WolfeNotes.com

Consistent Pattern of Bias And Providing A Platform For Energy Industry Talking Points

Major Relevant Concerns Ignored

Reality is the OPPOSITE of What Is Reported

“drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions now look remarkably easy to achieve, from an economic point of view.” Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics (1/3/20)

After the extensive media coverage of the Exxon climate fraud lawsuit, it is now well understood that the fossil energy industry waged a propaganda war to manufacture doubt, deny, and undermine the credibility of climate science and that they used the media to deploy that propaganda.

So, based on this history, one would assume that the media and professional journalists would be cognizant of their role in deceiving the American public and be highly skeptical of energy industry climate and energy claims. One would assume that they would resent being used as a tool to lie to their readers and manipulate public opinion.

One also would assume that the media would feel  some sense of shame and take responsibility for their role in this deception and try to correct the historical wrongs that they participated in and make things right.

One would think that they would reject and correct the current framing and narrative, which is upside down and exactly backwards.

But these assumptions are the ramblings of a naive fool.

I’ll use just the recent nuclear industry talking points Op-Ed by Carol Browner – which lacked adequate disclosure of Browner’s industry funded front group, Nuclear Matters – and quick excerpts from today’s NJ Spotlight story on electric vehicles to illustrate my conclusion that NJ Spotlight’s climate and energy coverage remains hopelessly mired in falsehoods, ideology, and consistently reflects fossil fuel bias, both in the content of the coverage and the facts that are ignored.

First, let’s slog through some theory to point out relevant economic theory and consensus facts that are rarely – if ever – reported (interested readers can hit the links for further details):

1. Fossil fuels, the fossil (and nuclear) energy industry, and the internal combustion engine receive BILLIONS of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

The subsidies are so huge that even capitalist tool Forbes reports on that, see:

• United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education

Spotlight coverage is obsessed with so called subsidies to renewables, when the opposite is true. It is fossil that gets all the subsidies and they go unreported.

2. Fossil fuels, the fossil energy industry, and the internal combustion engine “externalize” huge costs of their operations, costs which fall under the concept of “the social cost of carbon”.

Spotlight coverage is obsessed with the so called imposition of costs on ratepayers by renewables, when the opposite is true. Fossil imposes huge and unreported costs on us all.

3. Economic theory elucidates a concept that is known as “market failure”.

For our purposes, prime examples of “market failure” include “externalities” and “public goods“.

Fossil energy markets are rife with structural “market failure”. Countless studies describe and quantify such market failure (do the Google).

But Spotlight is obsessed with reporting on so called “cheap” gas and never mentions the reality of market failure in their coverage. Again, the reality is the opposite of what is reported.

Additionally, economic concepts seek to examine the equitable dimensions of markets, in terms of the distribution of costs and benefits.

One key measure of distributional equity is known as the “Gini co-efficient”.

One key indictor and a remedy to inequitable distribution of economic resources and inequitable concentration of benefits is known as the Hicks-Kaldor criterion, which basically says that economic winners have a moral obligation and mechanism to compensate economic losers.

Another key concept in economic policy is what as known as “inter-generational equity”. In this regard, a key assumption in the economic calculus to public policy and planning for the future that incorporates inter-generational equity is known as “social discount rate”.

These fundamental economic concepts never get incorporated in Spotlight coverage – which omissions mislead readers.

4. Other states, including New York and California, have taken more aggressive steps than NJ to address market failure via regulatory mandates and surcharges to incorporate the external cost of carbon.

NY’s proposal is pending, but California recently adopted:

The GHG adder used in the TRC, RIM, and PAC tests is a modeled price meant to achieve an aggressive GHG reduction target. The new values start at $73.24/metric ton of CO₂ in 2019, escalating to $150/metric ton of CO₂ in 2030.

Compare California’s program with RGGI. RGGI only covers 15% of total GHG emissions and the allowance price is in the paltry range of $5/ton.

But readers of NJ Spotlight virtually never are told about any of these theories or facts.

But, NJ Spotlight has provided a platform and published numerous stories (too numerous to mention here) that not only ignore all the above, but flat out contradict it with industry lies.

Without addressing the recent pro-nuclear Op-Ed by Carol Browner (more on that in a future post), today’s NJ Spotlight story on electric vehicle provides glaring examples:

A. What does “competitive” mean?

NJ Spotlight focuses on “competitive” aspects.

“This isn’t going to do anything to help the competitiveness of New Jersey businesses,’’ said Dennis Hart, executive director of the Chemistry Industry Council of New Jersey, referring to the high costs manufacturers already face because of steep energy bills. He urged state revenue be used instead of relying on ratepayers to fund the program.

