WolfeNotes.com

Gov. Murphy’s Pinelands Nomination Opens Fundamental Policy Debate

Most environmentalists have relationships with power companies and other utilities. It is how we try to influence their goals, their land stewardship, and push for stronger clean power goals at the state level. ~~~ Jennifer M. Coffey, Executive Director,  ANJEC (1/23/19 email – available on request)

[Update: Since I wrote this, Ms. Mooij failed to be confirmed by the NJ Senate.]

This post is a followup to my recent criticism of Gov. Murphy’s nomination to the Pinelands Commission of NJ Audubon’s lobbyist, Kelly Mooij.

I am disgusted but not surprised by the quote above, which was part of a series of push back emails to local Pinelands activists who had raised concerns about Ms. Mooij’s relationships with energy companies, including the same companies that are proposing and building gas pipelines across the Pinelands to serve a fossil power plant on the shore, named BL England.

It is blatantly not true that “most environmentalists” have relationships with power companies.

That false statement reveals just how corrupt the mainstream “conservation” community in NJ has become.

Those “relationships” between certain conservation groups and power companies, like PSEG, have resulted in all sorts of corrupt deals – deals that are directly related to Ms. Mooij’s suitability to serve on the Pinelands Commission.

Let me explain, as I offered no details in my prior post.

Recall that the original South jersey Gas Pipeline proposal (called the MOA) included an $8 million contribution as “mitigation”, essentially a quid pro quo for regulatory approval by the Commission.

As I wrote at the time:

Commissioner Jackson said that he had just undergone ethics training and that the MOA harmed the Commission’s integrity and created the appearance of taking $8 million, paid by ratepayers, in exchange for approval. He warned his fellow Commissioners about growing public concern, particularly in light of South Jersey Gas’ recent request for a rate increase. Commissioner Jackson even said it looks like “we’re being paid off to do this.”

This is the relationship and regulatory model that corrupt NJ Audubon and fellow conservation groups openly support.

They support money contributions to purchase land to “mitigate” harm – and, of course, their own organizations receive some of that money – directly or indirectly – either via “partnerships” with power companies, as consultants to DEP or power companies, or via receipt of State open space money to purchase land.

EXACTLY the same kind of “mitigation” contribution was used to grease the skids for regulatory approvals of the Susquehanna-Roseland power line through the Delaware Water Gap and NJ Highlands, see: The Mendacity of the Mitigation Manipulators, where I included these news quotes:

To mitigate the loss, the utilities behind the line – PSE&G and PPL – last week announced an offer of land worth $30 million for public preservation. The” thousands of acres of land” has been identified as priorities by conservation groups, according to Karen Johnson, a PSE&G spokeswoman. ~~~ Morris Daily Record 1/26/12

As I said at the time:

Bill Wolfe of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility called the utilities’ recently announced offer to buy and preserve $30 million in nearby lands as “mitigation” for the power lines a test of the National Park Service’s integrity. “It’s an offense to the public process,” Wolfe said. ~~~ Pocono Record 1/25/12

That $30 million was only the federal part of the corrupt deal. (The final deal was closer to $60 million).

An additional $18 million was paid to the NJ Highlands Council:

A proposal by PSE&G would more than triple the line’s current size and capacity. The utility company today slightly amended the proposed line to limit its environmental impact. 

PSE&G has slightly amended the route of a proposed power line through northern New Jersey to limit environmental damage and will create an $18.6 million fund to finance environmental repairs, the company said today. (Star Ledger, 5/19/09)

Those elite dirty deals were cut behind closed doors and sold out and betrayed real grassroots activists who had been vigorously opposing those projects.

NJ Audubon and fellow conservation groups supported those dirty deals.

The “relationships” between energy companies and conservation groups are long established.

PSEG has been spreading a LOT of money around for a LONG time.

The PSEG contributions to and relationships with conservation groups have paid off handsomely, in huge profits and huge damage to the environment.

Just one historical example: PSEG garnered support from their conservation friends for a mitigation deal in Delaware Bay, whereby PSEG avoided the billion dollar costs of installing cooling towers at their 3 nuclear plants on the Delaware in exchange for a sham wetlands mitigation project.

As a result, the nuke plants slaughter billions of fish and aquatic organisms, while PSEG profits by avoiding billions in compliance costs.

NJ Audubon and fellow conservation groups agreed to support that dirty deal, providing PSEG with billion dollar green cover. They sold out. Period.

More recently, the same friendly conservation groups did not oppose the billion dollar PSEG nuke bailout.

See how that corruption works?

These sellouts include political, legislative and regulatory battles, where NJ Audubon and conservation friends get co-opted and support horrible compromises.

Ms. Coffey openly states the source of the problem. She views private, behind closed door, dealings with the power companies as a way to:

influence their goals, their land stewardship, and push for stronger clean power goals at the state level.

