WolfeNotes.com

FEMA: Flawed Rules Lead To More Flooding and Water Pollution

FEMA: DEP fails to address climate change risks and impacts

FEMA Echoes and Validates Our Criticism

Groundhog Day

In a January 31, 2019 letter (h/t Jeff Tittel, Sierra Club) the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) submitted harsh criticism of the Murphy DEP’s proposed new stormwater management rules.

FEMA described the DEP’s stormwater rules as

an important defense in preventing the exacerbation of the state’ most devastating risk: flooding.

FEMA prefaced their harsh criticism by noting that the federal government had expended more than $2.7 billion in NJ, thereby clearly linking the need for federal funding to DEP’s lax regulatory policies:

The writing on the wall is obvious: NJ should not expect the federal FEMA gravy train to continue unless NJ strengthens their regulatory framework to reduce flood risks.

Meanwhile, instead of strengthening DEP’s flawed regulations, the Murphy administration has not only weakened current regulations, but also engaged in a distraction: a so called “coastal resilience” initiative. That sham initiative is the Murphy administration’s choice over far superior alternative policy frameworks, including: a Coastal Commission; State GHG emissions mitigation/climate adaptation planning and regulation; or a comprehensive set of enforceable DEP regulations (CAFRA, stormwater, Flood Hazard Act, C1, et al).

Repeating a disturbing pattern of news management, the Murphy DEP issued another cynical and diversionary press release today on “coastal resilience” grants, cynically in the hope of diverting media focus from the FEMA criticism.

In a prior egregious episode of similar news management, we noted:

The McCabe DEP press release was issued the same day that McCabe was personally slammed in a Newark Star Ledger editorial and harshly criticized again in testimony later that morning in a Senate legislative hearing on illegal disposal of “dirty dirt” (see S1683). That DEP press release was a blatant diversion to cover up McCabe’s own serious failures.

Sadly, that DEP news management diversion may work. The press is extremely weak on regulatory issues and the so called environmental advocates are in the tank with the Murphy administration.

The DEP isn’t the only one ignoring these major flaws in regulations – the press repeatedly has failed to hold DEP accountable. The latest example of that media failure is today’s NJ Spotlight story, which again focuses on flawed US ACE engineering approaches to the coastal zone, instead of the major risks and flaws flagged by FEMA and environmentally superior and cost effective alternatives, like a Coastal Commission or DEP regulations.

FEMA flagged many significant and fatal flaws in the DEP proposal: (emphasis mine)

 To highlight, FEMA finds that the abandonment of the nonstructural stormwater management in design and the absence of restrictions in the increase in runoff volume post-development to be significant deficiencies. FEMA is also concerned that the proposed rule does not consider future conditions of increasingly intense precipitation that is expected with climate change. The use of the term Green Infrastructure will not offset the proposed changes to the nonstructural stormwater management strategies and the multiple missed opportunities to reduce riverine and urban flooding impacts.

Wow! FEMA found “significant deficiencies”. FEMA noted that the “green infrastructure“ cover slogan “will not offset” the rollbacks!.

Let’s repeat that – THE DEP PROPOSAL:

does not consider future conditions of increasingly intense precipitation that is expected with climate change. 

You rarely get that kind of strong criticism from a federal regulatory agency. That should give folks a sense of just how bad the DEP proposal is.

FEMA also blasted these fatal flaws:

FEMA saved the best for last, and blasted DEP’s failure to consider current science and address climate change increased rainfall:

What ever happened to the DEP policy to begin to regulate based on the 500 year storm event to address climate change, see:

• STATE WANTS SEWER PLANTS TO PLAN FOR 500-YEAR STORMS

“It’s extremely significant,’’ said Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, who first reported the changes on his blog, wolfenotes.com. “It will make a difference.’’

Is DEP Commissioner McCabe even aware of this? If so, why did she sign off on such a clearly deficient – and technically inconsistent – rule proposal?

FEMA criticized many of the same issues were wrote about in this December 14, 2018 post, including failure to address climate change, lack of numeric enforceable water quality standards, and repeal of current nonstructural stormwater management requirements:

• After 12 Months In Office, Murphy DEP Proposes First Regulation, And It Is Awful

The only solution at this point in time is for DEP to rescind the proposal – there is no time to simply allow it to expire after one year – and go back to the drawing board and start over on a proposal that addresses FEMA criticism.

