WolfeNotes.com

DEP Deserves Tough Questions

Enforcement fines and permit fee revenue declined by $45 million (30%) from FY’22 

From Billions In Carbon Pollution Subsidies To Mismanagement Of State Lands

DEP’s Budget is up before the Assembly Budget Committee on Monday April 24 at 1 pm.

So, to hopefully spur some critical effort by NJ environmental groups and perhaps even generate media coverage (and encourage something other than the routine softball oversight questions), I just sent the below letter to the budget Committee chairs, urging oversight.

I’ve previously written to oppose diversion of $700 million of federal COVID pandemic relief funds ($1 billion so far), especially when NJ’s public health system is broken and underfunded.

And why are corporations getting a $400 million tax cut, which slashed over $36 million from open space and DEP environmental programs?

I focused primarily on natural resources, and intentionally left out the standard diversion of Clean Energy Fund revenues – absurd at a time of a record $10 billion surplus – and extension of the $300 Million PSE&G nuclear subsides for Doug O’Malley and Tom Johnson to rant about the so called high price of renewables.

Legislators also might want to ask why NJ has not demanded, during RGGI update renegotiations, that the paltry RGGI carbon allowance price ($12.50/ton) be increased to reflect the Social Cost of Carbon. 

The current RGGI allowance price results in billions of dollars of subsidies to fossil fuels. If NJ can not negotiate that increase with the other RGGI States, then DEP could unilaterally impose a carbon emission permit fee based on the SCC. Failure to do so provides BILLIONS of dollars of subsidies to NJ carbon polluters.

And has DEP accelerated the expenditure of RGGI revenues?

• After Gov. Murphy Repeatedly Touted The Importance Of NJ Rejoining RGGI, DEP Has Spent Less Than 1% Of Over $250 Million Collected

In a presentation to Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force, DEP stated that they were developing a carbon credit and trading scheme for NJ’s forests. That is a huge policy issue that involves millions of dollars and would take legislation. Commissioner LaTourette must be asked about that.

[Update – DEP budget also raided the Spill Fund for $11 million for administrative (staff) costs.]

Here’s my letter:

Dear Chairwoman Marin and Chairman Sarlo:

I am a retired DEP planner and former Policy Director at Sierra Club, NJ Chapter.

For your information, I submit the following material of relevance on 5 specific issues regarding the DEP budget and urge budget committee oversight.

Please ask DEP Commissioner LaTourette:

1) DEP Ignores Economic Value Of Natural Resources

Why has DEP abandoned and failed to implement their own studies? Taxpayers are being ripped off:

• THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF NEW JERSEY STATE PARKS AND FORESTS

“we can confidently state that New Jersey derives very substantial economic benefits from its State parks, forests, and recreation areas, and on economic grounds alone these sites deserve to be preserved and protected. The extent of that preservation and protection depends on many things, some of which are not under human control. However, as a primary actor in the on-going effort to protect and enhance these valuable natural assets, NJDEP has a major responsibility and impact, and the resources it deploys clearly earn a substantial return on society’s investment. The State parks, forests, and recreation areas are not assets that New Jersey can afford to lose; they are in most cases irreplaceable, and their protection merits the constant attention and stewardship of the public officials and residents of New Jersey. (page 55)

DEP also issued this report:

• Valuing New Jersey’s Natural Capital: An Assessment of the Economic Value of the State’s Natural Resources

Section III of that Report shows, inclusion of certain ecosystem services provided by New Jersey’s forests could add between $630 and $840 million of benefits annually (present value $21-28 billion). (page 5)

DEP’s scientists and economists found that NJ’s forests provide huge “ecosystems services” and that the value of preserved forests far exceeds logging or “actively managed” forests:

“Valuation of Specific Ecosystem Services Preservation of parks and forests can yield substantial economic benefits in the form of ecosystem services. In fact, ecoservices such as watershed protection and carbon storage can be more valuable than forest products such as wood pulp and timber.”

