WolfeNotes.com

No Transparency – No Published Plans – No Public Participation

[Update below]

Today, the NJ Senate & Assembly Environment Committees held their third joint hearing on legislative oversight of the Sandy rebuild efforts.

For the second time, the Committee invited Gov. Christie’s “Sandy Rebuild Czar” Mark Furzan and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Commissioner to testify.

It is unclear what Ferzan’s role and responsibilities are, but DCA prepares NJ’s plans for billions of dollars of federally appropriated Sandy rebuild funds overseen by federal HUD.

For the second time they refused.

Amazing arrogance and evasion of accountability by the Gov., regarding an issue upon which he has literally seized and consolidated Executive power, and singlehandedly used to build a national media presence, political ambition and strong favorable NJ poll ratings.

At the first August 15, 2013 hearing in Atlantic City, I recommended that the Committees issue subpoenas to compel testimony from the entire Christie Cabinet, including “Czar” Ferzan, who seems to serve independently and without oversight in an ad hoc and legislatively unauthorized  and un-budgeted Christie Cabinet role.

Despite that, weeks later, both Chairpersons merely complained about the Administration’s failure to appear, failing to even broach the subpoena issue, as if they were powerless to push back.

Chairwoman Spencer went even further, at one point claiming “there’s nothing we can do”.

Oh well. Another successful evasion by the Gov.

The hearing basically was a shorter rehash of the Atlantic City hearing.

The “highlight” of the hearing was a bit of a cat fight, as Senator Beck lept from her chair, bypassing the customary protocol “through the chair” – with a question to the witness not prefaced with the obligatory “with all due respect” – and fired up her microphone to challenge Staci Berger of the Housing and Community Development Network of NJ.

Clutching her pearls – doing the female version of Robert DeNiro’s classic line from “Taxi driver” “You talking’ to me? ––  Beck abruptly interrupted Ms. Berger’s testimony and hissed:

Did you just call me disingenuous? (corrected)

Berger had challenged Beck’s prior comments defending the Administration and blaming federal HUD for the problems. Berger correctly noted that the CDBG program provided significant flexibility to states, that the design of the HUD funded programs was done by NJ State officials (in DCA), and that the private contractor implementing the program was procured under a contract with State officials.

Berger went on to say that it was “disingenuous to argue” that HUD was the source of the problem – which prompted Senator Beck’s retort.

Ms. Berger, being a gentlewoman, demurred from the cat fight and let Senator Beck’s challenge lie.

[Update – Correction and apology to Ms. Berger – see:  Did Christie Select Another Corporate Crony For Sandy Recovery?]

I was the next witnessed called and was going to follow up on this testimony and call Beck out for not only her defense of the Administration, but for her role as insider – she is literally acting as the exclusive Legislative Liaison to the entire Christie Administration on virtually all Sandy issues.

But, likely anticipating my rant, Beck got up and left as I was called to testify.

Anyway, I avoided repeating all the prior criticisms I have made before these committees on this issue and instead focused in on a few new and important issues:

• State Hazard Mitigation Plan flaws
• recent Rutgers warnings about climate change impacts on and vulnerabilities of NJ’s water supply and the continuing failure to update the 17 year old water Supply Plan (something former DEP Commissioner Mauriello has called “an embarrassment”)
• Highlighting the NJ Transit fiasco, the need for the Legislature to mandate that the Administration conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments and climate change adaptation planning.

I advised Legislators that this could be legislated via either amendments to the enabling legislation for each individual infrastructure planning program  – or comprehensively under the umbrella of a Coastal Commission or a Climate Change Adaptation Plan.

Because the planning and preparation are is NOT happening now and the administration has ignored multiple scientific warnings, the Legislature must act to mandate it.

I again warned that NJ is the only state in the northeast without an adaptation plan, likening  Gov. Christie’ NJ to North Carolina, where Republican climate denying legislators there have prohibited consideration of climate change impacts in coastal planning.

You can listen to the entire hearing here.

