WolfeNotes.com

Proponents did not even attempt to quantify greenhouse gas emissions

Number of EV’s On Road Goals Are Based on 16 Year Old Clean Car Legislation

In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness. ~~~ Al Gore (7/20/08), quoted here.

The transportation sector historically has had the highest carbon intensity, which continues in the projection because carbon-intensive petroleum remains the dominant fuel used in vehicles throughout the projection period. ~~~ US Energy Information Administration 2020 Forecast

I’ve posted 3 times now on major flaws in the NJ electric vehicle legislation signed into law  last Friday (see this and this and this).

But according to Gov. Murphy: (emphases mine)

Increasing the use of electric vehicles is a critical step to secure New Jersey’s clean energy future. By establishing aggressive goals and strong incentives for electric vehicles, we are repositioning our economy and state for a clean future. Today, I am proudly signing bipartisan legislation that will transform New Jersey’s transportation sector and modernize our infrastructure to support our goal of reaching 100 percent clean energy by 2050.

After watching the shameless self congratulation, self promotion, and fawning praise and sycophantic spin during the Gov.’s bill signing ceremony – watch it on You Tube – today we provide the most recent and readily accessible DEP greenhouse gas emissions data to try to fact check Gov. Murphy’s claims and to get a back of the envelope quantitative sense of what this highly touted EV program means in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and whether reductions will comport with the urgent timeframe based on science.

We will try to make this simple, even for the math challenged. I urge supporters of the bill to email me to tell me what I missed, got wrong, and/or left out.

1. The EV goals are not “aggressive”

We start by noting that the EV law created what has been described as an “aggressive goal” of 330,000 electric vehicles on the road by the year 2025.

The law does have more aggressive goals in the out years, but any GHG emissions reductions would occur past 2030, which is well past the vanishing 10 year window that climate scientists have warned that we have to dramatically reduce emissions to avoid catastrophic impacts.

That may sound aggressive in light of the fact that, according to DEP (@p.11), there were only 26,840 EV’s on the road in 2019. That’s about only 1% of approximately 3 million NJ registered passenger cars (2.8 million, in 2017) – and that doesn’t count trucks and buses and other transportation sector GHG emissions (more on that below).

But Gov. Murphy’s 2025 EV goal is already current law, based on the “California Car” law passed by the legislature in 2004, 16 years ago. NJ has failed to make real progress towards meeting that 16 year old goal. As NJ Spotlight noted:

By 2025, New Jersey is supposed to have more than 300,000 ZEVs on the road, a mandate it has to meet under the California low-emission car program it has agreed to comply with, along with 12 other states and jurisdictions.

So, Gov. Murphy’s “transformative” EV program is based on an EV on road goal that is little more than the 16 year old legal status quo, at least over a realistic 5 year planning horizon.

2. DEP GHG Emissions Inventory Underestimates Total Emissions –

The BEST CASE EV program would have a negligible impact on total greenhouse gas emissions

Now let’s look at the EV program in light of the most recent data on total annual NJ GHG emissions, according to NJ DEP’s most recently Greenhouse Gas Inventory:

Transportation sector emissions are discussed starting on page 8 – there is no mention of aviation, rail, or shipping impacts or lifecycle impacts.

According to DEP, the transportation sector accounts for 40.6 million tons, or 38.7% of total 2018 GHG emissions.

That DEP total does NOT include GHG emission from aviation, rail, or shipping, which are huge in NJ, given Newark airport and the Ports.

NJ is an urban, coastal, metropolitan corridor state, home of some of the nation’s largest airports, ports, and commercial and recreational shipping. For DEP to ignore GHG emission from those activities would be like Kansas or Iowa ignoring corn, soybean and wheat production impacts in their agricultural inventory. Absurd.

The GHG emissions DEP left out of the inventory are larger than any emissions reductions that might result from the EV program from now until after 2030.