First of all, there is a dangerous hidden premise: the Legislature has no obligation to “help” NJ businesses.

But, with respect to alleged “steep energy bills”, as we highlight above, energy bills are rife with externalities and do not reflect the social cost of carbon or the equitable aspects of climate chaos or energy market prices, costs and benefits.

NJ Spotlight then reports this as a fact, not an ideological claim:

The rebates under the proposed bill will finally make electric vehicles competitive with conventional internal-combustion engines.

The internal combustion engine benefits from HUGE subsidies, externalizes its costs, and exacerbates an already grossly inequitable distribution of economic resources and costs (economic, social, environmental and public health costs).

Accordingly, if these costs were included in the price of gasoline and incorporated in the purchase price of the internal combustion engine vehicle, electric vehicles would be economically superior.

Spotlight’s failure to report facts on fossil subsidies and market failure leads readers to exactly the opposite and wrong conclusion.

B. The role of regulation is to remedy market failure

As noted above, NJ Spotlight fails to mention market failure or the policies of other States to remedy various market failures.

But they have no problem reporting assumptions that markets are superior to regulation. Check this out:

Advocates view the legislation as crucial to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation sector, the single largest source of pollution contributing to climate change. It also aims to comply with California’s clean-car program, which seeks to convince motorists to switch to electric cars, or zero-emission vehicles.

Not only is that an ideological claim about the superiority of markets (i.e. the program is about “convincing consumers”), but it is factually false.

The California clean car ZEV program is a regulatory program that targets the automobile industry: (not the education of consumers)

In 2012, CARB adopted a set of regulations to control emissions from passenger vehicles, collectively called Advanced Clean Cars. Advanced Clean Cars, developed in coordination with the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), combined the control of smog-causing (criteria) pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into a single coordinated package of regulations: the Low-Emission Vehicle III regulation for criteria (LEV III Criteria) and GHG (LEV III GHG) emissions, and a technology forcing mandate for zero-emission vehicles (ZEV).

Regulatory mandates are not being enforced. But Spotlight readers don’t know that.

Worse, Spotlight instead provided a platform for the auto industry – which is not in compliance with regulatory mandates – to criticize the state:

To some, however, New Jersey has fallen behind other states, especially those that followed the Garden State in trying to implement the California clean-car program.

“New Jersey has literally done nothing to advance the goals of this program,’’ said Jim Appleton, president of the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers.

Chutzpah, no?

C. Costs for Whom? What about equity?

NJ Spotlight regularly reports aggressively about the so called called high costs of renewable energy and economic impacts on ratepayers, while ignoring ALL of the above economic theory and facts that would pout those alleged high costs in context.

Today, they correctly reported the amount of funding for the EV rebate program, but not the implications of it is where coming from:

The bill proposes to siphon off $30 million a year from a ratepayer-funded program over the next decade to provide rebates to consumers to buy the more expensive electric vehicles.

The bill would “siphon” that money away from low income energy assistance programs that benefit low income people who are desperately trying to keep the lights on and stay warm in the winter and transfer it to rebates to wealthy people buying new cars.

That is a moral outrage.

Spotlight then reports a correction to prior reporting – without noting that it is a correction – by carefully noting that the bill does NOT provide new money or increase ratepayer surcharges, but, as we previously correctly pointed out, merely authorized BPU to increase those surcharges in the future:

It also opens the way for the state to raise additional funds to finance expansion of the charging infrastructure to reduce range anxiety of motorists, who fear they’ll be left stranded with no place to recharge their vehicles.

This completely undermines Spotlight’s prior and consistent reporting about so called rate increases to pay for the program and exposes industry opposition as based on exaggerations (which Spotlight continues to print, despite the fact that they know these claims are false).

And, of course, Spotlight closes the story with the (unqualified) perspective of climate criminal Jim Benton of the NJ Petroleum Council.

All this amounts – at best – to serious bias.

More on the fact free Browner nuclear Op-Ed in a future post.

A few months ago, the NY Times got a lot of mileage out of an important major story:

• Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

That story took an historical overview of the evolution (or devolution) of climate science and public policy debates, ever since world renowned climate scientist Jim Hansen’s groundbreaking testimony to Congress in 1988:

I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves.

[Update 2/3/20 – My apologies to “Wally” for missing his work – Dr. Wallace S. Broecker – “grandfather” of global warming science, who just died.]

Sadly, that NYT story did not prompt followup investigative pieces or spark public outrage – and certainly none in New Jersey, a purported national leader in environment, energy and climate science and policy.

So, I took a cursory look at relevant NJ policy history, and quickly came to the stunning conclusion that NJ has gone BACKWARDS on climate policy over the last 30 years, the same period of time that science has shown the problems getting far worse and much quicker than predicted.