“A 1997 study in the highly-regarded peer-reviewed journal Nature estimated the value of forest hydrological services at $92/hectare/year in 1994 dollars, including $87 for waste treatment, $3 for water supply, and $2 for flow regulation Costanza et al. (1997). Converting this to U.S. measurement units and 2004 dollars, we obtain a value of $47/acre/year. The 1997 estimate was based on the damage costs incurred when deforestation leads to reduction in water quality or fisheries production, the market value of water lost to reduced quality created by deforestation, and the replacement cost for natural decomposition of wastes.” (see p.30-31)

2) DEP Leases of State Land Fail To Reflect Market Based Value

OLS has also conducted at least 3 audits of the DEP’s leases and concessions program and made negative findings. Over a decade ago, the Legislature directed DEP to Report on the fair market value of State land leases and concession, yet DEP has failed to renegotiate leases to reflect current market value. As result, the State is losing millions of dollars, see:

• Christie Parks Funding Policy: Oil & Gas Pipelines and Electric Transmission Lines Get Cheap Leases, While River Tubers, Kayakers, and Boaters Pay New Fees

3) Natural Resource Damage Program Needs Transparency & Regulatory Standards

NJ Courts have rejected DEP NRD lawsuits because DEP failed to adopt science based enforceable standards and economic valuation methods. DEP was required under a judicial consent order to adopt NRD regulations, but has failed to do so. Some suggest that this legal weakness lead to Gov. Christie’s notorious 3 cents on the dollar Exxon settlement. (NJ Law Journal):

… some lawyers and environmental advocates said the state’s failure to adopt a methodology for calculating damages for harm to natural resources through the formal rule-making process—as it committed to do more than a decade ago when it settled another suit—may have weakened its negotiating position and led to a lower settlement in not just the Exxon case but in other natural resource damage suits it has brought. …

A March 23, 2003, letter from deputy attorney general Richard Engel to Picco said the DEP “has long planned to promulgate regulations to improve the current Natural Resource Damage program” and “is currently developing its regulatory proposals, and plans to file one or more rule proposals prior to Aug. 1, 2005.” [end NJLJ]

The DEP is relying on private legal Counsel to litigate “Natural Resource Damage” (NRD) lawsuits, yet they have denied my OPRA requests for information regarding how much those law firms are being paid, see:

• Legislators Asked To Force Disclosure Of Private Law Firm’s “Bounty” For $9.5 Million ExxonMobil NRD Settlement

The voters approved a referendum to constitutionally dedicate NRD revenues, yet the budget does not include any NRD recovery revenues, despite DEP filing 20 NRD lawsuits (and just one settlement).

DEP entered into a NRD settlement agreement with BASF at the Ciba Geigy Toms River Superfund site, yet that settlement failed to include economic compensation. Why?

4) Budget Shifts Burden From Polluters To Taxpayers

It appears that the DEP is shifting the revenue burden from polluters to taxpayers via the General Fund (and federal funds).

Specifically, enforcement fines and permit fee revenue declined by $45 million (30%) from FY’22 – FY24.  (from $151,178,000 to $105,890,000)

What explains that?

Has DEP abandoned enforcement and longstanding polluter pays policy?

5) DEP Forest Management Program Is Broken

Finally, the DEP’s management and logging of State lands has been a longstanding controversy. The recent case of DEP’s clearcutting of wetlands in the Glassboro Wildlife Management Area is just the most recent example. Senator Smith created a Forestry Task Force, who delivered their framework recommendations in January. Senator Smith has announced pending reform legislation.

According, I recommend that the Committee include budget language to impose a moratorium on DEP Forest management projects until Senator Smith’s Legislative Task Force recommendations are adopted in new legislation. Senator Smith stated that he will introduce a bill in June.

The people and taxpayers want to know why they are being ripped off and their natural resources mismanaged.

I am available to provide further supporting information or clarification upon request.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

DEP Will Rely Exclusively On Pollution Controls

DEP Not Required To Consider And Can Ignore Legally Meaningless Local Comments

Overburdened Communities And EJ Activists Were Duped

[Updates Below]

The Murphy DEP issued another self congratulatory press release today announcing the adoption of the proposed environmental justice regulations.