In contrast, the NJ Transportation Planning Authority conducted a GHG inventory that did consider aviation, rail and shipping. It also included “upstream” – or lifecycle emissions:

According to NJTPA, “upstream” emissions are significant:

According to NJTPA, aviation accounts for about 2 million tons GHG emission (in 2020). Marine vessels account for an additional 650,000 tons, and rail more than 1.2 million tons. That’s a total of 3.85 million tons DEP does not consider (and that’s only for the north jersey NJTPA region, not statewide ).

So, NJ DEP’s GHG inventory is WAY TOO LOW because it does not include energy life-cycle emissions (up to an additional 25%) or emissions from aviation, rail, and marine vessels.

But before going deeper into the weeds of GHG inventory and projection methods, let’s get back to the EV program. But we will note, regarding emissions inventories, of course, that as the real GHG emissions increase, that diminishes the impact of EV’s on total GHG emissions. If DEP’s estimates are WAY TOO LOW, that means the EV programs impact is even SMALLER than we estimate here.

We will assume that the EV law applies primarily to passenger and light duty vehicles, similar to the California Car law, which according to DEP:

According to DEP data, passenger vehicles account for 40% of the vehicle emissions, or 16.2 million tons, or 15.4% of total emissions. Passenger trucks and light commercial trucks are 57%, but only a portion of those are subject to the EV law and I can’t get the data due to DEP’s formatting.

DEP breaks this transportation sector GHG emission data further.

So, BEST CASE, assuming the 2025 goal of 330,000 EV’s on the road is met, that EV’s represent about 10% of the total passenger vehicle fleet, every EV replaces an internal combustion engine car, and all other GHG emission factors remain constant, the 2025 EV goal would reduce GHG emissions by less than 1.6 million tons, or less than 1.5%.(and that is FAR less that the carbon that is sequestered in NJ forests – more on that issue in a future post).

Is a 1.5% GHG emissions reduction “transformative” change, as Gov. Murphy claims?

For many reasons, we have little confidence that the BEST CASE will actually be achieved.

We know that all other assumed GHG emission factors will not remain constant.

As I’ve noted, there has been little progress over the last 16 years in meeting the California Car EV goals. Worse, the new EV law’s goals are aspirational: there are no enforcement sticks to provide incentives for compliance or deterrence for violations.

The law does not mandate that a new EV force the retirement of an internal combustion engine or that total internal combustion vehicles or total vehicle miles travelled or total GHG emissions be reduced.

In addition to those statutory flaws, there are technical issues to consider.

The number of vehicles (all vehicles, including trucks and buses) and the vehicle miles traveled by passenger vehicles all will increase.

Nationally, vehicle miles travelled have increased  by 28.5% from 1994 – 2018.

These increases are very likely to significantly reduce, if not wipe out, the small emissions reductions associated with the EV program. Just look at the NJ VMT and emissions data:

Note the BLUE LINE – steep increase in VMT (Source: NJ DEP GHG Emissions Inventory, 2018)

As shown in Figure 2, these [GHG emission] reductions occurred against the background of continuing growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) since the economic recovery in 2010 (VMT declined during the 2008-2009 economic recession).

The rate of increase in VMT is outstripping the increases in fuel efficiency. That locks in increases in GHG emissions.

And thus far, we’ve limited this to the GHG emissions from the transportation sector.

Economic growth will drive increases in GHG emissions from other sectors, again reducing the impact of the EV program on total emissions, but that analysis is beyond our scope.

Finally, the EV legislation diverted $300 million, over 10 years, from the RGGI funds and Clean Energy Fund (including energy efficiency and low income energy assistance) to pay for the EV rebates. These programs that were defunded provided some greenhouse gas emission reductions. These emissions reductions must be subtracted from any reductions associated with the EV program.

It is possible that the RGGI & Clean Energy Fund programs that were defunded provided MORE current GHG emissions reductions than those future reductions that might result from the EV rebate program. Thus, the EV rebate program could end up increasing emissions, even under the BEST CASE scenario!

3. Conclusions

So, with all that in mind, let me finish with a few conclusions:

1. the 2004 Clean Car (California car) program is incredibly complex, including a myriad of credits. I could not make sense of it on basic facts, like who is responsible for meeting the goals, what happens if they are not met, and how many cars must be EV’s.

