Wind And Solar Energy Overshadow Nuclear At Energy Master Plan Public Hearing

Wind and solar energy were the focus at a public hearing on the state's Energy Master Plan held by Sen. Bob Smith (D- District 17) and Assemblyman John McKeon (D- District 27) at the Town Hall in Toms River.

“The New Jersey shore provides an appropriate setting for a vigorous discussion on clean energy, considering it is an ideal location for harnessing renewable sources like wind and solar…New Jersey has a unique opportunity to modernize our energy blueprint for the future,” Smith said prior to the hearing.

Smith sees Gov. Chris Christie’s plan as flawed, incomplete and inadequate, he said.

"We are at the apex of progress. By reducing our renewable energy goals, increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and withdrawing incentives for energy efficiency for residential ratepayers, the 2011 draft Energy Master Plan would be taking a giant step backwards,” McKeon said.

The purpose of the hearing was for members of the public, environmental advocates, and stakeholders to voice their opinions so their ideas could be brought to the legislature.

“The Energy Master Plan affects all aspects of your life,” he said, including air quality and the cost of air condition.

Although most emphasized the importance of wind and solar, Stefanie Brand, Director of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, said the state needs to balance the resource mix with energy efficiency and cost in mind.

“We can’t close Oyster Creek if they don’t replace the capacity…We can’t replace base load generation simply with solar, wind and energy efficiency,” Brand said.

The state needs a mix of resources that would moderate prices and decrease carbon emissions, she said.

“We need to continue our success with solar and renewable but they are not enough,” Brand said.

Wind and solar are not enough for full generation and have not been as cost effective, she said.

Sen. Robert Gordon (D- District 38) agreed that quotations for solar energy have dropped but there has been a precipitous drop in ESREX causing people to stop projects because they are not cost effective.

Although the Energy Master Plan emphasizes renewable energy, it also calls for a plan to replace Oyster Creek Generating Station’s generation in order to achieve its 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goal. It does not specify the type of alternative energy source the state would replace Oyster Creek with but says a significant portion of energy supply must come from nuclear technology.

Oyster Creek, located in Lacey Township, is the oldest operating nuclear plant in the country. The state entered into an agreement with the plant’s owner, Exelon Nuclear, to close Oyster Creek in 2019.

“We as the chemistry council, we support nuclear. It’s clearly clean and technology has advanced so it’s safe,” said Elvin Montero, spokesperson for the Chemistry Council of New Jersey.

This Energy Master Plan looks at a balance of resources using all technologies and innovations available, Montero said.

“It’s definitely a breathe of fresh air from the last plan that we had. It’s really putting New Jersey on the right path and has a realistic approach to energy,” he said. “The state should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Let the market decide.”

The state’s energy rate is the sixth highest in the nation and this plan recognizes that we need access to cheaper energy, Montero said.

But Jeff Tittel, President of the New Jersey Sierra Club, looks at the Energy Master Plan differently, he said.

“I see our future being robbed,” he said.

New Jersey has always been an innovative state and should be moving forward both economically and environmentally.

“I see this plan that does not look to the future. It looks to the past,” Tittel said. “When I look at this plan, I see a lot of empty promises.”

The 3,000 megawatts of wind generation proposed is manageable and the state is exceeding in solar, Tittel said. But he looked down upon the Energy Master Plan decreasing from 30 percent to 22.5 percent of electricity produced from renewable energy sources by 2020.

“We look at this plan overall and we see a future but we need to make a decision,” Tittel said. The state needs to make a decision between offshore or onshore oil, wind, solar, and energy efficiency, he said.

Sen. Jennifer Beck (R- District 12) argued that 30 percent was not achievable and 22.5 percent is still competitive. She pointed out that solar is only productive 13 percent of the time.

“All of us up here are voting for renewable energy but there is also a responsibility for us to be realistic in setting goals because we can’t prepare the state for the next 10 years and not have a plan that supports the need,” Beck said.

As for nuclear, Tittel said it’s too expensive to build, maintain, and operate. The cost of building a nuclear plant is three to four times more than wind and then you add the environmental and safety issues, he said.

“Wind and solar is a much better investment,” Tittel said. “If we do replace [Oyster Creek], it should be with offshore wind and renewable energy not another fuel plant. I think we’re better off both environmentally and financially.”

Lacey Township can become a service place for offshore wind and even install solar panels on Oyster Creek once the plant closes, he said.

For a copy of the Energy Master Plan, see the attached PDF.