Just consider the following:

In 1989 – that’s 31 years ago – NJ Gov. Tom Kean issued Executive Order #219 – while I am not certain, I assume that the “scientific consensus” Gov. Kean referred to was based on Jim Hansen’s 1988 Congressional  testimony, as well as the science on CFC’s and depletion of the ozone layer:

WHEREAS, A scientific consensus exists that emissions of certain gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (hereinafter “CFCs”), and halons are causing significant changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere; 

WHEREAS, A scientific consensus also exists that these emissions are likely to cause significant changes in the Earth’s climate, including overall warming, increased drought, an increase in the intensity of hurricanes and other major storms, as well as increased incidence of harmful ultraviolet radiation; and

Remarkably, that Kean Executive Order goes far beyond current policy and regulation in at least 3 critically important ways:

1. Science based public eduction was emphasized and provided resources, not run away from and defunded – the obvious assumption being that an educated public would support strong climate initiatives:

All State entities shall review their programs designed to facilitate public awareness of environmental issues and revise such programs to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the effective communication of information that will enhance the public’s understanding of the basic processes involved in global climate change, the causes of such change, and possible approaches to reducing and adapting to such change.

Thirty years later, a recent Rutgers – Eagleton poll found that the public still does not understand the fundamentals of global warming and climate catastrophe, never mind the causes and approaches to reducing GHG emissions and adapting to climate change.

Contrast that public ignorance on climate change with the huge investments Kean & subsequent NJ Gov.’s made in educating the public on recycling, a campaign that led to strong public knowledge and support for the recycling program and high participation rates (and while there are significant differences in how the two programs impact corporate profits, there are no recycling deniers).

2. State agencies were directed to develop regulatory responses – including land use restrictions – to respond to sea level rise:

All State entities with responsibility for policies or regulations affecting the location, construction or maintenance of public or private facilities (including residential developments) shall:

a. Ascertain the degree to which those facilities will be affected by predicted changes in sea level; and

b. Develop policies, in consultation with the general public and other governmental entities, to respond to such predicted changes in sea level.

While it was on the Table 31 years ago, DEP land use regulation to reduce climate risks is a taboo topic today.

Lack of effective regulation is one of the main reasons why NJ is the third worst states in the country for filing repeat claims in the federal flood insurance program and why Sandy caused so much damage.

Current DEP CAFRA (coastal development), Flood Hazard (stream encroachment), wetlands and water quality land use AND infrastructure regulations are not based upon and do not even mention climate change, nor do the Pinelands, and the Highlands, and the Hackensack Meadowlands regional plans and regulations.

Although Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe claims to be working on something, NJ still does not have a climate adaptation plan.

Just think of how much development has occurred in hazardous areas over the last 30 years. How much of that was wiped out by Sandy and other major floods since 1989?

Just think about many homes lost, lives lost, and billions of dollars spent would have been prevented had  DEP developed regulatory controls under CAFRA and the Flood Hazard Act to address flooding and sea level rise associated with climate change back in 1989.

But instead of strict regulation, just last year, the Murphy DEP weakened coastal & flooding protections.

3. Kean put DEP regulatory controls on energy conservation and greenhouse gas emissions on the table:

State entities shall foster energy conservation to the maximum extent practicable, in order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global climate change.

a. All State entities with responsibility for constructing, purchasing, leasing, operating or maintaining capital facilities and equipment shall employ state-of-the-art equipment for efficient heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting, and in other major energy using applications, where such equipment or techniques will result in lower costs over the lifetime of the equipment.

b. All State entities exercising regulatory authority over actions that directly or indirectly relate to the production or consumption of energy shall review their policies and regulatory practices to ensure that they provide maximum incentives designed to conserve energy and increase reliance upon sources of energy that contribute fewer emissions of those gases responsible for global climate change.

Today, DEP regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is virtually unthinkable – not even on the table.

But just think how much lower NJ’s greenhouse gas emissions would have been had DEP adopted regulatory mandates to require energy efficiency, renewable energy and limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Or how many electric vehicles and charging stations there would be if DEP mandated them back in 1989.

Instead, the BPU has assumed virtually complete control of climate and energy policy.

DEP does not consider climate impacts in there various regulatory reviews, policies and plans and DEP’s various permit regulations do not consider climate change at all:

when the NJ Department of environmental protection issues any permit or approval – including for oil and gas pipelines, for fossil fueled power plants, or for any form of development, including coastal or riverfront development that would be inundated by climate driven flooding, storm surge, or sea level rise – the applicant is not required to provide data on greenhouse gas emissions and NJ DEP experts do not review or consider greenhouse gas emissions or climate change impacts.