Folks, it’s Groundhog Day again:

Here’s what we warned the public, over 12 years ago, – 6 years before Sandy – on September 25, 2006:

JERSEY SHORE HIGHLY VULNERABLE TO STORMS AND SEA LEVEL RISE

Numerous scientific studies and NJDEP Reports show that the over-developed NJ shore is increasingly vulnerable to hurricane and storm related wind, storm surge, and flooding damage. Those risks are magnified by the effects of global warming induced sea level rise. NJ already is among the worst states in the nation for payouts on repeat claims under the federal flood insurance program. While risks are great and growing, DEP’s own studies show that public awareness is low, and local and state disaster planning and emergency response capabilities are woefully inadequate.

Despite these significant risks, continued over-development, particularly in known high hazard areas along the shore, puts more people and property in harms way, greatly increasing not only risks to life and property. The probability is increasing for a catastrophic coastal storm event that would cause huge economic dislocation.

We repeated that warning in a November 16, 2009 post – 3 years before Sandy –  where we excerpt text from DEP’s own Coastal Management Strategy, science and policy that they repeatedly ignored and failed to enforce. Read what DEP’s federally approved Coastal Zone Management plan actually says (you won’t read it in the press or hear it whispered from lips of NJ’s lame coastal advocates):

• Another Emergency Declaration Along the Shore

Titus demonstrates (link) that in certain instances, structural engineering solutions will not be practical or economically feasible. In these cases future public and private development and redevelopment must be directed away from the hazardous areas. While some derogatorily refer to this option as “retreat,” from the perspective of sound planning based on the best available science, the concept actually involves “strategic adjustment.” Prudent planning requires that we expand upon the existing studies of the societal, economic, and environmental costs of possible mitigative actions while the greatest number of alternatives exist.

The state’s coastal area continues to experience substantial seasonal and residential population increases. Conversion of formerly seasonal homes to year-round residences continues unabated. In many instances, formerly modest houses are replaced with significantly more expensive homes while property values continue to escalate.

At the same time, risks associated with coastal hazards continue to increase. Factors such as escalating sea level rise and cyclical and possibly long-term increases in storm frequency and intensity threaten both the natural environment and built environment of New Jersey’s coast. Consequently, the ranking of the Coastal Hazards Section 309 enhancement area remains a high priority with the NJCMP. [end excerpt – link to complete DEP document below]

Ironically, the houses in the photographs in that post were destroyed by Superstorm Sandy, including the summer house of one of my best friends.

So, in light of these mounting risks and DEP’ abject failures, where are the coastal advocacy groups?

They are safely “in the room”, posing as “stakeholders” in DEP’s sham coastal resilience initiative, kissing Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner McCabe’s ass,  and seeking more DEP grant funding for their organizations.

Arizona DEQ Claims US EPA Has No Jurisdiction Under Federal Clean Water Act

This is a followup to my 2/19/19 post about the raw sewage discharge in Bisbee, Arizona, see:

• City Employee Dumps Raw Sewage In The Streets of Bisbee Arizona

John Eyre from Arizona DEQ followed up and left a message on my phone tape.

According to Mr. Eyre, the case was closed.

Mr. Eyre stated that the Arizona DEQ issued a Groundwater Protection Program permit to the City that specifically allows them to discharge raw sewage to the street and local streams.

The City will be filing a “Sanitary Sewer Overflow Report” as required by the GPP permit – that’s all. No enforcement action, no corrective action plan.

Mr. Eyre stated that he interviewed the worker, reviewed the permit and will be making slight permit changes to somehow prevent the City from “leaving so much behind”.

Mr. Eyre stated that “I’m all right with that and management is all right with that”.

Well, I assure you that I am not all right with that.

I strongly doubt that the people of Bisbee are all right with that.

And I doubt that the Cochise County Health Department and the US EPA are all right with that.

We will be following up with all of them – particularly US EPA Region 9 Criminal Investigations Division, who called me today.

I don’t know how widespread this practice is, but allowing ADEQ to hide Clean Water Act violations behind a State groundwater permit should not be tolerated by US EPA.

I suspected something improper was going on when I first spoke to Mr. Eyre from ADEQ.

