WolfeNotes.com

 Sustainable NJ Receives Almost $2 Million From BPU, Wal-Mart, and South Jersey Gas

A shill is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

“Shill” typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. 

[Update below]

Bear with me here as I connect a few what may appear to be unrelated dots. (you may want to read this superb Naomi Klein interview for context. Tim DeChristopher made similar points in his recent Bill Moyers interview [and also this interview]. The best point is the last, so read on!

Wal-Mart is perhaps the epitome of an unsustainable global corporate enterprise that destroys local downtown merchants and economies, exploits labor, and destroys the environment. (See: Greenwashing the WalMart Way:

What does this actually mean? First, it’s a part of ongoing efforts by corporate actors like Wal-Mart to brand “sustainability” as a corporate-friendly term synonymous with productivity, efficiency and maximization. Sustainable means, in other words, whatever Wal-Mart says it means.

So why is a group called “Sustainable NJ”  laundering $380,000 of Wal-Mart money, providing the corporation huge green cover and dirt cheap advertising and promotion?

Strike One.

The South Jersey Gas Co. recently has come under huge public criticism for their extremely controversial proposal to build a $100 million 22 mile long gas pipeline through the Pinelands National Reserve – in undisputed clear violation of the Comprehensive Management Plan – to deliver fracked gas to repower a decrepit 50 year old power plant (at a cost of another $400 million), whose cooling water intakes will continue to slaughter billions of aquatic organisms in Great Egg Bay while its power plant stacks pump tons of carbon and other pollutants into the air.

South Jersey Gas is the epitome of an unsustainable corporation. And the public outrage over their pipeline/repower project has put them in a very bad light – they are desperate for a little cover.

So, right on time, coming to their rescue, a group named “Sustainable NJ” deploys their “green teams” to promote South Jersey Gas’ “leadership” in an October 28 “Leadership Forum” at Stockton State College. Right on time for the Pinelands Commission approval!

Strike two.

Yesterday I wrote about another example of how “Sustainable NJ (TM)” (SNJ) is an ineffective fraud. Previously on this topic, I wrote:

• Christie Administration Outsources Climate Change Adaptation Planning
• Sustainable Slogans – Untenable Policy

I got mail from readers – although one objected, I got others saying I missed the story and didn’t nearly go far enough in exposing the scam that SNJ perpetrates on the people of NJ! (Wow, that’s something I usually accuse corporate media of!)

So today, we provide additional information to document the massive scale of their shilling in the hopes that we can either shame the organization into mending its ways (extremely unlikely); shame the funders into mending theirs (even more unlikely) or force external inquiries that can creature sufficient public pressure to reform the abuses we’ve become aware of.

My criticisms of SNJ thus far  have focused on flaws in the vague concept of sustainability, and how these flaws are exploited by SNJ in a way that misleads and manipulates well meaning and concerned people by channeling them in ineffective directions, all while providing cover for politicians and government policy failures.

Specifically, SNJ provides cover for the fact that the Christie Administration is doing virtually nothing on climate change or adaptation planning and regulation, which are critical State government responsibilities pursuant to the 2007 Global Warming Response Act , the NJ State Air Pollution Control Act (in NJ, greenhouse gases have been regulated as “pollutants” since 2005); the federal Coastal Zone Management Act; the NJ State Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA), and the NJ State Flood Hazard Control Act, among other federal and state environmental laws.

But instead of implementing and enforcing these laws, the Christie Administration has either ignored, deregulated, or outsourced those State level planning and regulatory responsibilities, including to private groups like Sustainable NJ.

Sustainable NJ then effectively guts these state programs by making them voluntary local initiatives or market based initiatives.

So, when I wrote that SNJ and BPU were “literally the same” – I meant it – SNJ is BPU’s well funded agent.

Which takes us to our third and final point:

Sustainable NJ not only provides cover for the Christie Administration – they withhold criticism, including: 1) the abdication of State responsibility under various environmental laws; 2) Governor Christie’s neglect, gutting and rollback of climate change programs; and 3) Governor Christie’s theft of $1 BILLION in Clean Energy Funds designed to promote many of the objectives SNJ says they support.

And now, here’s strike three: they do all that while accepting $1,439,850 from the [Christie diverted] Clean Energy Fund! Yup, SNJ BENEFITS from what HARMS almost everyone else!

So of course they are not going to criticize the Gov. theft – they benefit from it!

According to BPU, Sustainable NJ accounts for 78% of NJ’s Energy Efficiency Program  (Source: see table in Appendix A of the BPU EE Compliance filing).