NJ DEP regulations do not authorize the DEP to condition or deny a permit based on potential greenhouse gas emissions of potential climate impacts.

No NJ DEP regulatory standard is is based on climate science – NONE – including air quality permit standards that govern air permits for major sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thirty years after Gov. Kean’s Executive Order, DEP regulatory controls are not even on the table.

Worse, instead, energy generation has been deregulated.

Right now, DEP relies on voluntary individual consumer choices, market forces, and marginal, small bore and ineffective market based efforts like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). For details, see:

• A Decade After Passage of The NJ Global Warming Response Act: From “Toothless” to a “Dead Letter”

Nationally, we simply failed to aggressively respond to the climate crisis over the last 30 years, as the NY Times story documents.

It’s worse in NJ – where we have gone backwards.

Word.

Gov. Murphy’s Tweet Was Trump-Like In It’s Exaggeration & Falsehood 

Starting the New Year On The Wrong Foot – NJ Spotlight Again Gets It Wrong

[Update: 1/6/20 – NJ Spotlight reports the latest on PennEast, who is seeking at least a 2 year delay in FERC certificate in service timetables.

Once again, they got it wrong on the permit status:

In October, the DEP denied PennEast’s application for a water-quality permit for the second time, saying the Third Circuit’s ruling means the company “no longer has the legal authority to perform activities” on the 49 parcels.

Wrong again – the “no longer has the legal authority” issue is NOT a denial of the permits on the technical merits. The DEP deemed the applications incomplete because company can’t submit a complete application because they are blocked from condemning state land.

The reason why this distinction is important is because DEP sets no regulatory precedent, while avoiding any focus on loopholes in DEP regulations regarding water quality certification and lack of greenhouse gas emission standards. That means OTHER pipelines and fossil infrastructure can be approved.

If DEP were forced to make a regulatory decision on the merits, that would trigger the obvious need for a Gubernatorial moratorium and reforms to DEP regulations regarding pipeline reviews. This moratorium and regulatory ratchet down would apply to ALL fossil infrastructure, not just PennEast.  Spotlight can’t seem to understand these issues and is listening to the selfish perspective of Tom Gilbert, who only cares about the PennEast pipeline.  ~~~ end update]

I had planned to correct the false impression that DEP had “denied” the PennEast pipeline permit applications when that story was first reported by NJ Spotlight back on October 11, but got diverted.

Then my head exploded when I saw Gov. Murphy’s  over the top Tweet declaring victory:

My Administration fought and won in court to stop the proposed 116-mile Penn East natural gas pipeline. This week, @NewJerseyDEP denied and closed the application.

Gov. Murphy is spouting falsehoods: The permits were not “denied” and the application is not “closed”. The permits are pending and the application is open.

I can understand getting the fast breaking story wrong on the first report, back on October 11, before folks had  chance to digest the documents and talk to experts. But it’s been almost 3 months for the reality to emerge, including submission of a response to DEP by PennEast (see below), so it is unforgivable to repeat the lies and spin.

So today, we’re starting the new year on the right foot. I plan on exposing this crap every time I read it.

See my letter to NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle below, which corrects the errors and provides supporting links to the documents.

This is a correction you will not get from the Rethink NJ Murphy sycophants and DEP cheerleaders:

Jon – I hate to kick off the new year with a headache, but you are being spun and I have to correct a very misleading piece of today’s preview.

You report – based on a prior Spotlight story – that DEP “denied permits for a planned natural-gas pipeline”.

That is highly misleading if not downright false.

DEP did NOT “deny” the PennEast pipeline permits. DEP determined that they were “administratively incomplete” and sent them back for supplementation.

That is a minor and routine practice in the DEP permit process. The DEP issued what is known as a “deficiency letter”. DEP notes that on it’s website, see:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/penneast/

That DEP letter is NOT a “denial” on the merits and if you read the DEP letter, it explicitly says that the permits were NOT denied “with prejudice” (i.e. on the merits).See:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/penneast/docs/admin-def-penneast20190409.pdf

In fact, if you read PennEast’s 10/11/19 response letter to the DEP, you will note that DEP made embarrassing technical errors and misinterpreted their own regulations, see:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/penneast/docs/deficiency-response-20190911.pdf

(for some reason, I can’t get the PennEast letter link to work, both the DEP version and NJ BIA’s links. Try cut & paste into your browser)

Your readers deserve an accurate understanding of the DEP permit process. This was a procedural move and delaying tactic, at most.

Gov. Murphy’s Tweet claiming a permit “denial” was an outrageous example of Trump like spin and exaggeration.

