WolfeNotes.com

DEP Must Adopt Stricter Water Quality Protections

But DEP Hasn’t Even Restored Christie Rollbacks Yet

A Modest Action Agenda

[Update below]

NJ’s largest recreational lake, Lake Hopatcong – among several others – is closed due to a toxic algae bloom, see:

• LAKE HOPATCONG CLOSURE SEEN AS WAKE-UP CALL FOR STATE’S WATERSHEDS

• Exasperated crowd wants answers about toxic algae bloom in Lake Hopatcong

The algae bloom is caused by a combination of climate change, excessive nutrient & sediment pollution loads, and failed DEP regulatory policies.

DEP lacks adequate regulations governing land use, development, stormwater, water quality, septic systems, agriculture, and forestry.

Worse, DEP lacks any strategy, comprehensive plan, or enforceable regulations to address climate change, that we know will impact water resources (i.e. DEP rules mandating greenhouse gas emissions reductions or methods to adapt to climate change).

The Christie DEP not only denied climate change, but actually rolled back DEP regulations that were designed to protect water quality, including Highlands septic density, stormwater management, flood hazard, and stream buffer protections.

After the Legislature vetoed the Christie DEP septic density rollback, the Murphy DEP effectively revoked that already invalidated rule, but has yet to address other significant Christie DEP rollbacks.

Before we get the lame attempts at suggesting weak “reforms” (e.g. stormwater utilities) from the usual lame suspects (e.g. Highlands Coalition), we thought we’d lay out a serious reform package.

So, here’s a short to do list for DEP to respond to the current crisis and prevent or reduce the likelihood of future disasters.

1. “Benchmark” other State Lake Management – Water Quality Programs

One of the strongest lake water quality management programs in the country is Lake Tahoe.

NY DEC is also planning major new regulatory protections for Lake George.

DEP should review these models and adopt the strictest water quality and land use standards out there.

2.  Restore and Fund DEP’s Lakes Management Program

DEP used to have a stand alone Lakes Management Program that provided a priority focus on lakes. The program monitored water quality, provided science to support DEP planning and regulatory programs, and provided funding for water quality controls.

That program was basically eliminated and folded into the voluntary Watershed Planning Program.

DEP needs to restore and fund that program.

3. Impose a Moratorium On Logging

DEP is currently conducting several logging projects in NJ forests, including Highlands forests.

Despite the fact that logging has significant negative environmental impacts, logging projects are not subject to DEP regulations governing freshwater wetlands, stream buffers, stormwater, Flood Hazard Act and Highlands Act protections (e.g. steep slopes, vernal ponds, buffers, et al).

DEP must close those loopholes.

For example, NY State DEC is planning to adopt stricter regulations to protect Lake George water quality. The first time on the list of new regulations is logging:

4. Restore and Expand Stream Buffer Protections

Vegetated lands adjacent to streams, i.e. “stream buffers”, reduce the volume of and filter stormwater runoff, protect water quality, reduce flooding, and provide excellent habitat for wildlife.

The Christie DEP weakened existing protections of those buffers, by reducing the width where disturbance and development were prohibited from 300 o 150 feet, and by making a series of complex technical regulatory changes that served to protect water quality.

DEP must repeal those Christie DEP rollbacks and expand and strengthen stream buffer protections (as well as related protections for vernal pools and steep slopes.)

5. Repeal and Strengthen Stormwater Management regulations

The Christie DEP rolled back existing stormwater management rules.

The Murphy DEP, instead of repealing and strengthening those rollbacks, recently adopted new stormwater management rules that further weaken protections.

This must be reversed.

6. Repeal and Strengthen Flood Hazard Act Regulatory Protections

The Christie DEP rolled back existing Flood Hazard Act “stream encroachment” regulatory protections.

The Murphy DEP must repeal those rollbacks and strengthen current requirements.