I am reading the 398 page DEP adoption document and response to public comments right now, so will limit my writing now to get out a crucial issue that proves – in DEP’s own words – that the EJ regulations are toothless (and actually LESS stringent than the statute).

Let’s hope the “journalists” out there read the documents – not just the DEP press release – and talk to experts, not just Murphy DEP cheerleaders.

Below is text from the documents that exposes DEP’s claims that the law prevents them from denying permits

(In fact, contrary to DEP’s claims, the statute actually authorizes DEP to deny permits for new facilities. The law does not provide authority to DEP to deny renewal of existing permits for existing facilities. DEP admits this too: (@ p. 120)

This limitation of DEP power to deny permits to existing facilities is actually WEAKER than current environmental laws, which provide clear authority to deny or revoke permits for facilities that are creating unacceptable risks or impacts. Great job EJ activists!)

[Note: The “technical feasibility” standard in these rules to determine the stringency of pollution controls is WEAKER than current NJ Air Pollution Control Act’s “advances in the art of pollution control” standard (also referred to as “State-of-the-art” or SOTA.

DEP explicitly grandfathered existing pollution sources from more stringent requirements (p. 316)

In this response, DEP announces a major policy concession: that DEP will never deny permits, – for existing facilities, expansions, AND new facilities – but instead rely exclusively on pollution controls (and mitigation).

In response to critical comments by the business community, DEP admits this on page 52-53:

“the adopted rules do not prevent construction of new facilities or continued operation or expansion of existing facilities in overburdened communities. Rather, the procedures set forth in the rulemaking seek to fully and accurately assess facilities’ impacts to baseline environmental and public health stressors in overburdened communities and implement appropriate and feasible conditions necessary to avoid disproportionate impacts. As set forth in the notice of proposal, 54 N.J.R. 985-986, the Department does not anticipate that the adopted rules will prevent construction of new subject facilities provided the proper environmental controls are instituted to avoid disproportionate impacts upon overburdened communities. Moreover, only certain types of facilities are subject to the adopted rules at all, and existing facilities of those types are only required to comply with the rules when they seek to renew a major source permit pursuant to the Air Pollution Control Act ( APC Act) or seek to expand operations. In both instances,the APC Act specifically prevents the Department from denying applications or preventing continued operation, authorizing only the implementation of protective permit conditions.”

Where does the NJ APC Act say this? DEP does not provide a citation or legal text.

This is absurd. It would mean that a toxic polluter that created unsafe or unhealthy conditions could not be shut down and permits denied. Even DEP’s flawed “acceptable risk” Technical Manual for Risk Assessment very clearly says DEP can deny an air permit if emissions exceed unacceptable risks.

DEP reiterates this totally lame interpretation later in a conclusion on page 55:

Accordingly, the Department does not anticipate that the rules will result in a loss of economic opportunities for covered facilities as speculated by commenters. New covered facilities will not be prevented from being sited in overburdened communities where their operations can avoid a disproportionate impact or if a compelling public interest is shown, and existing facilities are ensured the right to continue or expand operations subject to appropriately protective conditions.

This is a major concession to the regulated business community.

Everyone was duped – this is even a worse interpretation of DEP authority than the law actually provides and makes DEP even worse than the many criticisms I have made.

The law does not authorize DEP to deny a permit renewal for an existing facility – but it clearly provides authority to deny permits for new facilities.

More to follow as I read the documents.

[Update #1 – DEP made another concession and created another large loophole for “public works” projects, which allegedly would reduce stressors. Industry commenters identified these projects, including under pending legislation, as various energy projects and major new pollution sources under the guise of “public-private partnerships”, which would also include garbage incinerators and “micro-grid” fossil power plants: (@ page 62)

Consistent with the Legislative intent to reduce the environmental and public health stressors within overburdened communities due to historic inequities in facility siting, notwithstanding the economic benefits associated with such facilities, the compelling public interest standard allows the Department to consider whether a proposed facility, such as a public works project, would directly reduce adverse environmental or public health stressors in the host overburdened community, thereby serving an essential environmental, health, or safety need of the host overburdened community and provides an appropriate pathway to allow projects that address host community needs, such as appropriately scaled food waste facilities, public water infrastructure, renewable energy facilities, and projects designed to reduce the effects of combined sewer overflows.

