WolfeNotes.com

Another “He said – She said” Story On Climate Chaos

Lighthouse Project Funded By Federal Sandy Disaster Recovery Funds

NJ Received Over $13 Million From This Federal Fund – No State Funding

Sometimes the ironies and contradictions pile up to the point that the situation becomes almost laughable – you can’t make this stuff up.

Today, following a pattern of Murphy DEP news management, finding another “good news” needle in the State DEP’s climate adaptation abdication haystack, NJ Spotlight ran a puff piece, praising the Murphy DEP on a project designed to defend a Delaware Bayshore lighthouse from coastal erosion, storm surge, and flooding caused by climate change, see:

• DEP Builds Up Shore to Defend Historic Lighthouse from Rising Waters of Delaware Bay

And of course, the Murphy DEP was praised by the lapdog they provide state funding to – who used the opportunity to pitch for more DEP funding of his organization’s pet projects:

Tim Dillingham, executive director of the New Jersey-based American Littoral Society, welcomed the project but said it needs to be followed by a long-term solution.

“The state is to be commended for acting to protect the light, a wonderful, iconic symbol of Delaware Bay’s heritage,” he said. “This is a highly dynamic location which requires a long-term commitment to managing the shoreline changes to ensure the environmental values — horseshoe crab & shorebird habitats — are preserved.”

In addition to finding that good news needle in the Murphy DEP’s climate adaptation abdication and quoting sources with conflicts of interest (i.e. Dillingham, who is funded by DEP), Spotlight quoted a local source that flat out denied climate change and attributed the problem to “natural causes”:

Patterson rejected a suggestion that East Point’s problems are the result of sea-level rise, and argued that “natural erosion” is mainly responsible for eating away at the land surrounding the lighthouse.

“The threat facing East Point is primarily caused by natural erosion — the tide coming in and out around the land known as East Point through the decades,” she said. “Since nothing was ever done to stop the land and beach from washing away, with each tide and various storms through the many decades, the land has badly eroded, leaving the lighthouse susceptible to flooding and very little left to protect it from the waves of the bay.”

I don’t have data, but I suspect that there are a lot of climate deniers in rural Cumberland County that will be reading today’s story.

So why does Spotlight reinforce that ignorance and denial instead of educating the public?

On top of the needle in the haystack and quotes from a climate denier, Spotlight failed to provide critical details about the source of the National park Service funding.

Those details link the money directly to climate change. The damage was exacerbated by climate change. So, the local Cumberland climate denier is biting the hand that fed her (See those details below).

On top of all that, the Murphy DEP received praise, despite the fact that the funding for the project came from the National Park Service and the US Congress.

The National Park Service program that funded the project is called Disaster Recovery Grants:

On occasion, Congress appropriates Emergency Supplemental funding from the Historic Preservation Fund (ESHPF) for recovery from natural disasters, allowing State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to work on various recovery projects, including compliance activities, survey and inventory of historic resources in areas impacted by the disaster, recovery and repair of historic properties damaged during the disaster, and other disaster recovery related activities as approved by NPS.

The Disaster Recovery Program – and it was funded by Congress in response to Hurricane Sandy:

Hurricane Sandy Recovery
Grant Total:$47,174,958
SHPOs Awarded:Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Virginia
THPOs Awarded:Narragansett Indian Tribe, Mashantucket (Western) Pequot Tribal Nation

In 2013 and 2014, the NPS awarded $47 million to 12 States and two Tribes in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions to assist in historic preservation recovery efforts from Hurricane Sandy in areas where FEMA issued major disaster declarations. The program is still active and final numbers will be posted as grants close.

Sandy damage was magnified by climate change: 1) warmer ocean waters increased the size and intensity of the storm, 2) climate driven sea level rise magnified storm surge, and 3) the path of the storm – i.e. the left turn onto the NJ coast – was influenced by arctic warming.

So the Sandy disaster funds to this lighthouse project were directly related to climate change.

Spotlight also failed to mention that NJ received $13.1 million in these funds, slightly less than New York, who received $13.6 million.

Where did this money go?

How did the Lighthouse project meet this requirement of the federal program?:

• All funded repair work must substantially mitigate the threat and include steps to mitigate future damage.

