Search Results

Keyword: ‘infrastructure’

Gubernatorial candidates discuss energy and environmental issues

September 9th, 2009 No comments
Westfield, NJ Library - Environment NJ sponsored forum

Westfield, NJ Library - Environment NJ sponsored forum

[Update: 9/11/09 – here’s how the Asbury Park Press and Atlantic City Press reported these issues, 2 days later, from the Statehouse:

Daggett: No gas terminals off the coast [link] 

Daggett opposes liquified natural gas posts off coast [link]

Public presses N.J. Gov. candidates on clean energy plans [link] – end update]

About 80 citizens, a handful of local officials, and two state legislators came out to discuss environmental issues with Gubernatorial candidates (or their representatives) last night in Westfield, in a forum sponsored by Environment NJ, the Highlands Coalition, and Clean Ocean Action.

There were no corporate flacks or lobbyists in sight. No one shouted or called anyone a Nazi. Citizens passionately but rationally asked informed and important questions. The candidates didn’t attack each other, pander or appeal to hate or fear, but instead discussed their ideas about public policy.

Given the political context and the in the gutter conduct of the Gubernatorial campaign thus far, the event was a huge success. Thank you Environment NJ for taking the high road, not doing the traditional shallow endorsement rag, and  instead forcing the candidates to discuss issues and to be accountable to voters.

Let’s see if the press can follow your lead, rise to the occasion, and focus on the issues instead of the horse race.

Who knows, maybe this event can catalyze a shift in the entire campaign, and the candidates will start to focus on issues, citizens will be civil, the press responsible, and the corporate special interests neutered – and we can have functional democracy instead of the spin, personal attacks, and propaganda that passes for a political campaign these days….   

Chris Daggett, Independent candidate for Governor

Chris Daggett, Independent candidate for Governor

Independent Chris Daggett

Daggett was the only candidate who showed up. At the outset, he made a biting remark that he’s been the only candidate showing up lately at lots of events. Give him credit for this. While I don’t agree with several things he said, he clearly was knowledgeable on the issues and willing to honestly engage. Daggett has received the Sierra Club’s endorsement)

Democratic Governor Corzine

Corzine sent Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), Chairman of the Assembly Environment Committee.  Shame on the Governor for not showing up to defend his record and implicitly disrespecting the forum, its sponsors, and thousands of highly concerned and motivated NJ environmental voters. This is especially shameful, given that Corzine touts his energy and global warming accomplishments as the key strength of his environmental record.

It was awkward to listen to McKeon repeatedly claim that Jon Corzine is a national leader for passage of the Global Warming Response Act; that the Regional Green House Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap and  trade program is the model for the bill now before Congress, and that the NJ Energy Master Plan’s 30% renewable energy goal is the nation’s most aggressive. If these are national level accomplishments, why can’t the Governor show up to discuss them at the only forum dedicated to energy and environment during the entire campaign? Politically, I’m dumfounded why the Governor would choose to alienate a traditionally democratic leaning environmental base constituency. Polls show he trails republican Chris Christie by around 10 points, while Independent Chris Daggett is polling at about 10%. In such a tight race with a perceived pro-environment third party candidate , why would Corzine want to bleed more environmental voters to Daggett?

Republican Chris Christie

Christie sent Richard Dovey , head of the Atlantic County Utility Authority. ACUA has done great work on wind. Rich is a technocrat with 30 years of experience in environmental management, mostly at the county and regional level. He did a great job, given how very little guidance he was given by the Christie campaign on the issues that were discussed. He was really in a tough spot.

Here’s what went down

The event began with brief overviews by each candidate. They were asked to focus on energy and global warming. They all wandered and didn’t break any real substantive new ground.

McKeon touted Corzine’s record on Global Warming Response Act goals,, RGGI, and BPU Energy Master Plan 30% renewable energy goal by 2020. He called the Governor’s leadership to get a $400 million Open Space question on this fall’s ballot a “profile in courage” and alluded to unspecified accomplishments on clean water (I assume he was NOT  referring to this or this Jeff Tittel warning letter to Commissioner Lisa Jackson, a letter Jackson ignored when rolling back stream buffer protections).

