollars in studies saies and international business, was a liaison to NATO for them, and as my first project, that accelerated my career, I worked on the Landing System for the first Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) that put Neil Armstrong on the moon... So what I'm asking is that you take my A-PBI proposal seriously. I am requesting again, that my Alternate Route for the cable be given consideration. I would appreciate an invitation and opportunity to present a full Briefing/Proposal package to NJBPI. The package, unlike the attached annotated line on a Google Map herein, addresse the Navigational and Environmental issues & mitigation thereof of, of the Cable Laying Process. As a stakeholder I believe I should be heard. We have a greater degree of ingenuity today than we had in 1969 when we put a man on the moon. Surely, now, 55 years later we can find a method to lay 4 cables in the riverbed of the Manasquan River, bypassing the neighborhoods of Sea Girt, Manasquan and Wall Township. Doing so would prevent the destruction of neighborhoods, preserve property values, protect the health and well-being of residents and preclude any future litigation. Two slides of the alternate route are included here. The comprehensive briefing package will be provided at the requested meeting. I look forward to your response. Robert Prill 3019 Tangier Drive Allenwood, NJ 08720 732-233-0718 Bobprill0718@gmail.comJCPL PrillAndrews Cable Route
Map Atlantic Cable Annotated
Sharon Knightly10/5/2024 3:55:08 PMI am firmly opposed to running high risk power cables through neighborhoods and toxic super-fund sites in Sea Girt and neighboring NJ towns. Find another way to power the off-shore wind project currently being considered. Don't let this happen!! 
Mike Schwarz10/5/2024 2:19:28 PMMy wife and I are very concerned about the lack of studies done on the effects the digging will do in regards to existing infrastructure, electromagnetic fields and disturbance of the 2 Superfund Cleanup sites. We live downstream of the underwater plume that was spreading the dry cleaning chemicals. Digging this area up could spread the contamination that they worked so hard to contain. Please conduct the appropriate studies on possible spread of Superfund site chemicals and the effects of having these conduits 20 feet in front of our homes. Thank you. 
Keri Conkling10/5/2024 11:18:33 AMFor the record, I object to this transmission infrastructure project. I am a lifelong NJ resident and I have a long list of grievances. I also concur with Congressman Chris Smith, who recently attended one of these meetings and said "this is the least thought out plan in his 44 years of experience". So, speaking of experience, I would like to challenge the experience and the qualifications of both the BOEM and the BPU. Overseeing the decision making, construction of a wind farm and transmission cable of this scale directly through the path of a Super Fund Site who can honestly say they have done this before? In all 25 examples of research studies stating this is like "most other infrastructures" there is not one example of anything close to 6400 MW because IT DOES NOT EXIST! This is outrageous to me and its zero transparency speaks volumes in deceit. In the race to slow climate change, pile driving the sea bed in the construction phase with diesel using equipment is not green. The cable will have sulphur hexaflouride,aka SF6 a green house gas used in the switch gear to prevent electrical fires. It can have a catastrophic impact on our state not to mention being a complete health and safety wildcard. After months and months of ignoring the local town councils request to disseminate information to the residents since January the BPU finally comes to the local union in October with a room filled with people who have financial stake- what about the public stake of our childrens health. How can the state continue to charge the highest taxes in the country and think that people of excellence and community will remain here when we feel betrayed. An example of that is the strategic ammending of the Open Public Records Act reducing our range to information on June 5th-deplorable. We all agree that we need strides in alternative energy but this is creating ten new problems trying to solve one. Industrializing the ocean is not a price anyone should have to pay. I am sickened by the disregard to public health and safety first to our NJ children, electrical workers and fisherman. There is no plan to decommission the short life span of the turbines, there is no thought to the true costs to the rate payers, the national security and sonar, the health of the State Troopers training on the property of the National Guard, the many sports teams practicing on the fields, the marine life and perfect ecosystem All we do is continue to take from the almighty ocean without using common sense. Lastly, anything that kills everything that comes near it is NOT GREEN and clean. It's just not so I implore that we stop the madness of this project immediately.  
Denis Foley10/5/2024 10:40:54 AMOffshore windmills and onshore power cables This new waste of taxpayer money on the fantasy of offshore wind power needs to stop now. The initial cost will continue to exceed estimates but the ongoing cost in dollars and our environment will be forever as they fail and require increased maintenance, marine life disruption, and onshore impact to our neighbors. The real issue in NJ is Governor Murphy and his environmental focus whether plastic shopping bags or offshore wind farms he will never admit failure but continue down a path of increase cost even when evidence proves his policies a failure. Time to stop this folly now before more damage is done.  
Dr Shelby Sickles10/5/2024 7:48:48 AMI highly oppose these wind turbines and the power cables. There is nothing green about destroying the environment or jeopardizing our oceans which are the biggest asset of the Jersey Shore. The trade off of the negative aspects do not out weighed by the minimal energy production they have shown to produce and the short life span of efficacy they have. 
DR Shelby Sickles-Zemo10/5/2024 7:42:40 AMThere is very little substantial evidence that the wind turbines will due anything to be a successful energy source. There is much evidence that theywill be useless within 10 years and no one knows how to dispose of them. That they will destroy our oceans floors and the ecosystem in the building process and are dangerous to the existence of all sea life especially the whales and dolphins. I highly oppose these projects. 
Jeff Di Paolo10/4/2024 10:09:23 PMI object. 
Heather Foley10/4/2024 9:48:37 PMStop the high risk power cables. No community should be subject to this irresponsible and potentially deadly experiment. As a Sea Girt resident I do not support this project or policy.  
Rudolph Trinks10/4/2024 5:57:23 PMattached are my comments24-10-04Windmills
Rudolph Trinks10/4/2024 5:09:50 PMAttached is a word document that has my comment2024-08-23Windmills
Fred G. Marziano10/4/2024 3:59:10 PMI have strong objections to continuing work…development…and funding of the land-based aspects of the offshore…Atlantic coast…wind energy program for many reasons, including these: 1. A program of this magnitude… and proximity to a developed community… is Untested… and consequential health and safety issues have not been adequately established, although we do know: • The World Health Organization and Institute of Research in Immunology & Cancer classified EMF exposure as “possibly carcinogenic.” • We also know a 2022 meta-analysis found a two-fold increase in childhood leukemia with exposure to extremely low frequency-magnetic fields… and what is being proposed are much, much higher EMFs. • Another study found that children of pregnant women exposed to 4 milligauss or higher were 14 times more likely to develop cancer within four years. Long-term exposure to high-voltage power lines increased the risk of fetal development disorders and central nervous system defects. 2. We cannot accept our government’s and your word…that the risks are relatively low, as did the 1,000’s of people at the 9-11 sites who later lost their life and/or health…because they believed the government when told it was safe to breath the air. 3. I am concerned the short and long-term impacts due to Interference with our sewer, water and power lines infrastructure have not been adequately assessed or reported to the public. 4. Of major concern is that… what is touted to be a high-probability route… runs directly through the White Swan Superfund site in Sea Girt, where the EPA tells us a spreading of the contaminated plume and our groundwater would be very likely, if disturbed. 5. Development and maintenance costs are exorbitant…subsidized initially by citizens taxes… and ultimately by higher utility rates. This makes no sense… especially when the resulting impact on climate change is minimal, if at all. 6. I am unbelievably angry by the sneaky way these projects have emerged...been approved… and financially supported… and the way in which Governor Murphy and the State have intentionally left local communities out of the decision process. 7. While I appreciate the importance of resulting short-term construction jobs, the ultimate cost to our health… and cost of living… are more important.  