The story called the project a short term “band aid”. How does such a “band aid” “substantially mitigate the threat” and “include steps to mitigate future damage”?

And finally, the icing on the cake, is that the National Park Service funding is derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil lease revenues, the very fossil fuels that are creating the disasters and climate chaos!

On occasion, Congress appropriates Emergency Supplemental funding from the Historic Preservation Fund (ESHPF) for recovery from natural disasters, allowing State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to work on various recovery projects, including compliance activities, survey and inventory of historic resources in areas impacted by the disaster, recovery and repair of historic properties damaged during the disaster, and other disaster recovery related activities as approved by NPS….

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil lease revenues, was established in 1977 as the primary source of funding to implement the Federal Preservation Partnership program.

You really can’t make this shit up.

Teslas For Tewksbury – Power Shutoffs For Newark

The Ends Do Not Justify The Means

Let me start by making it clear that I agree that we must radically and rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector and that electric vehicles have a role to play in doing so.

But not by sacrificing other core principles and policy objectives.

So, I must ask: Why are so-called “progressive” and “green” groups supporting ramming through controversial and deeply flawed legislation in the lame duck session?

NJ Spotlight reports:

Looking to break up a logjam, a coalition of conservation, transportation and other groups yesterday launched a campaign to push a comprehensive bill to transition the transportation sector to plug-in electric vehicles in the lame-duck Legislature.

By doing so, they risk the kind of backlash that spawned the “Yellow Vest” movement in France. That movement – mistakenly reported by US media as public opposition to a climate driven gas tax increase – was actually spawned by unfair taxes and strong opposition to neoliberal and austerity policies that benefit the wealthy while ignoring the poor.

But decades before the Yellow Vests, NJ experienced a similar political dynamic in 1992 – a formative moment in right wing reaction to what was dubbed “the runny egg rule” . That backlash essentially made Jim Florio a one term Governor, led to a Constitutional amendment that authorizes the Legislature to veto regulations, and spawned NJ’s right wing anti-government radio outlet, NJ 101.5 (and gave us “open for business” Christie Whitman and energy deregulation, the source of many of our current energy & climate challenges).

By seeking to ram the electric vehicle subsidy program through the lame duck session, the “green groups” are risking exactly that type of backlash against the entire renewable energy and climate program, particularly given recent climate and energy controversies that are being falsely framed by media and corporate hacks as heavy new burdens on electric ratepayers.

For example, even “liberal” NJ Spotlight is falsely framing the issue that way, relying on spin and lies like this from the business community:

Some groups, like the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, support the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) as an option for achieving the carbon pollution goals but have problems with putting those costs on utility customers.

“However, we can promote EVs without spending hundreds of millions of dollars for rebates on expensive cars and for an overbuilt charging system while forcing electric ratepayers to pick up the tab,’’ said Ray Cantor, a vice president of the association. “We cannot afford to pay more, and not when there are other, less expensive options.’’

It is easily demonstrated that Ray Cantor is lying again.

Contrary to Cantor’s claim about “more”, the bill [S 2252 SCS] diverts existing revenue – it does not generate new revenue or “more” money from ratepayers.

Specifically, see Section 16, which creates a new “EV Rebate Fund” and authorizes BPU to deposit BPU’s funds generated from the Societal Benefits Charge (SBC) and RGGI. Section 24 would allocate $20 million of RGGI money to the EV Fund.

The bill authorizes BPU to increase the SBC to pay for the EV rebate program, but it does not mandate that they do so or otherwise appropriate money.

But even without running the risk of a political backlash, the green support for the bill and its lame duck passage is a HUGE mistake, because the bill is seriously flawed. Let me explain.

1. Lame Duck Legislation Is An Abuse That Undermines Democracy

For many years, environmental groups have railed against lame duck legislation being rammed through after elections as a gross abuse of the legislative process and democratic accountability.

The public is shut out of the legislative process, there is virtually no legislative deliberation, dirty deals are pervasive, and legislators dodge electoral accountability for their often highly controversial votes.

Some of the worst special interest legislation gets passed in lame duck.

Now, in a hypocritical U-turn, they are engaging in the same abuse. Shame on them. The ends do not justify the means.

Note: And it’s not just those transactional “greens” who completely miss the fundamentals of democratic politics.