Wolfe

SJG Investor Briefing Based On Exaggerated Representations & Material Omissions

SJG Repeated The Lie That BPU “Ordered” Them To Build Pinelands Pipeline

SJG’s report contained “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of United States (U.S.) federal securities laws.

“there may be massive securities fraud here.”

When do “overly optimistic projections” become fraud?

“The corrupt system is going to kill us all unless we rise up” ~~~  Roger Hallam, quoted by Chris Hedges

At the end of my previous post on the current fiasco on the Pinelands Commission, I raised a question, based on the remarks to the Commission by activist Agnes Marsala (People Over Pipelines) (emphasis in original):

[Agnes] claimed that SJG favorably advised investors of their intent to proceed AFTER the meeting with Wittenberg. That is an incredible situation that warrants investigation.

Agnes has since sent me and I had a chance to read the November 7, 2019 South Jersey Gas investors briefing she alluded to, see:

• South Jersey Industries Inc (SJI) Q3 2019 Earnings Call Transcript

Before highlighting the facts and issues on South Jersey Gas (SJG), let me set the context.

I) NY State Exxon Lawsuit

The New York State Attorney General is suing Exxon for misleading investors and the public about climate change and how it impacts the financial health of the firm.

The NY Times reports: (emphases mine)

The case turns on the claim that Exxon kept a secret set of financial books that seriously underestimated the costs of potential climate change regulation while claiming publicly that it was taking such factors into account.

South Jersey Gas faces similar issues with respect to their investments in the proposed PennEast and Pinelands pipelines.

Again, a prior story in the NY Times framed those issues:

For example, he said, the investigation is scrutinizing a 2014 reportby Exxon Mobil stating that global efforts to address climate change would not mean that it had to leave enormous amounts of oil reserves in the ground as so-called “stranded assets.”

But many scientists have suggested that if the world were to burn even just a portion of the oil in the ground that the industry declares on its books, the planet would heat up to such dangerous levels that “there’s no one left to burn the rest,” Mr. Schneiderman said.

By that logic, Exxon Mobil will have to leave much of its oil in the ground, which means the company’s valuation of its reserves is off by a significant amount.

“If, collectively, the fossil fuel companies are overstating their assets by trillions of dollars, that’s a big deal,” Mr. Schneiderman said. And if the company’s own internal research shows that Exxon Mobil knows better, he added, “there may be massive securities fraud here.”

Since the Exxon lawsuit was filed, the science has become far more urgent, with most recently 11,000 climate scientists issuing a statement warning of “untold suffering”.

Similarly, political events are ramping up dramatically, with non-violent direct action protests worldwide by Extinction Rebellion and here in US by the Sunrise Movement, while Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal Plan driving the 2020 Presidential debate.

II)  SJG Fails to Disclose That It Faces Existential Threats By Federal Courts and NJ Regulators

There are several significant developments that impact the fundamental economics and risks facing South Jersey Gas, none of which were disclosed by SJG to investors:

1. South Jersey Gas is faced with the termination of the Pinelands pipeline by the Pinelands Commission.

2. Required NJ DEP regulatory approvals and construction of their PennEast pipeline has been blocked by the federal courts and construction is opposed the the Murphy Administration’s Attorney General.

Accordingly, SJG investments in the development of those pipelines – over $80 million – is threatened, as are the multimillion dollar revenue stream, income and profits SJG expected from those pipelines.

3. Additionally, the NJ legislature recently enacted new laws designed to reduce the use and demand for among other things, natural gas through both direct demand reduction (fuel switching from fossil gas to renewable sources) and energy conservation.

4. The Murphy administration has committed to an energy policy of a transition to 100% renewable energy, thereby literally putting SJG out of business.

5. The Murphy Board of Public Utilities will soon adopt a new Energy Master Plan (EMP) that will dramatically revise the Christie Administration’s pro-gas policies.

New BPU EMP policies and regulations may include a moratorium on new pipeline construction, phase out of existing pipelines and power plants, a significant new “Social Cost of Carbon” assessment – or “shadow price” – on fossil fuels, reduction in BPU approved recoveries or SJG profits on fossil investments, closure of prior revenue loopholes (e.g. SBC & RGGI exemptions) and elimination of incentives and subsidies for fossil gas, and replacement of existing heating, cooling, and other building equipment and uses of natural gas.

Such policies would dramatically increase the cost and reduce the demand for natural gas and thereby radically reduce SJG’s projected anticipated revenues and the value of their capital infrastructure and fossil investment portfolio.

[And SJG no longer has their lobbyist Richard Mroz as President of the BPU.]