The NJ EV law seems to replicate these flaws.

2. The 2004 NJ Clean Car law set a goal of 330,000 EV’s on the road by 2025, according to press reports (I could not find that number in government documents).

3. The NJ 2020 EV legislation, claimed to be “transformative change”, set the SAME 330,000 by 2025 goal!

4. For context, there are about 2.8 million registered cars in NJ (2016 data, doesn’t include trucks, buses, et al)

5. Vehicle miles travelled have increased  by 28.5% from 1994 – 2018.

6. The EV legislation provides $300 million over 10 years (not NEW money, but a deeply regressive diversion of existing RGGI climate money and BPU Societal Benefit Charge low income energy assistance money) to give car purchasers a $5,000 rebate. At $5K a pop, that’s only 60,000 EV’s – just a fraction of the 330,000 goal.

Based on these facts, I conclude that, even if the EV goal are met – which is highly unlikely – that GHG emissions from the transportation sector will INCREASE, despite any reductions in emissions growth associated with EV’s.

On top of that, there is no data – and no attempt to evaluate – the alleged GHG emissions reductions associated with EV’s with the emissions reductions from the RGGI and SBC energy programs from with the $300 million was diverted.

It is possible that diversion of the SBC money to the EV program will actually INCREASE GHG emissions, because other uses of SBC money may be more cost effective in terms of reductions of GHG per dollar invested.

And I was pleasantly surprised by the role of urban forests in sequestering carbon:

Source – NJTPA – see links above

Steal Money From Existing Environmental Programs To Fund Pet Projects

Give Green Cover To Corporations, The Wealthy & Politicians Who Serve Them

Cannibalism is the act of consuming another individual of the same species as food…. Human cannibalism is well documented, both in ancient and in recent times ~~~ Wiki

Let me first briefly set the context for the point I want to make about another egregious abuse by what I will call The Green Cannibals of Trenton (TM) – AKA The Green Mafia.

For 40 years, since the Reagan administration, corporations and the wealthy have benefited from a set of policies known as Neoliberalism; e.g. tax cuts for corporations and the rich (AKA “trickle down”), corporate subsidies, deregulation, privatization, “liberalization” of trade policies (AKA “globalization”), financialization, deindustrialization, disinvestment, attacks on unions, and austerity for the public sector (AKA as “make government small enough to drown in the bathtub”).

These policies have resulted in a huge transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to what is commonly known as the “1 percent”. These policies have created the largest wealth and income inequality and concentration and consolidation of corporate economic and political power since the Gilded Age.

At the same time, social safety net programs have been slashed and government – particularly its regulatory functions – has been neutered.

Those massively destructive Reagan initiated national Neoliberal policies have been emulated in NJ, by both Republicans and Democrats.

We can observe those policies in action with respect to environmental programs and the DEP, perhaps most clearly under the “Open For Business” Whitman and Christie administrations, who both waged war on environmental programs, slashed DEP’s budget and staffing levels, rolled back and/or abandoned regulatory enforcement, and privatized and deregulated.

At the same time, climate science has made it imperative that we undertake a massive transformation of our energy and economic systems, make huge new investments in public infrastructure, and greatly reduce economic and political inequality and injustice.

So, with this policy context in mind, how has the mainstream NJ environmental community and their corporatized Foundation Funders responded to these multiple crises?

• They have completely ignored corporate power and economic inequality – and taken steps to actually increase it.

• They cynically have paid lip service to what has become merely a slogan known as “environmental justice”.

• They have compromised and sold out on climate and energy programs, by supporting piecemeal, small bore, deeply flawed, and ineffective market based programs that won’t make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

• They supported strict numeric caps on renewable energy that make it impossible to achieve their stated clean power and climate goals.

• They supported the $300 million/year corporate PSEG nuclear bailout.

• They have gone along with even more crippling budget and staff cuts at DEP.

• They supported a sham cost-benefit test that blocks expansion of renewable energy.

• They have lied to and misled the public.

• They have promoted privatization and/or deregulation, or failed to challenge it.