Check out how those paragons of “issue journalism” over at NJ Spotlight describe the upcoming lame duck session. NJ Spotlight co-founder John Mooney writes:

… the next few weeks should prove to be a busy time for the Legislature, as a lame-duck session opens the way for yes-no votes on a host of controversial measures that may have been tough sells for legislators on the campaign trail but not so much anymore.

And with a truncated window to act, the time between Election Day and the day the next Legislature is sworn in January is when legislative leaders traditionally push their agendas fiercest — and often quickest.

Lah de dah!  “tough sells for legislators on the campaign trail”  you say?

No sense in burdening an electoral campaign with pesky trivialities like issues and talking with voters about the bills you will vote on.

This is what passes for politics and journalism these days in The Corrupt Garden State.

2. The Bill Diverts Existing Revenue – There Is No New Money, Despite Need for $ Billions

As I noted above, the bill would divert existing revenue from three sources:

1) the BPU Societal Benefits Charge.; 2) the BPU’s allocation of RGGI funds; and 3) the statewide RGGI fund, which is divided among EDA (60%), BPU (20%) and DEP (20%) – see this table for allowable uses of the money:

There is no revenue in the bill, despite the fact that transition and conversion to an electric transportation sector will cost billions (EV’s are one component of electrification of the entire sector). There is a mere authorization for BPU to increase the SBC. With all the political pressure on BPU and the business community’s efforts to kill the current SBC, it is far more likely that BPU will divert existing SBC revenues than to increase the SBC charge to generate new revenues to pay for the program.

The bill is not a serious commitment to the level of investment that will be required to achieve Gov. Murphy’s stated renewable energy goals –  it’s not even a down payment or deposit on the small piece of the program contributed by electric vehicles.

Gov. Christie’s public finance austerity slogan was “no new taxes – no new debt” (which is just a nicer way to implement Grover Norquist’s “starve the beast” – “small enough to drown in the bathtub” strategy to dismantling government).

The EV subsidy bill reflects exactly that same policy (coupled with the cap on ratepayer increases to pay for renewables). 

I would have thought the “green” groups and Senator Smith would have learned from their disastrous diversion of existing State Parks and DEP funds to pay for their open space program.

Shame on them for again robbing Peter to pay Paul.

3. Diversion of Existing Funds and EV Subsidies Are Deeply Regressive

The BPU SBC (about $300 million/year) and RGGI money (about $20 million) is primarily distributed to energy and social programs that assist low income residents. BPU webpage says:

Historically New Jersey utilities included funding for programs in their rates that provide societal benefits such as low income programs, nuclear decommissioning, and funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Many of those low income residents that will suffer from reduced funding don’t own cars, and are dependent on public transit, which has seen disinvestment and been starved for money for many years.

Electric vehicles tend to be expensive. Those that drive them and will benefit from EV subsidies do not to rely on public transit and tend to have higher incomes.

The bill would subsidize the wealthy’s discretionary purchases (new cars) from poor people’s essential services (energy and public transit). That’s exactly backwards and a classic example of a regressive policy.

So, as suggested by Ray Cantor’s spin about “expensive cars”, opponents will be able to argue credibly that poor people in Newark – who benefit from BPU SBC and RGGI funds – are subsidizing the purchase of Teslas for people in Tewksbury.

Don’t think they won’t do just that.

And don’t think those kind of politics are not toxic to renewable energy and the climate fight

4. The Bill Let’s The Private Sector Off The Hook For Necessary Massive New Funding 

Finally, the bill relies exclusively on public sector revenues, thereby letting the private sector off the hook for funding the huge investments necessary to finance the transition to renewable energy.

We can not possibly get to those goals with existing public sector funds, regressive incentives, corporate subsidies and tax breaks, which is the current approach.

5. Lack of Integration With Local Distributed Energy and Micro-Grids

Electric vehicles will need to be technically integrated with radical changes to the current electric grid and a fundamental restructuring of the private electric utility model and regulatory framework.

The bill fails to even address those issues – it actually makes them worse by reinforcing the power of PSE&G and monopoly private corporate “utilities”.

This is a complex set of issues beyond the scope of this post.