Kaitlin Wong10/4/2024 2:01:24 PMIn addition to the ICNIRP limit discrepancy previously commented, there is a large discrepancy between the maximum EMF values presented to the public during the 10/1 meeting, and the Atlantic Shores Construction and Operation Plan. Per Dr. Cott's 10/1 presentation, Slide 14, the "upper range... is less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the ICNIRP Limit" which if you calculate that is 20,000 mG. Whereas the Construction and Operation Report, Section 9.3, Page 9-13, states that the models completed demonstrated the maximum EMF level of all cable configurations considered was 975 mG. (The other configurations had lower EMF values). Why did Dr. Cott's presentation not talk about these values from the report? Why were we left with a vague "less than 1/2 of 1 percent"... and left to do the math for ourselves, which does not at all align with the Atlantic Shores information? Slide 14 from Exponent Presentation
Section 9.3 from Atlantic Shores COP
Joseph Fiordaliso10/4/2024 1:59:56 PMWRITING IN SUPPORT OF DOCKET QO23100719 I am writing as a Monmouth County resident in support of the Pre-Build transmission infrastructure project. This project is necessary to deliver offshore wind power to land. Having a single point of interconnection will minimize impacts on local communities and the environment. Utilizing the National Guard Training Center as the point of interconnection instead of multiple points of interconnections across the shore makes the most sense. I'm extremely concerned about the spread of disinformation - specifically the claims that magnetic fields from this proposed project pose public health and safety risks. The presentation at NJBPU's September 30, 2024 stakeholder meeting and all reputable published material on this subject make it abundantly clear that cables do not pose risks. Intentional spreading of disinformation is reckless and dangerous and must stop. I also wish to use this platform to express my strong support for offshore wind development. Climate change presents an existential threat to the health of our planet. Unlike the cables that will deliver offshore wind power to land, sea level rise, worsening beach erosion, and increasingly severe storms ACTUALLY cause a direct threat to public safety and health, not to mention property values and our economy. We need renewables like offshore wind and solar as part of a diversified approach to energy generation. Offshore wind development projects will not only generate a clean source of renewable energy. They will invest in our communities, create jobs and generate economic activity that will benefit New Jersey. In conclusion, I support the Pre-Build transmission infrastructure project. I likewise support offshore wind development. I support efforts by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to advance clean energy. And I commend Governor Murphy for making this issue such a prominent priority of his governorship. 
Thomas Mann10/4/2024 1:23:51 PMThe PBI helps New Jersey achieve energy reliability and resiliency through offshore wind power. It is imperative that New Jersey not only embrace offshore wind but also deploys critical infrastructure necessary to fully realize this economic and clean energy opportunity.  
Carolyn Singer10/4/2024 12:46:09 PMIt is imperative that New Jersey not only embrace offshore wind but also deploys critical infrastructure necessary to fully realize this economic and clean energy opportunity. The installation of underground onshore cables to connect offshore wind farms to the electric grid is a proven, safe, and effective method used both globally and in New Jersey today to integrate renewable energy into local and regional energy systems.  
Pamela Martin10/4/2024 9:01:50 AMIn the interest of the environment!!!! Thorough studies must be done, and details made easily available to the public. First and foremost, provide examples of power cables of the same magnitude that have been built in residential areas as dense as Sea Girt, Manasquan, Wall, and have been functioning several years. If this cannot be provided, it is abundantly clear that you are using these communities as that cases, risking lives!! Or in your haste to build, you have sidestepped your research responsibilities. Again, putting lives at risk. All done in extreme secrecy. No consultation with lical governments and local residents. STOP NOW! Do your job!! Do the necessary research - thorough research - before you create a disaster. Additionally, several previously retired nuclear energy plants are being brought back online. Has this been seriously considered? Have other less invasive - less dangerous - alternatives been considered. If yes, do not hide this information! Share it in totality with mayors of the affected towns. If you do not provide it, it is clear evidence that due diligence was not done, or that you are hiding something. STOP NOW! At least PAUSE for a couple of years until the necessary research is completed,vetted, fully and openly shared with local towns.  
Todd10/3/2024 6:26:02 PMI oppose this plan. I think an environmental impact plan needs to be updated to include the NJ shore and marine ecosystems. Where is the study done for the NJ wind farms? We are not located in NY. I do not think there is anything similar between NJ and NY so why would it be acceptable to use an environmental study done in NY ? Also- I think the amount of money this will cost NJ residents is ridiculous-! This is not free electricity from the wind- its contracts to charge NJ residents higher rates every year. Why would anyone agree to this ? We have Nuclear power in NJ. Why not wait until alternative energy sources save us money and not cost us guaranteed increases in our electric bills ?! Not to mention the pile of concrete that gets poured into the ocean floor for each windmill - 1300 tons concrete, 295 tons steel, 48 tons iron, 24 tons fiberglass- Not to mention the direct connection with Whale deaths and wind farm construction and operation- when running the sound from spinning turbines 100 decibils. If you are a mile away you cannot hear them spinning? What about the whales ? Then I see the plan for the electric lines- running along the brand new paved bike trail in Wall ? No thanks- I will not vote for anyone that did not oppose this .  