• They have formed corporate partnerships – including one with Donald Trump and Wall Street billionaire Peter Kellogg and Walmart – and supported sham logging projects on public lands and dirty deals with Christie.

• They cut self serving corrupt corporate “mitigation” deals.

• They have given the Murphy DEP a pass for failing to regulation GHG emissions.

I have written in depth about and can provide numerous specific examples of all of the above, but that would make this already lengthy post far too long (hit the links above – I’ll try to link more).

So, with all that in mind, let me explain the justification for the Green Cannibals meme.

Readers will recall the following recent actions by the Green Cannibals:

• The Keep It Green (KIG) Coalition stole hundreds of millions of dollars previously Constitutionally dedicated to DEP clean water, State Parks maintenance, and toxic site cleanup programs. They diverted these funds to the Open Space program. On top of this theft, they lied to the public about all this and engaged in self dealing by allocating funds to support their own organizations.

• The recent electric car legislation stole $300 million from funds previously earmarked for greenhouse gas emission reduction programs (RGGI) and energy efficiency and low income energy assistance programs (Clean Energy Fund – SBC).

Now, after all these thefts, they are again trying to steal money from environmental programs instead of fighting for new revenues and equitable sharing of the burdens of funding these programs.

Specifically, I just learned that for their first hearing of the new legislative session, on Monday the Senate Environment Committee will hear legislation S864 – a bill that:

Did you get that? Here’s the legislative text (see page 11)

in each of the first three years after the effective date of P.L. , c. (C. )(pending before the Legislature as this bill), $500,000 of the estimated annual balance of the Clean Communities Program Fund shall be appropriated to the department and made available on July 1 of each year to the organization under contract with the department pursuant to section 6 of P.L.2002, c.128 (C.13:1E-218) for the Statewide public information and education program developed pursuant to subsection b. of section of section 8 of P.L. , c. (C. )(pending before the Legislature as this bill).

The Green Cannibals are proposing another act of cannibalism on a very popular and effective DEP program known as “Clean Communities“, a program designed to:

To provide financial assistance for the implementation of litter abatement programs in eligible municipalities and counties within the State. …

All 21 New Jersey counties and 558 of the 565 New Jersey municipalities receive funding

Note that the Green Cannibals – just like in the Open Space and Electric vehicle thefts – are not supporting an increase in the tax that funds the current clean communities program in order to fund their pet program.

If the plastic program is important, then it should be funded with new revenues, not existing revenues. Like how about a tax on the polluters who make all the plastic crap?

The cannibals – or are they parasites? – must be stopped before they do more damage.

Nuclear Bailout Got New Money That Increased Electric Bills, But Not EV’s

NJ Spotlight Again Makes Huge Fact Error In Reporting

I never intend to adjust myself to economic conditions that will take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few, and leave millions of God’s children smothering in an airtight cage of  poverty in the midst of an affluent society. ~~~  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,  1967 – quoted here

I previously wrote about why I think the electric vehicle legislation that Gov. Murphy will sign today is flawed, see:

• Electric Vehicle Advocates Risk Backlash By Ramming Through Regressive Funding Bill In Lame Duck

• NJ Electric Vehicle Campaign Is An Astroturf Operation Driven By Corporate PR

Aside from the lame duck and process issues, the law is deeply regressive and very likely – just like the current NJ “California Car” law and complex credit scheme– will fail to meet it’s goals due to a lack of adequate funding, the absence of enforceable mandates, and no enforcement provisions and/or sanctions for failure to meet the aspirational goals for the number of EV’s on the road. 