For those interested, please read this superb overview article by Dave Roberts at Vox:

• Wildfires and blackouts mean Californians need solar panels and microgrids

For all these reasons, the current version of the EV bill should be abandoned and completely re-written to generate new revenues that are proportionate to the scale and timing of the climate emergency, to assess and distribute those revenues equitably based on wealth and income, to allocate far more burden to the private sector via mandates, and to integrate EV’s with publicly owned, renewable, distributed energy and micro-grids (and a public transit component would help ease the fairness issues).

Don’t Be Fooled – NJ Has No “Managed Retreat” Program

Before We Can Talk About Equity, We Must Have A Conceptual Proposal

Attempt to shift the focus to “equity” glosses over major flaws in Gov. Murphy’s Climate Resilience initiative

Today, I started to write Part II of my assessment of Gov. Murphy’s recently announced “Climate Resilience” initiative.

In Part I, I outlined what the initiative lacked and a long list of missed opportunities, i.e. what the Gov. could have done but didn’t.

But before I could get to writing Part II, I was diverted by today’s NJ Spotlight Op-Ed on the need for “equity” in what the author imagines is NJ’s “managed retreat” program. Say what?

First of all, I find the timing of the Op-Ed – which focuses on “retreat” – more than curious. That came out of nowhere. There has been a virtual news blackout on the entire concept of “retreat” (strategic or managed). But the Op-Ed appears to respond to criticism we wrote just 8 days ago. I concluded Part I with this:

But, most importantly, the Gov. could have established a policy of “Strategic Retreat” – which DEP’s Coastal Zone Strategy has recommended for 20 years – but he didn’t.

Instead, Murphy’s EO89 is all process and no policy or legal substance and no resources (financial or human).

I also must note that the Op-Ed author did not use the more meaningful policy of “justice”. While “equity” is an important consideration in resilience policy and planning, it often conflicts with “justice”.

But, more importantly, the Op-Ed is factually in error regarding it’s major premise and therefore highly misleading.

The author – a fabulist who confuses a pot of money with an actual program – claims that NJ has a “managed retreat” program, and has had one since 1995:

New Jersey’s managed retreat program, Blue Acres, offers a glimpse of that “who.” The voluntary program began in 1995, under Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, as a taxpayer-approved and -funded initiative to acquire lands in the state’s coastal areas, where the risk of storm damage and flooding is high.

That claim is factually false.

NJ does not have a “managed retreat” program.

NJ’s Blue Ares program is not a “managed retreat” program.

But, you don’t have to take my word for it.

NJ DEP explicitly states the NJ does not have a “managed retreat” program in the federally mandated “Section 309 Coastal Assessment Strategy – 2016-2020″ . 

The NJ DEP recently informed the federal government that NJ does not have a “managed retreat plan” at any level of government: local, county, or state.

See the Table on Page IV-92: – see the N for “NO” in the row for “managed retreat plans”:

NJ also lacks any “Special Area Management Plan” to address climate risks and vulnerabilities.

With respect to Hazard Mitigation Plans, the N in the middle column means that the DEP provides no assistance to local governments (scroll up to page IV-95 to see the 3 column headers in this Y & N table).

The Blue Acres voluntary acquisition from willing sellers’ property is not a policy or a program or a plan.

That approach results in scattershot Blue Acres acquisitions that lack any underlying policy or planning rationale. All holes, no doughnut.

The Op-Ed diverts attention from important flaws and critical data that is essential to a real “managed retreat” program. For example, as I wrote:

The Gov. could have announced a “one and done” policy and that he was seeking legislation to repeal the “right to rebuild” provisions under NJ coastal CAFRA and Flood Hazard Acts,which lead to filing multiple damage claims on the same property and rebuilding in high hazard areas, an abuse that NJ leads the nation on.such as DEP’s Section 309 Report on this issue: (see p. IV-28)

Repetitive Loss

According to the National Flood Insurance Program’s Claim Information by State report (http://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/1040.htm) of November 30, 2014, New Jersey recently passed Texas as the second highest ranked state in FEMA total loss payments with $5,622,667,976.21 in losses. New Jersey is the fourth highest ranked state in the total number of losses at over 188,000.While these losses are not limited to New Jersey’s coastal zone, the statistics are indicative of the increasing risks to natural hazards.