To give you a sense of the scope and magnitude of the harm caused by SNJ shilling, we need to consider how energy efficiency and sustainable energy expertise could be applied under NJ’s laws and programs.

For an example of that, here’s what an independent energy expert – who represents the same local governments that SNJ says it does – recently testified on the NJ energy planning program; the BPU regulatory policy regarding energy efficiency and the performance of NJ’s energy efficient programs (an analysis and findings you will never hear from SNJ) :

• However, these reports are outdated. PJM’s 2007 Load Forecasting Report uses 2006 data for projecting consumer demand in 2011 and beyond. Not only does this data fail to consider reduced consumption due to the current  recession, it does not consider substantial efforts by the BPU and others since 2006 to reduce consumer demand through increased efficiency, improved time-of-use metering and expanded demand response. PJM also does not factor in the probability of mandated efficiency standards and conservation efforts.

• I will demonstrate that, even if there is a proposed need for electricity, energy efficiency and demand side management, along with the deployment of distributed generation, offer much better alternatives than the Susquehanna-Roseland project. 

• PJM assumed that only the amount of load management available in 2007 would be available in future years.16 This assumption was made despite public policy mandates of load management, conservation and efficiency.

• Many studies have found that demand side management is the cheapest way to respond to increases in demand for electricity when compared with building new sources of electricity supply or associated infrastructure such as transmission lines to access generation. Increasing energy efficiency, one study concluded, “is generally the largest, least expensive, most benign, most quickly deployable, least visible, least understood, and most neglected way to provide energy services.”26 Or, as Jon Wellinghoff, the Commissioner of the FERC, put it, “the potential benefits from the incorporation of demand response into wholesale markets indicate that a  considerable margin of gain is possible from accelerating such activity.”27 

• Currently, PSEG admits that the cost of transmitting and distributing electricity in New Jersey is about one-third the average residential customer’s electricity bill of 16 cents/kWh28, meaning that transmission and distribution costs roughly 5.3 cents/kWh and generation 10. 4  cents/kWh. Demand side management programs, by contrast, displace the need for generation and transmission infrastructure at a small fraction of this cost. The International Energy Agency  reviewed forty large-scale commercial DSM programs found that they saved electricity at an average cost of 2.1 to 3.0 ¢/kWh.29 Similarly, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers found an average cost of 2.6 ¢/kWh for demand-side management, load management, and energy efficiency programs in Vermont.30 Another 2009 study found that the total cost for DSM programs ranged from 2.6 to 4.0 cents per kWh.

• New Jersey has an immense amount of untapped energy efficiency potential. One study from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy noted that cost effective investments in energy efficiency in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania could reduce electricity use by 33 percent in aggregate.33 Another assessment from the Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy at the Bloustein School of Public Policy and Planning at Rutgers University evaluated New Jersey’s Reduced Energy Demand Options Program and found that virtually no customers had yet taken advantage of it, implying that significant savings could still be reached through promotion and participation.34 The Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership went even further and noted in 2009 that New Jersey could cost effectively save  19,000 GWh per year, including 5,700 MW of peak demand, through energy efficiency and  demand side management programs.35 The study calculated that such programs could collectively realize $16.8 billion in net savings by 2020. PSEG has captured only a small fraction of this potential. According to Response to Municipal Interveners Request Munis-General-7/8, PSEG spent a total of $134 million on energy efficiency and demand side management in 2007 to save 733,352 MWh, and $142 million in 2008 to save 672,016 MWh. PSEG operates a power portfolio of 13,576 MW, capable of providing 107,033,184 MWh of electricity per year at a 90 percent capacity factor.36 This means PSEG’s energy efficiency offset only 0.6 percent of potential electricity generation in 2008. A recent 2009 assessment found that of the 75 largest utilities that offered energy efficiency programs in 2007, PSEG did not even make the list of the top 50.37 PSE&G should market, promote, solicit, recruit and institute basic energy efficiency programs. 

These are the kind of hard hitting facts and expert recommendations, made in a regulatory proceeding, that can change results and policies.

The BPU simply does not want to hear these kind of facts and criticism presented in a regulatory proceeding where they could be implemented and make a real change. Real change would be vehemently opposed by powerful corporate interests, including PSEG.

They want to keep the public, local officials, and environmental advocates in the dark about all this and protect PSEG from exactly these kinds of criticisms.

That’s why they pay off ineffective shills like SNJ.