7. Enforce “Total maximum Daily Load” Requirements

Under the Clean Water Act, when a waterbody fails to meet water quality standards, it is legally considered “impaired” and must undergo additional stricter requirements under a cleanup plan known as a “Total Maximum Daily Laod” (TMDL).

A TMDL establishes a science based enforceable numeric pollution diet, including daily limits on pollutant loads, both from point sources and non-point runoff.

DEP has failed miserably in the design, implementation, and enforcement of the TMDL program, particularly at lakes.

On an emergency basis, DEP can revoke and strengthen all the weak Lake TMDL’s, particularly for nutrient and sediment pollution.

8. Mandate Septic Management Districts and Septic Maintenance

A significant source of nutrient pollution in lake watersheds is overdevelopment and failing septic systems.

Septic systems must be properly designed, maintained, and regularly pumped out in order to be effective.

The location of septic systems with respect to proximity to surface waters is also important.

DEP regulates all of the above, but current regulations are far to weak and do not mandate septic pump-out or restrict proximity to streams and wetlands.

DEP can adopt emergency rules to strengthen all these existing weak septic programs.

9. Enforce Regulatory Requirements To Leverage Investments in Environmental Infrastructure

DEP enforcement of land use and water quality regulations is weak, and it has eroded over the last decade, especially after 8 years of the Christie administration.

DEP does not enforce what are known as “narrative water quality standards” or water quality standards for wetlands.

Furthermore, DEP enforcement against public entities is almost non-existent, due to the politics of local control and the concern about increasing local property taxes and/or user fees.

Finally, DEP enforcement is completely divorced from the Environmental Infrastructure Trust Program, which finances improvements.

DEP should integrate enforcement with NJ EIT, in a way that forces investments in necessary water quality infrastructure upgrades.

10. Mandate Consideration of Climate Change In DEP Regulatory Requirements & Local Land Use

Climate change is projected to increase temperature and rainfall frequencies and intensities.

Those projections reveal that current DEP and local land use controls are severely deficient.

Current DEP regulations  fail to even consider climate change.

As a first step, DEP can mandate the use of the 500 year design storm as a surrogate for increased storm intensity.

There are many other technical improvements to address climate that are beyond the scope of this brief note.

11. Mandate Water Quality Retrofit Of Existing Development

Existing development is causing the excessive nutrient loads that are driving the toxic algae blooms.

Yet DEP water quality regulations do not apply to existing development.

That must change and retrofit requirements but be mandated.

12. Regulate Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution

Agriculture is a major source of non-point source water pollution (from application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides and sediment runoff), but is exempt from DEP water quality regulations.

That must change.

This is a serious reform agenda.

We strongly urge the Murphy DEP to act on it and environmental groups and the public to support it.

[Update – I want to provide another example of gross mismanagement by DEP.

DEP adopted a “Lake Hopatcong Water Level Management Plan” back in 2011.

Here is how that plan evaluated water quality issues.

First, on page 10, note that DEP considers water quality solely from the perspective of “high productivity” exclusively in terms of supporting fisheries:

No New Resources, Professional Staff, Or Regulatory Authority At DEP

Commissioner McCabe’s legislative testimony contradicts public & press statements

NJ DEP Commissioner McCabe is basically lying to the people of NJ regarding what DEP is actually doing to address climate change, and the NJ press corps in printing her lies without fact checking them (taking DEP press releases at face value and not understanding the significant substantive difference between a spun DEP press release and an official DEP regulatory document).

I realize that that’s an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require significant supporting evidence, which we provide below. And we’re not just parsing words and splitting hairs here. We’re talking about blatant contradictions. Word.

NJ Gov. Murphy repeatedly has pledged to make battling climate change a top priority of his administration.