Furthermore, the Christie DEP eliminated a discussion of the concept of “Strategic retreat”, including findings and recommendations, from the DEP’s Section 309 Coastal Assessment & Strategy Report, where it had been included for over a decade.

I’ve been writing about those failure for years now, e.g. see:

• Back Bay Flooding – In The Face of Climate Change – Highlights Imperative of Strategic Retreat

• The Dr. Strangelove of Beach Replenishment and Fear of “Retreat”

• “Strategic Adjustment” – Or Rebuild Madness?

• State Planning Commission Delays Adoption of Christie Strategic Plan

The author of the NJ Spotlight Op-Ed is clueless as to what is really going on in NJ state government.

The Op-Ed author is worse than clueless.

He misleads NJ residents.

And by trying to shift the focus to “equity”, he glosses over and diverts attention from major flaws in current NJ programs and weaknesses in Gov. Murphy’s Climate Resilience initiative.

Professor Nancy Fraser explains the implications of such a diversionary approach, which some disparage as “identity politics”, in her superb essay: The End of Progressive Neoliberalism:

Progressive neoliberalism developed in the United States over the last three decades and was ratified with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Clinton was the principal engineer and standard-bearer of the “New Democrats,” the U.S. equivalent of Tony Blair’s “New Labor.” In place of the New Deal coalition of unionized manufacturing workers, African Americans, and the urban middle classes, he forged a new alliance of entrepreneurs, suburbanites, new social movements, and youth, all proclaiming their modern, progressive bona fides by embracing diversity, multiculturalism, and women’s rights. Even as it endorsed such progressive notions, the Clinton administration courted Wall Street. Turning the economy over to Goldman Sachs, it deregulated the banking system and negotiated the free-trade agreements that accelerated deindustrialization. What fell by the wayside was the Rust Belt—once the stronghold of New Deal social democracy, and now the region that delivered the electoral college to Donald Trump. That region, along with newer industrial centers in the South, took a major hit as runaway financialization unfolded over the course of the last two decades. Continued by his successors, including Barack Obama, Clinton’s policies degraded the living conditions of all working people, but especially those employed in industrial production. In short, Clintonism bears a heavy share of responsibility for the weakening of unions, the decline of real wages, the increasing precarity of work, and the rise of the two–earner family in place of the defunct family wage. (read the whole essay!)

Under Fraser’s framework, the Op-Ed author and Governor Murphy are “progressive Neoliberals”.

And, once again, shame on NJ Spotlight for such shoddy journalism and lack of basic fact checking. They do a deep disservice to their readers by misinforming them on crucial issues.

Finally, the Op-Ed author’s call for “equity” is valid. But, the concept of “equity” is NOT the same as “justice”.

Equity is a weaker policy – it means treating people equally. Equal treatment is not always just treatment.

Justice requires that people be treated according to circumstance – which are often unequal – and be provided fairness and substantive justice in the outcome, not just the process or access to resources. Very Big difference.

Before people write Op-Ed about public policy, they need to understand the fundamentals and facts.

Sorry for the diversion. We’ll get to part II soon.

[Post Note: I sent an email to the author of the Op-Ed to advise him of a serious fact error, with links to the DEP documents and this explanatory post.

You would think the an author would care about his credibility or have an urge to engage dialogue with critics. Nope. The author did not have the dignity to reply.

And that says it all – these assholes write about policy and regulatory issues they don’t have a clue about – while self interestedly promoting a book no less – and simply avoid dialogue. I have zero respect to this crap. NONE. ~~~ end note] 

Pinelands Pipeline Put In Same Limbo As PennEast Pipeline

The Pinelands Commission’s Prior Approval WILL NOT BE REVOKED

[Update: 11/8/19 – Georgina Shanley just advised that the Pinelands Commission tabled the fake kill Resolution this morning, with strong public opposition to the Resolution. Good news. Great job by Pines advocates.]

[Important Update below]

On Friday, the Pinelands Commission will consider a Resolution, purported to kill the proposed South Jersey Gas (SJG) pipeline, designed to serve the re-powering of the BL England plant.