Joseph Sutkowi10/3/2024 3:10:22 PMWaterfront Alliance is an alliance of more than 1,100 organizations working across the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Our work centers on sustainability and mitigating the effects of climate change across the region’s hundreds of miles of waterfront. Our Rise to Resilience Coalition recently helped pass flood disclosure law legislation in New Jersey and is a key member of the New Jersey Coastal Resilience Collaborative which works with smaller communities across the state on flood protection issues. We are participating tonight because we understand the importance of offshore wind as a clean, renewable energy source that is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change. We also see the incredible opportunity that it presents New Jersey residents through green jobs and economic opportunities. While any new industry and infrastructure come with tradeoffs, the benefits of offshore wind projects—such as significantly reducing air pollution, improving public health, creating thousands of high-quality unionized jobs, and helping New Jersey achieve its climate goals—far exceed any drawbacks. The status quo and our reliance on the fossil fuels that these projects will replace are simply unacceptable and unsustainable. They cannot last. In our climate and environmental justice work, we work closely with government agencies at all levels of government. We see the bar being set for the offshore wind industry around community and economic benefits and environmental stewardship. It is incredibly high and cautiously regulated. These projects are being developed in a way that is safe and responsible. The Pre-Build Infrastructure project is building the ordinary infrastructure that is essential to these projects functioning. The underground cables that will be used here are safe and proven. They are already used around the world, including in communities across New Jersey, for power transmission from all sources. While offshore wind is new to the U.S., it is already a major producer globally, and tonight we’re talking about the mundane and reliable infrastructure needed to connect it to our grid. The electromagnetic fields the cables produce are comparable to those emitted by everyday household appliances and do not pose a risk to the public or wildlife. Similar projects have been executed for decades. They are following industry best practices in environmental science and engineering and working to very reasonably minimize construction disruptions and site projects in an environmentally conscious manner. This project provides the most cost-effective opportunity to bring multiple offshore wind projects online through a single point of interconnection. This maximizes capacity and significantly minimizes any temporary disruption to the environment and onshore communities. The alternative to this project landing at the Sea Girt National Guard Training Center is multiple points of interconnection in communities across the shore. It is imperative that New Jersey not only embrace offshore wind, but also deploy the critical infrastructure necessary to fully realize this economic and clean energy opportunity. Waterfront Alliance supports this project completely.  
Alejandro Meseguer10/3/2024 2:01:23 PMIt's not going to affect the tourism and the economy of New Jersey as some have claimed. We are in an energy transition away from fossil fuels, coal, oil, and gas and wind energy along with the other renewables is the way to go now! Our future generations deserve to breath clean air free of pollutants.  
Russ Molloy 10/3/2024 1:49:59 PMI found the video presentation by your consultant to be illuminating. He noted that the project would be less than one-half of one percent of the maximum allowed exposure to EMF (80 million milligauss); and he used a chart to show other relative amounts (e.g., 300-703 milligauss for normal Earth background exposure). While obviously this appeared relevant on its face, the math indicates something else; something much more concerning. An MRI machine at 15 million-30 million milligauss is far more than the expected exposure assumed in the transmission lines. However, this and all other examples given in the video were short-term exposures, not daily, year-round exposure that would be experienced by those in the affected communities. And it's the math that bothers me. One-half of one percent of 80 million is 4,000,000milligauss. The consultant neglected to share this latter number with the audience, and I believe this was done by design. No studies I know of have explored the long-term health effects of exposure to a low-frequency DC current of 4,000,000 milligauss. The request by community members for definitive proof of safety is reasonable and necessary. Failure to address this health concern, much less the issue of disturbing the White Swan Superfund cleanup process, may prove fatal to your project. It certainly will not satisfy the towns or homeowners affected.  
Russ Molloy 10/3/2024 1:44:10 PMI found the video presentation by your consultant to be illuminating. He noted that the project would be less than one-half of one percent of the maximum allowed exposure to EMF (80 million milligauss); and he used a chart to show other relative amounts (e.g., 300-703 milligauss for normal Earth background exposure). While obviously this appeared relevant on its face, the math indicates something else; something much more concerning. An MRI machine at 15 million-30 million milligauss is far more than the expected exposure assumed in the transmission lines. However, this and all other examples given in the video were short-term exposures, not daily, year-round exposure that would be experienced by those in the affected communities. And it's the math that bothers me. One-half of one percent of 80 million is 400,000 milligauss. The consultant neglected to share this latter number with the audience, and I believe this was done by design. No studies I know of have explored the long-term health effects of exposure to a low-frequency DC current of 400,000 milligauss. The request by community members for definitive proof of safety is reasonable and necessary. Failure to address this health concern, much less the issue of disturbing the White Swan Superfund cleanup process, may prove fatal to your project. It certainly will not satisfy the towns or homeowners affected.  
Elorm Ocansey10/3/2024 10:38:04 AMHowdy folks, my name’s Elorm Ocansey and I'm commenting today, because, one, I’m a Minister of Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in that, I'm called to love my neighbors. Two, and just as important I work as an educator in Asbury Park. Earlier this week, I taught at Bradley Elementary, and got beat up by 21 crazy-adorable third graders. Across the state, Asbury Park Schools have a tough reputation but i’ll be the first to let anyone know the kids are absolutely wonderful. I'm commenting today to advocate for their future; for a future where they can breathe clean air, drink fresh water, eat non-toxic foods, and have high paying union jobs building off-shore wind farms off the Jersey coast. In the book of Geneis, Chapter 1, Verse 28, after God created humankind, he said blessed them, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (NRSVE) I'm thrilled the State of New Jersey BPU, EDA, and off-shore wind partners like Attentive Energy, and Invenergy are here advancing a project that gives my kids an opportunity to subdue their environment and have dominion over their future. I look forward to working with them and the State’s compliance and development agencies to make sure these projects move forward expeditely. Thank You.  
Glenn Hughes10/2/2024 6:40:30 PMI enjoy the outdoors just as much as anyone, and I am very supportive of environmental preservation. This project just brings too much, very serious risk to the local communities. Nothing like this has ever been done before, and the health risks of cancer and childhood leukemia are unknown. The BPU has provided 4 projects as examples to prove this project will be safe. But none of these projects are even close to this proposed Monmouth cable: the Neptune transmission line is only 660 MW, not 6,000, it runs down the Raritan River, across the Raritan Bay, across the ocean, through Jones Beach Park, up the Wantaugh Parkway and into an industrial park where it ends. It does not run through a single residential neighborhood. Also, it does not run through an EPA designated toxic superfund area like this Monmouth cable will. The Cross-Sound power cable is only 330MW, not 6,000, and it runs across the Long Island Sound, not through any neighborhoods. And I believe it too does not run through an EPA designated toxic superfund area. The Hudson Transmission Project in Hudson County is only 660 MW, not 6,000, and it runs along abandoned train tracks through industrial areas, through a tunnel and across the Hudson River. It does not run through a single residential neighborhood. I don't think it runs through a toxic area either. And lastly the Champlain Hudson Power Express is going to run from Canada to Queens, down the Hudson River, alongside major highways, and along train tracks. It may go by a few homes in rural areas, but I am quite sure its going all the way from Canada to Queens without going through a single densely populated residential neighborhood like this Monmouth cable. If its so safe, why did all these projects avoid residential neighborhoods? There is a wind farm project at Barnstable, MA, with 800 MW, and they decided to split it into two routes of 400MW each as they will run through similar residential neighborhoods. How come Massachusetts decided to cap their routes at 400MW, but the NJ BPU thinks its safe to put 6,000 MW down our narrow streets? Simply put - a 6,000 MW power line has never been put so close to so many homes. Nothing even close to that has ever been done. And as such nobody can say it's safe. I would to ask the BPU - has any Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper about Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) been published in scientific journals researching the links between EMF, EMR and health risks that would show the installation of these High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission cables through residential neighborhoods DOES NOT cause any health risks? And if this does go through, what will the impact be of a catastrophic fault with the HVDC cables in a densely populated residential area? 