And reiterated and expanded this interpretation on page 66:

to provide a level of guidance, the Department expressly provided in the notice of proposal Summary, and in the adopted rules at N.J.A.C. 7:1C-5.3(c), that facilities, such as a public works project, that would directly reduce adverse environmental or public health stressors in the host overburdened community are the types of facilities that are likely to serve an essential environmental, health, or safety need of the host overburdened community. The Department also provided a non-exclusive list of illustrative examples of potential qualifying projects, such as appropriately scaled food waste facilities, public water infrastructure, renewable energy facilities, and projects designed to reduce the effects of combined sewer overflows.

[Update #2 – The introduced version of the EJ legislation included a provision that would allow local governments to veto permits and approvals independent of DEP – i..e vote NO to stop a project. That local veto provision was stripped out of the bill Gov. Murphy signed into law.

The law also included a huge loophole for projects that would provide a “compelling public interest”.

In an attempt to address these severe weakness in the law and enhance the power of local residents, a commenter suggested that DEP change the word “may” to “shall” to force DEP to consider local comments: (p. 96)

Public Input – “May” vs. “Shall”

142. COMMENT: The regulation should be modified from “may consider public input” regarding the public interest exception to “shall consider public input.”

Revealingly, DEP denied that request and is not required to consider local comment, and they did so with incredible bureaucratic gaslighting: (p. 98

Given the criticality of ensuring that this provision remains narrowly tailored to maintain the integrity of the adopted rules, the need to assess the relativity and credibility of public interest related to a specific application, and the infeasibility in establishing an appropriate numerical standard to gauge public interest, the Department believes the more permissive “may” rather than a mandatory “shall” is appropriate to provide the Department with the necessary flexibility to assess public interest and consider it as a determinative factor in its assessment of compelling public interest only where appropriate. This provides the appropriate balance in providing communities self-determination while maintaining the Department’s statutory decision-making authority. To maintain this balance, the Department is committed to considering all public input and will heavily weigh significant opposition or support for any given project from individuals in the host overburdened community in its decisions under the adopted rules.

What this does is make public comments legally meaningless and unenforceable. It provides unbounded discretion to DEP to ignore or not really respond to public comments.

The DEP is given the sole power to “assess compelling public interest” and your comments don’t legally mean jack shit.

That’s all you need to know – DEP will allow the public interest loophole to be exploited and will ignore local opposition and outrage.

Duped again! Strike 3, you’re out.

[Update #4 – this is another quiet loophole – garbage transfer stations that use rail: (@ p. 125)

Comment: DEP’s regulations require the registration and licensing of intermodal container facilities, so these facilities must obtain the “permit, registration, or license issued by the department” that triggers the EJ Law process. Thus, DEP’s final EJ Rule should make clear that these intermodal container facilities are also covered by the EJ Law

RESPONSE  

The Department agrees that it was the intention of the EJ Law to include transfer stations, however the Department’s solid waste rules explicitly do not include intermodal containers facilities as solid waste facilities per the definition of “solid waste facility” at N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.4.… the Department does not consider intermodal container facilities to be transfer stations or other solid waste facilities. [Note: therefore they are not regulated by the EJ law definition of “permit”]

[Update #5 – another loophole – land application of sludge is exempt not by statute because DEP narrowly defined the NJPDES permits to include individual permits, not NJPDES General Permits. That also means hundreds of NJPDES General Permits are exempt too (see page 126-127)

[Update #6 – another set of loopholes – and there are a lot of surface impoundments and land treatment units, including hazardous waste sites. Landfill closure and disruption permits are pretty nasty operations (p. 129):

Additionally, to the extent a surface impoundment, waste pile, or other land treatment unit would not otherwise be considered a landfill under the existing rules, it would be exempt.