(and the bill does nothing to reduce the proliferation of internal combustion engines, or the huge growth in vehicle miles traveled, or otherwise guarantee reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. It is likely that more economic growth and sprawling land development (and redevelopment) that Gov. Murphy is pushing and his DEP is permitting will stimulate more truck & car travel, leading to more cars & trucks on the road, traveling more miles, and emitting more GHG’s that will more than offset the avoided growth in GHG emissions (not emissions reductions) from the small fleet of EV’s, leading to a continuing increases in GHG from the transportation sector, even if the numerical EV goals of the law are met, which is unlikely. Similarly, there are no mandates that an EV displace an internal combustion engine. There are no mandates addressing land use and transportation, or for reducing trips and VMT, or enhancing and expanding public transportation (other than a slow conversion of the NJ Transit bus fleet.) For every EV sold, 3 or more internal combustion vehicle should be retired. EV charging stations should be mandated. But there are no plans for any of these necessary actions even on the table. The EV program under this bill won’t make a dent in GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which will continue to grow. Yet the law is being wildly praised by all the usual sycophants.).

We’re not gonna slow the climate catastrophe and transition to a zero carbon economy on aspirational goals, voluntary measures, market based solutions, corporate subsidies, “incentives”, and diversions of existing funding – which is what this EV bill epitomizes.

(and just like the recent Open Space scam – which created no new funds but instead diverted existing DEP clean water, State Parks, and toxic site cleanup money – the EV law diverts existing climate (RGGI) and low income energy assistance money (SBC)).

So for today, I just want to make one important point and correct another egregiously misleading story and major fact error about the EV law that was reported in today’s NJ Spotlight story.

As I have written, NJ Spotlight is obsessed with the so called high costs of and subsidies to renewable energy, and their alleged impact on ratepayers. Business sources are repeatedly quoted criticizing these alleged high costs. However, Spotlight rarely – if ever – publishes the benefits and subsidies to fossil, or the actual costs on individual ratepayers. That’s because, as I’ve noted, these costs are often paltry, while the climate catastrophe costs are so huge as to be incalculable (but the social costs of carbon have been quantified and estimated).

For example, the RGGI program costs a typical residential customer something like 50 cents per month  – while RGGI and solar cost about $1.05/month, according to the Christie Energy Master Plan.

Similarly, in a recent story about the Atlantic City Electric proposed EV program, after expressing major concerns about “a significant issue given the cost customers will have to absorb in shifting to a clean-energy economy”, Spotlight reported the actual cost:

Atlantic City Electric said the cost of the program, if approved by the BPU, will be paid by a delivery charge on customers bills — roughly 54 cents a month for the typical customer.

Do you think 54 cents per month is a “significant issue”?  (compared to other monthly expenses and the costs of climate catastrophe).

Repeating that misleading reporting about costs, today Spotlight falsely claims that the EV program will be funded by new revenues and ratepayers will see an increase in electric bills:

For ratepayers, the legislation will add another $300 million onto their monthly bills over the next decade to provide generous rebates of up to $5,000 to consumers who choose to purchase electric vehicles.

That is blatantly factually false and totally misleading.

In fact, the law provides no new money and appropriates no new money.

Instead it diverts existing money from existing revenues to fund the $300 million – 10 year rebate program, funds that are collected under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and via the Societal Benefits Charge (SBC).

The EV law includes provisions that anticipate that there could be future new revenues from 2 sources: legislative appropriations and a new special surcharge on electric bills established by BPU to fund the EV charging infrastructure.

But that money is NOT – repeat NOT – established by the law nor mandated by the law. There is no legislative appropriation, the entire $300 million EV rebate program is paid for via diversions of existing funds, and BPU “may” but is not required to increase rates in the future to pay for the charging infrastructure.

The Office of Legislative Services’ Fiscal Note on the bill confirms those claims:

Legislation establishing “indeterminate revenues” is not a serious policy and certainly is not the way to achieve billion dollar investments required to make the transition to a zero carbon economy.

So let’s break this down further.

NJ Spotlight’s claim that the program will be funded at a level of $300 million over a decade is correct.

But, Spotlight fails to call that expenditure an infrastructure investment – which is misleading – and worse, goes on to falsely claim that it is “another” new charge paid by ratepayers.

Let’s be clear: Section 14 of the law provides:

b. The board shall implement the rebate program until June 30th of the 10th year after the rebate program begins, or after $300,000,000 in rebate disbursements have been paid from the fund, whichever occurs first.