[End Note: Amazingly, not one coastal group testified today. Because Tim Dillingham from ALS and Sean Dixon from COA were present, I can only assume that that failure was to avoid criticizing and embarrassing the Gov. – NJ Future and Sustainable NJ were no shows as well.

Mitigation Deal With Gas Pipeline Would Destroy The Commission and Staff’s Integrity

There’s more to this than I thought Charlie … I’m telling you there’s a lot more. […]

You was my brother Charlie – You should have looked out for me a little bit.

You should have taken care of me just a little bit, so  I wouldn’t have had to take them dives for the short end money. …. It was you, Charlie.    ~~~ Watch the full scene

• When discretion, politics, and money combine, they tend to produce a corrupt review process, whereby professionals lack a defensible legal and scientific basis to say “NO”, while they are pressured to find a way to approve the project, offset by some kind of “equivalent” mitigation package that the politicians can hold out as “equivalent protection” (expect a money payoff and land donation).  ~~~ Bill Wolfe 8/28/13

• Lohbauer also mentioned “offsets,” shorthand for contributions to environmental work in the Pinelands, a kind of compensation for the development permit. That would harken back to 2005, when the Pinelands Commission came under fire for allowing Atlantic City Electric to build a new southern Ocean County power line on the west side of the Garden State Parkway to avoid conflicts in suburban neighborhoods. The power company agreed to pay $13 million into a conservation fund that was used to put several thousand acres into preservation.  ~~~ Asbury Park Press 9/28/13

It is amazing to watch the desperate contortions that corporate flacks and their captured spineless regulators will go through after being caught with their pants down.

Yesterday, South Jersey Gas Company (SJG) made a presentation on their proposed pipeline to the Planning and Implementation Committee of the Pinelands Commission.

The presentation was more of a regulatory house of cards than a science based impact assessment.

The questions posed by the Commissioners revealed that they know very, very little about the project or its impacts and risks; that they rely heavily on South Jersey Gas Co. expertise and promises; and that the project would basically be privately self monitored.

But immediately after the SJG presentation and a brief round of softball questions, without providing an opportunity for public comment and without any Committee discussion or a vote,  the Chair of the Pinelands Commission directed staff to begin negotiation of a “Memorandum or Agreement” (MOA) with SJG to authorize construction of a 22 mile $100 million pipeline through the Pinelands National Reserve.

As usual, veteran reporter Kirk Moore of the Asbury Park Press got the story exactly right:  Pinelands Commission considers waiving rule on forest pipelines – Pinelands Commission takes step toward waiving rule

But in a new twist, the company asserts its primary goal is to improve reliability of its network. Critics pounced on that Friday, saying the state Board of Public Utilities, in endorsing the project, wants it for system reliability and the power plant, and would not approve it without both uses.

“A board order is like a permit. They’re not holding a gun to their heads, saying ‘Build this or else’,” said Bill Wolfe of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “Now they (company officials) are building this resiliency argument.”

And of course, Marlon Brando tells the story far better than I could imagine, so, maybe instead of reading this post, just read Kirk’s story and watch the video and use your imagination.

The  proposed SJG pipeline violates the forest policies of the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). Under the CMP and Commission regulations, the only way that the Commission could approve the project is under a MOA.

But, Commission regulations limit a MOA to the projects of “public agencies”

Under normal circumstances, the Pinelands Commission expects that a public agency’s development plans will conform to all of the land use [N.J.A.C. 7:50, Subchapter 5] and development standards [N.J.A.C. 7:50, Subchapter 6] of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan [CMP]. However, there may be instances where a public agency believes that a specific development plan can not conform to all of the CMP’s requirements.

Although the Pinelands Commission expects these types of situations to be very rare, the CMP [N.J.A.C. 7:50 – 4.52 (c)] does allow the Commission to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that authorizes a public agency to undertake development activities that are not fully consistent with Pinelands land use and development standards.

The obvious fly in the ointment is that the South Jersey Gas Company is NOT a “public agency” and the pipeline is not a public development plan . Instead, the pipeline is a privately owned profit seeking speculative economic investment.

The pipeline originally was conceived, designed, and justified as a dedicated pipeline to re-power the private BL England power plant in Beesley’s Point.