The real way to influence power companies and “push for stronger clean power goals” is not by taking money from them and asking for voluntary “stewardship” and tokens.

The way to influence their behavior is via activism, science, democracy, legislation, regulation and lawsuits.

Jennifer Coffey and Kelly Mooij have been wading in those corrupt Trenton swamps for years.

They hide behind slogans like “stewardship” and “mitigation” to try to cover up the stench.

We don’t need these kinds of relationships or stewardship or mitigation deals in the Pinelands.

Just ask the Senate Judiciary Committee to say NO to Ms. Mooij.

And the Green Mafia needs to back off the pushback on real grass roots activists.

It is amazing and sickening that Jennifer Coffee never once appeared before the Commission to oppose the pipelines, but now she challenges real activists who did in defense of the indefensible.

But that’s just the ethics and view from the swamp she lives in.

NJ Audubon Lobbyist Not Well Suited To Needed Pinelands Reforms

A year into his tenure, NJ Gov. Murphy finally made 2 nominations to the Pinelands Commission.

The Commission was a battleground during the Christie Administration, as debates raged over controversial pipelines, power plants, developments and failure to respond to climate change, failure to restrict water allocation, and stop off road vehicle destruction, among others.

The Commission’s reputation, independence and integrity were severely eroded as a result of Gov. Christie’s hard ball politics and the subversion by his loyal Executive Director, Nancy Wittenberg (remember this?):

“There was a degree of closeness between the applicant and staff that went beyond the neutrality appropriate to a review process,” said [Pinelands Commission Chairman] Lohbauer, a lawyer. ~~~ Philadelphia Inquirer (1/26/15)

The Christie Pinelands regime prompted editorial outrage:

New Jersey’s Pinelands Commission was once a respected, independent steward of a forest that filters the drinking water for millions in the region. But political manipulation has turned it into an ineffective agency that looks the other way when the preserve’s delicate balance is threatened.  ~~~ Philadelphia Inquirer editorial: “Christie bullied Pinelands panel to get his way (3/9/16)

Given this recent history, the Commission was badly in need of bold leadership and a clean sweep of the Executive Director and Commission members.

Unfortunately, Gov. Murphy has failed that leadership test: in the delay in acting, in failing to force out ED Wittenberg, and in one of his choices for a new Commissioner, Kelly Mooij.

Murphy’s other nominee, Theresa Lettman, is superb, so I will waste no effort here in praising her.

In contrast, for the last decade, Ms. Mooij has served as the Trenton lobbyist for NJ Audubon and in that capacity has advocated NJ Audubon’s interests.

And that raises major concerns, including:

1. A Trenton lobbyist is not well suited to the work of the Pinelands Commission, which must be above the day to day compromises, spin, and deals (and worse) of the Trenton scene.

The last thing the Commission needs right now is more Trenton political baggage and more Trenton deals.

The Commission needs leadership, integrity, and impeccable professional credentials. By dint of her own experience, Ms. Mooij simply fails that test.

2. NJ Audubon has a very controversial approach to “stewardship” of public lands.

That approach includes: a) commercial logging of public lands; b) elevation of dubious science and narrow single bird species conservation over broader public lands policy and environmental interests (while misleading the public); c) leading the “Keep It Green” coalition, which deceived the public about diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars in State Parks capital funds and environmental funding to the Green Acres program; d) deceptive federal farmland conservation grant money laundering to promote the private interests of forestry consultants, private landowners, and hunters; e) supporting scientifically flawed “mitigation” schemes – including money donations in exchange for regulatory approvals – and land deals to allow controversial projects to pass regulatory muster; f) acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from wealthy private individuals to do their special private interest land “stewardship” bidding; and g) forming a “partnership” with Donald Trump.

These NJ Audubon views include strong support of “active management” of public forests and public lands, e.g. See:

• DEP’s Sparta Mountain Logging Scheme Conflicts With Golden Wing Warbler Recovery Plan It Allegedly Is Based On
• NJ Audubon Is Misrepresenting Facts, Science and Regulations In Defending Their Sparta Mountain Logging Plan
• Take A Look At DEP & Audubon “Forest Stewardship” On Sparta Mountain
• Calling Bullshit On NJ Audubon’s “Forest Stewardship”

Such arrogant and scientifically dubious “active management” policy is exactly the wrong approach to the ecologically sensitive Pinelands, which demand a more humble and restrained passive approach.

I have gone into excruciating detail and provided evidence to support all of these claims here at Wolfenotes over the last few years, with the exception of the federal farmland conservation grant money laundering, which I recently learned of and am still researching.

Ms. Mooij is fully aware of all these abuses and has supported them in Trenton on multiple occasions.