The last vague item on the Agenda for the meeting is this “Other Resolution”: (scroll all the way to the end of the lengthy package to find the text of the Resolution):

The Pinelands Commission is taking a cowardly page out of the Murphy DEP’s pipeline playbook.

Just like what was misleadingly and falsely spun as the DEP “denial” of permits for the PennEast pipeline, the Pinelands Commission’s Resolution also merely finds that the original SJG permit application the Commission approved is “incomplete”.

DEP also found that the PennEast pipeline permit applications were “incomplete” and discontinued permit review  “without prejudice”.

Instead of a straight up denial or revocation of the prior SJG approval, the Pinelands Commission’s Resolution merely concludes that “SJG shall not proceed with the project.”

Compare that weak language with a prior Resolution considered by the Commission earlier this year, which found the pipeline inconsistent with the CMP and “invalid”:

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that as the Project can no longer be demonstrated to be consistent with the CMP, Pinelands Resolution No. PC4 -17-03 approving the Project is NOT VALID (caps in original).

The prior Commission approval remains in effect. That leaves the door open to future construction of the pipeline. Possibilities include:

A majority of this or a new Commission could vote to revive the project in the future. Or SJG could simply proceed with construction to test the enforceability of the Commission’s Resolution. Or SJG could manufacture another rationale that the pipeline is consistent with the CMP without the BL England plant. Or SJG could seek a minor modification to the prior approval and they might get the votes to approve it. Or SJG might find a new investor in re-powering BL England. Or the next Governor might appoint new Commissioners to revoke the “shall not proceed” Resolution.

Keep in mind that the Norcross/Sweeney south Jersey machine still strongly supports the pipeline.

I hope the Commission is not required to enforce or defend this Resolution in a Court of law.

The Commission should have simply drafted a Resolution that explicitly revoked the prior approval, with prejudice, after public notice and comment and opportunity for SJG to comment.

That would preclude SJG from proceeding under the prior approval, extinguish their due process arguments, and require that they prepare a de novo application and start from square one.

Why give SJG ANY legal wiggle room to challenge this?

The Commission’s draft Resolution relies on Executive Director’s Wittenberg’s letter to SJG. That letter made findings of fact and arguably conclusions of law – in the absence of any public process – that the Commission relies on in the Resolution.

Yet ED Wittenberg’s letter was not a formal finding of the Commission and was not accompanied by a formal public process.

SJG has raised due process concerns about how the Commission has done this.

In the alternate, the Commission should propose the substance of Executive Director Wittenberg’s letter and the draft Resolution as a formal final action, subject to public notice, public hearing and public comment. That would make it virtually impossible for SJG to challenge the action and would truly terminate the prior approval.

So why wouldn’t the Commission – like House Speaker Pelosi on the Impeachment Resolution – just remove any and all doubt? Why run any litigation risk of provide any possibility for SJG to proceed under the prior approval (including under a future Commission)?

My Pinelands sources tell me that the Commission could not produce 8 votes to directly kill the project and that the current draft Resolution is a compromise extracted by Commissioners who voted in favor of and still support the pipeline and refuse to vote to kill it.

But the Commission may be being set up by recalcitrant Commissioners who support the pipeline and playing right into SJG’s hands by acting without proper procedural due process.

Keep in mind that Executive Director Wittenberg – who has supported the pipeline and worked behind the Commissioners’ backs with SJG  – is again in control of and orchestrating the regulatory actions of the Commission. She wrote that letter to SJG that SJG lawyers have challenged and now the Commission is relying on her letter as the basis for the Resolution. I don’t trust her, given her past outrageous shenanigans in support of the pipeline.

That compromise Resolution might come back to bite them – I hope not.

Better to get it right than compromise – I’ve urged the Commission to table this Resolution and do it right.

Given the climate emergency, strong public opposition and the facts and law on our side, now is not the time for compromise.

[Update – Georgina Shanley just sent me the video of the September 13, 2019 Pinelands Commission meeting with this note.

Please listen to the tape which is only a couple of minutes of Nancy Wittenberg’s report to Commission of the meeting on September 9th with the reps from South Jersey Gas. Starts 8.49 mins and ends 10.35 mins. It is damming.

Wittenberg’s actions are  completely outrageous. Given the pattern of her collaboration with SJG behind the backs of the Commissioners, she must be fired.