In an attempt to implement the Gov.’s commitments, last October, at a Monmouth University Summit, Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe spoke and DEP issued a press release:

COMMISSIONER MCCABE ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF COMPREHENSIVE
COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN DURING SUMMIT AT MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY

(18/P086) TRENTON – During a summit today at Monmouth University in West Long Branch, Commissioner Catherine R. McCabe announced that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is launching work on a comprehensive plan to make coastal areas more resilient to the impacts of severe storms and sea-level rise.

The Coastal Resilience Plan will become a blueprint for protection of property, lives, infrastructure and natural environments by guiding policies, regulations, resources and funding.

“Our coast is an ecological and economic treasure, integral to our identity as a state,” Commissioner McCabe said during the Coastal Resilience Summit attended by coastal researchers, municipal officials and other stakeholders. “Faced with the realities of global warming and sea-level rise, it is imperative that we put in place a cohesive, integrated plan that safeguards this treasure.”

Importantly, note that McCabe’s “cohesive, integrated plan” was limited in scope to “resilience” policy in the coastal zone and did not address emissions mitigation.

More recently, last week at Stockton , DEP Commissioner McCabe recognized a far broader need for a “strategic plan for climate change”:

NJDEP Commissioner Expresses Need for Strategic Plan for Climate Change

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. – New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Catherine McCabe told an audience at Stockton University that the state is in need of a strategic plan for climate change addressing mitigation and resiliency across the entire state.

The commissioner’s talk was part of the 2019 State of New Jersey Beaches forum at Stockton University Atlantic City held on July 1.

“We know there are issues of vulnerability for people and the economy,” McCabe said in a press release from the university. “We think about this a lot at the DEP.”

Aside from the fact that the legislature mandated that DEP develop such a plan 12 years ago, remarkably, McCabe casually dramatically expanded the scope of her original commitment, which was limited to coastal resilience and did not address statewide (inland) resilience and emissions mitigation.

Regardless of what the evolving specific DEP policy commitments are, the Gov.’s statements, public remarks by DEP Commissioner McCabe, and DEP press releases strongly suggest that the Murphy DEP has made significant commitments of resources, professional staff, and regulatory policy changes to address both climate “mitigation” (i.e. reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) and “adaptation” (aka “resilience”) to the impacts of climate change.

But that is all completely false – according to DEP Commissioner McCabe’s own written testimony in response to specific questions posed by the Legislature.

I’ve previously written about the fact that the 2007 Global Warming Response Act mandated the DEP develop a Statewide plan to achieve deep greenhouse gas emissions reductions:

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

I’ve also noted how current DEP regulations fail to address climate change, see:

• NJ Environmental Regulations Ignore Climate Change

So, if Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner McCabe are serious about addressing climate change, they must make significant changes at DEP, including an increase in budgeted resources and professional staff and comprehensive regulatory changes to DEP programs.

But, according to DEP Commissioner McCabe’s own written testimony to the legislature, NONE of that is happening (read the excerpt below).

Instead, DEP is merely shuffling the bureaucratic cards – by transferring existing staff and existing resources to a new bureaucratic entity known as the “Office of Climate Resilience” (also note that this new Office is limited in scope to “resilience” (i.e. adaptation) and not emission mitigation).

McCabe has simply bureaucratically restored what DEP Commissioner Campbell created 17 years ago! That Office, created by Campbell in 2002, was abolished by Gov. Christie’s DEP Commissioner Martin in 2010.

So, let’s get back to our analysis.

During this year’s budget process, the Legislature, through the professionals in the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) specifically asked Commissioner McCabe about the new DEP “Office of Climate Resilience”.

Here is the relevant excerpt from DEP Commissioner McCabe’s response to OLS questions:

US Forest Service Study Led To Highlands Act, But Not National Forest Designation

US Forest Service “Forest Health” Program A Pretext For Logging

USFS and NJ DEP ignore climate change in forest management

Although the NJ Highlands were mapped by a US Forest Service Study – which provided the major justifications for the Highlands Act – NJ is one of only 10 states that have no National Forests.