The Department notes that landfills are subject to the rules to the extent they require a permit as defined at N.J.A.C. 7:1C-1.5, which notably excludes those permits, including certain landfill disruption permits, “necessary to perform a remediation,” ensuring that necessary remedial activities may continue.

“No New Revenues” Approach Exposes Corporate Control Of Faux Green Groups

Corporations, Builders, And Developers Evade Infrastructure Funding Obligations

My prior post on West Windsor’s selfish attempt to grab $20 million of COVID money is chump change compared to this: (NJ Spotlight today)

“It’s going to help but it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Schrauth, who is leading an effort to use $700 million in New Jersey’s share of pandemic relief money for upgrading water infrastructure. She said the higher-than-expected amount for lead service lines reflects a recalculation by EPA for states like New Jersey that have an especially high number of the lines.

The diversion of this money away from glaring public health system needs is a total disgrace (even though the water infrastructure expansion would provide some public health benefits).

(and I can’t wait to hear the claimed nexus between COVID and decrepit water infrastructure!)

Why can’t the Green Ghouls demand NEW FUNDING and NEW REVENUES to fund their projects?

They did exactly the same thing in the Keep It Green Campaign where they diverted DEP and State parks money to open space because they lacked the spine to fight Gov. Christie for new money.

The rich and corporations have enjoyed decades of tax cuts and subsidies. As a result, wealth and income inequality is greater than the days of the Robber Barrons.

According to a RAND Corporation Report (no liberal think tank!), there has been a $50 trillion upward transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich during this period. That is obscene.

They have a huge ability to pay and should begin paying their fair share of public obligations.

This regressive Neoliberal corporate funding approach is the result of the environmental community’s larger sellout to corporate and right wing ideology and corporate Foundation funding.

It is what happens when fraudulent corporate dominated groups like NJ Future are allowed to define the agenda and control the politics and policy of public campaigns to meet critical public needs, like water infrastructure. New revenues are blocked by the corporate influence on NJ Future.

NJ Future has no business speaking for the public interest in water infrastructure – they are a corporate and developer dominated organization (just look at the NJ Future Board and their funders and supporters).

Things won’t change until progressives call this stuff out publicly and regain control of the policy agenda and force real change.

I urge the Commission to conduct technical reviews and submit technical comments on DEP regulatory proposals, instead of vague and misleading political endorsements.

The NJ Pinelands Commission is by law an independent regional planning and regulatory agency.

The Commission is bound by law to base its decisions and actions on the best available science in accordance with the policies and standards adopted in the Pinelands Protection Act and codified in the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

The Pinelands Act directs and authorizes the Commission to adopt more stringent regulatory standards than DEP, in order to protect unique and sensitive Pinelands ecosystems.

The Commission is independent and not a political institution or an arm of the Governor’s Office (despite the fact the Gov. Murphy installed his political loyalist as Chair of the Commission).

Yet, based on my review of recent comments submitted to DEP in support of DEP’s recent flood rules, it is obvious that the Commission has been captured by the Governor’s Office and is running political interference for the Gov. and the DEP.

So, I just fired off this letter to the Commission:

Dear Pinelands Commission:

Please consider the following as public comments during your upcoming public meeting.

I just read the Pinelands Commission’s 2/2/23 written comments submitted by Stacey Roth on proposed DEP stormwater management and Flood Hazard Act regulations.

The Commission supported those proposed rules on the following basis:

“Development within the State of New Jersey must be designed and constructed to manage not only for today’s flood conditions but for the significantly higher precipitation level anticipated to occur in the future.“

Yet, according to the DEP proposal itself, the proposed rule’s precipitation, runoff, flood elevation, and storm frequency data do not reflect current conditions and do not reflect projected (modeled) conditions.

Accordingly, as explained below, the Commission’s comments are not accurate.