But the source of funds for that $300 millions is NOT new revenue. As the OLS Fiscal Note states:

According to OLS, BPU is required to allocate $30 million/year from RGGI and SBC funds. That $30 million/year diversion accounts for 100% of the $300 million funding for the rebate program. The rebate program is fully paid for. From existing RGGI and SBC money. No new money. No rate increases to pay for it. NJ Spotlight is full of crap.

In contrast to this mandate to divert exiting money, But BPU is merely authorized – but not required – to create additional new funding sources to pay for other EV incentives, like home and roadway and other charging stations.

The text of the law makes that very clear. Section 16 of the law established 3 sources of revenues:

16. (New section) a. There is established in the Department of the Treasury a special, nonlapsing fund to be known as the “Plug-in Electric Vehicle Rebate Fund,” also referred to as “the fund.” The fund shall be administered by the State Treasurer and shall be credited with:

(1) moneys deposited by the Board of Public Utilities pursuant to this subsection for the purposes of the fund;

(2) moneys as are appropriated by the Legislature; and

(2) (sic) any return on investment of moneys deposited in the fund.

The board may deposit into the fund moneys received from the societal benefits charge established pursuant to section 11 of P.L.1999, c.23 (C.48:3-60), moneys made available to the board pursuant to the implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and P.L.2007, c.340 (C.26:2C-45 et seq.), and moneys available from other funding sources as determined by the board.

The RGGI and SBC money is earmarked for, among other things, low income energy assistance and other programs that are supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So, Gov. Murphy is robbing Peter to pay Paul – taking money out of one pot of funds designed to reduce greenhouse gs emissions and diverting it to another pot of money designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But even worse, robbing Peter in Newark is taking money from low income energy assistance programs, while paying Paul in Tewksbury to buy a new Tesla.

In contrast, the nuclear bailout benefitted from new ratepayer money that increased electric bills, and merely to guarantee PSE&G’s corporate profits

Diversion of existing funds is NOT how were are going to finance the multi-billion dollar investments required to transform to a zero carbon economy.

And we can’t finance the program on the backs of poor and working class people.

Gov. Murphy Urged To Veto Corrupt Lame Duck Special Interest Bill

Tax breaks, eminent domain, fossil subsidies, exempt from bidding & OPRA

“We are not just dealing with a broken system; this is a rigged system,” Murphy, a Democrat, said at a Trenton news conference. “This was designed by special interests to benefit special interests.” ~~~ Gov. Murphy decries ‘rigged system’, pledges to veto legislation extending controversial tax programs (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Just months after Gov. Murphy issued Executive Order #52 “to conduct an in-depth examination of the deficiencies in NJ’s tax incentive programs” and the Gov.’s Task Force on EDA Tax Incentives issued its scathingly critical Report on what Gov. Murphy has called a “rigged system”, the NJ Legislature has poked a finger in the Gov.’s eye and passed a bill [A4535 [2R]–S2958[2R] that is an egregious example of exactly what the Gov. called a “rigged system”.

Before I get to the numerous major flaws in the bill – which is now on the Governor’s desk – let’s first hit the highlights of the Gov.’s Executive Order and Task Force Report.

I will then show how the energy privatization bill repeats exactly the same abuses that the Governor lambasted, e.g. a “rigged system” designed by and for the economic benefit of special interests.

EO#52 harshly criticized NJ tax incentive programs (plural):

The Gov.’s Task Force Report further documented these abuses, concluding:

• Special interests, which prioritized benefits to private parties rather than the State, had a significant impact on the design of statutes and regulations;

• The EDA did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that it discovered relevant information, including applicant misstatements the would have led to rejection of some applications or a significant reduction in the amount of awards;

The corrupt “rigged system” promotes corporate profits over the public interest by ceding control of drafting tax incentive policy (AKA corporate subsidies), legislation, regulations and EDA oversight to private corporate interests, who literally write their own ticket.

This is not just about one or two tax incentive programs administered by EDA – the EDA has been discredited as an institution and the entire concept of tax incentives and corporate subsidies has been exposed as a fraud.