Dovey spoke about how me met Christie’s during a press event tour of the ACUA wind farm. He emphasized Christie recognition of the need for more leadership and said Christie is committed to building on and making decisions to implement the consensus goals of the Corzine  GWRA and EMP. He stressed Christie’s sense of immediacy – that the time is now to make decisions on specific projects. However, Dovey only had one brief conversation with a Christie campaign staffer on the issues and was working off of Christie’s website for the candidate’s position on energy industry issues and protecting the environment. 

Dovey didn’t mention controversial statements Christie has made attacking DEP and promising to clean house there. Shame too on Christie for not showing up to defend his views.

Daggett opened by touting his leadership as Chairman of the DEP Permit Efficiency Task Force. He outlined his collaborative approach to public policy as building consensus, working with diverse interests, and relying on the best available science. He stressed the need to be realistic (does this mean DEP should “do less with less”?), especially given NJ’s State budget crisis, and felt that the Corzine GWRA and EMP goals are unrealistically aggressive, but that he agreed with those goals as something to aim for. He claimed that renewable energy was “more expensive than fossil fuel energy”  and that we needed to consider two basic policy options: a) pointing to the fluctuations in gasoline prices, whether to impose an energy tax to address maarket price fluctuations that destabilize the investment climate for renewables and efficiency; or b) let the market continue to govern policy decisions. He said we could do a lot more on efficiency and conservation. He stressed the need for NJ to do a lot more on R&D.

He  savagely criticized NJ’s higher education policy – called it “embarrassing”,  ranked #50 in the nation, and active “disinvestment” – and talked about how lack of education investment was driving the brain drain and undermining private sector investment, innovation, and economic growth in strategic  sectors, such as high technology, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy, especially things like electric cars.  Dagget said NJ has high population density which provides a natural comparative advantage in developing technologies like electric cars and energy storage technologies. He closed by saying “it’s time to stop the nonsense and focus on what’s best for NJ”. He was very good here.

The floor was then opened to questions from the public:

1. John Weber of Surfrider Foundation asked each candidate’s position on the planned offshore Liquified Natural Gas project, dubbed “Insanity Island”

Corzine – sees natural gas and LNG as a key fuel needed to meet energy demand and avoid disruption (at leat 5 times, McKeon used the scare tactic phrase, “in order to keep the lights on“. I call BS on this.

Christie – although familiar with a proposed Delaware Bay LNG project killed by Delaware officials (he misspoke and said NJ opposed), no position.

Daggett – claimed glut of natural gas and lots of natural gas supply in US not used to capacity, more capacity being discovered, global warming impacts of fossil fuels, national security threat to rely on foreign energy sources, could not support.

2. Sierra Club member and professor of economics at Raritan Valley CC challenged Daggett’s intro remarks about the costs of renewables.  He suggested that Daggett read the literature and analyses of the Rocky Mountain Institute that show if government subsidies  and pollution impacts of fossil fuels were considered, as well as peak pricing benefits of renewables, then the opposite is true. He also asked if candidates support the proposed 750 MW Linden coal plant that will capture and store CO2.70 miles out under the ocean.

No candidates really responded to the economic questions. McKeon relied on talking points. To his credit, Dovey showed an understanding of the history of technology scale issues and cost structures (costs decline over time), and pollution subsidies. But I think he spun by claiming that the ACUA wind farm had displaced demand for local jet fuel peak power plant. Daggett dug into a flawed position by focusing on the up front  capital costs and costs on an installed basis comparison to support his claim that renewables are higher costs than fossil fuels. This was a major gaffe.

Christie – no position on Linden

Corzine – no comment – CCS and Linden project under study

Daggett – oppose Linden – CCS is untested technology

3. Julia Sommers of the Highlands Coalition asked the candidates position on the extremely controversial Susquehanna/PSEG Roseland power line

Christie – no position

Daggett – he dodged the issue, claimed it was before the BPU and would be decided this fall by the current Governor.

Corzine – McKeon dodged the issue, but  repeated the “keep the lights on” scare and defended the indefensible $18.6 million PSEG bribe to secure Highlands Council approval.

4. Rick Ege of Trout Unlimited asked about shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania and toxic impacts on the Delaware River, and whether each candidate would use NJ’s Governor’s authority at the Delaware River Basin Commission to block these projects.

Daggett – need to solve problems regionally. Not familiar with details, can’t take a position.