I found it curious that a groundwater permit engineer was responding to a surface water enforcement case.

Mr. Eyre immediately mentioned that the City had been granted “flexibility” due to unusual geology, aging infrastructure, and historical development.

He said that the City was limited in what they could do by permit requirements to protect and restore historic resources.

When I asked Mr. Eyre if US EPA has signed off on that permit “flexibility”, he replied that EPA had no jurisdiction, because these were not “waters of the US”. He stated that only Arizona DEQ had jurisdiction in the impacted Whitewater Draw.

When I asked about faxing him documents (because Mr. Eyre  requested that I prepare a map and send him the Police Report), Eyre got nervous and told me not to because the fax in his office was in an open location and you never know who might see the documents. He asked for PDF files emailed to him alone. I found that very odd.

Neither Mr. Eyre or ADEQ surface water permit staff answered my questions about “waters of the US’ and why a groundwater permit governed a surface water discharge situation.

Regardless, I find it remarkable that a State environmental regulatory agency could issue and defend a permit that specifically allows discharge of hundreds of gallons of raw sewage to city streets and local streams.

Aside from the Clean Water Act violations, such a practice is a huge health hazard.

More to follow.

This is what deep corporate lobbying and propaganda look like

Climate crisis can be solved by markets, technology, consumers & experts

No need for government, regulations, citizens & democratic activism

[Update below]

Intro Note: The writer Jack London, in his classic 1905 book “The Iron Heel”, criticized the concept of “grab sharing”, where selfish unions cut sweet deals with the Oligarchs and sold out their working class brothers and fellow unions. Here’s an excerpt where London describes that:

Tom Gilbert and Rethink NJ are engaged in good old fashion selfish “grab sharing”. ~~~ End Intro

Several times, and for a variety of reasons, I have criticized Tom Gilbert and the folks at Rethink Energy NJ.

I’ve questioned their strategy: i.e. a focus and emphasis on FERC, economics, and private property rights, while ignoring DEP, the Clean Water Act regulatory framework, and climate change.

I’ve questioned their lame tactics, reliance on corporate consultants and corporate lawyers, and attempts to marginalized or co-opt real grassroots activists.

I’ve even questioned Tom Gilbert’s competence, style, experience, qualifications, and leadership abilities. (I forgot to add that he’s a liar as well).

And I’ve linked all that to their corporate foundation Funders (Dodge, Chris Daggett) and self serving relationships with what I call NJ’s “Green Mafia” (a network of self dealers and opportunists, led by Mike Catania at Duke Foundation, Eric Stiles of NJ Audubon, Tim Dillingham of American Littoral Society, and Ed Potosnak of NJLCV).

Reasonable people can disagree about all that, of course.

But given the latest Rethink/Gilbert escapade, I am sickened by the fact that these are no longer just reasonable disagreements between reasonable people over strategy and tactics.

Let me be very clear: Rethink NJ is not just an ineffective, innocent and misguided group, pursuing flawed tactics and strategy and led by weak leadership and corporate lawyers, consultants, and Foundation funders.

They are active saboteurs of the most important climate campaign in NJ history.

Follow the sequence here:

1. On February 15, 2019, Jeff Tittel of NJ Sierra Club authored an Op-Ed in the Bergen Record on behalf of the “Empower NJ” campaign, see:

• Time for NJ to place moratorium on fossil-fuel

As a result of accelerating climate change and the probability of irreversible runaway climate catastrophe, Empower NJ is demanding that NJ Gov. Murphy (D) impose a statewide moratorium on new fossil infrastructure until plans and regulations with teeth are adopted to address climate change and the greenhouse gas emission reduction mandates of the NJ Global Warming Response Act.

Sierra Club is a longstanding leading Statewide group, a founding member of the Empower NJ Coalition, and Tittel often is quoted by and given Op-Ed opportunities in the Bergen Record.

The Bergen Record has covered the huge controversy over a proposed new gas plant and pipelines in the Meadowlands that Tittel focused on.

So, Record readers and the news and editorial sides of the Record are familiar with and invested in the issues discussed in Tittel’s Op-Ed.