Here’s BPU Office of Clean Energy Report (November 14, 2012):

Sustainable Jersey

The 2012-2013 budget for Sustainable Jersey will carry forward any unspent funds from the 2011 budget and also includes funding for new services to be provided in 2012 and the first six months of 2013. Services to be provided in 2013 are described in Attachment A.  […]

Those with the stomach for it can go hit the link and read Appendix A for a summary of SNJ “programs”.

I can assure you, you will read NOTHING like the above – I can also assure you that SNJ’s work is having virtually no impact on regulatory policy, investment in energy infrastructure, or the environmental performance of our energy systems.

Strike Three, you’re out.

You can’t even make this stuff up – not even in Chinatown.

[Update: 9/10/13 – additional points of clarification:

1. For the local issues, the same arguments can be made but were left out of this piece.

Local issues can be addressed within the framework of the MLUL Master Plan and local zoning ordinances, which provide enforceable requirements for land use, infrastructure, transportation, open space, recycling, water, energy, building codes, etc.

The SNJ certification and scorecard process diverts from those real requirements by setting up a parallel system that is all voluntary feel good measures that will not change actual on the ground conditions.

[just  take a look at DEP promo – it is almost a parody. Note that the local Sustainability Plan has no legal basis, no regulatory authority, no criteria or standards or methods of measurement and evaluation, no binding effect, no funding mechanisms, and no mechanisms to be implemented or formally linked to enforceable requirements. It is a parallel universe of feel good slogans and voluntary aspirations – put all the nice people in a room and keep them happy chatting about slogans while business as usual transpires.]

Here are a few reforms to that MLUL framework that sustainable local bottom up activists could pursue:

• require climate change vulnerability assessment, GWRA numeric emission reductions, and adaptation planning in Master Plan, zoning, and local codes; [this would take new legislation – no campaign I’m aware of and no bill introduced to do that]
• enable municipal power co-ops and distributed renewables elements of local Hazard Mitigation Plans [this too would take either major change in NJ State Hazard Mitigation Plan and.or new legislation. Nothing happening on those fronts that I’ve seen]
• make recommendations of the Environmental Commission binding on Master Plan and development reviews [would take new legislation, not even being pursued]

There are many more examples I could suggest showing how real, enforceable reforms can be implemented in the current framework – none of which are being pursued by SNJ. (where are the bills? Where are the Christie Admin rules? Where is the Christie budget? – everything is going in the opposite direction while SNJ remains mute]

2. Well meaning people are not only being diverted on the substance –

They are not focused on political organizing, movement building, and accountability efforts that could be effective.

SNJ sucks up resources, funding, and community initiative that could be organized to be effective grass roots advocacy.

The corporations and right wing politicians have funded SNJ for exactly this reason: they dissipate, divert, and neutralize effective political response to public policy problems.

In short, they frustrate democracy –

3. And if you think my headline was over the top and that this is not a life and death matter, please read this. end update.

ps- apologies to Roberta Flack for any unintended allusions – I love that song!

Yesterday, I trucked up to the Delaware Watergap to witness the start of the destruction for the Susquehanna Roseland power line – from the “groundbreaking” scene to the views from the AT.

I almost hoped to arrive upon a huge protest scene, with hundreds of people laying in the road to block the trucks, monkeywrenchers in the woods, and EarthFirst! tree sitters with banners – or US Fish & Wildlife and National Park Service Enforcement delivering an emergency judicially imposed stop work order.

I have a vivid imagination.

Actually, I wouldn’t have been surprised by a NJ Audubon press release, celebrating the “mitigation” deal they struck –

(or a statement from the Obama WH, touting the groundbreaking as part of their “all of the above” energy policy and NEPA “modernization” & “streamlining” for “energy infrastructure” that drove this dirty deal) –

Such is the corrupt and perverse tenor of our times.

At any rate, here’s what I saw (as necessary, see captions for where shots were taken):

 

Gross Negligence in High Places Made Sandy Damage Worse Than It Had To Be

Can A Private Foundation – After Buying the “Advocates” – Also Buy The News?

NJ Still The Only State in Northeast without a Climate Change Adaptation Plan

Are An Adversarial Role & Accountability Focus No Longer Functions of The Media & Politics?

[Update: 9/23/13 – NJ Future focuses on State Hazard Mitigation Plan in today’s Op-Ed:  IT’S TIME TO CONNECT THE DOTS BETWEEN RISING SEA LEVELS AND REBUILDING  – end update]

If I put it in boldface and the headline, do you think they’ll get it? (WARNING: Rant on the way! If you’re in the Dodge camp, hit the delete button now!)