Kaitlin Wong10/2/2024 11:01:09 AMThe cables will be running in front of my house, my neighbor's houses, and my son's school. I find this to be unacceptable - they should be placed in highways or other areas far from residential homes and schools. Also, please explain the process in which right-of-way easements for the cable routes will be acquired for this project. Will EMINENT DOMAIN be utilized? 
Kaitlin Wong10/2/2024 10:33:40 AMDuring the 10/1/24 public meeting, Dr. Cotts stated the ICNIRP general public limit for DC Magnetic field was 4,000,000 milligauss. However, in Atlantic Shore's Construction and Operation Plan Section 9.3, page 9-10, they state that the "ICNIRP recommends limiting magnetic fields to 5,000 milligauss". Why was this not discussed in Dr. Cott's presentation? This is a huge discrepancy!  
Alejandro Meseguer10/2/2024 8:30:45 AMTo address surging power demand, let’s value all clean energy. Read attached article by Cipher. Value_All_Clean_Energy
Alejandro Meseguer10/2/2024 7:50:42 AMAs a resident of Little Egg Harbor Twp, I am here Today in support of offshore wind energy and renewable sources. I support the Pre-Build Infrastructure Solicitation in order to pave the way for a future with clean air and water for my children, grandchildren, and all my fellow Americans. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this responsible transmission solution.  
Sylvia Lockwood10/1/2024 9:47:58 PMI oppose this solicitation until the NJBPU does it's due diligence by doing an unbiased, independent cost benefit analysis of NJ's offshore wind as well as a thorough investigation of PJM and their financial resources. There has been a gross lack of transparency regarding the adverse effects and costs of offshore wind to the general public and ratepayers. As an alternative, nuclear energy should be considered and compared before moving forward with any additional offshore wind industrialization.Sierra Club vs. PJM
Bill.Rate Impacts PJM
The Ultimate Fast Facts Guide to Nuclear Energy
Sally Woolsey10/1/2024 8:40:25 PMI have serious concerns about the plan to bring the PBI through Sea Girt. I believe that the volume of the power transmitted through the cables that will run through Sea Girt and neighboring communities is significantly higher than the existing cables cited in today's presentation. Additionally, I have concerns about running the cables through an existing Superfund site. What has been done to prevent contamination from the superfund spreading? I am also concerned about the excessive disruption to our town. Please delay this project and answer our community's questions about the project's safety.  
Sandra Weag10/1/2024 6:08:13 PMMy additional concerns and questions in regards to this project are listed below. 1. Have risk assessments been done regarding the impact from this proposed high-voltage power line project on our health, environment, quality of life, as well as economies? 2. What protocols will be in place for monitoring the high-voltage power lines for any malfunctions. Whose responsibility will it be to oversee any electrical grid failures? 3. Should this underground power line grid experience failures, how is the area isolated or does the entire high-voltage power grid need to be shut down? What type of failures might be expected? 4. What safeguards are in place to identify the area and type of issue? What is the turnaround time to correct the problem? Whose responsibility is it to fix it? Will the town administrators be notified immediately of any failure issues? 5. Where does the money come from for expenditures associated with overall monitoring and maintenance of the power cable grid once its up and running? Federal/State governments, towns, residents? Who will shoulder the burden?  
Patricia Machir10/1/2024 4:28:32 PMI am greatly concerned about New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Public Policy, and respectfully request further research and evaluation before moving forward. So far, the negative impact seems to outweigh the positive impact on energy conservation, global warming, and fossil fuel reduction. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.  
Gary Lehnes10/1/2024 1:30:04 PMI am writing to voice my objections to the OPENING OF A SOLICITATION FOR A TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT TO SUPPORT NEW JERSEY'S OFFSHORE WIND PUBLIC POLICY and my objections to the OFFSHORE WIND PUBLIC POLICY in general. While I support the development and use of alternative, clean sources of energy it is my believe that New Jersey and the United States of America are pushing to accomplish goals which are not realistic, cost effective or adequately researched and developed. I did not vote for, and to my knowledge a goal of making NJ 100% clean energy by 2035 has not been presented to the PUBLIC in the form of a PUBLIC Question on a ballot or in any form to be voted on. My understanding of the role of the Board of Public Utilities is to ensure that safe, adequate, and proper utility services are provided at reasonable, non-discriminatory rates to all members of the public who desire such services. And to develop and regulate a competitive, economically cost-effective energy policy that promotes responsible growth and clean renewable energy sources while maintaining a high quality of life in New Jersey. In my opinion the proposed transmission infrastructure does not meet these objectives. The cost of the Atlantic Offshore Wind project has not been determined and it’s economic viability has not been demonstrated. Orsted backed out of two offshore wind projects in NJ as they did not deem them economically viable, despite government subsidies. An English wind energy company, Boythorpe, states “Although offshore wind is another great source of clean energy, it’s not the best investment right now because of its very high costs, immature technologies and development constraints.” Besides the economic costs the Board also needs to consider the health and environmental risks, which are not known, associated with the project and the transmission infrastructure. What will the impact of these projects be on the quality of life in NEW JERSEY? Will property values at the beautiful New Jersey shore, in sound and view distance of the wind farms be negatively impacted? What about the communities along the transmission routes where 6,400 megawatts of EMF power will run within 10-15 yards of homes, near schools, business and recreational facilities? The costs are too high and there are too many unanswered questions to push these projects forward. Respectfully, Gary Lehnes  
Colleen Loughran 9/30/2024 11:01:19 PMWhy can’t the power lines be put through each county that is getting the off shore wind turbines? How come we are putting wind turbines in the ocean that will be destroyed by a category 2 hurricane and only have a life span of 15 years? 
Alan Katz9/30/2024 1:08:24 PMHas there been any research on the effects of this construction on existing homeowners? Is this going to be safe for us to live near the construction. Should we move and sell our home now? Please help us. Thank you.  
