WolfeNotes.com

Corzine First Step “Modest” – allows for INCREASE in CO2 Emissions
[Update: 7/20/08 – “In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.”
Al Gore
http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/304/
DEP has finally laid the global warming cards on the table and – to mix a metaphor – it ain’t a pretty picture.

Bill Wolfe

Last week, we criticized the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for missing the first key deadline of the highly touted “Global Warming Response Act” (GWRA). That law mandated a 20% reduction in emissions by the year 2020, and a dramatic 80% reduction by 2050. The law required DEP to submit a plan to the Legislature with detailed recommendations about how those lofty emission reduction goals were to be achieved (see: NEW JERSEY MISSES FIRST GLOBAL WARMING TARGET — Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Due This Week Delayed Until Fall or Later
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1072
In light of this criticism, we would be remiss if we failed to note DEP’s first actual accomplishment. DEP took its first proposed regulatory step – officially published in Monday’s NJ Register. The proposal would establish a pollution trading program under the “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” (RGGI). RGGI is one small part of the program to meet the GWRA goals. We previously critiqued the RGGI program as a sham and subsidy for major polluters (see:
Lame global warming bill goes to Governor
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/01/weak_global_warming_bill_goes.html
And we can now understand why DEP is reluctant to release a comprehensive emissions reduction plan required by law – a plan with numbers and schedules and specific enforceable regulatory requirements to achieve the numerical goals.
But you don’t have to take our word for it on the RGGI program – here’s the key RGGI fact that DEP won’t tell you in any press release – it is buried in the Orwellian fine print of the rule proposal.
Despite what you’ve been led to believe about steep emissions REDUCTIONS, the RGGI pollutant trading program allows for an INCREASE in current emissions. Here’s that Orwellian contradiction documented in DEP’s own words – words which also document the fact that economic impacts trumped science and the legal mandate to reduce emissions. According to DEP:
“The initial regional cap is 188 million short tons of CO2 per year, which is approximately four percent above annual average regional emissions during the period 2000 through 2004 for electric generating units that will be subject to the program.
This phased approach,…. is intended to provide market signals and regulatory certainty so that electricity generators begin planning for, and investing in, lower-carbon alternatives throughout the region, but without creating dramatic wholesale electricity price impacts and attendant retail electricity rate impacts.” (see page 4:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rules/proposals/070708a.pdf
We must note that what DEP seeks to avoid and describes as “creating dramatic wholesale electricity price impacts and attendant retail electricity rate impacts” were estimated at about a 1% increase in current electric rates – $5.96 PER YEAR, or 50 CENTS per MONTH for a typical NJ household! (see economic analysis on page 72 of DEP proposal).
If a 50 CENT PER MONTH rate increase is the economic pain threshold – and it still allows for INCREASING emissions – how are we ever going to get DEEP REDUCTIONS which will cost REAL MONEY?
We felt it important to address this fundamental issue immediately. We will provide readers with a detailed analysis of the entire DEP RGGI proposal – but only after we digest all the loopholes, exemptions, offsets, and polluter subsidies in the proposal.
The rule is open for public comment for 60 days – until September 5, 2008.
See page 1 of the above link to the DEP proposal for information on how to submit your comments.
In the meantime, for the wonks out there, here is a critique of emissions trading:
EPA EXPERTS CAST DOUBTS ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRADING — Verification and Enforcement Challenges May Cripple Global Warming Strategy
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1038
And here is NJ’s bad experience with market based emissions trading OMET :
NEW JERSEY REJECTS EPA PLAN FOR TRADING POLLUTION CREDITS — Rebuked EPA Weighs Enforcement Against Companies Using Credits

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=185
More to follow.