NJ Policy Perspective’s Report expands on these corrupt flaws and recommends reforms:

Reining in Corporate Tax Subsidies: A Better Economic Development Playbook for New Jersey

… by removing oversight safeguards and caps on awards, the economic development legislation enabled an unprecedented spike in corporate tax breaks with questionable benefits, depressing future tax revenue for years to come. Today, New Jersey is a national outlier in both the size of its corporate subsidy awards and how little the state receives as a return on its investments.

Now with this context of extreme abuse in mind, how is it even possible that the NJ Legislature just passed a bill – [A4535 [2R]–S2958[2R] – that would create another new huge corporate subsidy program, via tax breaks, and administered by the EDA?

Never mind the fact that the energy bill gives short shrift to climate change and would subsidize fossil energy production.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill ignores Gov. Murphy’s soon to be released Energy Master Plan and is “policy neutral” with respect to fossil versus renewable energy.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill is based on model legislation drafted by the right wing American Legislative Exchange Council and has floundered in the legislature for at least 6 years.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill would authorize private corporations to *benefit from the exercise of eminent domain authority, similar to the issue Gov. Murphy’s Attorney General Grewal has litigated in the PennEast pipeline case.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill would exempt the program from the Open Public Record Act, thereby destroying transparency and accountability and frustrating the ability of the public and media to oversee the program.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill would exempt private corporations and government from complying with open competitive public bidding laws, likely leading to gross financial ripoffs and other pay to play corruption.

Never mind that the energy bill could exempt billion dollar energy projects from local property taxes and payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS). (I wonder if local governments are aware of this? Or NJ’s local taxpayers – who pay the highest property taxes in the country – are aware of this?

Never mind the fact that the energy bill, by classifying these projects as an “essential government function”, would over-ride NJ’s local home rule land use traditions and restrict local governments’ ability to protect local public health, safety and welfare.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill would divert millions of dollars from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Climate Solutions Fund, revenues that are targeted at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill would create all the problems associated with privatization of critical public infrastructure, including putting private profits over the public interest, consumer ripoffs and expanding corporate control.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill lacks any cost containment policies or mechanisms, like caps on energy capacity, economic costs, limits on total subsidies or corporate CEO or executive compensation, or requires that projects pass a cost-benefit tests.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill’s privatization of energy infrastructure conflicts with Gov. Murphy’s “community solar” program and would undermine the emergence of public power and preclude democratic community control of a critical public utility.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill repeats all the same mistakes of NJ’s deregulation of the solid waste industry (i.e. the 1985 “McEnroe” “negotiated procurement” law that eliminated BPU public utility regulation of garbage incineration) and NJ’s 1999 Energy deregulation law.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill lacks effective regulatory oversight and enforcement mechanisms.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill relies on a slogan and makes a sham argument about “resilience”.

Never mind the fact that the energy bill was rammed though, without debate, on the last day of the Lame Duck session.

We can ignore ALL THAT ABUSE.

The mere fact that the Legislature passed another corporate tax break program and housed it in EDA just months after EDA’s corporate tax break subsidy programs were exposed as a massive fraud, is sufficient basis for Governor Murphy to veto the bill.

This is the worst bill I can recall over a 35 year career in Trenton.

If Governor Murphy can’t veto this bill, then he is either part of the corruption or completely politically powerless.

[End Note: Does NJ Gov. Phil “Rigged System” Murphy even know that his own greenhouse gas plan allocates 60% of total funds (about $60 million/year) to EDA for grants, the same policy he has lambasted? See:

NJ Gov. Murphy’s RGGI Funding Plan Will Subsidize Fossil http://wolfenotes.com/2019/10/nj-gov-murphys-rggi-funding-plan-will-subsidize-fossil-threaten-nj-forests/

Of course, perhaps the Gov. supports his Democratic Party’s prior legislation to privatize NJ’s toxic site cleanup program and more recently promote privatization of local water and sewer infrastructure.

In that case, he may have green lighted this bill and will sign it. Time will tell. We are watching.