6. Should NY State prevail in the Exxon lawsuit, SJG could be subject to new financial accounting rules that radically alter the fundamental economics of fossil energy, the value of the firm, and establish new contingent liabilities and stranded assets.

III) Compounding Omissions of Material Facts, SJG “Rosy Scenario” Misleads Investors

However, the SJG November 7, 2019 investors briefing failed to mention any of these major legislative, regulatory, public policy, and BPU planning initiatives and the implications of the Exxon lawsuit.

Just the opposite: SJG presented a rosy scenario: they claimed increases in demand for natural gas and said revenue and risk were consistent with expectations.

Here is the opening statement by Mike Renna — President and Chief Executive Officer:

 I am pleased to report that our third quarter results were in line with our expectations. … We are encouraged by the continued strong demand for natural gas across the different regions we serve. … On the regulatory front as you know we have been busy this year planning and executing several important long-term initiatives for Elizabethtown…. Last on the financial front the sale of our noncore assets over the past year as well as our refinancing activities is steadily improving our balance sheet…. Throughout 2019 we’ve been focused on building a foundation of solid regulated performance. We are pleased with our progress and encouraged by the strong demand we continue to see for natural gas.

Of course, you remember the Renna affair.

By failing to note highly relevant and material facts on legal, regulatory and public policy and how they impact risks, liabilities and financial performance of SJG fossil investments – while instead exaggerating exactly the opposite allegedly favorable developments – SJG misled investors.

A vague allusion that investors review SEC filings, in this context, is totally inadequate and will not cover SJG’s asses (sic) and full disclosure responsibilities!

IV) SJG Misled Pinelands Commission Regulators

SJG also misled NJ regulators.

Specifically, Pinelands Commission Executive Director Nancy Wittenberg summarized a meeting between SJG and Commission staff at the Commissions’ November 9, 2019 Commission meting.

According to Wittenberg, among other things, SJG advised the staff that they were still interested in constructing the pipeline and that BPU had “ordered” then to construct the pipeline. 

This repeats a lie SJG told during the Pinelands Commission’s initial review of the proposed pipeline.

BPU has not “ordered” – as in “mandated” – that SJG construct the Pinelands pipeline. BPU approvals come in the form of a “Order” by the Board. That is BPU standard operating procedure. That BPU “Order” approving SJG pipeline is not the legal equivalent of a mandate that they construct it.

Accordingly, SJG also misled regulators at the Pinelands Commission.

There are similar issues raised by the PennEast pipeline that I have not mentioned here.

Via this post, I am calling on NJ Attorney General Great to conduct an investigation into the issues, along the lines of the NY State Exxon lawsuit.

I will back this up with a letter to AG Grewal – forthcoming.

In the interim, I urge the many securities experts and corporate lawyers out there who are far more familiar with and competent to advocate these issues to join my efforts and reach out to AG Grewal.

Of course, I’d be glad to do so for them on an anonymous basis – just drop me an email.

A Tale of Bechtel and Bouy

A “Loser” Takes Stock Of A Career

I’m still working on Part II of the analysis of Gov. Murphy’s “Resilience” initiative, but want to take another brief detour to post this after a remarkable exchange this morning with a couple I’ll call “The Dog Crap Vigilantes”.

I’m on the Monterey Peninsula, and it is truly spectacular: abundant marine life, turquoise water, graceful Cyprus trees, waves breaking on rocks, incredible flowering succulents, and tons of birds. Highly recommended. But follow this story:

Bouy and I take a walk at sunrise on a path along a glorious stretch of the coastline in Pacific Grove.

One morning last week, he suddenly pulled the leash out of my hand and bolted up a steep vegetated embankment along the path chasing a ground squirrel. At the top of the embankment, about 100 feet above the path, he took a crap along the base of a retaining wall.

I did a quick environmental assessment, and concluded that I would do more harm to the vegetation, soils and water quality by trekking up the steep embankment to pick up his crap than leaving the crap there. There was no public access to this spot at the top of an embankment below a retaining wall, so there could be no public health risks or nuisance impacts from the crap.

As I was calling Bouy back down, I noticed a couple nearby who were walking their dogs. I could see that they were appalled by my failure to pick up the dog crap. So, I tried to explain my assessment and that, although I had plenty of dog crap bags in my pocket, that I thought it was better not to pick it up.

They demanded that I cleanup the crap. The told me that it was the law. The threatened to call the cops.

I again explained my reasoning, and, in an effort to avoid the appearance of being a typical irresponsible dog owner scofflaw and to re-assure them, I added that I was an environmental professional and activist and had worked on water quality and public health for over 30 years (a fact based, if not bold, act of “civil disobedience”?)