Ironically, that may be a good thing, as the Trump administration’s US Forest Service becomes increasingly subservient to logging and extractive industry special interests nationally:

The new categorical exclusions in these proposed rules are huge and far from risk-free. Large logging projects, which could devastate vulnerable habitat, and road-building in pristine wildernesses would be among those escaping rigorous environmental review.

For just one recent egregious example, the NY Times reports today on a massive mining proposal that would poison the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness:

the Forest Service called off an environmental review that could have restricted mining, even though the agriculture secretary had told Congress that the review would proceed.

More specific to the logging topic of my post today, however, I just read a story about USFS plans to log national forest, under the pretext of the North Bridger Forest Health Project.

Because that USFS logging project sounded so much like the euphemisms and slogans used to support NJ DEP’s plans to log Sparta Mountain and other NJ Highlands Forests (i.e. “treatments” “forest thinning” “resilience” “forest health”, etc), I thought I’d look into the details and get an understanding of exactly how USFS justified this crap.

In reviewing the details of the USFS logging, I confirmed what I expected, based on NJ DEP’s forestry program:

1. Despite the science and urgency, USFS forest management is not subject to any laws, regulations, standards, policies, or management practices regarding climate change.

While NJ DEP denies this huge flaw via silence, the USFS admits that, directly and right up front:

Regulatory Framework

There are no applicable legal or regulatory requirements or established thresholds concerning management of forest carbon or greenhouse gas emissions. (See: NEPA Categorical Exclusion, p.2)

2.  Water Quality and stream buffer protections are even weaker then NJ DEP BMPs

USFS relies on 15-50 foot stream buffers, but based on stream classification and extremely steep slopes (>35!), buffer can be increased to 100 feet (see Appendix A of NEPA scoping document, and table below):

That is weaker than DEP’s lax water quality and stream buffer BMP’s.

3. USFS Logging is based on the same “forest health” rhetoric and “science” that NJ DEP relies on

I had seen this similarity several times before, and lazily just assumed it just came from the PR people in the logging industry and the forestry bureaucrats in USFS and NJ DEP.

But today, I hit a few links to the decision documents and traced the legal and policy source of some of these Orwellian euphemisms.

(and keep in mind that the justification I discuss here came in 2014, years before the recent western and California wildfires, which focused public attention on forest management and provided their own cover stories and justification for the need for “treatments” and “fuel management” to avoid “wildfire at the urban-wildland interface”).

In the project overview in the NEPA scoping document, I found this as the source that initiated the logging project:

Buried in Appendix C, I learned the following about that 2014 Farm Bill – including a process for Governor’s to request USFS designation of forests:

Here are the national Insect and Disease Designations.

I was surprised and disappointed  to learn that NJ Gov. Cuomo requested designation of 3,000 acres of the Finger Lakes national Forest and USFS did so. I wonder how that project is working out?

As NJ has no national forests, the Governor of NJ requested no designations.

Just think if the Highlands were a National Forest – then NJ DEP’s Highlands logging program would be greatly expanded, given even more resources, and subject to federal control. Guess we dodged a bullet, eh?

4. Government moves like lightning when special interests are greasing the skids

Some say that government bureaucracy moves too slowly and that NEPA review injects huge delays in development (you hear that all the time, especially from those that would exploit and extract natural resources and develop and destroy the environment).

But, check out the accelerated action timetable involved in this national forest designation process, which leads to logging:

• On February 7, 2014, President Obama signed the 2014 Farm bill;
• The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture delegated authority to implement the provisions of the Farm Bill to the Chief of the Forest Service on March 6, 2014.
• On March 19, 2014, USDA/USFS solicited designations from the nation’s Governors;
• On April 8, 2014, NY Gov. Cuomo replied and requested designation
• Montana Gov. Bullock was even faster than Cuomo. He replied on April 7, 2014
• On May 20, 2014, USDA/USFS approved the Montana designation request
• USFS rolled out the Custer Gallatin NF Montana Project on September 14, 2017
• USFS issued a NEPA Scoping Document Nov. 27, 2017
• USFS issued a NEPA Categorical Exclusion on March 14, 2018

That’s damn quick for developing a new and controversial national program.

