Trenton, New Jersey. Concerned about the proposed Atlantic Shores South Offshore Wind projects’ financial effects on locals, companies, and coastal towns, a nonprofit organization in New Jersey is demanding more openness and a more complete cost-benefit analysis. On November 5, Save Long Beach Island Inc. sent a letter to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) outlining the project’s allegedly exorbitant expenses.
With more than 10,000 members, the group claims that the two wind projects being considered might cost New Jerseyans $110 billion over their lifetime. The group claims that this amount is almost twice as much as the state’s $55.9 billion budget for 2025. The expenses consist of $37 billion in costs directly related to the placement of turbines nearer to shore and $73 billion in “generic” costs that are typical of most offshore wind projects.
In order to make an informed decision, the BPU is legally compelled to analyze these expenditures in its necessary cost-benefit study, according to Bob Stern, president of Save Long Beach Island Inc., who submitted the letter. He went on to say that many of these financial considerations were overlooked in earlier offshore wind energy bids.
The letter lists a number of expense areas that the organization feels ought to be included in the BPU’s assessment. A anticipated 12% increase in electricity rates for New Jersey’s businesses, industries, and households is one of the general charges. Over the course of the project, the group projects that the higher rates might result in an additional $20 billion in utility expenditures.
According to the group, the financial burden is further increased by state expenditures in offshore wind facilities, including as the Paulsboro Marine Terminal, the Salem County Wind Port, and the Sea Girt/Larrabee transmission line. The state has already set up around $1.2 billion for these projects, and further funding is anticipated. According to Save Long Beach Island Inc., the Atlantic Shores South projects are responsible for $3 billion of these expenses.
The group also estimates that rising electricity bills would hurt businesses and eliminate employment, resulting in $40 billion in economic losses. According to a 2011 research included in the letter, a 2% increase in electricity prices results in 2,219 job losses and a $330 million drop in discretionary income annually throughout the state.
The planned placement of the turbines, some of which would be less than nine miles from the ocean, is another reason why Save Long Beach Island Inc. is worried about how the Atlantic Shores projects may affect tourism and property values. According to a 2024 study the group commissioned, the projects might result in the loss of 17,400 tourist-related jobs per year in Ocean and Atlantic counties and a $33 billion decline in tourism earnings during their lifetime.
Additionally, the letter cites a 2008 research that was commissioned by the BPU and discovered that property prices are greatly impacted by offshore wind turbine visibility. According to the group, properties with an ocean view or oceanfront in places like Brigantine Beach and Long Beach Island may lose billions of dollars in value, which would have a ripple impact on neighboring properties and local tax receipts.
Concerns over the cost of dismantling the turbines after their useful lives are over were also raised by the NGO. The group predicts that decommissioning and onshore processing might cost $10 billion, with taxpayers perhaps bearing the cost due to the lack of comprehensive removal plans from the state and Atlantic Shores developers.
The letter also discusses possible expenses related to turbine failures, like beach debris cleaning, which Save Long Beach Island Inc. estimates may reach $1 billion or more over the course of the project, especially during peak travel seasons.
As it assesses the Atlantic Shores South projects, the group has urged the BPU to take these aspects into account when calculating costs and benefits. It asserts that previous offshore wind assessments did not sufficiently address the particular costs associated with placing turbines near the coast, underscoring the significance of taking these costs into account.
To find out: (1) the total costs of the Atlantic Shores South project, (2) what benefit could offset this high cost to meet the State’s net benefit test, and (3) how the additional $37 billion close-to-shore component can be justified in relation to other projects, we await the Board’s award decision and cost-benefit analysis. Written by Bob Stern.