The husband interjected angrily again about calling the cops, but his wife was more reasonable. She said she was a marine biologist and that these were protected marine sanctuary waters.

I reiterated that I knew all about and respected that, adding that I had worked at Pew, an organization who works on establishing marine protected areas, and that, based on science, there was absolutely no water quality or aquatic life risks from the nutrients and bacteria in that dog crap, not any public health or nuisance impacts.

The husband then started shouting and called the cops, so I walked on.

I guess the cops didn’t respond because I kept walking down the trail and was not issued any ticket for the violation.

That was all over a week ago.

But this morning, I again came across the same couple on the path.

The woman was going into or coming out of a new building associated with the Aquarium – The Bechtel Family Center For Ocean Education and Leadership.

They slowed down to let me pass – and as I walked past them, I couldn’t resist making a snarky comment about Bechtel, a notorious corporate crime syndicate that has done massive harm to the earth and marine environment.

So, I said something like:

 “Nothing like dog crap vigilantes parading as marine life protectors who associate with corporate crime families. Bechtel has done such wonderful things for the earth and the oceans. No hypocrisy and no irony there. Oh no, you folks are good “green”  liberals.”

The husband exploded angrily and shouted as I walked past:

You loser – what have you done?

I responded that he was not only a liberal corporate hypocrite, but he was using the bankrupt language of Trump (i.e. “loser”), and that he was therefore an ignorant Trumpist.

Ideally, in various public arenas, citizens address one another in the give and take of free and open dialogue. This requires what we might call “conversational virtues.” It means that we must have learned to respect the other, must know how to learn our way through conflict, to dig deeply in our imaginations and desires to provide sound reasons to convince our conversation partners (or, in turn, be convinced). Shouting hate-filled and angry nasty words at perceived opponents is all too prevalent in our world of shattered speech and blocked dialogue. (Michael Welton, Counterpunch)

He again shouted: “You loser – what have you done for the earth?”

I replied that I had spent my life fighting for it and moved on.

As I walked down the trail, that stupid exchange provide a moment for reflection on what I actually have contributed over my career.

I thought for a moment and, despite the fact that I often am frustrated by our failures and rollbacks, we have led and/or been part of a lot of good stuff.

I wish I had conducted this mental inventory before and spit it out in that Corporate Bechtel Faux Liberal Green Dog Crap Vigilante’s face.

Here’s what I’ve done you asshole – go get another reusable eco-straw:

1. Designed NJ DEP’s first RCRA 1984 HSWA Corrective Action Program, wrote 45 RCRA “Facility Management Plans” (FMP’s), supervised the completion of about 60 RCRA toxic site “Preliminary Assessments” and “Site Inspections”  (PA/SI’s) and represented DEP before EPA oversight. Unfortunately, all that good work went down the drain, as DEP managers decided not to seek EPA delegation of the Corrective Action Program.

2. Shifted over $250 million intended to fund the construction of garbage incinerators (under cover of the euphemism “resource recovery”) to municipal and county recycling programs. While former NJ Deputy Attorney General Marc Wenzler (last I heard Marc was working with the National lawyers Guild) wrote the legal opinion, I originated the idea, crafted the policy, and pushed it through DEP management using the leverage I had as the only DEP staffer working with the “McEnroe” funds: the Solid Waste Services tax fund, Resource Recovery Investment and Importation tax funds, and the 1985 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Bond Act funds.

3. Worked closely with Frank Sweeney of Governor Florio’s Office on an Executive Order, Task Force Report, and revised DEP Solid Waste Plan that terminated about 15 planned county garbage incinerators and established a new materials management based policy hierarchy of source reduction, composing, recycling, including what then was the highest recycling rate in the country. Source reduction policy was killed in its crib (along with Pollution Prevention),  and “post consumer content” has turned into a marketing sham (my coffee this morning had a “eco-lid” composed on 25% post consumer content!).

4. Worked with my first DEP boss Joe Wiley on the State Landfill Closure Plan – the plan was shelved by none other than then DEP Commissioner Chris Daggett, who would not defend it and literally laughed in our faces on our recommendation that he seek support of Gov. Kean for $3 billion to fund the plan. But it was ahead of its time and – if implemented – could have avoided major water pollution, drinking water contamination, vapor intrusion, and greenhouse gas emissions from old landfills.

5. Worked with DEP colleagues, legislators, and the Office of Legislative Services lawyers to draft the Dry Cell Battery Management Act and the Toxic Packaging Reduction Act, laws that significantly reduced the amount of toxic heavy metals entering the environment. Mike Winka (now at BPU) and I lost a major battle with lobbyists from NJ’s consumer products industry on drafting and seeking passage of the Household Hazardous Waste Management Act (A973), sponsored by Assemblywoman Maureen Ogden [R]. Tom Johnson’s Star Ledger front page coverage of that debate sealed the deal. Way to go Tom, you’re still an asshole!