So, SJG needs to conjure up some public benefits and public rationale.

In an attempt to comply with the CMP and MOA regulations, South Jersey Gas Co. desperately is trying to misrepresent this private speculative investment to serve a private power plant as:1) a public project, 2) that provides public benefits (“reliability”); 3) ordered by the BPU and DEP,  4) that benefits the Pinelands.

[all these so called “public benefits” have not been weighed against all the negative impacts on the Pines from: 1) the pipeline construction and operation; 2) the BL England plant it would serve; 3) the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions of the pipeline and the BL England plant; 4) current climate change ecological impacts in Pines forests that would be exacerbated; r 5) the impacts from the secondary growth the pipeline would induce. ALL of these impacts – with  minor exceptions- were virtually ignored by the SJG presentation but must be considered by the Commission.]

To support that lie, they have: 1) cynically renamed the project as the “BL England and Reliability Pipeline”, 2) exaggerated the “reliability” aspects, including the benefits to the Pinelands in terms of number of homes; and 3) essentially misrepresented the BPU and DEP Orders as State mandates or directives to build the pipeline and repower the BL England plant.

In fact, the pipeline and the BL England re-powering are private speculative economic profit seeking ventures done purely at risk. It is unclear how many homes in the NJ Pinelands would be provided “reliability”, but it is far less than the 63,000 the company tried to suggest would benefit.

On the” reliability” issues, there also seems to be a conflict with the BPU testimony.

Previously, BPU told the Commission that the project was justified primarily by the Energy Master Plan and re-powering of the BL England plant. But BPU also noted secondary reliability objectives. BPU stated that the Board approved the project as serving in state energy capacity and that BOTH objectives would be served. BPU said the project was not feasible without the primarily BL England re-powering objective.

In contrast, SJG stated that they would pursue the project as a stand alone reliability project, independent of the BL England plant. So, what began as a dedicated pipeline to BL ENgland has now morphed into a back up reliability project!

And of course SJG would be pleased to buy the Pinelands Commission approval with $10 – $20 million of your ratepayer money, all while earning a 10% profit on that bribe  under BPU 100% cost recovery as a “regulatory requirement”.

This pipeline project is following the corrupt mitigation model set by the SR power line through the Delaware Watergap.

Similarly seeking to mask what’s going on, the Pinelands Commission is desperately try to create the false impression that the project is being evaluated on its merits, independently, in the public interest, based on science, and in a transparent and objective fashion, instead of being dictated from Trenton and south jersey political power brokers.

“There’s been no judgment on the project,” Wittenberg said. “We simply want more information from the staff. [The commissioners] want to see what it would look like.” Philly.com 9/28/13

To support that lie, the Commission is hoping to avoid inconvenient facts, including the chronology of the project.

First of all, letting the cat out of the bag and signaling that the deal was done, the Commission’s lawyer, Ms. Roth, way back in April 2013 indicated that A MOA would be negotiated. From the Commission’s April 12, 2013 minutes:

Ms. Roth said that she anticipated bringing two draft agreements to the Committee this Spring related to:

1. An MOA to enable development of a natural gas pipeline through the Forest Area to serve the Atlantic City Electric Company’s B.L. England Generating Station in Cape May County; 

Subsequently,the BPU June 21, 2013 Order approving the pipeline stated that a MOA would be issued by the Commission:

But at the July 27, 2013 meeting Ms. Roth, emphatically stated publicly that the Commission was NOT anticipating a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with BPU at that time. But he BPU’s June 21, 2013 approval already INCLUDED A MOA WITH THE PINELANDS COMMISSION! see @ page 3:

So yesterday, I asked the Commission how the BPU managed to arrive at a MOA and what was their basis for including it in the Order. Obviously, there had to have been coordination and a green light from the Commission or the Executive Director (most likely at the top down direction of the Gov.’s Office, who is coordinating the BPU, DEP and Commission approvals).

And then there’s the little problem that the BPU Order talks about a MOA between the Commission and BPU, while the Commission yesterday authorized MOA negotiation with SJG! Slight conflict, no? Oops!