Christie – no position

Corzine – no position, but McKeon said maybe Corzine can work with Pa Governor as he did on Delaware dredge issue. Curiously, Corzine agreed to support the project.

5. A citizen and mother of a child with asthma asked about smart energy grid and the relationship between energy and public health.

Corzine – McKeon talked about importing midwest wind power. Seems like he was referring to Al Gore’s approach. EMP recognizes need to upgrade and integrate current grid. But he was basically clueless about what a smart grid or distributed energy mean.

Christie – Dovey made an historical analogy to the development of a unified railroad infrastructure by standardizing tracks, eliminating private control of technology decisions (track widths), government investment, et al.

Daggett – provided a strong argument for infrastructure policy and savagely criticized NJ’s policy on Transportation Trust borrowing and longstanding failure to comply with long term pay go finance. He said great need to expand wastewater and drinking water infrastructure programs.

6. A citizen (also professor of sustainability at a NJ university) asked about a stealth campaign to restore nuclear power as clean energy and build new plants. Also asked whether BPU could separate their regulatory role and renewable energy role – where BPU is not up to the task of meeting energy goals and managing that program. Could a new entity created to implement?

Daggett – monster budget deficit makes any new program impossible. He dodged the new nuke plant question with a straw man argument that it is not sound public policy to eliminate nuclear power out of hand.

Christie – no position

Corzine – McKeon repeated the keep the light on scare. Said nuke plants are safe and professional – perhaps he is unaware of the case of Dennis Zannoni, DEP’s Chief nuclear engineer that was canned for criticizing NRC ? Or this?  In the only new revelation of the evening, McKeon disclosed that he spent the weekend touring Barnegat Bay with DEP Commissioner Mauriello to consider constructing a new inlet around Brick to address massive pollution problems. McKeon really dodged the Corzine administration and DEP’s failure to require cooling towers at Oyster Creek to protect the Bay.

7. The Mayor of Maplewood asked the candidates to specifically identify what they would do too implement the EMP goals of 30% renewables by 202. Currently, NJ is only 3-4% so how can we get 26% more in next 11 years? Would candidtes support European approach, which provides financial incentives that set prices at long term fixed rates above current market prices ( NJ doesn’t come close Germany performance or financial incentives).

Corzine – McKeon talking points response.

Daggett – admitted we are not on track to meet these goals and probably won’t be in next 11 years.  Blamed “the bureaucracy” at BPU and DEP. Cheap shot. Pointed to “streamlining” recommendations of DEP Permit Efficiency Task Force.

Christie – no position.

Air pollution from Ports a high cancer risk

September 5th, 2008 No comments

Pollution risk twelve hundred (1,200) times cancer risk standard
[Update #2 (1/25/09] I initially posted on this topic on April 9, 2008 and again on September 5, 2008. Today, after almost a year, the Bergen Record finally got around to covering the story, but somehow managed to let DEP off the hook by focus on the Port Authority:
N.J. pushing for restrictions on diesel trucks at ports
http://www.northjersey.com/environment/NJ_pushing_for_restrictions_on_diesel_trucks_at_ports.html
[Update (1/2/09): here is an excellent article that dicusses the national picture of health and environmental threats from ports:Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/97496/
The NJ Clean Air Council recently released the public hearing transcript and their recommendations on controlling air pollution from our ports. We wrote about the Council’s April 9, 2008 public hearing on “Improving Air Quality at our Ports and Airports” here:
Experts and Advocates: Pollution from Ports A High Cancer Risk to Urban NJ
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/04/experts_and_advocates_pollutio.html
Here is a link to the Council’s full report and hearing transcript.
IMPROVING AIR QUALITY AT OUR PORTS & AIRPORTS
Setting an Agenda for a Cleaner Future