Susan Salkeld9/30/2024 12:46:29 PMState of NJ Board of Public Utilities I highly protest the implementation of the off-shore wind project with the on shore installation of High-Risk Power Cables in Sea Girt, Manasquan, Wall Township and Howell. This whole project has Not been thoroughly researched as to environmental effects, the extreme megawatts needed to run through these towns, the Lack of any public input, the health concerns for residents, the Cost and the fact that we the people in the whole surrounding area DO NOT WANT THIS to Happen Here! Please listen to us! Thank you! Susan Salkeld A Monmouth County Resident for over 50 years and a Taxpayer, as well.  
vincent viviani9/30/2024 12:00:52 PMWhy was this power cable route, through residential neighborhoods selected with so many other options available. Many of the homes are only 30 feet away from this massive power cable. Since there is no definitive understanding regarding health risks of EMF/radiation as well as the logic of digging through a EPA Superfund site, what good answer can possibly come from this. Nowhere in North America is anyone building a cable of this size, in porous sandy soil ,though residential neighborhoods. Why? Could it be that project cost was chosen over health, safety and quality of life. If we can not do this safely and economically then we don't have a project. Let the technology catch up so we can do so. 
Michelle Bird 9/30/2024 8:30:09 AMI oppose the high watt cable proposed for Sea Girt/Manasquan 
Cathy Megill9/30/2024 7:41:11 AMIf the effects of the higher power lines is unknown, these cables should not be installed. Think what this is going to cause the state if health issues are created. Do the research ahead of time. This is entirely too much money to invest to go in blindly.  
Cara Carson9/29/2024 9:36:43 PMExpressing concern and that I am against the turbines and high voltage cables through our towns.  
Ken &Regina Bruton9/29/2024 9:25:39 PMThis is an environmental catastrophe. Nothing has been proven that this is safe . What will it do to the value of the real estate in the area and the safety of the people living there . Also what will it do to our fishing industry. Look at what happened to the wales and dolphins. 
Beth DeFeo9/29/2024 9:00:11 PMI am all about clean energy choices BUT NoT when it will destroy multiple towns and run high voltage through areas of dense population harming all those who live here. This is an absolute atrocity and needs to be stopped!!!! 
kirk Barrett, PhD, PE9/29/2024 6:38:20 PMI support offshore wind. Offshore wind is a clean, renewable energy source that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and create thousands of high-quality jobs, positioning New Jersey as a leader in the green economy. This advanced technology not only provides an abundant and renewable energy source, but it also offers a level of reliability and resilience that can withstand extreme weather conditions, ensuring uninterrupted power when we need it most. By harnessing the vast, untapped wind resources off our coast lines allow us to generate clean energy at a scale that can significantly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Installing onshore cables to connect offshore wind farms to the grid is a proven, safe, and essential method to fully unlock these benefits. By facilitating this infrastructure, New Jersey can achieve its climate goals, boost local economies, and ensure a healthier, more sustainable future, all while minimizing disruption through responsible environmental practices. 
Susan Houk9/29/2024 6:26:31 PMI ask the Board of Public Utilities to ensure that these high voltage power cables will be safe for the communities under which they run. Require scientific studies that will demonstrate the safety to all of us BEFORE you proceed with this program.  
Mary Traina9/29/2024 4:42:19 PMWhat long-term studies have been conducted that demonstrate the safety of these high-voltage cable lines passing through our communities, given the close proximity to so many peoples' homes? What assurances can you provide that there are no health risks, both short-term and long-term? For example, are there risks to our children's well-being now or later? Are there any assurances such voltage will not result in elevated cancer risk or fertility issues for children and adolescents who one day will want to have children?  
Sandra Weag9/29/2024 3:50:35 PMConcerns re proposed high voltage power lines transmitting unprecedented amount of power within our communities. Unacceptable lack of risk assessment and transparency studies regarding the safety of this project with its impact on our health, environment, and quality of life as well as economies. No mention of the biggest challenges for off-shore wind turbines: installation, construction, maintenance, electrical failures, condensation on cold surfaces inside tower, costly downtime, possible chemical spill during installation or tower/blades breaking apart. Why is this huge project being pushed upon our share communities. My husband and I are totally against these high-voltage offshore wind farms; its size and scope.  
Betsy Longendorfer9/29/2024 3:05:05 PMI've lived in NJ most of my life. I wholeheartedly support responsible offshore wind energy. The BPU has made a concerted effort to design the architecture of an offshore wind system, so that construction onshore for any given area only needs to be done once, but connect multiple wind projects. They've also stated that the resulting infrastructure will be built underground so that it is not disruptive to the environment or the esthetics once construction is complete. NJ is leading the nation on much of this. If NJ is to meet its commitment to reducing green house gas emissions, we MUST develop the principal renewable energy that we have - offshore wind. We don't have large areas for solar power nor do we have any hydropower to speak of. We can see the effects of climate change coming, with larger, more frequent, and more destructive storms, even this past week. The residents in this area will be some of the first to be flooded out as sea levels rise.  Let us build the infrastructure that is needed now. Time is short. 
Sandra Weag9/29/2024 2:58:24 PMConcerns re proposed high voltage power lines transmitting unprecedented amount of power within our communities. Unacceptable lack of risk assessment and transparency studies regarding the safety of this project with its impact on our health, environment, and quality of life as well as economies. No mention of the biggest challenges for off-shore wind turbines: installation, construction, maintenance, electrical failures, condensation on cold surfaces inside tower, costly downtime, possible chemical spill during installation or tower/blades breaking apart.  
Donna hostetter9/29/2024 1:27:04 PMI am strongly opposed to the installation of the wind turbines and the high voltage wires proposed to go through Sea Girt. It’s economically and environmentally irresponsible.  
Gary Ruszala9/29/2024 12:42:24 PMResidents of Sea Girt, Wall, Manasquan and Howell deserve answers and information regarding the planned "energy" project. Specifically, what are the health and safety concerns, what is the impact on infrastructure, and who is financing all of this which could certainly lead to higher energy costs. We have a government for and by the people yet our voices have never been heard nor have our questions been answered. How has the Murphy administration been able to sneak this by the people who will be impacted the most?  
Adam Goodman 9/29/2024 12:29:29 PMThis massive project is advancing very quickly without appropriate review of the various short and long-term health, safety, economic and environmental impacts to the area and without broad resident and community feedback.  
Gina Goodman9/29/2024 12:21:53 PMI am 100% in opposition of this project given the potential health implications of this project, notwithstanding the environmental impact on our water and land wildlife.  
Margaret de Castro9/28/2024 5:44:53 PMWhat are the health implications for this high voltage wire? Has this been done before? What are the risks to the community. Until there is further transparency I oppose this wire.  
Kathleen Shevlin9/28/2024 1:37:28 PMIt is painfully obvious that this plan, if you can call it one, is being implemented without the proper forethought….and that’s being charitable. The devastation it will wreak on the impacted towns, the health of the people who live in them and the financial costs to the people of New Jersey are incalculable, both in the short and long-term. And that’s before we factor in the unknown (and likely catastrophic) damage to the Atlantic Ocean, marine life and the many industries that depend on it. The lack of transparency regarding this project is appalling, and implies that those who are pushing it know they are guilty of selling out the residents of these towns and the towns that surround them. I doubt these cables will be running near any of their homes! Tragically, far too many people in government have conveniently forgotten that they work FOR the people, not themselves & those who line their pockets……Their actions are irresponsible to say the least…..I stand firmly with Chris Smith and the other responsible elected officials who are sounding the alarm on this foolhardy project.  