3. NJ Audubon has close relationships with corporate NJ, including major development and energy companies that are active in the Pinelands and before the Pinelands Commission.

These relationships directly result in NJA positions on public lands and conservation issues in a way that compromises the public interest in favor of NJA’s corporate allies and funders.

NJ Audubon openly promotes these relationships in their “Corporate Stewardship Council”.

Member companies include co-chairs PSEG and Mannington Mills, as well as Atlantic City Electric/Pepco Holdings, Covanta Energy, Chemours, Eastern Propane, JCP&L, Johnson and Johnson, New Jersey American Water, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance, Pfizer, Suez, Verizon, ExxonMobil, South Jersey Gas, Pine Island Cranberry Co. Inc., U.S. Silica and Crystal Springs Resort. Former CSC members include New Jersey Natural Gas, Merck, and Eagle Ridge Golf Course. Ex-officio CSC members are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Ms. Mooij is fully aware of these relationships and has supported and defended them in Trenton.

Appointment to the Pinelands Commission would send exactly the wrong signal on issues of independence and integrity.

Some of these relationships pour salt on open wounds that are festering from major pipeline battles still pending resolution that remain before the Commission, e.g. see: Construction starts on Pinelands pipeline, Phil Murphy silent

Finally, Ms. Mooij might be forced to recuse from critical decisions, due to this prior “stewardship” work.

4. Ms. Mooij has not been a leader in the Pinelands

Ms. Mooij and NJ Audubon have very little positive accomplishments in the Pinelands, and have been basically invisible during major debates before the Commission.(in contrast to fellow nominee Ms. Lettman’s long tenure, aggressive activism, and love of the Pines).

That is the opposite of the leadership so badly needed right now at the Commission.

5. Ms. Mooij has cynically manipulated people

I close the argument with a photo – which speaks volumes. That’s Ms. Mooij on the right:

Newark Mayor Baraka used as prop by Keep It Green – Did Baraka and urban Dems get played, or what?

Given the above, I encourage readers to reach out to the Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge that Ms. Mooij not receive a confirmation hearing.

Senate bill would put teeth in law, provide authority to DEP to deny permits

On Thursday January 24, 2019, the Senate Environment Committee will hear important legislation, S1700, that would put real teeth in environmental laws by providing authority to DEP to designate overburdened environmental justice communities, consider cumulative impacts, and deny permits.

Here is the operative language from Section 3.b.:

the department may deny a permit application in a burdened community upon a finding that the approval of the permit would, together with the cumulative adverse health and environmental impacts posed by the  existing conditions, including conditions resulting from permitted activities, in the burdened community, constitute an unreasonable risk to the health of the residents of the burdened community and to the environment in the community.

The bill would also authorize the local community to kill the permit.

Here is the language from Section 3.c.:

The department shall not approve a permit application for a project in a burdened community unless the governing body of the municipality in which the burdened community is located adopts an ordinance approving the project.

The bill is certain to face strong opposition from business and industry and many legislators, including pro-business corporate Democrats.

Gov. Murphy has touted his commitment to environmental justice.Will he walk the walk?

Will Gov. Murphy send DEP Commissioner McCabe over to the Senate to strongly support this bill on behalf of himself and his entire administration?

Will Gov. Murphy publicly challenge Democratic lawmakers to pass the bill and promise to sign it?

Will the “green” community get aggressively out in support of this bill, make it a priority, and hold the Gov. and DEP accountable?

We’ll be watching.

[End note – the bill is not perfect and I would prefer to see more specific technical standards and criteria, especially for DEP permit denial. More to follow, this is just a set up piece.]

“Stakeholder” review designed to frustrate new regulation

Cost-Benefit Analysis Still Improperly Driving Public Health Regulatory Policy

NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle wrote a critical story today about DEP delays in adopting drinking water standards for toxic chemicals, see:

• WHERE ARE NJ’S NEW CHEMICAL RULES? ENVIROS ACCUSE DEP OF MORE FOOT-DRAGGING ON PFAS

The otherwise very good story missed important issues that I need to clarify here.

The Spotlight story focused almost exclusively on the process of developing drinking water standards, including this:

The DEP denies tomorrow’s stakeholder meeting will mean further delay in setting health limits on two toxic chemicals

The focus on “Stakeholder” review is important not only due to the delays it causes, but because it shows that the Murphy DEP is still following the anti-regulatory procedures created by Gov. Christie’s Executive Order #2, which sought “immediate regulatory relief” :

Note that the objectives of the “advance notice of rules” (for “stakeholders”) are to provide “immediate relief from regulatory burdens” and “to prevent unworkable, overly-proscriptive or ill-advised rules from being adopted.”