I think I’ve been one of the few folks – if not the only one – to be writing in the weeds of the NJ Hazard Mitigation Plan and have been reporting – as a fact, not an opinion – that Gov. Christie approved a seriously flawed April 2012 Update of the NJ Hazard Mitigation Plan.

I’ve been writing variants of this failure story for months and demanding legislative oversight and media investigation.

So, in case you missed all that, here it is again – from the top of the page of the State’s own Hazard Mitigation Plan:

Technical information on the four (4) most recent disasters and climate change issues are still being reviewed and are not included in this April 2012 NJ Hazard Plan update.  ~~~ NJ Hazard Mitigation Plan (April 2012)

I’ve also disclosed that NJ DEP failed to consider – and actually withdrew – numerous prior coastal hazard, storm, climate change, over-development, and infrastructure vulnerability warnings, and basically abandoned a pilot program with 3 shore towns on “Coastal Community Vulnerability”.

This all makes the NJ Transit fiasco (and the Fenimore landfill) chicken shit.

So, when the Hazard Mitigation Plan finally does gets mentioned by the news media, of course I see that as another example of cross over of my work – and of course I resent the media’s failure to get the story right.

It’s bad enough that the Hazard Mitigation Plan has been ignored by the mainstream media and the spineless Democrats.

But today, a story by “reporter” Scott Gurian at NJ Spotlight made that oversight far worse. Instead of holding the administration accountable for failure, his story led to the opposite conclusion – that instead of failing to plan and prepare, that the Gov. was making progress in planning and preparation! (or that this was an open question).

Mr. Gurian sourced and again “reported” some of these massive failure – but in the most bizarre, uncritical, and deferential  way – in exactly the weak kneed, non-adversarial, accountability free style, tone, and content that his Dodge Foundation funders demand.

And it’s not the first time he’s used and completely undermined my work and let the Christie Administration off the hook for major and ongoing policy failures.

Gurian previously reported – without attribution, as if he had done the research and  somehow discovered this himself – on various Christie DEP changes and deletions in the “309 Coastal Hazards Assessment”, another deeply in the weeds technical issue. I believe that myself – and former DEP Commissioner Mauriello – have been the only public “sources” to mention those issues, so I can only assume that Gurian got that info here and used it without attribution. So, I need to call it out.

And the corporate “mission creep” footprint of Dodge Foundation is getting far too large. They basically have bought and paid for big chunks of the issue agenda’s of the NJ ENGO community. Now, Dodge’s funding appears to be influencing news coverage.

In the wake of  Dodge CEO Chris Daggettt’s demand that the Highlands Coalition “tone it down” on criticism of Gov. Christie on the Highlands, that creepy and creeping control by Dodge needs to be called out as well. (is Dodge where and why the “Festival” emerged?)

So, here’s how Mr. Gurian’s story today reported on and “disclosed” these critical failures of the Christie Administration – hardly a profile in courage in accountability journalism:

1) Let’s begin at the beginning – with the headline. “Mixed reviews”? Totally misleading characterization. The Christie Administration disagrees with the Task Force recommendations and/or the recommendations highlight flaws and conflict with Christie’s key policies. That reality does not rise to “mixed reviews” and it belittles fundamental scientific and policy conflicts.

This misleading headline frames the whole story, and tends to make the issues “he said she said”, thus neutralizing or derailing any criticism of the Governor or communication of what is actually going on.

Here’s what the headline should have been more like:  OBAMA – CHRISTIE EMBRACE ENDS OVER SANDY REBUILDING – Feds Resilient Strategy Runs Counter to New Jersey Armor Plating Vulnerable Coast

(instead of detailing and highlighting the conflict, Gurian used an old HUD Sect. Donovan spun quote to downplay the conflict – again, the exact opposite of what he should be doing, given the substance of the story.)

2) Gurian put the issues almost exclusively in the mouth of NJ Future – hardly the “watchdog” group he describes.