Anne Stock9/28/2024 1:34:48 PMI strongly oppose high voltage power lines being buried in the town Sea First as well as nearby communities. These powerful lines present potential health concerns. A beautiful seaside community will be ruined from a health standpoint as well as property values. Why not run the lines through state owned property such as Sandy Hook or Island Beach State Park? 
Chantal M Trainor9/28/2024 12:39:16 PMI am extremely concerned on how you plan to ensure the health, safety and well-being of local residents (and tourists). You have not provided any safety benchmarks for similar projects (including the magnitude of the energy, radiation and proximity to homes and schools), or contingency plans if there is an issue / emergency related to the project (including remediation budget and how it will be funded). You are risking our children's health and lives. Until you can provide more information and transparency on the aforementioned, this project must be blocked. 
Laura Elizabeth Patterson-Newbury9/28/2024 12:19:35 PMI see this as a "money grab" on Murphy's part. He is pushing this through without presenting it to the House or the Senate in NJ. We, "the people", have a right to vote this down! It is endangering the lives of the residents of Sea Girt, Manasquan, Wall & Howell by laying these high risk cables within yards of homes, schools & children. Have they established or investigated the dangers associated with these high risk cables. No, they haven't nor will they! The evidence of these wind turbines crashing off the coast of Nantucket this past summer causing beach closures due to the dangerous debris floating in the water from the turbines should be more than enough proof that these turbines & cables are extremely dangerous to us & the marine population. also, what will they do to the fishing grounds in our ocean? We need to stop this from becoming a reality! 
Ben Ogrady9/28/2024 12:17:30 PMTotally against wind farm outside my door in Atlantic Ocean. Seeing them doesnt bother me as much as huge power under out streets and in our neighborhoods hreatening the safety and well being of out residents . Take the money and subsidize and encourage residents to buy individual solart for our homes 
Linda Stanco9/28/2024 12:10:05 PMPlease do not move forward with the wind farms. The power cables are not proven to be safe. The power cables will ultimately run thru wildlife areas, and near homes and schools. We can not jeopardize the health of our neighbors and children in this way.  
Roberta Derdzikowski & Joe Derdzikowski9/28/2024 10:06:45 AMWe are completely opposed to any such offshore wind. We don’t want out wonderful community ruined Nor our oceans and marine life. Totally against this.  
Pamela Russo9/28/2024 8:06:31 AMIt concerns me that this project has been fast-tracked without the proper baseline science, a responsible pilot project, transparent communication, or real community involvement.? Residents and voters have a right to complete and accurate information about potential health and environmental impacts of projects being built in their community. Atlantic Shores has not clearly communicated the negative impacts its project will have on public health, safety, welfare, or local economies. It claims to meet the minimum public notice requirements, but the reality is most residents, businesses and local officials know little about the project and its potential impacts. I reside just one block from the proposed transmission cables that will run within 10-15 yards of homes and recreational facilities, by three schools and underneath the Coast to Capital Bike Trail. These cables will carry 6,400 megawatts of power – 10 times the electrical output of the recently closed Oyster Creek nuclear plant. Atlantic Shores documents state that the power cables will operate at up to 349 milligauss, far above the 4 milligauss levels found potentially dangerous in studies. The World Health Organization and Institute of Research in Immunology & Cancer classified EMF exposure as “possibly carcinogenic.” A 2022 meta-analysis found a twofold increase in childhood leukemia with exposure to extremely low frequency-magnetic fields. ?Another study found that children of pregnant women exposed to 4 milligauss or higher were 14 times more likely to develop cancer within four years. Long-term exposure to high-voltage power lines increased the risk of fetal development disorders and central nervous system defects. No project of this magnitude has been tested and proven safe anywhere in the world. The Bureau Of Ocean Energy Management’s Environmental Impact Study on Atlantic Offshore Wind identifies a range of risks, but hedges about its ability to control these risks. This is extremely concerning to me. My concerns are: Health: Residents must know the health impacts of this project and exposure to this level of high voltage EMF. Numerous studies have linked EMF exposure – even at very low frequencies – to cancer risk and damage to the central nervous system. Safety: Residents must be made aware of the risks associated with this project, and how repairs will be handled, as well as acceptable timelines for repairs and the impact of exposure from delayed repairs to these underground cables. Environment: The proposal will require invasion of the delicate ocean area in and around the Manasquan Inlet, which would upset the ecosystem and the local fishing industry. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Impact Statement is required to outline potential alternatives to a proposed project. No such alternative sites for the onshore landing have been shared with the public. Atlantic Shores violates Environmental Justice rights and does not comply with Federal or State laws designed to protect residents from harmful impacts on their beaches, streets, parks, and neighborhoods. Atlantic Shores provides no clear proof that its project will improve regional air quality, reduce carbon emissions enough to impact climate change or protect natural resources. Its justification is primarily to meet New Jersey’s renewable energy mandate, which differs from directly combating climate change. Ratepayer Costs: The extra costs for offshore wind generation and transmission will increase retail rates for all customer classes, by 55% for residential, 70% for commercial, and over 80% for industrial users by 2027. As a result of these price increases, the average household will pay $11,000 more for power over 20 years. Quality of Life: This project will take years to implement and completely disrupt the existing infrastructure of our small towns. The funds for this project would be better spent on the immediate need to fund flood zone preparation as we suffer every hurricane season with more of our shores being eroded, leading to property damage, and roadways being flooded which can lead to loss of life. As a registered voter, tax payer and resident, I demand that you endeavor to pause this large-scale development project before the proper baseline science and a pilot project are completed. I also insist that the proper information about this project be disclosed to the residents and communities that reside here and in the neighboring towns. It is disappointing that most have never heard of this project which will so greatly impact their health, safety, taxes and quality of life.  
Mariane Sisti9/28/2024 7:49:53 AMI am firmly against the cable! 
Charlotte squarcy9/28/2024 1:26:22 AMVoting in opposition to wind farm cables landing at Sea Girt Nat Guard camp Firstly, it costs energy and fuel and maintenance to run a wind farm so no net benefit It is bad for tourism and the whales Secondly— that is too much energy running through the heart of our little village I am sure it is a kick back scheme to fund Gov Murphy’s retirement and that there has been no thorough environmental impact study on the health effects that will be detrimental  
Karen leoncavallo9/27/2024 8:35:16 PMGoing ahead with this project indicate an irresponsible administration that cares nothing for the health and economy of the people of this great state. It doesn’t make any sense to “industrialize” the ocean. Look what “industrializing” our rivers worked out in the last century. The ecology of the ocean should be preserved not destroyed.  
