New Jersey Wind Power Act Ramps up State Mandates
Just days after Illinois governor Patrick Quinn signed legislation to boost solar power in his state, New Jersey governor Chris Christie followed suit by signing the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, a similar law aimed at boosting wind power capacity off New Jersey shores. The law will encourage the development of offshore wind through financial assistance, tax credits and utility energy mandates.
The act dictates that a certain percentage of electricity produced in New Jersey be eventually generated through offshore wind farms. It calls on the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to develop an offshore renewable energy certificate (OREC) program to facilitate the production of at least 1,100 megawatts of offshore wind power.
The legislation specifies the struggling Paulsboro Marine Terminal, located on the Delaware River, as the state hub for wind turbine manufacturing, thus creating green jobs and an economic boon for New Jersey. The offshore turbines would be positioned between 12 and 20 miles of the coast.
Two offshore wind development companies, Fisherman’s Energy and Deepwater Wind, already have plans to install wind power off New Jersey shores. The OWEDA bill should help to solidify those plans. As yet, however, no company has signed on to build a turbine plant in New Jersey.
But while there are no guarantees that New Jersey will win out over other East Coast states, said David Pringle of the New Jersey Environment Federation to NJ.com, “Those states that are most aggressive in promoting polices that promote alternative energy are the ones that will reap the benefits.”
“New Jersey is now in the best position of any state to benefit,” he added.
One hitch in the plan is the potential rate hikes for utility customers, as the development of new offshore wind farms, which includes miles of new transmission lines from sea to shore, remains expensive. The New Jersey Business and Industry Association predicts that anywhere from $7 billion to $14 billion in costs will be passed on to ratepayers.
Governor Christie addressed that dilemma briefly: “Over the long haul, what I’m really concerned about is that we continue to hold ratepayers hostage to energy creation which is much more volatile in terms of its prices. What it will ultimately cost ratepayers is open to question still, but we’re going to be working to make it as efficient and effective as we can.”
Offshore wind power has huge potential for creating renewable energy off America’s shores, where wind speeds are higher and more consistent than on land. But offshore wind remains largely undeveloped in North America and questions persist as to the cost-effectiveness of building and installing offshore turbines, which must be bigger and stronger than their landlubber counterparts, as well as able to withstand the corrosive power of saltwater.
Nevertheless, the power potential of offshore wind has pushed it to the forefront of renewable energy generation, with the first American offshore wind project, Cape Wind, gaining federal approval earlier this year. The signing of OWEDA in turn solidifies New Jersey as an early adopter of the technology.
New Jersey is one of 10 East Coast states to sign on to a Department of Interior consortium to develop wind energy off the Atlantic coast.
Photo Credit: Guardian & Sustainable Energy World
Posted on August 23rd in Wind Power by Dan.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 am
As much as I admire the governor, signing legislature that will cause energy rate increases will never result in net job creation. The jobs created by building and operating a nuclear plant as well as the jobs created by use of the money saved from lower energy rates will easily outnumber any jobs created by government subsidies within the energy sector.
Once again, the wisdom of the smartest among us pales in comparison to the wisdom of the market place.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:55 am
Show me the analysis that nuclear is cheaper and creates more jobs. Are you factoring in Price Anderson public subsidy of insuring the nuclear plant, the uranium fuel costs, protection from terrorism, and waste disposal. Where has the market been for nuclear the last twenty years? Do some homework before you trot out the old saws to support flawed reasoning.