So, government can move very quickly when special interests are pulling the strings.

Ironically – and thankfully – the project is being blocked by litigation challenging USFS NEPA “Categorical Exclusion”.

It is insane to rely on a “market based approach” when there is huge “market failure”

RGGI is a small fee to pollute. It provides billions of dollars in subsidies, locks in emissions, and protects polluters from strict science based regulation for at least a decade.

I’ve written about fatal flaws in RGGI so many times now, I won’t repeat all that today.

In a future post, I will update the situation based on DEP’s response to public comments in the adoption document for the RGGI rule. 

Anyone interested in understanding the RGGI program should spend some time with that document, and ignore the Governor’s press release and media stenographers.

However, I have to respond to the Big Lies and spin that NJ Spotlight unconditionally printed today – worst first:

1. Compliance Cost To Large Energy Users – Dennis Hart, NJ Chemistry Council

Aside from failing to note the revolving door abuse of Mr. Hart, a former DEP Assistant Commissioner, NJ Spotlight printed this fact free whopper:

The multi-state initiative is a cap-and-trade program placing a tax on carbon emissions, which is passed on to utility customers. The DEP projects the tax will cost the average residential homeowner $9 more a year on their electricity bill. The cost for large energy users will be much higher, adding hundreds of millions of dollars to their annual bills, according to testimony from Dennis Hart, executive director of the Chemistry Industry Council.

The RGGI allowances are not a “tax”. They are selling for around $5/ton.

The Statewide CO2 emissions cap is 18 million tons.

DO THE MATH: The entire RGGI program – which is paid for by residential, commercial & industrial sectors – is less than $90 million.

HART IS OBVIOUSLY LYING. CALL HIM ON IT – DON”T PRINT THE LIE.

The economic reality is exactly the opposite of Mr. Hart’s Big Lie.

Big Industrial energy users are receiving hundreds of millions of $ in subsidies every year.

Instead of paying a paltry $5/ton RGGI allowances, they should be paying $122/ton DEP air pollution emission fees for CO2, just like other pollutants. (the FY 2017 $117/ton fee as increased to $122)

The RGGI allowance actually is a $117 per ton subsidy.

At 18 million tons, that’s a statewide $2.106 BILLION subsidy – large energy users receive a significant portion of that total statewide annual subsidy.

At minimum, the RGGI allowances should be set at the EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon, which, depending on interest rates and damage assumptions, range from $42/ton – $123/ton in year 2020.

The “external costs” are larger than the market price. That is a massive “market failure”.

So, the RGGI paltry $5/ton allowance is $37/ton – $118/ton  too low to reflect the true social costs of emissions- representing another multi-BILLION dollar subsidy to carbon polluters.

RGGI only covers CO2 emission from an energy production facility. RGGI does not address other greenhouse gas emissions, like methane, which has many times more global warming potential than CO2. RGGI also dos not consider lifecycle emissions, i.e. those that occur upstream of the energy production facility (extraction, wells, pipelines, distribution, processing, leaks and fugitive emissions, etc).

So the subsidy to big polluters – particularly fracked gas power plants – is even LARGER than $2.1 BILLION/YR.

2. “Leakage”

NJ Spotlight uncritically printed this half truth and spin:

Others, however, fear the state’s new rules will end up increasing greenhouse-gas emissions by favoring out-of-state power plants not subject to the carbon tax over cleaner and more expensive New Jersey units. The problem has been called leakage, an issue that must be addressed, according to energy experts and clean-energy advocates.

Without a leakage mitigation plan, today’s action will increase carbon dioxide emissions by 30 million tons from 2020 through 2030, which equates to almost two years of New Jersey’s annual electricity generation emissions,’’ said Adam Kaufman, executive director of the Independent Energy Producers of New Jersey….