Why the hell is the Pinelands Commission staff meeting with SJG without policy guidance from the Commission?

The Commission and SJG are in a quasi-litigation posture and adversarial position. The case is on remand.

Why is staff outlining pipeline route alternative and regulatory options for SJG? ~~~ end update]

Fossil Industry Still Lying On Climate and Energy With Impunity

There are Two Legislative Caps On Solar – Financial and Technical

Until both caps are eliminated, NJ can not move forward on solar and renewable power

Back in the day, when I was a young avid daily NY Times reader, it was customary to come across the bottom right hand quarter of the Op-Ed page, where Mobil or Exxon were allowed to spew their corporate propaganda, misinformation and lies – for a large fee to the NY Times’ corporate coffers, no doubt.

Fast forward 50 years, and I now read on the front page of that same NY Times that the New York State Attorney General is suing Exxon for lying to shareholders (and the public) about climate change science and actual financial risks, see:

• Fossil Fuels on Trial: New York’s Lawsuit Against Exxon Begins

After four years of legal sparring and finger-pointing, oil-industry giant Exxon Mobil went to court on Tuesday to face charges that the company lied to shareholders and to the public about the costs and consequences of climate change.

The case turns on the claim that Exxon kept a secret set of financial books that seriously underestimated the costs of potential climate change regulation while claiming publicly that it was taking such factors into account. It follows a sprawling investigation that included millions of pages of documents and allegations of a chief executive’s secret email account.

Did the NY Times contribute to these lies by giving the oil industry a quarter of the Op-Ed page to spew those lies?

Did the NY Times contribute to these lies by failing to report the science in a way that directly confronted and exposed the lies that they were allowing to be printed in their own paper? By printing scores of “he said/she said” stories that gave these false claims legitimacy?

Would the NY Times print these lies today?

The questions answer themselves.

So, with this context in mind, I was beyond disgusted yesterday to read “sponsored content” in NJ Spotlight by the same pack of corporate oil and gas industry liars, operating as a dark money propaganda front group purported to protect consumers and families, see:

• NJ Rate Counsel Urges State to Consider Customer Cost of EMP: We Agree

The “sponsored content” was written on behalf of Consumer Energy Alliance.

Consumer Energy Alliance is a corporate front group for the oil and gas industry.

According to Sourcewatch (Center for Media and Democracy):

The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a nonprofit organization and a front group for the energy industry that opposes political efforts to regulate carbon standards while advancing deep water and land-based drilling for oil and methane gas. The CEA supports lifting moratoria on offshore and land-based oil and natural gas drilling, encourages the creation and expansion of petroleum refineries and easing the permitting process for drilling. The group also says it supports energy conservation. CEO portrays itself as seeking to ensure a “proper balance” between traditional non-renewable and extractive energy sources and alternative energy sources. The group also supports construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.^[1][2][3]

According to Salon.com, which obtained over 300 emails of personal messages between lobbyists and Canadian officials, the CEA is part of a sophisticated public affairs strategy designed to manipulate the U.S. political system by deluging the media with messaging favorable to the tar-sands industry; to persuade key state and federal legislators to act in the extractive industries’ favor; and to defeat any attempt to regulate the carbon emissions emanating from gasoline and diesel used by U.S. vehicles.^[4]

Shame on NJ Spotlight for taking money from and giving these fraudsters a platform to mislead and lie to their readers and the people of NJ.

In light of science on the climate emergency and the NY AG lawsuit on Exxon’s lies, such a move is unconscionable and unforgivable.

Not to be outdone, in an extraordinary move, on the same day NJ Spotlight gave these corporate fraudsters a “sponsored content” platform to lie and attack the Rocky Mountain Institute, on the news side – in reporting on that same RMI report they allowed CEA to smear – they allowed former Christie DEP hack Ray Cantor an opportunity to misrepresent the Rocky Mountain Institute’s analysis:

“There are concerns over what is still left out,’’ said Ray Cantor, a vice president of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, who listened in on a webinar Friday that detailed the modeling results. He mentioned the potential impacts to ratepayers; costs of various programs that were left out; and various assumptions made by the consultants, including a very high reliance on New Jersey solar energy to provide the power needed to replace fossil fuels.