Worse, NJ Future is a fellow Dodge beneficiary, so Gurian is single handedly undermining the integrity of NJ Spotlight with his Dodge-Boy (and girl!) sourcing methods, despite his buried and parenthetic disclosure: “(from which NJ Spotlight has also received funding).” Even the name of the project sounds official pubic sector, and masks Dodge’s role and control: “NJ Recovery Project” 

(readers also should know that almost all the groups funded by that Dodge Sandy initiative: a) kept their powder dry, refused to criticize the Gov., and failed to organize and make specific demands when it mattered (i.e. before funds were appropriated and rebuild policies formed); and b) instead of presenting an analysis and hammering out clear policy demands, again when it mattered, these same groups quietly and internally negotiated meaningless aspirational principles. These strategic mistakes were no accident. The ENGO’s were being “politically safe” and indirectly manipulated by Dodge’s funding carrot: Don’t take a chance, you might not get funded! Such is the bought off state of much NJ ENGO “advocacy”.)

Real journalism relies on unbiased and independent sources, not the friends Dodge funds that have relationships with the publishing outlet. What Gurian has been doing in sourcing and writing these stories is outrageous. He’s making the  “news” come off as a Dodge Foundation initiative – and it’s not subtle, it’s egregious and can not be remedied by a parenthetical allusion to an obscure funder.

3) By definition, the “New Jersey Local Resilience Partnerships” Gurian reports on perpetuates and compounds what I have repeatedly and correctly criticized as an abdication of state responsibility under NJ law. The same Christie policy flaws make regional solutions impossible.(BTW, land use is NOT a federal responsibility – but it IS a state one).

You don’t have to take my word for it – even former NJ DEP Commissioner Mauriello agrees that there has been far too much delegation to local government and far too much “home rule”.

But, Gurian is silent on this fundamental debate about the State’s role and responsibility for coastal planning and regulation – a role the Christie administration has abdicated and must be called out for.

This failure to call out the Gov. in favor of a local approach reflects the Dodge “non-adversarial” model Gurian’s work was funded under, reinforces the narrow and non-adversarial “advocacy” work of his Dodge boy sources, and thereby lets Gov. Christie and his DEP Commissioner escape any accountability for their policies and actions.

4) Gurian describeds the Obama Task Force Report’s recommendations on climate change as “at odds with” (a mealy mouthed phrased to downplay conflict) “NJ’s approach” (a subtle way to mask accountability, as Christie is making all the “plans” virtually unilaterally and through a “Rebuid, Czar”, not a planning process). Here’s Gurian:

Another area where the task force’s findings seem at odds with New Jersey’s approach thus far is climate change.

At odds with? How about saying that Task Force “exposes Gov. Christie’s Plans as short sighted and highly irresponsible”?

Or if that’s too harsh, how about former DEP Commissioner Mauriello’s characterization as a “unsustainable” and a “dangerous path”?

5) But worse, Gurian then goes on to use NJ Future (Dodge Boy) to praise Christie’s implementation of climate change sea level rise!

On this note, one of the Task Force’s recommendations that’s already been adopted and implemented is the creation of a web-based map and sea-level rise calculator to help local engineers and floodplain managers plan for climate change in their communities. Peter Kasabach, Executive Director of New Jersey Future, said in a press release that his group is eager to see how these tools will be put to use.

Eager to see how it will be put to use? That’s a joke right?

Kasaback is the guy who just recently realized that nothing was getting done on the “planning and resiliency” front and that the Gov. was rebuilding what was there, “putting it all back in place”  (we’ve been warning about that Christie “rebuild madness” since last November and even before the storm)(watch him admit to this in a Star Ledger video).

My initial panic was about 3 months ago, when I realized that we weren’t to going to do any real legitimate planning. In fact, we were going to rebuild a lot of what we had. Once that reality set in, the panic left.  It’s disappointing, but it’s understandable (emphasis mine). A lot of these communities are simply rebuilding back to the way they were – a little bit higher.

It is not understandable – it is insane, irresponsible, and possibly corrupt.

Kasaback then goes on the avoid the primary issues – which are STATE REGULATION AND REGIONAL PLANNING – to advocate for a county based planning process.

Kasaback’s “eager” wait and see attitude is all after billions of dollars have been unconditionally appropriated by Congress; after Christie appointed a non-transpoarent “Rebuild Czar”; after the Christie Rebuild Plans have been approved by HUD; after Christie has rejected consideration of climate change – numerous times – and opposed a Coastal Commission; after the DEP has adopted emergency regulations and deregulated the rebuilding of infrastructure; and after the Army Corps is not building dunes but doing the same old same old beach sand pumping.

When will Kasaback and Mr. Gurian wake the fuck up?

6) But, thus far, all this stuff is basically old news – I’ve been writing about it for ages and some of it has been in mainstream media stories.