In response to such criticism, the DEP noted another regulatory agency, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, has committed to starting a proceeding to address problems posed by “leakage.’’

What the Independent Producers, DEP and Spotlight fail to note is that the legislature mandated that BPU adopt what they call a “leakage mitigation plan” by July 2009.

If you really get into the weeds of the DEP adoption document, you san see how DEP subtly lied to cover up that BPU decade of failure. Just compare DEP’s response on bottom of page 27-28. While DEP correctly cited the law, in the statutory text they excerpted, they left out 2 critical things: 1) the legislative mandate “shall”, which they incorrectly describe as a legislative “authorization”; and 2) the July 1, 2009 compliance date. (DEP also misnamed the applicable law: it was the Global Warming Response Act, not the Global Warming Solutions Fund Act.)

Here is the full statutory provision, from the Global Warming Response Act (N.J.S.A. 48:3-87.c(2), where the legislature mandated (emphases mine)

“(2) By July 1, 2009, the board shall adopt, pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure Act,” P.L.1968, c. 410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq. ), a greenhouse gas emissions portfolio standard to mitigate leakage or another regulatory mechanism to mitigate leakage applicable to all electric power suppliers and basic generation service providers that provide electricity to customers within the State.  

The BPU held Stakeholder meetings in 2008 to do so, but never adopted a “greenhouse gas emissions portfolio standard”, BPU Order, or “another regulatory mechanism” to mitigate leakage.

DEP describes this history on page 28 of the adoption document: (the links work there)

Now, 10 years later, the leakage issue again is used by the energy industry to criticize RGGI.

But at the same time, the energy industry opposes any “greenhouse gas emissions portfolio standard” or “another regulatory mechanism” to mitigate leakage – including a “carbon price adder” – including on energy imports – like other states use to address market failures, prevent “leakage”, and internalize the external social costs of carbon. (e.g. see New York and California)

They can’t have it both ways.

But NJ Spotlight never calls bullshit on their energy industry friends and funders.

And despite DEP pointing the finger at BPU,  the “leakage” issue is not solely a BPU issue.

First, the law mandates that BPU adopt regulations “in consultation” with DEP.

Second, the Global Warming Response Act requires DEP to consider leakage in RGGI regulations:

3. A Market Based Approach Makes No Sense Under Conditions of Structural Market Failure

Numerous times, DEP describes and defends RGGI as a “market based approach”:

But the energy market reflects huge structural market failures, most significantly: a lack of effective competition, technological monopoly, and huge external costs of energy that are not reflected in the market price of energy (see this for a good technical discussion of SCC).

I will not go into all the economic theory and data on this here, but merely note that it is insane to rely on a market based approach under conditions of structural market failure.

The case for traditional “command and control regulation” is far more defensible and effective in driving real and deep emissions reductions than a failed “market based approach.

Ironically, the 1990 Clean Air Act’s acid rain program, often touted as a “market based approach” that worked, was in fact actually implemented via traditional site specific facility air pollution control permits and emission limits set by EPA, not by “markets” and trading.

4. The Man’s a Ho.

The DEP set the cap at 18 million tons/year, far too high to achieve the kind of deep and rapid emissions reductions that reflect the climate science.

But, a Mr. Bruce Ho of NRDC – see: Jim Hansen Takes On NRDC for background –  ignores all that in a delusional and sycophantic piece of spin, which is almost a verbatim statement that DEP made in the rule adoption document in response to criticism of the cap by environmental groups (see page 42 and compare to Mr. Ho’s.

Here’ DEP: (@ page 42)

The other rule establishes the initial carbon-dioxide cap for the state’s electricity generation sector at 18 million tons in 2020.

That is far less than what many argued the cap should be set at, with environmental groups initially pressing for a limit of 12.6 million tons. Anything less, they suggested, would result in less emission reductions and fewer dollars to spend on clean energy programs.