6. As a whistleblower, leaked documents, including a memo from DEP Commissioner Shinn to Gov. Whitman, that disclosed high levels of mercury in freshwater fish and the Whitman administration’s attempt to cover that up. This forced DEP to issue public fish consumption health advisories and contributed to the later mercury emission standard from coal fired power plants.

7. As Policy Director of the NJ Environmental Federation, initiated the idea, designed a strategy and public campaign and wrote the legislative Resolution and Constitutional Amendment that dedicated 4% of the Corporate Business Tax (CBT) revenue – about $100 million per year – to DEP environmental programs.

8. As Policy Director of Sierra Club, NJ Chapter, worked with legislators and OLS to draft the Watershed Protection Act, which codified and funded DEP’s Watershed Planning initiative.

9. As Policy Director of Sierra Club, worked with volunteers to kill the proposed Mercer County garbage incinerator and a massive new sprawl driving sewer line into Hopewell Valley.

10. While at Sierra, almost single handedly took down the Whitman administrations sham “Open Market Emissions Trading (OMET) program, an early pollution trading scheme and precursor to another sham called RGGI. Funny, PSE&G was never prosecuted or penalized for fraudulent OMET schemes they made millions off.

11. Testified to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in strong opposition to the confirmation of George Bush’s selection of Christie Whitman as US EPA Administrator. Had my criticisms been taken seriously, perhaps Whitman would not have been there post 9/11 to lie about the air quality in southern Manhattan and many thousands of first responders might still be alive and healthy.

12. As policy advisor to McGreevey administration DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell, accomplished the following:

a) crafted the Category One Waters (C1) strategy, including a new Clean Water Act anti-degradation policy, ecological assessment method, and C1 designation process. Drafted new C1 SWQS regulations and designated over 2,00 miles of C1 waters and solicited public nominations of thousands of miles more.

b) worked to insert a new “special waters protection area” 300 foot wide stream buffer program in the DEP stormwater management rules. This new program, during the McGreevey years, protected over 2,000 stream miles and over 175,000 acres of environmentally sensitive steam buffers from disturbance by major development.

c) worked closely with Curtis Fisher of Governor MGreevey’s Office to design a Highlands initiative, including an Executive Order and Highlands Taskforce Report. I drafted the DEP regulatory and environmental provisions of the introduced version of the Highlands Act, Senate Bill #1. I especially appreciate that I wrote the “deep aquifer recharge” provision that – because the Act also prohibited extension of water supply and wastewater infrastructure – set a septic system driven land use density standard in the Preservation Area of 1 unit per 88 acres, the strictest in the country!

d) worked closely with DEP Commissioner Campbell to develop a new phosphorus initiative, including making major revisions to DEP’s enforcement of Surface Water Quality Standards for phosphorus and nutrients and the NJPDES surface water discharge permit program, to impose reductions of phosphorus discharged to NJ rivers and streams.

13. Founded the NJ State Chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (NJ PEER), responsible for a large body of work that made public disclosures that influenced statewide environmental policy, legislation and regulation. (see our work here).

14. Worked a stint at Pew Environment Group as Manager of their Mid Atlantic Fisheries “End Overfishing” campaign. Got nothing done, but learned about fisheries biology and law and made a ton of money. It was at Pew where I learned first hand of the culture, values, corruption, and cowardice of elite private foundations at how they used their money to manipulate environmental groups and the public debate.

15. Was a volunteer “citizen journalist” as the environmental writer at the Newark Star Ledger’s “NJ Voices” page. Got fired from a volunteer gig for telling the truth. Ha!

16. Blogged here at Wolfenotes and have given the bad guys hell.

17. Provided pro bono strategic advice and technical assistance to numerous citizens groups, from Cape May and the Pinelands to High Point and the Highlands, on a range of environmental, land use, infrastructure, climate, and public health issues and campaigns.

18. I’ve been an expert source to several fine environmental and investigative reporters, including award winning journalists Dusty MacNichol & Kelly Richmond (Whitman “Open For Business”) and Jeff Pillets (Encap) and Mark Bittman (of the NY Times) on award winning documentary “Years of Living Dangerously – Episode 5”).

I’m sure I left lots of stuff and people out. I think this work has had an effect. I enjoyed doing it.

This is not the kind of work that gets you Foundation and DEP grants, invitations to the “Stakeholder” meetings, conference speaking engagements, and lots of press quotes and Op-Ed opportunities – or even a roof over your head – but it is very effective.

And its not over, folks!