But here’s the really unbelievable and newsworthy material in the story: note the backward and passive way the flawed April 2012 Hazard Mitigation  Plan Update is disclosed, sourced, and contextualized (aside from being buried in the story):

“We are still waiting to see how the Christie administration will incorporate sea-level rise into its long-range planning, and how they will help folks at the local level to do the same,” he said. “For example, we have not yet heard whether the state Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) currently under revision and the $2.5 million grant program for county HMPs (which is mentioned in the task force report) will include sea-level rise among the risks considered.”

See how that was done?

Instead of severely criticizing the Gov. for a major State policy failure – i.e. failure, after the wake up call of Hurricane Irene, to consider that storm, sea level rise, or coastal and infrastructure vulnerability – NJ Future Kasaback is instead favorably and eagerly awaiting the NEXT Plan update! (and only in terms of incentives to local government).

Mr Kasaback and Mr. Gurian just gave Gov. Christie a major, major pass on his failure to plan and his abdication of state responsibility.

Just what the Dodge funders ordered.

Dodge is now the puppeteer behind NJ ENGO’s and media. Only George Norcross does better.

Beach Replenishment is Costly, Unsustainable, and Ineffective

NJ Needs a Coastal Climate Adaptation Plan That Addresses Land Use and Natural Dunes

• And so what we’re missing are opportunities to acquire some of these oceanfront properties, create a little bit of space where it doesn’t currently exist. And that space then can be used to build sand dunes, to restore dunes; and on the Bay side, restore wetlands and natural systems that will protect our communities. People always say it’s very expensive to buy that house, but we’re spending an awful lot of money, and we’ll continue to do so. And we’re doing it in a manner that’s not really sustainable over the long term. We’re going to have to keep spending the money, whether it’s beach nourishment, or sea walls, or whatever it may be. We have to adapt differently, and we have to pull back incrementally to create some additional space within which we can sustain these natural systems.  ~~~~ Testimony of former DEP Commissioner Mark  Mauriello (8/15/13)

• All of the impediments to meeting this 309 programmatic objective that appeared in the last New Jersey Coastal Zone Section 309 Assessment and Strategy remain. These include lobbying efforts of special interest groups, legal challenges to DEP permit decisions, provision of flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, and public perception that large-scale beach nourishment projects eliminate vulnerability to coastal hazards. ~~~ NJ DEP, 2006

Sometimes it is truly amazing how a reporter can miss a story and/or get it completely wrong – today’s Bergen Record story:  Sandy aid helps Jersey Shore rebuild to withstand the next storm– is one of the worst examples I’ve ever seen.

At exactly the moment we need quality reporting to drive an informed public debate about the need to change our basic approach to the shore, we get regurgitated status quo spin from the same old self interested sources.

At exactly the moment when Gov. Christie and the US Army Corps of Engineers are vulnerable to severe criticism for mismanaging the rebuild strategy, instead of holding them accountable, the Bergen Record praised their misguided efforts.

At the same time, the story reinforces false public perceptions and contributes to a false sense of security that invites more development to hazardous locations. DEP historically tried to warn the public about the very misconception in the Record story headline (those warnings were eliminated by Christie DEP, which should be another scandal). So, here it is.

Since Sandy struck last October, Gov. Christie has done dozens of shore events and at each one, he claims that dunes spared some shore towns.

The Gov. has stressed a dune system from Sandy Hook to Cape May as the key feature of his plan to protect the coast.

But, contrary to the Bergen Record story, the US Army Corprs of Engineers is NOT building dunes, is not designing dunes, and the Gov.’s dune system has not been funded and is not remotely on the horizon.

Beach replenishment is not dunes. 

Meanwhile, the Gov. repeatedly has rejected consideration of climate change, sea level rise, and state land use planning and infrastructure regulations in his rebuild plans, while the only other tool he has used – elevating buildings to meet new FEMA elevations – also does not consider sea level rise and climate change.

The only reporter that has figured all this out and had the balls to tell the story is Brian Donohue from the Star Ledger, watch his superb video report: NJ’s Hurrican Sandy Rebuil: Are We Screwing It Up Again?

Meanwhile, just weeks ago, the Obama Administration released its Sandy Rebuild Taskforce Report. That report emphasized the need to consider climate change and plan for a more resilient shore. The role of “Green infrastructure” was highlighted as far superior to engineered measures:

Adding even more clarity, former DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello testified to the legislature on numerous flaws in the Gov.’s plan, especially noting the facts that climate change and sea level rise are here and that beach replenishment is costly, ineffective, and not sustainable.