Bob Young9/27/2024 6:25:46 PMWe have gotten ahead of ourselves on how to handle the power that will be generated by the wind turbines. To run transmission lines generating 8X the power that used to come from the Oyster Creek facility through 4 local communities in sandy soil requires additional study. There is no evidence from anywhere in entire world to alleviate concerns that this is too much energy to run through the ground in one place. The safety of everyone in these communities is in danger. There is absolutely no reason for the State of NJ to be on the bleeding edge for this project. We need to see this done safely and efficiently elsewhere before adopting this strategy at the Jersey Shore. 
Andrea Hostetter 9/27/2024 5:06:16 PMAdamantly against the offshore wind project. It is a threat to our vital ocean which is the reason that we live here. There is just not enough research and data about how these projects will affect the ocean and human beings who live near them and their cables they want to bring through our town. My answer is no. Do not let these people make us Guinea pigs.  
Diane Sottile9/27/2024 4:26:44 PMI am a regular seasonal renter in Manasquan, and I am searching for a home to purchase. I am reluctant to do so because I oppose these lines coming onshore without more scientific data as to the risks associated with the power lines. This project should be tabled.  
Les Keyser9/27/2024 4:12:24 PM We are writing to ask you to help stop the Atlantic Shores Wind Project. As we learn more details about the scope and nature of this project, we are horrified to contemplate the catastrophic environmental, financial, and health impacts of this project. The environment is the number one concern. The project will have 195 wind turbines covering 102,000 acres of sea bed with drilling, vibrations, and water warming. The cables will heat up to 190 degrees Farenheit. This will have catastrophic effects on the marine ecosystem, devastating impact on the fishing industry, and cause unimaginable damage to tourism and related businesses. The cables to carry the unprecedented 6,400 megawatts of power will run for 40 miles through prime shore real estate, under railroad tracks, close to schools, libraries, day care centers, athletic facilities, and playgrounds. It will run through major Superfund sites, one of which is still in remediation. The real monetary cost of this unique project is unknown. A project of this scale, with this level of power transmission, has never been done anywhere. NEWSWEEK reported on the unavailability of materials to build it and its propensity to breakage. That has been seen in the Nantucket disaster, where a turbine broke and closed beaches. The effect on power bills will be huge since the consumers will be saddled with the costs, which will raise power bills to many times current levels and drive residents out of the shore area and out of the state. Collateral monetary costs are also vast, possibly reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. Many private residences and public businesses will essentially be destroyed, many of them in areas of prime real estate. The construction alone will make many homes uninhabitable during the process and have long term devastating impact on the equity in these properties. In addition to these devastating environmental and financial impacts, potential health effects may be equally catastrophic. Little attention has been paid to the effects these powerful electromagnetic fields will have on people who are exposed all along the 40 miles of cable running through densely populated residential areas. Surely, nothing should proceed until comprehensive studies have been done to find out what exactly this exposure will do to the human bodies that will serve as lab animals. Particularly troubling is the worry about what this exposure will do to the many children in the area. We have lived in Sea Girt for over 40 years, and we would be sad to see the town destroyed, which we think this project would do. We hope that you can help stop it. Les Keyser and Barbara Keyser  
linda gargiulo9/27/2024 4:06:23 PMThis project is being shoved down the throats of NJ residents without any studies or information on the potential health, environmental, and community risks associated with such an unprecedented project. We will not let our beloved communities be bullied into compliance with such a large scale, long term unknown risk. 
Vicki & Mark Brown9/27/2024 3:32:44 PMWe oppose the BPU power lines and wind turbines!! 
Deb O’Connor9/27/2024 2:24:30 PMI along with my husband are residents of Sea Girt who have long appreciated and enjoyed our pristine NJ shoreline and marine life with our entire family and friends. It is with heavy hearts that we write to express our deepest disappointment in the New Jersey’s decision to move forward with this offshore Wind Turbine project despite the many unanswered questions and uncertainty surrounding this energy transition. Just one example I would ask the BPU to consider TODAY please! Given the most recent Category IV hurricane in Florida- what wind strength has been studied against the proposed wind turbines that are planned for the coast of Nj? Further- should there be a severe weather event offshore and these turbines come down what mitigation plans are in place? Where are the used, damaged turbines disposed of if they cannot go to existing, landfills due to their toxic materials? How will you restore the beaches and save our marine environment and lives from such disasters? It is these very issues and the ones previously identified by others from our town regarding buried mega watt cables that demand your attention and qualified review and answers BEFORE you go any further with this build out, please!  
Jerry Brown9/27/2024 10:56:02 AMCan you explain how a megawatt of power is safe? What makes it dangerous? Voltage? Amps?  
Cynthia VanderVoort9/27/2024 9:02:07 AMHave environmental engineering studies been completed on the health and safety of the surrounding communities with regard to the cables proximity to homes, schools and businesses? 
Gia O'Keefe9/25/2024 6:36:26 PMI am against the power lines running thru Sea Girt and neighboring towns. There has not been enough research on what the health implications might be to those that live around the lines. 
Susan Morano9/25/2024 5:23:44 PM- How do you plan to ensure the health, safety and well-being of local residents (and tourists)? - What are the safety benchmarks for similar projects (including the magnitude of the energy, radiation and proximity to homes and schools)? - What are the contingency plans if there is an issue / emergency related to the project? - What is the remediation budget - and how will it be funded? - What are the financial returns on this investment expected to be? - What is the track record of the vendor in meeting commitments within budget and on time? - What are the projected implications to energy costs in the area (ie will they be higher or lower - and if higher, what is the magnitude of the projected increase and what is the plan to fund it)? - What is driving the lack of transparency on this project? 
Samantha Valentino9/25/2024 3:27:58 PMI oppose the high wattage cables traveling through the residential neighborhoods of Sea Girt, Manasquan, and Wall. I believe this program to be insufficiently researched, and I am concerned about the health of myself and others. 