1. DEP based the rule on the 100 year storm event, despite the fact that NJ already has experienced several far more severe 500 year storm events.

DEP’s proposal documents the fact that NJ has suffered 500 year (or more) Storm events and flooding (proposal @ page 10):

Specifically, the remnants of Tropical Storm Ida resulted in flooding significantly more severe than FEMA’s published 100-year flood at various locations in New Jersey:

Raritan River at Bound Brook:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida equaled 1999’s Hurricane Floyd, which was the highest elevation ever recorded at Bound Brook.
• Including Floyd, flooding at this location in the past 23 years has equaled or exceeded FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation three times.
• The Raritan River during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at 42.13 ft NGVD (41.21 ft NAVD) which is 3.01 feet above FEMA’s 100-year elevation (38.2 ft NAVD) and 0.21 ft above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD).

Raritan River at Bridgewater

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD) which is 2.8 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (38.2 ft NAVD)

Millstone River at Manville:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly one foot above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (43.5 ft NAVD) which is 2.5 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD). Thus, flooding at this location peaked at approximately 3.5 feet above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation.

DEP then explains the significance of the 500 year flood event: (@page 11):

“These examples illustrate not only that Ida was a significant flood event that exceeded the anticipated flooding depicted on available flood mapping products, upon which many roads and buildings were financed, constructed, and insured in the impacted communities, but also that there is an upward trend in the number and severity of flood events in the State. As noted above, flooding in Bound Brook has exceeded FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation four times and FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation three times since 1999, which leads to the conclusion that we are already experiencing increased flooding as compared with past recurrence interval calculations.”

Despite the facts that NJ is already experiencing 500 year floods and that climate science projects that extreme storms will significantly increase in rainfall amount, rainfall intensity (short severe bursts of rainfall that create floods), and extreme rainfall frequency, the DEP did not even use the 500 year storm.

Instead, DEP merely added a 25% “safety factor” addition to the current 100 year storm event they’ve been using for decades.

And look how they then falsely stated that it would be adequate – a statement made before the facts on 500 year storms are summarized on page 10-11: (@page 5):

“This rulemaking incorporates anticipated greater depths of precipitation for the two, 10, and 100-year storm events for the purposes of stormwater management.These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that buildings, roads, stormwater management features and other structures are designed and constructed to manage and be protective for today’s flood conditions and precipitation as well as anticipated future conditions and precipitation. […]

Specifically, the flood hazard area design flood elevation is based on a flood that is 25 percent greater than the 100-year peak flow rate in the stream or river being analyzed and mapped.”

The technical regulatory fine print for this standard is on page 102:

“6. Table 3.6B below sets forth the change factors to be used in determining the projected 100-year storm event for use in this chapter”

The 100 year storm – even with an additional 25% “safety factor” increment – can not “ensure that buildings, roads, stormwater management features and other structures are designed and constructed to manage and be protective for today’s flood conditions and precipitation as well as anticipated future conditions and precipitation.”

That proposed new standard is already exceeded now, never mind projected climate driven increases.

DEP admits this multiple times in the proposal:

“More than 12 rivers exceeded their 100-year flood levels”

“On August 27 and 28, 2011, Hurricane Irene resulted in record breaking floods on many New Jersey streams, with 33 USGS stream gauges recording peak flows equal to or greater than the 100-year recurrence interval (USGS, 2011).”

DEP exposed the inadequacy of the 100 year design storm for the purpose of justifying their new 25% “safety factor”.

But, ironically, in doing so, DEP also exposed the flaws in relying on the 100 year flood.

2. DEP Ignores Land Use Increases In Development. DEP’s proposed new standards are obsolete for the same reasons that DEP correctly rejects current rainfall methods

Just some basic observations make it obvious that, in addition to underestimating extreme rainfall amounts and flood elevations, DEP is failing to consider a basic driver of increased flood impacts.

Flooding is a combination of the amount and timing of rainfall and the ability of the landscape to absorb that rainfall.

NJ is a highly developed state.