As Ive written before many times, such “advance notice” also creates a back door that provides “stakeholders”, i.e. industry lobbyists, ample opportunity to work politically behind the scenes with the Governor’s Office, the DEP Commissioner, and the Legislature to kill DEP rules before they are even proposed with no fingerprints or accountability.

Call it dark regulation.

If you think I exaggerate, read this letter from the Chemical Industry to DEP, thanking DEP managers for killing proposed new water quality regulations for toxic chemicals.

We’ve also written many times about the Christie DEP’s abuses of the “by invitation only” “Stakeholder” process, allowing business and industry to dominate and control the agenda, dictate the scientific and policy deliberations, restrict the policy substance, and eliminate any media coverage or environmental opposition to emerge.

So why is the so called more environmentally friendly Murphy DEP still following these corrupt anti-regulatory Christie policies?

Additionally, the Spotlight story also obfuscated the critical issue I wrote about previously, i.e. the DEP’s false claims about the need to consider costs in setting health based drinking water standards, see:

• Murphy DEP Repeats Lies About Failure To Adopt Protective Drinking Water Standards

So let me repeat that clarification.

Curiously, Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle altered the money quote in his original story by DEP scientist Gary Buchanan (see the full original Buchanan quote in the “repeats lies” link above).

NJ Attorney General Again Usurps DEP Leadership

Volkswagen & Chrysler settlements illustrate a huge blunder by green groups & Legislators

NJ Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal recently issued a press release that:

announced that New Jersey will receive approximately $5.3 million as part of multi-state settlements entered into with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Robert Bosch, which centered on allegations the two companies violated both consumer and environmental protection laws.

The AG’s press announcement achieved it’s purpose and predictably generated very favorable press coverage, see: NJ SETTLES WITH FIAT CHRYSLER OVER SOFTWARE THAT CHEATED ON EMISSION TESTS

Curiously, the AG’s press release was posted on the DEP’s website. Once again, AG Grewal not only stole the media thunder, he seems to have usurped DEP Commissioner McCabe’s role, cut DEP out, and to be in charge of the environmental policy implications of such enforcement actions.

But the AG and media reports left out important facts that misled the public.

Specifically, after years of abuses, NJ voters recently approved an amendment to the State Constitution to dedicate revenues from certain DEP enforcement settlements to specific programs to restore natural resources.

According to DEP:

The 2017 amendment to Paragraph 9 of Section II of Article VIII of the New Jersey Constitution directs the NJDEP as to how to invest the natural resource damages it collects from responsible parties.  As appropriated by the Legislature, the Office of Natural Resource Restoration may use these moneys for paying for:

costs incurred by the State to repair, restore, or replace damaged or lost natural resource of the State, or permanently protect the natural resources of the State, or for paying the legal or other costs incurred by the State to pursue settlements and judicial and administrative awards relating to natural resource damages.

During the legislative process of developing that Constitutional amendment, we warned legislators about loopholes that needed to be closed.

In an effort to close that loophole and strengthen the proposed Constitutional Amendment to dedicate revenues from Natural Resource Damage (NRD) settlements, in a November 1, 2016 email to the sponsor Senator Smith (and post) I warned of this problem:

3. Expand the scope to include all enforcement revenues

The SCR is not precise regarding the settlements and revenues covered. For example, would a Water Pollution Control Act or Freshwater Wetlands Act settlement be included within the scope of the SCR? It appears not.

To promote the policy objectives of the SCR, all DEP enforcement revenues could be dedicated.

That warning was ignored – as a result, among others, the recent April 2018 $68 million Volkswagen settlement was not dedicated to environmental restoration.

And once again, proceeds from the $5 million Chrysler enforcement settlement AG Grewal just announced will go to the General Fund and is not dedicated by the 2017 Constitutional Amendment.

The Volkswagen and Chrysler settlements illustrate a huge blunder by green groups and Legislators.

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight must know this, so I suspect he intentionally omitted this embarrassing fact from his story. Instead of writing about the issue, he closed his story with this misleading paragraph about uses of the money:

Leland Moore, a spokesman for the attorney general, said the state settlement funds will go to support consumer and environmental protection funds. The restitution money to eligible owners is part of a separate class action suit.

As a result of this critical omission, coming at a time that Gov. Murphy is touting his “environmental justice” policy of allocating funds to distressed and overburdened communities, the public and community groups form false expectations that this money will be used to restore the egregious environmental and public health harms they have suffered.

After voting overwhelmingly in favor of amending the State Constitution to stop diversions of hundreds of million of dollars of environmental money – a hugely significant act – we think the people of NJ should know about this.

We think that the members and Foundation funders of incompetent green groups should know this.

Of course, we offer this up as just another example that no good deed goes unpunished. Despite many years of competent public interest advocacy and speaking truth to power, I’ve been effectively blackballed in NJ and relegated to the sidelines.