Heather Wiseman9/25/2024 2:54:28 PMI oppose the high watt cable planned for Sea Girt. What is the highest wattage for an existing/operational transmission cable in the United States? How long has that cable been in place? How close is that cable from existing residences? How close is that cable from existing schools? Have there been any health impacts reported for the local residences or schools within 100 feet of those transmission cables 
Michael Egenton9/25/2024 2:26:58 PMSeptember 25, 2024 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 44 S Clinton Ave Trenton, NJ 08625 Re: IN THE MATTER OF THE OPENING OF A SOLICITATION FOR A TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT TO SUPPORT NEW JERSEY'S OFFSHORE WIND PUBLIC POLICY Dear New Jersey Board of Public Utilities: By way of background, the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce (“State Chamber”) has been in operation since 1911, advocating for initiatives that will improve New Jersey’s business climate and enhance job creation. With a broad-based membership ranging from Fortune 500 companies to the small mom-and-pop establishments, we represent every corner of the state and every industry sector. The State Chamber supports offshore wind in New Jersey and the building of a new, clean energy industry that will spur significant economic growth in the Garden State. We need to increase renewable energy sources to meet our growing energy demands, and offshore wind is a viable opportunity to do this on the East Coast while creating thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity. In relation to the wind industry, the State Chamber supports the Pre-Build Infrastructure (PBI) which is a critical piece of underground transmission infrastructure that will connect power generated by offshore wind to the Larrabee Collector Station. The PBI will include cable vaults, duct banks, and horizontal directional drilling boreholes. The scope of the Prebuild includes all Cable Vaults, Duct Banks, and related facilities for four (4) separate Qualified Offshore Wind Projects. This coordinated onshore clean energy transmission corridor will provide savings for consumers and significantly reduce the development risk and any environmental impact. The PBI allows the state to have one point of cable landing instead of multiple points of interconnection for offshore wind projects across the shore. The PBI will run underground from the Sea Girt National Guard Training Center to the Larrabee Collector Station in Howell Township. The installation of onshore cables to connect offshore wind farms to the grid is a proven, safe, and effective method used globally to integrate renewable energy into local and regional energy systems. The onshore cables are essential to unlocking the opportunity that offshore wind will bring to New Jersey. Moreover, the economic benefits of offshore wind are significant. Offshore wind projects are expected to create thousands of high-quality, unionized jobs across a wide array of sectors, from construction to operations and maintenance. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) has already invested in a state of the art wind port, positioning the state as a hub for offshore wind manufacturing and supply chain activity. By activating the necessary onshore cable infrastructure, we ensure that these broader economic opportunities are realized, boosting local economies and businesses and providing long-term, sustainable employment. The concerns about onshore cables can be addressed responsibly. Similar infrastructure projects for underground cables and utility systems have been executed for decades without significant disruption to communities. By following best practices in environmental science and engineering, such as proper siting, minimal disruption during construction, and adherence to all state and federal regulations, this infrastructure can be safely integrated into our communities. It is this type of commitment that New Jersey should be seeking to achieve the State’s economic and clean energy goals. As the longest serving member of the NJ Clean Air Council at the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, my association recognizes the environmental benefits of offshore wind energy in improving air quality and creating a clean energy future for our residents and businesses. We urge the BPU to prioritize the development of offshore wind and related transmission infrastructure. Thank you for considering our points of view and for the opportunity to express our support. Should you have any questions, feel free to reach out me. Sincerely, Michael A. Egenton Executive Vice President Government RelationsPre-Build Infrastructure (PBI) Support Letter to BPU 9.25.24
Jennifer deCastro9/25/2024 1:48:54 PMI oppose the high watt cable planned for Sea Girt and Manasquan. 
anne britt9/25/2024 12:07:51 PMwe are vehemently opposed to the current plan of industrializing the ocean off of the New Jersey coast particularly in Monmouth county and along the coast of Sea Girt. As individuals most closely impacted living one block north of the army camp, we are appalled that this project has proceeded as far as it has with our disclosure to and involvement of the residents. We do not believe adequate testing has been done around the impact of running the significant power cables under ground within 10' of many families homes, schools, playgrounds and athletic fields. We believe the disruption to marine life is inexcusable. Additionally, the cost of building and installing the turbines, the cost, disruption and risk of health and human safety around the power lines that are needed to operate the wind power generation system, the devastation to marine life and ocean topography, the anticipated negative financial impact to tourism in this area, the impact of broken and inoperable turbines in the ocean and surrounding beaches, the well documented inefficiency of collecting and distributing wind energy -- especially weighed against the cost of implementing these systems overwhelming support halting the current iteration of the New Jersey Off-Shore Wind Project. We also believe that the ultimate impact of going forward with the plan as it is presented will cost us as energy consumers more than we are paying now rather than alleviating our current financial burden.  
Elizabeth Hickey9/25/2024 11:38:12 AMI oppose the high watt cable planned for Sea Girt, Manasquan.  
Theresa Kubu9/25/2024 11:33:19 AMI oppose the high watt cable planned for the Sea Girt/Manasquan area. 
Gabriella Valentino9/25/2024 11:28:35 AM I oppose the high wattage cables traveling through the residential neighborhoods of Sea Girt, Manasquan and Wall. 
Karen Morano9/25/2024 11:05:14 AMWhat is the highest wattage for an existing/operational transmission cable in the United States? How long has that cable been in place? How close is that cable from existing residences? How close is that cable from existing schools? Have there been any health impacts reported for the local residences or schools within 100 feet of those transmission cables?  
Patty Valentino9/25/2024 10:38:49 AMI STRONGLY request that you put a halt to running this high wattage cable through our residential neighborhoods. The impact to our community could be devastating and irreversible. Why are you testing a cable of this level of wattage in our neighborhood???? Even if it goes through the middle of the National Guard Camp, it is still too close to homes, children's athletic fields, schools, etc.... The training camp is a small field in the middle of year round residential neighborhoods. You couldn't find a safer place away from homes to test this???? This is egregious abuse of power! Please put the health and well being of the residents over $$$. There has to be another way to do green energy responsibly. This is not a well thought out plan. 
Sean Kennedy9/25/2024 5:54:13 AMI am in 100% disfavor of the transmission infrastructure project to support a NJ offshore windfarm. This decision cannot be allowed to move to construction phase in any manner without full publice disclosure, hearings from proponents and opponents of the project publicly, and the opportunity for NJ residents and business to vote on a referendum in consideration of any public utility project. I further find it outrageous the State government officials find it acceptable to push a project through of this magnitude without first consutling transparently with state residents. 
Kymm Marie Spillane9/24/2024 1:56:55 PMI am absolutely opposed the placement of the high risk power cables and the building of wind turbines because of the risk and safety of our community and our wildlife and ocean.  
Laurie A Corson9/22/2024 2:03:32 PMI, along with many Atlantic City residents, object vehemently to this project, especially the massive disruption to the lives of 5th Ward residents from the construction of a cable underground. More importantly, we already have one dead whale buried in our beach and we fear the continued threat to marine mammals from offshore wind projects. Please halt this project!!! 
Carolyn Monte9/17/2024 11:40:49 AMI oppose the wind turbines destroying wildlife and the high risk cables coming into our beautiful town of Sea Girt and neighboring towns. This is an unresearched project using our residents as Guinea pigs to a project that can do harm to the adults, children, and our infrastructure under the street surfaces. Wind power is the most expensive solution and is not the answer. Stop this proposal now and wait for a better one.  
Kathleen Keating9/16/2024 5:30:20 PMURGENT INQUIRY: How was this meeting location selected? Why is this not at a government location? 

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