So, the idea of a MOA was built in long ago, not arrived at during yesterday’s meeting after the SJG presentation as Chairman Lohbauer attempted to portray.

[The Commission has or used to have a 12 step procedure for developing a MOA – it is clear that that procedure has not been followed.]

That SJG presentation and Lohbaur’s response were an orchestrated charade – a sham effort at post hoc rationalization of a done deal.

If, in fact, the Commission were truly interested in an objective, science based, transparent, and independent review of this project – in an effort to protect the integrity of the review process and the ecology of the Pines – they would have agreed to implement 3 prior specific recommendations I made that could have done that:

• prior to conducting an ad hoc standardless review of the SJG proposal, develop methodology, criteria, standards, and Guidance for the review and “equivalent protection” finding required under the Commission’s MOA rules;
• procure independent  expertise to supplement staff expertise in critical areas, like engineering, hydro-geolological/geo-technical, and energy planning; and
• develop scientific and legal linkages between the pipeline’s primary and secondary greenhouse gas emissions and the CMP and ecological impacts on Pines forests

But instead of directing staff to take these common sense steps to close loopholes, protect the integrity of the Commission’s review process, and better protect Pines ecosystems, Chairman Lohbauer directed staff to negotiate a MOA with SJG.

[Note: The BL England re-powering project has a go/no go notification deadline under the DEP Order by the end of December. They need the pipeline approved before then. I asked the Commissioner whether this deadline explains their rush for a MOA instead of doing the right thing, which would take time and delay reviews way past December. My sense is that Commission will issue approval in November, AFTER the Gov.’s election in time for BL England deadline. I warned the Commission members that if this happens, their credibility is destroyed. As I was saying this, Director Wittenberg was shaking her head and vehemently saying “NO, NO, NO”. WEll prove me wrong.]

I must admit my movie analogy that this project was like “Chinatown” may be flawed –

It is now looking a lot more like “On the Waterfront”.

“There’s been no judgment on the project,” Wittenberg said. “We simply want more information from the staff. [The commissioners] want to see what it would look like.” Philly.com 9/28/13

But,the Commission can prove me wrong by rejecting a MOA deal and killing the project. I hope they do.

The choice is up to them. Just Say NO TO MOA!

[and dear God don’t abuse the “Social Costs of Carbon” as a basis for the mitigation compensation deal. That cruel irony would surely make my head explode to see that used to promote a fossil fuel  infrastructure project. The rep of 350.org recommended that a Lohbauer was interested. The suggestion by 350.org is  a perfect example of naiveté and lack of understanding of the regulatory game being played here.]

Rutgers Climate Change Warnings and Recommendations Ignored by Christie DEP

As a result of Gov. Christie’s political denial of climate change, NJ’s drinking water infrastructure will remain highly vulnerable to climate change impacts

The NJ Water Supply Advisory Council met last Friday.

It remains unclear if the long overdue Water Supply Plan Update will ever be released for public review – former DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello has called that failure “embarrassing”.

But one thing is clear:

The DEP’s Statewide Water Supply Plan will not include climate change impacts, despite stern warnings from Rutgers University and the NJ Climate Adaptation Alliance.  Rutgers professor Dan Van Abs – formerly head of DEP’s water supply planning team – briefed the WSAC on August 18 and his recommended actions were rejected.

I asked about this Van Abs briefing and specifically put that question directly to the Commission and DEP at Friday’s meeting and was told that no climate impact or adaptation work would be included in the next plan update.

That is shockingly irresponsible – just ask the people in Monmouth County – who sufffered a climate change related water emergency – about that.

It looks like the Christie Administration’s highly touted “asset management” approach to water infrastructure is seriously flawed (see also: DEP Dims The Lights on Clean Water).

This is despite the fact that, according to DEP Commissioner Martin’s testimony, Sandy had devastating impacts on NJ’s drinking water infrastructure, harming drinking water treatment at 400 plants:

But as a result of Gov. Christie’s political denial of climate change, NJ’s drinking water infrastructure will remain highly vulnerable to climate change impacts.