Development destroyed forests, wetlands, and natural landscapes that absorb rainfall and dampen flooding. It also puts people and property at risk when located in areas prone or vulnerable to flooding.

Development also increases impervious surfaces that dramatically increase the generate stormwater runoff volumes.

Yet the DEP proposal ignores the changes in land use and impervious surfaces that generated huge volumes of stormwater that contribute to bad land use decisions that result in devastating deadly flooding.

The proposal ignores existing development, it will influence new development at the margin, and it therefore depends on market forces, not any overarching State Land use and climate plan or infrastructure investment program.

A critical Star ledger editorial got that:

“A lot of New Jersey was developed prior to the stormwater regulations,” Obropta said. “The state needs to require municipalities to begin retrofitting existing development with stormwater management if we have any hope to reduce flooding.”

The proposal ignores existing development.

The proposal does very little to cap or reduce impervious surfaces or stop the loss of natural lands like forests, wetlands and stream buffers. It guarantees that the flooding problems will get worse.

I urge the Commission to conduct technical reviews and submit technical comments on DEP regulatory proposals, instead of vague and misleading political endorsements.

Bill Wolfe

Political Opportunists, Faux Green Populists, And Duped Climate Activists

And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom; ….

They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. ….

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind:  …

For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof. ~~~ Hosea 1; 8

Longtime investigative reporter Bob Hennelly has an interesting take and overview today on the off shore wind – whale controversy, a debate I’ve called “reaping the whale wind”.

I spoke to him briefly yesterday afternoon. I got the sense that he had already written his piece and was just checking in for my take on the issue. I was glad to see that he included PEER’s work in his reporting, as PEER has long been working on ocean ecology and right whale issues and I have high regard for that work (support PEER’s petition).

As a thoughtful person with a long history of working on environmental issues, Bob seems to have intellectually framed this issue as another example of the failure of capitalism, technology, and industrial development to consider long term environmental implications – and that government downplays risks, misleads and lies to the public, and fails to regulate powerful corporations – a perspective that is implicit in his reporting. Of course I strongly agree with that perspective, but that intellectual worldview has very little to do with the current controversy, which is fabricated by political hacks and opportunists.

Read the whole thing, it’s pretty comprehensive;

• Save the Whales or Next Day Delivery?

NJ Spotlight’s daily email tells me that a newly formed group will protest today at the State House:

Offshore wind opponents led by the group Protect Our Coast NJ will rally outside the State House today to urge Gov. Murphy to stop offshore wind development until the cause behind recent whale strandings is determined.

What frauds.

I’ve tried to steer clear of this swamp, but here are my quick thoughts on Bob’s piece: may they all “reap the whale wind”:

1. Anti-wind sources are not credible

Some of the sources are highly suspect.

Van Drew is clearly playing opportunistic, partisan, and dangerously right wing politics. I’ve called them Tea Party 2.0. “Town Hells”.

Van Drew is a hypocrite too – look how he played a similar game when he SUPPORTED the South Jersey Gas Pinelands pipeline: (Press Of Atlantic City, 2/24/17)

State Senator Jeff VanDrew released a statement of his support, saying opponents had threatened him.

“I want to thank the [Pinelands] commissioners who voted to approve the [pipeline] project. They had the courage to do what they thought was right, despite the threats to their safety and harassment they endured during this tumultuous process,” said VanDrew. “This type of intimidation, which was also directed at me, is deplorable.”

He would have more credibility if instead of cherry picking a single NOAA document, he actually had some history of concern or leadership in protecting whales and the environment or fighting climate change, instead of backing massive new fossil infrastructure projects (and supporting the commercial fishing and shipping industries and shore real estate development interest, while attacking government regulatory protections).

Cindy Zipf is a political partisan hack.

Why do opponents target just one (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) RISK to whales when so many other DOCUMENTED CAUSES like boat strikes and fishing gear are ignored, and more fundamental ecological collapse dynamics (i.e. temperature, currents, acidification, nutrient pollution, overfishing) and shore overdevelopment are ALL IGNORED?