Mauriello said NJ was “drunk” on federal money, pursuing a “dangerous path” in reliance on beach replenishment and was making huge mistakes and missing multiple opportunities to improve the shore and reduce future storm risks.

One of the concerns that I’ve recognized is that we have the Army Corps coming into the State to do a massive beach nourishment project for the whole coastline. The cost of that has been a little bit subject to debate. Clearly over $1 billion, maybe less than $2 billion— a lot of money coming in with sand.[…]

I express that concern on behalf of a number of public groups, nonprofits, and other interested folks such as myself who really see  this as a dangerous path. Because the decisions we make now– And we’re a little bit drunk with all this money. I mean, this Federal appropriation is massive, and it’s unprecedented, and it sort of makes you a little bit less concerned about what you do because there is so much money. But we can’t lose site of the fact of being smart in how we spend the money. And we have to make sure we’re spending it on things that don’t come back to haunt us once the Federal money dries up, and the beaches erode, and we have these recurring storms. And it doesn’t have to be another Sandy. We all know that northeasters pound our coast, damage our infrastructure, and threaten our property and our people

Titus demonstrates (link) that in certain instances, structural engineering solutions will not be practical or economically feasible. In these cases future public and private development and redevelopment must be directed

away from the hazardous areas. While some derogatorily refer to this option as “retreat,” from the perspective of sound planning based on the best available science, the concept actually involves “strategic adjustment.” Prudent planning requires that we expand upon the existing studies of the societal, economic, and environmental costs of possible mitigative actions while the greatest number of alternatives exist. The state’s coastal area continues to experience substantial seasonal and residential population increases. Conversion of formerly seasonal homes  to year-round residences continues unabated. In many instances, formerly modest houses are replaced with significantly more expensive homes while property values continue to escalate. At the same time, risks associated with coastal hazards continue to increase. Factors such as escalating sea level rise and cyclical and possibly long-term increases in storm frequency and intensity threaten both the natural environment and built environment of New Jersey’s coast. Consequently, the ranking of the Coastal Hazards Section 309 enhancement area remains a high priority with the NJCMP.

for full release, see:  OBAMA – CHRISTIE EMBRACE ENDS OVER SANDY REBUILDING – Feds Resilient Strategy Runs Counter to New Jersey Armor Plating Vulnerable Coast

So, with all this context, focus, and good information on natural dunes, climate change, sea level rise, and criticism of beach replenishment, what does the Bergen Record write about?

The wonders  of beach replenishment!!!! Celebrate the Status Quo that led to disaster!!!! 

All while contributing to the mistaken public perception that DEP previously found an “impediment” to reducing coastal risks – a waring that has been deleted from Christie DEP documents – ironically compounding the scandal story that the Record missed:

public perception that large-scale beach nourishment projects eliminate vulnerability to coastal hazards. 

My note  to Record reporter Karen Sudol:

Karen – pumping sand on beaches is the costly, unsustainable and ineffective status quo and it is NOT going to protect the jersey shore.

DUNES – NATURAL DUNES – are what works best (with a land use plan that moves development out of the most vulnerable or hazardous locations).

You completely missed the story, which is that Gov. Christie has touted DUNES as what spared some towns from Sandy, and has PROMISED DUNES,  but the Army Corps is not building DUNES, has not designed DUNES and has not funded DUNES. (and most of what the Gov. is calling dunes are really piles of sand that lack the structure of real natural dunes).

Meanwhile, the NJ DEP is approval all sorts of haphazard and discredited local engineered sea walls, revetments, et al that do not work.

Both of these situations are scandalous – and if you don’t believe me, read former DEP Commissioner Mauriello’s recent legislative testimony (begins on page 17):

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/pubhear/senaen08152013.pdf

Sorry to be so harsh, but your wrote the wrong story at exactly the wrong time.

Christie Administration DEP and BPU Are Pushing Pipeline Project

So called state regulatory “hurdle” is more like a speed bump

I was going to do this an as update to my post yesterday on the Pinelands Pipeline meeting, but rejected that in favor of a new post because the issues involved are critical and they need to be highlighted independently.

The first issue arises from the Philadelphia Inquirer’s excellent coverage: State rules pose hurdle for proposed Pines pipeline

South Jersey Gas Co.’s proposed pipeline across 21 miles of South Jersey would be permitted through some sections of the Pinelands but not its forest area under state rules, an environmental specialist for the Pinelands Commission told members Wednesday.

