Utilities are planning for the wrong kind of hurricane

The only problem: While state regulators have been busy planning the route for the transmission and choosing who will build it, opponents have managed to win the war of public opinion. Activists have clearly turned their neighbors against the plan and pushed the mayors of the four prefabricated infrastructure districts to speak out against the project. And this weekend, Jack Ciattarelli — who narrowly lost the gubernatorial race last year and is running again in 2025 — joined activists demonstrating against the project now in the election campaign about the end of the project and cable landings like it.

With federal regulators controlling the waters, that means offshore wind energy in New Jersey could fail if Democrats don’t hit the electoral jackpot next year — even if Kamala Harris wins the White House.

What makes matters worse is the fact that this isn’t just any old transmission. In other offshore wind projects, such as Empire Wind, states have forced developers to design and build their own transmission piers, creating a somewhat disorganized situation akin to electrical spaghetti. Offshore wind transmission in New Jersey has been studied for years now and is intended to minimize development on the coast. That means the fight over that wiring could decide the fate of several offshore wind projects — and the first major proactive plan to reduce the beach-level environmental impacts that hinder offshore wind in the first place.

So I decided to delve deeper into the campaign against the so-called “high-risk” cables. After a series of interviews with organizers and a mayor critical of the state’s processes, I have concluded that this relatively small transmission project represents a real test of democracy’s role in climate action. Could be a small group of organized individuals? everything it needs to slow decarbonization at the pace scientists say is necessary, no matter how many climate laws are passed?

The magnetic fields

Sea Girt resident Kimberly Paterson remembers when she first heard about the cables. Someone had left a postcard about the project on her door. The professional leadership trainer had previously worked to preserve the marine forests on the beach. But when she became aware of the transmission cables, she and her small band of environmentally conscious neighbors took action.

Paterson said they have also begun connecting with an existing network of activists concerned about offshore wind infrastructure. These activists included well-known figures in the dispute over offshore wind energy development in New Jersey.

People like Mike Dean of Save the East Coast and Cindy Zipf of Clean Ocean Action, who have promoted theories without evidence that a spate of whale deaths are due to offshore wind piling equipment. She says her group’s work, despite working closely with these other players, is focused on the cables, not offshore wind. As she simply put it, “There is a circle of people you meet.”

“We enjoy collaborating and communicating with others, but we are not officially affiliated with any of these other groups.”

The group also began canvassing, creating signage for homeowners and holding public events. As calls for action grew, so did the political focus on the area, as state lawmakers and members of Congress took up the issue.

“We created an absolute firestorm here,” Paterson told me. “It’s unbelievable what we’ve achieved.”

The group is focusing on what they believe are the health risks of simply being near power lines.

To understand their fears, imagine an electric current flowing through a wire. The more current flows through a cable, the higher the chance that electrical waves will emanate from the current path. This is where “electromagnetic fields” come into play. These fields are all around us and even the earth radiates them. It is the result of an excess of energy.

The World Health Organization even classified low levels of electromagnetic fields as a possible carcinogen, citing studies of exposure and leukemia rates in children. But just as much for the environment and health Experts notePrevious studies have not actually linked the incidence of cancer to prolonged exposure to these fields. The Office of Ocean Energy Management he says Electromagnetic fields generated by cables for offshore wind energy are significantly lower

recommended limits for human exposure.” So, like whales and wind, it’s something to watch out for, but there’s no evidence of danger yet.

Still, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities last week convened its first public hearing within the proposed development area to allay any residents’ fears about magnetic fields.

At the event, numerous officials came and spoke about the safety of the project, including the executive director of the board. They even played a long explanatory video from a consultant they had hired to check the electromagnetic fields that would emanate from the cables. The full presentation cited numerous examples of similar underground and subsea transmission lines with magnetic emissions that had no apparent public health impact, including lines in the New Jersey-New York region.