* revised – clarification of original

No Action 5 Years After Commission’s Workplan First Included Climate Policy

The Pinelands Commission Is Collapsing

The following is the US Military’s caption:
Controlled burns help prevent wildfires, which reduce visibility for air exercises. Photo credit: Dr. Walter Bien, Laboratory of Pinelands Research

The Pinelands National reserve is under attack from many quarters. And as these attacks escalate and proliferate, the Pinelands Commission is literally collapsing.

Most recently, Gov. Murphy failed to secure Senate confirmation of his Pinelands Commission nominees and tomorrow the Commission again will consider a fatally flawed Trojan horse Resolution on the South Jersey Gas pipeline (see also:

• Get Ready For Another Fake Pipeline Permit Kill – The Pinelands Commission’s Prior Approval WILL NOT BE REVOKED

Even worse, although you wouldn’t know it from reading today’s NJ Spotlight story on climate risks and impacts in the Pinelands – including wildfire risks – aside from two briefings by climate scientists, the Pinelands Commission is doing virtually nothing to amend the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to adopt enforceable polices and plans to address climate change.

Once again, NJ Spotlight’s coverage got spun by the “experts”, who – in the wake of California and Australia wildfire disasters – opportunistically are promoting a narrative that generates public support and funding for highly questionable policies, such as “controlled burns”, while masking major failure to address serious climate concerns.

Here’s what the “experts” don’t want you to know and that NJ Spotlight again failed to report.

Over 5 years ago, the Pinelands Commission, in The Fourth Progress Report on Plan Implementation (September 2014), first directed staff to develop climate policies and amend the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to address climate risks and impacts. (see Action Plan Table on p. 166):

The Commission will evaluate what options are available to address climate change through the CMP and in cooperation with other agencies.

Since then, aside from 2 scientific briefings on climate science, the Commission  has done nothing to amend the CMP to provide enforceable policies and plans that reflect climate science and address climate impacts and risks to the precious natural resources of the Pinelands.

In fact, there is evidence that Executive Director Wittenberg is dragging her feet, if not outright derailing such developments, see:

• Pinelands Commission Executive Director Wittenberg Tries to Derail Consideration of Climate Change

There are many things the Pinelands Commission could do to address climate change, including:

1) establish and fund phenology, forest management, climate impact science, and monitoring programs, including incorporating climate driven rainfall/drought into their similarly long delayed and seemingly stalled “Kirkwood-Cohansey” project on restricting water allocation to protect ecological functions and ecosystems;

2) mandate and promote energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewables (including installation of EV charging stations, public transport, bicycles, and zero carbon development), and distributed publicly owned local power, micro-grids, etc – including requirements for new development applications and to retrofit of existing development;

3) prohibit new fossil infrastructure, like pipelines and power plants, and phase out existing fossil infrastructure, including ecological restoration of disturbance associated with that infrastructure;

4) regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including mandatory offset and mitigation requirements and net zero development;

5) establish a pro-active adaptation program (not just reactive fire suppression).

Call it a Green New Deal for the Pinelands!

Because Spotlight reported so favorably on how the “experts” spin their wildfire suppression efforts, readers also should know that the military starts forest fires (in their own words: “one fire every 10 – 14 days”) during training exercises.

As we recently wrote, via the REPI program, the Pentagon is funding the NJ “controlled burn” program. For documentation of all that, see:

• NJ DEP & NJ Conservation Foundation Partner With Military To Burn NJ Forests – No Consideration of Climate Impacts

We wrote to Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle to provide all these facts that expose serious gaps in his reporting.

Spotlight needs to up their game – they are seriously misleading readers and routinely providing only part of the story.

PS – Virtually the same criticism, failure and missed opportunities apply to the work of the Highlands Council and the Regional Master Plan (RMP). In fact, the problems are even worse in the Highlands, as NJ DEP and NJ Audubon team up to log Highlands forests, under the sham pretext of healthy forests and habitat creation.

These problems will get much worse as about $10 million/year in RGGI “carbon sequestration” funding drives even more destructive logging projects, see:

• Christie DEP Highlands Logging Plans Would Reduce The Forest’s Carbon Storage Capacity and Worsen Climate Change