NJ Spotlight actually put Christie DEP hack Ray Cantor – who was caught flat out lying to the legislature in testimony not so long ago – on an equal credibility footing with Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute, based on Cantor’s “listening in on a webinar“!

How often does a media outlet provide a liars propaganda platform to attack the substance of a news story on the same day as a major new story?

That is remarkably irresponsible.

Amory Lovins is a longtime leading world expert on energy issues and the Chief Scientist at Rocky Mountain Institute. The RMI has highest technical credibility and their Report was the product of many hours of expert analysis.

Ray Cantor was trained as a lawyer and spent his career in Trenton partisan politics. His analysis was based on listening in to a webinar. He represents business interests with a huge economic stake in lying.

NJ Spotlight reporter Tom Johnson had to know this was total bullshit to equate these opinions.

So Tom then went on to cover his ass on this unprofessional crap by using – of all people – Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club in a way to support and validate Cantor’s criticisms. Follow:

By 2050, solar energy is projected to provide 34% of the state’s electricity generating capacity — even more than offshore wind even though the consultant’s projections envision it nearly tripling from current projections of 3,500 megawatts.

That struck some clean-energy advocates as surprisingly high — given a year-long fight over how to rein in what ratepayers pay to subsidize solar energy in New Jersey, a cost that has been running at over a half-billion dollars a year. In addition, a new clean-energy law puts a cap on how much solar can cost utility ratepayers.

“I am wondering how they could project so much solar with us living with the solar cap,’’ said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

Tittel was likely commenting on the “solar cap” to generate support for legislation to eliminate it.

But Tom Johnson used Tittel’s quote to support Cantor’s attack on RMI’s analysis and reinforce the business community and fossil industry’s attack on renewable energy, including solar.

That is an egregious misrepresentation and journalist malpractice.

BTW, there are actually 2 solar caps in current NJ law, a financial cap and a technical cap.

Tittel has testified and been quoted in NJ Spotlight criticizing the financial cap. But there has been zero reporting or criticism of the even more important technical cap.

We have testified and written here about both. (and item #6 here).

The first is a cap on ratepayer increases (that is what Tom Johnson referred to). I think it is a 7% increase.

But there also is another cap on solar that involves how much solar is allowed to be connected to the grid – this is known as the “net metering cap”.

NJ laws erect restrictions on municipal and cooperative owned power systems and limits the size renewable energy systems and economic incentives known as “net metering”:

System size of renewable energy facility is limited to that needed to meet annual on-site electric demand. A.B. 3723 enacted in May 2018  authorizes Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to limit net metering to 5.1% of the total annual kWh sold in the State by each electric power supplier during prior one year period. The legislation instead of providing a firm aggregate limit on net metering, it authorizes the BPU to cease offering net metering if this capacity is reached.  BPU may continue to allow net metering even if this threshold is reached.

The limit on size to annual demand blocks expansion of renewables, restricts competition and protects the corporate utilities – as does net metering limit of just 5.1%.

No one is talking about this cap. As I wrote, over 5 years ago:

[Update: In another bill heard (see S2420 [1R]), solar advocates had to beg to request an increase of the current 2.5% cap on net metering to just 4% of commercial electric sales. Most NJ solar is from net metered projects. That groveling by the solar industry itself showed the absolute veto power the utilities have over real expansion of renewables. Current law allows the utilities to petition BPU to prohibit ANY ADDITIONAL RENEWABLES generating power to the grid that exceed the cap. Imagine that. Utilities have almost veto power over market entry to eliminate competition from even CHEAPER renewables. That is absurd. Yet NO ONE even questioned why utilities and BPU should have this power or why there should even be any cap. So called Ratepayer advocate had nothing to say about this anti-competitive costly monopoly abuse.

Until both caps are eliminated, NJ can not move forward on solar and renewable power. Period.

[Update: Despite being quoted in the NJ Spotlight story in the singular regarding a “cap” on solar, Tittel just sent me a quick note to clarify Sierra Clubs position:

There are 4 caps: 7 % cost , 5.1 gigawatts of total solar ,75 mw community solar and 2.5 net metering- we called lifting all caps .

Tom Johnson may have not only quoted Tittel out of context, but left out major points Tittel made.  ~~~ end update