[This is not the first time, but a pattern of failure and denial, see:

• Critics: Christie Deep-Sixed Climate Change Prep

“So none of this work is getting done,” said Bill Wolfe, a 30-year-veteran of DEP and now a harsh critic.

“And if you want to get something done, the DEP has all the tools to get something done and they’ve chosen not to use those tools for political reasons, reflecting the Governor’s priorities and Governor’s policy,” Wolfe said. “And they just don’t want to own up to that.”

• Sea-level map offers disturbing picture of Shore’s future

To Bill Wolfe, director of the environmental group NJ PEER, “the Rutgers work shows how the FEMA maps underestimate risks.” He wants to see the new tool formally incorporated by the two agencies.

“Buildings and infrastructure like roads, water and sewer and storm water have useful lives of more than 50 years,” Wolfe said. “What we build today will see the Rutgers elevations.”

• Rebuilding standards at Jersey Shore must reflect climate change, experts say
• IT’S TIME TO CONNECT THE DOTS BETWEEN RISING SEA LEVELS AND REBUILDING

Read the full story, from our friends at the PEER DC Office:

NEW JERSEY UNPREPARED FOR CLIMATE THREATS TO WATER SUPPLIES – Absence of Planning & Regulatory Freeze Stymie Critical Water Management Steps

Posted on Sep 26, 2013  | Tags: New Jersey

Executive Director Rejects Offer of Independent Scientists’ Briefing

Commission’s Review Heavily Reliant on Gas Company “Experts”

There were fireworks at the Pinelands Commission regular September monthly meeting last friday. But, unfortunately, the NJ press corps, diverted by Sandy and Gov. Christie’s stunts, were not there to hear the large trees falling in the forest (sorry to mix metaphor!).

So here’s what went down.

The backdrop for the hearing was the controversial $100 million 22 mile South Jersey Gas pipeline to re-power the BL England power plant at Beesley’s point.

The pipeline was not on the Commission’s formal agenda, but nonetheless a handful of project opponents attended and testified to the Commission during the public comment phase of the meeting.

But before that testimony was presented on the SJG pipeline, there were stunning revelations.

After the Commission cruised through the formal agenda items, during the public comment section, there was unexpected and disturbing testimony regarding the staff situation.

Stunning testimony portrayed the Commission in disarray, suffering from a depleted and demoralized staff  that had lost scientific expertise and leadership. According to Janelle Blackmon, of  the Communications Workers of America (CWA):

Twenty three staff positions remain unfilled. Your planning Office now lacks a graduate economist. Your Science Office once had  three Ph.D. scientists; now it has none.

There are currently 44 staff at the Commission, with just 5 in the science program. So, 23 unfilled positions represents a level 34% below a fully authorized staff of 67 required to protect the precious Pinelands. Wow.

That CWA testimony shocked pipeline opponents, who have focused on the need for a rigorous and independent review of the controversial project.

To balance the influence of the South Jersey Gas Company experts, who have been meeting behind the scenes with Commission staff since April 2012, opponents have requested that an independent scientist, restoration ecologist Kevin Heatley, make a 30 minute presentation to the Commission on pipeline impacts.

The SJG pipeline opponents were not aware of the dire staff situation, a problem that magnified the importance of opponents’ request for the Commission to provide an opportunity for an independent scientific expert.

In addition to the loss of PhD scientists and the 23 vacant staff positions, the Commission lacks certain expertise required to review the SJG pipeline proposal.

It was clear based on the staff’s previous presentation of the pipeline project, that they rely on SJ Gas Company’s expertise in multiple areas, including engineering, geo-technical, hydro-geology, pipeline safety, and energy planning.

Given these deficits, I recommended that the Commission hire qualified independent experts in those fields to provide a science based review of the potential impacts.

I made it clear that the Commission has the authority to require that the applicant pay for these experts, so there is no budget impediment to the Commission procuring expert advice.

I also stressed the need to consider ecological impacts related to climate change, which will be exacerbated by direct methane emissions from the pipeline infrastructure as well as indirectly from the combustion of the gas at the BL England power plant.

More to follow on the latter issues.