Bruce Ho, a senior advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, who came around to accepting the 18 million tons cap, said, “Ultimately, it was reasonable based on the data we were seeing in the energy sector.’’

Ho noted that the DEP committed to work with other states to evaluate and strengthen the RGGI program, an indication that the pollution cap might be tightened in the future. In any event, the governor’s office said the carbon dioxide emissions will decline by 30 percent through 2030.

The 18 million ton cap is NOT “reasonable” in light of climate science. Period.

5. Grazing in the Gas

Some environmental groups have pointed out that Gov. Murphy can not achieve his climate and clean energy policy goals while expanding fossil gas infrastructure. They have demanded that the Gov. impose a moratorium on new gas plants and pipelines.

Yet, far more than a moratorium is necessary, including the phase out and shut down of current gas plants and pipelines and garbage incinerators and sludge incinerators (all are multi-billion dollar stranded investments).

Regardless, DEP casually rejected anything along these lines, admitted that RGGI’s cap would not block new gas plants and pipelines, and went all in for gas. DEP wrote:

Any new plants constructed that are subject to the RGGI cap will increase demand for the RGGI CO2 allowances. This is likely to result in upward price pressure on all CO2 allowances, resulting in higher costs for fossil fuel generating sources. This is the core of RGGI’s program design. RGGI is not designed to reduce carbon emissions directly, but instead to make fossil fuel generation costlier to operate. (@ page 41).

At a paltry $4-$6/ton CO2, that ain’t gonna happen! RGGI is a small fee to pollute and it locks in emissions and protects polluters from strict science based regulation for at least a decade.

And I wonder if they cleared that statement with the Gov.’s office?

6. Delusions

Instead of telling the truth about the fatal flaws of RGGI and energy markets, calling for aggressive implementation of public transportation and current zero emission car mandates, and demanding new building codes and retrofit requirements, some so called “green groups” are actually seeking to expand RGGI to transportation and building sectors:

Nevertheless, clean-energy advocates see in RGGI a template for curbing other climate-warming emissions in other sectors, particularly the transportation sector. Late last year, the Murphy administration joined a regional initiative to reduce carbon pollution from transportation sources.

“The Transportation Climate Alliance is finally starting to address emissions from cars and trucks across state lines,’’ noted Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey, citing efforts to electrify the sector. “We are going to need to address those emissions more rapidly.’’

If it is insane to rely on a market based approach under conditions of structural market failure, it is delusional to call to expand failure.

I could go on – but I’ll stop here and close wIth a serious question:

What is it about RGGI that drives good people to lie so blatantly?

What explains all these contradictions? 

How do you feel about a manipulative and fake media campaign to ignore real climate risks, to undermine real activists, to benefit elite interests & to give Gov. Murphy a pass?

NJ Spotlight published an Op-Ed today on the Penn East pipeline, ostensibly written by Brandon McCoy, President of NJ Policy Perspective:

• PENNEAST PIPELINE DOESN’T GO WITH A CLEAN-ENERGY FUTURE

Aside from Mr. McCoy’s lack of expertise, experience or prior involvement in climate or energy policy   –  while NJ Spotlight fails to publish Op-Ed’s by many groups and authors who have these qualifications or other fossil infrastructure projects – in reading Mr. McCoy’s Op-Ed, ask yourself one basic question:

Why is NJ Policy Perspective, a State level group, led by a President who touts his his personal leadership

“of the organization’s efforts in shaping policy debates to advance economic justice for the many, not a chosen few”

 and with a statewide organizational mission

“to advance economic justice and prosperity for all New Jerseyans through evidence-based, independent research, analysis and advocacy” (emphases added)

writing an Op-Ed about the Penn East pipeline, a project and narrow single issue (not any POLICY) that most directly impacts the backyards of and is opposed by the “CHOSEN FEW” of Hunterdon County? (do I need to publish the demographics of Hunterdon County? – or the Board , membership and financial contributors of the NJ Conservation Foundation?)