My problem is that both the headline and the story over-state the strength of the staff presentation and the Commission’s likelihood of enforcing the “state rules” to kill the project, i.e. conflict with the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan and regulations.

Further down in the story are the critical facts that are buried by that headline and lead paragraph of the story:

Ellis said she began “pre-application” conversations with representatives of South Jersey Gas in April 2012 and had met with them regularly since. […]

One who repeated his opposition Wednesday was Leon Rosenson, a trustee of the advocacy group Pinelands Preservation Alliance. “It’s not your job to help them [South Jersey Gas] find an illegal route,” he told commission members.

The Pinelands Commission was “starting to give the appearance of being a regulator agency captured by the interests it’s supposed to regulate,” Rosenson said. “If you turn them [South Jersey Gas] down . . . they’ll find another route, and you won’t have violated your rules.”

Margo Pellegrino of Medford Lakes urged “a lot of deliberation” before the commission makes a decision. “We have a climate in Trenton where everything is fast-tracked,” she said. “We can’t be fast-tracked.” 

At the same time, the story does not specifically report other critically important factors supporting the project at the highest levels of state government.

As a result, the opposite conclusion is far more likely. The so called state regulatory “hurdle” is more like a speed bump.

The Pinelands staffer did not make any recommendation about implementation or enforcement of the regulations and dodged the implications of the conflict in terms of killing the project.

In fact, the quote in the story on “agency capture” supports my conclusions.

The gentleman quoted about “capture” made a statement that included an excerpt from a letter by the Pinelands staffer to South Jersey Gas regarding negotiation of the MOA, or waiver of Commission regulations.

That communication from staff during negotiations on the development of the pipeline application for submission was basically a green light signaling a likely approval despite the conflicts, and is not appropriate for staff to do at that time and behind the scenes without a clear policy decision by the full Commission.

I wonder who directed the staffer to discuss the MOA option with South Jersey Gas ?

The second point arises from the set up and a quote by the DEP Press Office regarding the DEP enforcement Order for the BL England facility with respect to re-powering in the Press of Atlantic City story:  Pinelands panel hears pipeline arguments.

DEP’s Larry Ragonese is quoted as follows:

The plant has been ordered by the state to convert to burning natural gas because of ongoing violations of the federal and state clean air requirements. Owners of the plant, RC Cape May Holdings, have said the approval of the second pipeline is critical to keeping the plant operational.

Several land use permits from the Department of Environmental Protection would be needed for the project and those permits still have yet to be finalized, said spokesman Larry Ragonese. “From an air perspective, it would be a huge benefit to be able to convert that plant from coal to gas.”

Ragonese is distancing the Christie Administration from the their support of the pipeline project and the BL England re-powering, and at the same time creating a false perception that the DEP land use permits are being reviewed independently and objectively – issuance of those permits is a done deal.

It is correct, but misleading without providing the context and history, to say that the state ordered the plant “to convert to burning natural gas”.

The BL England plant was issued an Enforcement Order in 2006 (scroll to page 37 for Order).

That original 2006 Order mandated that the plant upgrade to meet pollution control requirements or shut down.

The original Order allowed for re-powering as an option, solely up to the corporation to decide. Repowering was NOT state policy. Any re-powering was speculative and accompanied by “regulatory risk”.

The Christie Administration DEP renegotiated and amended the Order on May 18, 2012.

The amended Order is what” mandated” the re-powering – as a matter of state policy – and made commitments to issue regulatory approvals and permits.

Shortly after the May 2012 amended BL England Order by DEP, the BPU issued its Order in June 21, 2013 approving the Pinelands pipeline.

That pro-natural gas policy was not limited to the BL England plant, but was expanded statewide to promote expansion of natural gas as a fuel source and to expand natural gas pipeline infrastructure in the Christie Administration’s Energy Master Plan (see page 58). BPU testified to the Commission and confirmed this.

Here is the critical text which greases the skids and basically commits DEP to issuing all  the permits – including land use permits – for the repowering and pipeline project – see paragraph 22:

This history and DEP commitment is critical context for the Ragonese quote, where he dodges the fact that the re-powering and the pipeline project are supported by the Christie Administration, and then tries to ignore the fact that DEP has made commitments to issue the permits required to make the re-powering project happen.

In addition to these points, there was excellent testimony during yesterday’s hearing about a prior SJG pipeline denial, so SJG knew exactly the regulatory risks they were running – these issues require additional research.

But, like I said, it’s Chinatown, Jake.