http://www.nj.gov/dep/cleanair/hearings/2008hearing_report.pdf
I urge people to read this Report and compare the NJ Clean Air Council’s recommendations with the California program.
To highlight the significance of this issue, check out the below excerpt of testimony from the California South Coast Air Quality Management District scientist. This is something you won’t hear from DEP or the NJ Clean Air Council.
The public also is not aware of the fact that NJ lacks enforceable cancer risk regulatory standards for air pollution sources. But water and toxic sites cleanup soil standards are based on cancer risk and regulated by DEP based on a one in a million risk standard (for individual lifetime excess cancer risk.)
“In terms of toxics, however, the picture geographically is quite different. A monitoring study the South Coast Air Quality conducted a few years ago, which estimated cancer risks over our region. If we include diesel, we have a very different picture. The average cancer risks in our area are approximately one thousand two hundred in a million is from air toxics. We consider that very significant. Air quality district rules prohibit stationary sources from emitting toxics creating risk in excess of ten in a million for new sources and twenty-five in a million for existing sources so twelve hundred in a million average over the area is considered very high.
Source: Report @ page 14
Some questions that arise out of this Report:
1. Why isn’t the public warned and provided information about what NJ’s cancer risks are from NJ air and sea ports?
2. Does NJ have as strong a monitoring and regulatory program to control and reduce port emissions as California? If not, why not?

3. Why aren’t air pollution cancer health risks regulated to the same health standard as water and soil? (i.e. one in a million risk)
4. Why is air quality modeling and health risk assessment voluntary for permits issued to major air polluters in NJ?

Here is a link to NJ DEP’s Air Toxics page for addition information related to these issues:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/airtoxics/
California Program info:
Plan May Ease Air Pollution at Ports
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/06/local/me-ships6
South Coast District Air Quality Management Plan
“The combined Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach including sources such as oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, trains, trucks, and cargo handling equipment represent the largest single source of emissions in the Basin, accounting for 60% of SOx, 27% of NOx, and 6% of PM2.5 in 2023.”
[…]
FUNDING AVAIABILITY
The overall costs of implementing the control measures proposed in the Final 2007 AQMP are in the billions of dollars. In-use mobile source fleet modernizations, accelerated retirement of high-emitting vehicles and equipment, alternative fuels and their infrastructure, advanced retrofits, facility modernization, and product reformulations and replacements are among strategies which require significant levels of funding. For illustration purposes, the estimated costs associated with the recently released San Pedro Bay Port’s Draft Clean Air Action Plan and CARB’s Goods Movement Plan targeting ports and goods movement sectors alone are approximately $2 billion dollars and $10 billion dollars, respectively. The costs of implementing the AQMP control measures affecting virtually all source categories in the Basin will add to these estimates. However, the economic values of avoiding adverse health effects are projected to be many times higher than the implementation cost of clean air strategies.
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Executive_Summary.pdf
Full SCAQMD Plan:
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html
EPA Region 9 Progress Report:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/annualreport/05/air.html
Children’s Health
http://134.67.99.14/ncer/childrenscenters/outreach_docs/breath_of_air_trans3.html
Marine Diesel lawsuit
http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/cases/2007/marine-diesel-emissions.html

Categories: Policy watch, Politics Tags:

Crossroads for Corzine on the Environment

July 26th, 2008 4 comments
Governor Corzine consults with DEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson

As he returns to NJ from a week in Israel, Governor Jon Corzine is faced with major decisions on the environment. These decisions will define his legacy on environmental issues and set the stage for any political endorsements by environmental groups in the 2009 gubernatorial campaign.
Here they are in order of timing – most immediate first:
1. The Permit Extension Act was passed by both houses of the Legislature on June 30 and is on the Governor’s desk and must be acted on in 45 days. The bill is vigorously opposed by environmentalists who are seeking a veto. The bill would do absolutely nothing to address real economic hardships and financial market problems caused by the sub-prime mortage disaster and collapse of the housing market and construction industry. Yet, by automatically extending long expired old approvals, it would lock in builders to antiquated development plans and frustrate major environmental goals, such as global warming and water supply protection, that require new designs and environmental controls. See: http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2008/07/a_cruel_hoax_on_many_levels.html
2. Highlands Master Plan – The Highlands Council approved a controversial Regional Master Plan last week. The Governor has 30 days to either veto it and send it back to the Council for more work, or accept it. Environmentalists are seeking a veto. See: Download file
3. Clean Water Funds In June, the legislature passed bills re-authorizing and appropriating $550 million for clean water infrastructure projects. This is the same DEP program that provided a $212 million mostly unsecured loan to the Encap Meadowlands project that recently filed for bankruptcy. As a result of weaknesses in the law and lax DEP oversight, taxpayers have lost at least $60 million as a result, and recent press reports suggest Mafia involvement. Environmentalists are urging the Governor to conditionally veto the bill to a) prohibit funding of private development projects; and b) strengthen safeguards, loan standards, and DEP oversight to respond to the major flaws in Inspector General Cooper’s Report. See: Legislature clears loans for water cleanup – Some of $550 million will fund private firms http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1214886981327450.xml&coll=1
4. Global Warming Plans – The Corzine Administration failed to meet the first major statutory milestone in implementing the emission reduction goals of the highly touted Global Warming Response Act. A June 30th legal deadline for producing a plan identifying the legislative and regulatory “measures necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” will not be met until September at the earliest. NJ will miss the first auction in September to sell pollution allowances under the 10 northeastern states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). At the same time, Corzine has supported new nuclear plants and an Energy Plan that fails to make regulatory commitments and investments to promote energy efficiency, expand renewable power, phase out coal power, restrict coal based electric imports, ban power exports to NYC, retro-fit exisiting buildings, and reduce current greenhouse gas emissions. See:
Corzine misses global warming deadline
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080702/NEWS01/80702035/1006
The Governor clearly has his work cut out for him – and these are only the most pressing decisions he must make. This does not consider unfinished business and commitments to other major initiatives, such as 1) enforcing environmental justice, 2) release of the long overdue Water Supply Plan; 3) abandoning his scheme to privatize the cleanup of toxic sites; 4) renewal of Garden State Preservation Trust funding for open space preservation, historic, and recreational resources; and 5) derailing the massive campaign by the NJ Builders Association to rollback local land use and environmental laws.
Corzine’s legacy will be determined by September.

Categories: Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics Tags:

Is this sane?

July 11th, 2008 4 comments

Question:
If NJ is losing jobs, residents, and economic development to Northeastern Pennsylvania as the Star Ledger recently reported, and we are seeking to redevelop urban NJ, and we need to raise gas taxes or tolls to improve NJ transportation infrastructure, then why are we spending a half a billion dollars to accelerate the Pennsylvania hemorrhage, promote rural development, and ignoring far more cost effective urban NJ transit needs?
I have not analyzed this project, so I’m just asking. Investment in a network based on inter-city hi-speed rail (point to point) would be a different kettle of fish and something I strongly support.
$551M rail project on track
ANDOVER TWP. | Norbert Hornstein’s daughter was sitting in traffic on Interstate 80 recently when she noticed the solution to her problems just off the highway: a train station.
For his daughter and other drivers clogging up the road, Hornstein hopes the Lackawanna Cut-Off project moves forward, bringing the promise of passenger rail service between Scranton, and New York City.
“To me, it makes all the sense in the world. To me, the big question is, ‘When?'” the Denville resident said. “We’ve waited long enough.”
The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority and NJ Transit held a public hearing Thursday in Sussex County to present the project’s latest environmental assessment. Coming about 30 years after the rail line was removed, it offered Hornstein and other residents a glimpse of plans to restore the 133-mile route.
With the report, state and federal transportation officials propose starting the project with a 52.3-mile stretch heading east from Andover Township. It would be completed in about four years. Funding has not been found to complete the remaining portion through Warren County and into Pennsylvania, officials said.
(complete article: http://www.njherald.com/story/11CUTOFF-web

Categories: Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics Tags:

These are Environmental Jobs

June 21st, 2008 2 comments

Lots of Jobs cleaning up the environment, not building new sprawl

*** Apologies – NJ.Com took down the photos, which were originally published on my “NJ Voices” column at NJ.Com. I was able to save the text, but not the photos. What assholes.

solar – clean energy, good jobs

Why don’t construction unions and the business community ever talk about all the jobs and economic activity created by environmental programs?
In this case, well paid construction jobs were created by DEP clean water requirements.
Upgrading environmental infrastructure and compliance with environmental laws creates thousands of jobs.
Germany recently created 170,000 well paid high technology jobs in just one segment of the solar industry –
NJ could create hundreds of thousands more jobs and thousands of new small businesses right here in NJ in we got serious about investing in and regulating a transition to an energy efficient, renewable energy, high environmental quality economy.
I never hear the lobbyists or officials in Trenton say that. I never read that in the newspaper.

Wonder why?