The opponents have ZERO CREDIBILITY.

The cynical strategic political game Senator Booker and the Democrats are playing might even be worse.

They are trying to catch the wave of public revulsion of whale deaths and outflank the Republicans FROM THE FAUX POPULIST RIGHT.

Biden has done that recently with border security and national security (war in Ukraine).

US politics are like Humpty Dumpty – all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men…..

2. What If …. Total Failure By Coastal Groups Contributes To the Current Catastrophe

I’ll mention just 2 examples of the total failure of coastal groups today (I could write a very long post with dozens).

The coastal groups failed to support the original proposal for a NJ Coastal Commission (my friend and former head of NJ Audubon conservation work Bill Neil can tell you that story, going back to the Kean Administration).

More recently, the same coastal groups failed to support renewed legislation that would have created a Coastal Commission in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, see:

• Why Are Coastal Advocates Doing Nothing To Support The Coastal Commission Bill?

Those same groups also failed to support the bill that was enacted into law in 2008 that established a science based Coastal And Ocean Protection Council. Had that Council been in place, we would have far better scientific understanding of ocean ecosystems, including whales and wind, see:

• What Ever Happened To The NJ Coastal And Ocean Protection Council?

3. The Real Problem Is Not Wind Technology: Murphy’s Off Shore Wind Program Is Flawed

Some opponents correctly criticize the Murphy off-shore wind program for excessive public subsidies to foreign corporations.

But again, these people are opportunists and lack credibility, because these problems can be solved by public investment and public ownership. But they would NEVER SUPPORT PUBLIC POWER.

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal recommended that the existing Federal Power Authorities be repurposed for renewables – EVERYONE IGNORED ALL THAT!

• Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest – consistent with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goals – by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. …

• Transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100 percent energy efficiency and sustainable energy by 2030 at the latest. The New Deal provided inexpensive electricity to America through efforts like the Rural Electrification Administration and the Federal Power Marketing Administrations. If the federal government was able to electrify America under FDR without computers or any of the modern technologies we have available to us today, think of what we can do today. Municipal and cooperative electric utilities still provide some of the least expensive electricity in the country today. As part of the Green New Deal, we will expand on that success.

• Build enough renewable energy generation capacity for the nation’s growing needs. Currently, four federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and the Tennessee Valley Authority generate and transmit power to distribution utilities in 33 states.We will create one more PMA to cover the remaining states and territories and expand the existing PMAs to build more than enough wind, solar, energy storage and geothermal power plants. We will spend $1.52 trillion on renewable energy and $852 billion to build energy storage capacity. Together, with an EPA federal renewable energy standard, this will fully drive out non-sustainable generation sources.

• We will end greed in our energy system. The renewable energy generated by the Green New Deal will be publicly owned, managed by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority and sold to distribution utilities with a preference for public power districts, municipally- and cooperatively-owned utilities with democratic, public ownership, and other existing utilities that demonstrate a commitment to the public interest. The Department of Energy will provide technical assistance to states and municipalities that would like to establish publicly owned distribution utilities or community choice aggregation programs in their communities. Electricity will be sold at current rates to keep the cost of electricity stable during this transition.

Public power is the answer.

Instead, we have the corporate profit driven Wall Street financed Murphy off shore wind program.

Finally, a point that can not be over-emphasized and that I’ve written here many many times: climate activists who support the Murphy program also seriously miss the boat.

The Murphy program does NOT require that wind generated power displace fossil fuel generated power.

Instead, it integrates wind with natural gas. From an energy planning perspective, wind will serve demand growth for electricity (as the economy is electrified), so we will get MORE greenhouse gas emissions, not less.

Climate activists are being duped by Murphy.

Yes, may they all reap the whale wind.

[End Note: I am a constant critic of the DEP. But in this case, in several email discussions on this issue, I praised DEP for issuing a science based statement on March 15.

However, DEP waited far too long to issue this statement and it came far too late, long after the faux debate had been framed.]