Why wouldn’t such an advocate of “policy” and “economic justice“, leading an organization seeking to “advance economic justice and prosperity for all New Jerseyans”, actually mention any of that in an Op-Ed?

Why wouldn’t that President of that Organization, tackling climate and energy issues being addressed at the State level by BPU and DEP, instead focus on real statewide policy issues that impact the 99% of New Jerseyans, other than the “chosen few” wealthy property owners in Hunterdon County impacted by the Penn East pipeline?

There is nothing in Mr. McCoy’s Op-Ed of statewide significance.

There is nothing about climate change or energy policy.

There is nothing about the disproportionate impacts of climate chaos on distressed urban communities or economic and environmental justice for those communities.

There is nothing about Gov. Murphy’s rhetorical commitments to battle climate change and promote environmental justice and the need to hold the Governor accountable to those commitments.

There is nothing about the pending Murphy BPU Energy Master Plan, the driver of Statewide energy policy and whether it will enforce and finance the dire warnings of climate scientists and make deep and accelerated reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

There is nothing about DEP’s failed efforts to implement the Global Warming Response Act or flaws in the GWRA or RGGI.

And why would opposition to a specific pipeline not criticize the fact that DEP regulations do NOT consider climate change in fossil infrastructure permitting? (Or that the Christie DEP rolled back these protections?)

There is nothing about all the other pending fossil infrastructure projects and the Coalition of numerous state and local groups that are urging Gov. Murphy to impose a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure.

Virtually nothing that meets the stated mission of NJ Policy Perspective and the leadership commitments of its President, Mr. McCoy.

On top of all those failures, while Mr. McCoy does mention New York State – yet amazingly, he fails to mention the most obvious and significant fact that NY Gov. Cuomo previously has killed pipelines, most recently the proposed pipeline under Raritan Bay currently pending an imminent DEP permit decision!!!

Instead, we get the same recycled arguments and talking points of Tom Gilbert and Rethink Energy NJ.

What explains all these contradictions?

Could it be that Jon Shure – longtime  partisan NJ Democratic political operative and corporate democratic policy wonk with relationships with Gov. Murphy –  the Founder and current member of the Board of Trustees of NJ Policy Perspective, and currently employed by Taft Communications, had something to do with writing and marketing this Op-Ed?

[Jon Shure]He was communications director through Gov. Jim Florio’s term in office. Jon was founding president of New Jersey Policy Perspective, building it into an influential state research/advocacy organization, and was director of state communications at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C.

Back in February, we exposed the role of Taft Communications in an incredibly timed prior NJ Spotlight Op-Ed by Tom Gilbert, which we called out as an effort to sabotage the fossil moratorium campaign, see:

• Rethink Energy NJ Is Sabotaging The Fossil Moratorium Campaign

Rethink NJ pays for a consulting firm for communication services, including drafting Op-Eds and working behind the scenes to get them published (it is not easy to get an Op-Ed published, and as noted above, Tom Gilbert meets NONE of the traditional qualifying tests for an Op-Ed opportunity).

That consulting firm is Taft Communications.

If you hit the link on “Client List”, you can see Rethink Energy NJ listed as a client.

But if you also look slightly above Rethink, you will see that PSEG is also a Taft client.

Mr. McCoy – and Mr. Shure – are engaged in the same game that Mr. Gilbert played back in February.

They won’t put any pressure on or make any demands of their political friend, Gov. Murphy.

The won’t join is solidarity with other NJ Communities and activists battling fossil infrastructure projects.

They work hard to marginalize the radicals, co-opt the local activist, and take credit for their work.

They are willing to sellout out their grandmothers and lie to the public (by commission or omission).

All they care about is the wealthy elite who fund them and their own careers and salaries.

I call bullshit on all that and shame on them.