Gov. Christie Again Drunk on Nostalgia – Repeating Sandy “Rebuild Madness”

Gov. Relies on Slogans to Scapegoat “Red Tape”

 Time to Form A Coastal Commission To Plan For A Climate Changed Shore

Gov. Christie in response to Sandy:

“This is too important a place in the fabric of New Jersey’s culture to not rebuild it. I’ve never had any doubt in my mind that we’re going to rebuild it,” Christie said. “I do not intend to be the governor who presides over the idea that this is going to be gone. I refuse to accept that.” (Asbury Park Press 11/10/12) (see: Are there any grownups in the room?)

Gov. Christie in response to Seaside fire:

“We lost a place that has provided generations of memories to our citizens, but we will rebuild,” Christie said. “We’ll make new memories for our families, because that’s what we do.”

He vowed his administration would cut through red tape and try to speed the pace of demolition and construction. It was too soon, Christie said, to place a dollar figure on the damage. (Star Ledger 9/14/13)

Same manipulative faux nostalgia.

Same shameless self promotion.

Same scapegoating of government “red tape”.

Same “rebuild madness”.

Before we repeat the same historical coastal development mistakes and the same post Sandy mistakes I have called “Rebuild Madness”, a little context is in order:

1) We are talking about highly vulnerable barrier islands.

Sea level is rising – the rate of rise will only increase as a result of global warming. The barrier islands will be inundated and/eroded away in our lifetimes.

Climate change will only increase the strength of coastal storms and storm surge.

It is insane to rebuild there –

Rather, we need to gradually retreat from the barrier island to higher elevation mainland areas.

2) “Red tape” is your friend.

“Red tape” includes things like this:

• land use planning and zoning to avoid development of high hazard locations and maximize preservation of natural features
• Hazard Mitigation and Climate Change Adaptation Planning to adapt to future conditions under climate change
• DEP infrastructure regulatory standard to assure things like adequate pressure in water mains to provide enough water to fight fires
• building and fire codes to prevent the speared of fires and minimize damage and loss of life
• insurance requirements to minimize risk

It appears that these “red tape” safety protections were ignored – because, at a minimum, building permits were issued in locations that lacked adequate water pressure to fight fires. A Star Ledger story quotes the Gov. himself to confirm this apparent serious violation of codes and DEP water supply regulations:

Christie said there were challenges with the water supply because of damage to the system post-Sandy, “so in order to work around this, we are drawing lines from Barnegat Bay.“

Maybe if DEP Commissioner Martin had not issued an Order deregulating the rebuilding of infrastructure, the DEP would have been involved in assuring adequate pressure as part of the rebuilding permit review process.

Was basic public infrastructure correctly rebuilt? See prior news reports on precisely this issue:

• NJ Spotlight: “State Agency Waiver Environmental Rules to Speed Rebuilding After Storm – Environmentalists argue that rebuilding without planning invites further disasters
  

“Restoring basic public infrastructure will be a critical first step toward the recovery of our cities and towns,’’ Martin said. “For emergency repairs, we cannot let bureaucracy get in the way. Red tape should not and will not hold up this vital work.’’ […]

“The [Martin] order amounts to a total abdication of DEP’s responsibility to supervise responsible planning and environmentally sound permitting of critical public infrastructure,’’ said Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a public watchdog group

Full disclosure: Before that NJ Spotlight story, I broke the story on the Martin Order and wrote about this as well, see: Christie Abdication: DEP Commissioner Martin Waives Rules for Rebuilding Wiped Out Infrastructure

Of course, if Gov. Christie was not a climate denier, he would not have engaged in “Rebuild Madness” and instead rethought coastal development, engaged in hazard mitigation and adaptation planning, and supported a coastal commission, instead of mindlessly rebuilding in the vulnerable locations that just burned down.

3) Emotional appeals and denial of science must not be the basis for public policy

Nostalgia is a wonderful human emotion.

But it must not be the basis for public policy and expenditure of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

The Gov. and the Legislature need to wake up to and set policy based on what the science is telling us.

The fire is perhaps out last wakeup call.

BTW Governor, it is not government’s role to “make memories”.