One person touched by the presentation’s efforts on magnetic fields was Mike Mangan, mayor of Manasquan, one of the counties that could be chosen to host some of the transmission infrastructure. Mangan told me that he teamed up with other mayors to push the state for more transparency in dispatches at the behest of concerned voters. But he didn’t know what the state knew about the magnetic fields.

“I’ll just be honest – I didn’t know about a lot of it,” he admitted. Mangan said he still has “some very serious concerns,” but “I think they’ve addressed some of the bigger concerns,” including magnetic fields.

I admit, I felt the same way. So far in The Fight we’ve listed examples where there are at least somewhat legitimate concerns about renewable energy development – things like batteries Locations in forest fire areas and solar parks in endangered turtle habitat. But in this case, I watched the entire presentation online and thought that there was basically no problem.

Still, Paterson says she wasn’t convinced by the presentation. The projects they cite are not comparable, she claims. And then she has a long list of other complaints about the possible cables.

Hearing her talk about the gearbox, you’d think she definitely doesn’t want to have it built. So I asked her if, given her allies, the goal was to stop offshore wind. An avid wildlife painter, she says no and says she is a “very strong supporter of alternative energy.”

Well, okay. Maybe it’s political or partisan then? I asked her who she was voting for in this year’s presidential election. “To be honest, I don’t like anyone in the election,” she admitted, simply describing herself as a “libertarian.” She then added, “I love the idea of ​​Robert F. Kennedy (Jr.) revolutionizing our health care system. I am very pleased.”

Tug of war over power lines

Last week, Heatmap published a risk index of the ten largest renewable energy projects worth paying attention to for possible cancellation or a major setback to the energy transition.

We listed Atlantic Shores in the top five, highlighting the project’s current role as a focal point for opponents of offshore wind energy along the Atlantic coast. A few hours after the release of the risk index, Atlantic Shores received its final approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Despite this victory, we are leaving the project on the index as the cables also need to be built – and that is likely to be a more stressful battle.

It shouldn’t be hard. In 2021, New Jersey passed a law giving the Board of Public Utilities the authority to replace local governments that deny easements and other permits for offshore wind transmission cables. But the admissibility of this law under the state constitution has not yet been examined, thanks to the cancellation of Orsted’s Ocean Wind project, which was originally planned most likely cable battleground off Atlantic Shores.

State officials are expected to outline in the coming weeks who will actually build the transmission infrastructure and what route it will take from Sea Girt to the Larrabee substation. A lot can go wrong between the day of this announcement and the completion of construction. Donald Trump could win the presidency and, as offshore wind opponents expect, reconsider permitting decisions for projects like Atlantic Shores. Or a Republican like Jack Ciattarelli could win the governor’s mansion, and that person could take a number of steps to undermine the dispatches, such as leaving the local control law unprotected in state court if it is challenged.

All these risks to the energy transition launched by a handful of actors with unfounded claims about magnetic fields.

I reached out to Atlantic Shores for comment on the opposition movement. You haven’t contacted me.

However, I heard from the New Jersey Offshore Wind Alliance, a consortium of developers looking to build offshore wind turbines off the state’s coast. “While we are advocates of civil discourse and community engagement, we urge residents to be aware of widespread misinformation,” Paulina O’Connor, executive director of the alliance, said in a statement sent to me Tuesday evening .

“By following best practices in environmental science and engineering, such as: By choosing the right location, minimizing disruption during construction, and complying with all state and federal regulations, this infrastructure can be safely and responsibly integrated into our communities and local and regional power grids to ensure stable and reliable power for homes in New Jersey,” O’Connor continued.

I also heard from Anjuli Ramos-Busot, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, who contacted me last night after Atlantic Shores and the Offshore Wind Alliance alerted her to my reporting.

“To be clear, the microwave in your kitchen radiates more electromagnetic currents than wires buried deep underground covered in insulation and concrete,” Ramos-Busot said in a statement. “This technology is tested, subject to strict approval standards and is safe and responsible for the environment and local communities.”

Frankly, I wonder if the Sierra Club’s words will convince these concerned coastal residents.