These are the typical factors involved in editorial decisions about publishing Op-Ed’s, e.g. what controversial issues to cover and what groups and writers to publish. There was nothing unusual in Tittel’s Op-Ed publication, from the Record’s journalistic perspective.

2. Just 5 days later, on February 20, 2019, Tom Gilbert of Rethink NJ published a topically related but vastly different Op-Ed in the Record, see:

• Big Gas claims just don’t add up

Gilbert and Rethink NJ are not members of the Empower NJ Coalition, are recently founded and not a recognized statewide group, and they are focused almost exclusively on the PennEast pipeline in Hunterdon and Mercer counties.

The PennEast pipeline is outside the north jersey coverage region of the Bergen Record. The Record has not covered the PennEast controversy and never quoted or given Tom Gilbert an Op-Ed opportunity (at least that I am aware of).

So, aside from Tittel’s 5 day prior related Op-Ed, it is highly unusual for the Record to be giving Gilbert an OP-Ed opportunity on a project and controversy that they haven’t even covered and purportedly written by an author and a group completely unfamiliar to Bergen Record readers.

When you consider the fact that the record published an Op-Ed on a related topic just 5 days prior, it is beyond highly unusual editorial practice and evidence of bad faith.

At a minimum, the Gilbert Rethink Op-Ed was an attack on and rebuttal of Tittel’s prior Op-Ed.

3. Most importantly, Tittel’s Op-Ed stressed 3 things:

• accelerating climate crisis
• a need for a moratorium and enforceable regulation to meet science based & legally mandated reductions
• call for activism with a focus on political pressure on Gov. Murphy

In contrast, Gilbert’s message completely failed to even mention an accelerating climate crisis, or the need for a moratorium and strict regulations to meet the legislative mandates of NJ’s Global Warming Response Act, or for citizens to put political pressure on Gov. Murphy to impose a moratorium, as other Governors have.

Instead, Gilbert, by omission, downplayed the climate urgency, while he praised Gov. Murphy, and promoted markets and technological innovation to provide solutions, instead of government regulation and political activism. (no wonder Rethink just praised Sen. Booker – let’s not forget what Booker has done for PSEG).

Here is Gilbert’s essential message – there is no need for politics and regulation, just trust markets, technology, and experts:

There comes a time when it’s clear that the next phase of technology is a vast improvement over what came before – no matter how useful that outmoded technology once was.

Typewriters worked fine, but PCs are so much better.

Natural gas is about to become the next typewriter. There are now cleaner, safer, more affordable ways to heat, cool, and power New Jersey, like wind and solar, that far surpass what gas has to offer.

Gilbert says “there comes a time“? Is that some kind of lame attempt to echo Mario Savio’s immortal cry:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

Of course, Gilbert is no Savio and is full of bullshit. But more importantly, his message is completely compatible with the strategic objectives and corporate profits of PSEG.

4. All of which takes us to the question of bad faith and active sabotage.

The highly unusual timing and editorial decisions by the Bergen Record are strongly suggestive of bad faith, but not determinative, or a smoking gun.

Here is the smoking gun:

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.

At best, that is a conflict of interest.

But, given that: a) I know Tom Gilbert and have questioned his competence – could he even draft an Op-Ed? – and b) the highly unusual Bergen Record editorial publishing decisions, AND c) the Taft linkage, it is not a huge leap to conclude that Taft drafted the Op-Ed, marketed it with national USA Today editors (over the head of the Bergen Record editors who know the local scene) and that Taft’s PSEG’s client interests were “harmonized” with the message of the Op-Ed.

I would even speculate that PSEG – who strongly opposes the moratorium Tittel and Empower NJ are calling for and has longtime relationships and has provided financial support to the Rethink crowd – had a role in either urging Taft or Gilbert to draft the Op-Ed and the USA Today editors to publish it.

It is even possible that PSEG corporate flacks actually drafted the Op-Ed and sent it over the transom to Taft or Gilbert.

That, my friends, is sabotage.

And exactly what deep corporate lobbying and propaganda look like.

[Full disclosure: I worked with NJ Sierra Club from 1995 – 2001, including several of those years with Jeff Tittel. I also was hired by and worked with Tim Dillingham when he was Sierra Director, around 1995]

[Update – 2/24/19 – just came across the piece, from The Nation, which makes a similar point:

While it’s not well-known outside the political class, many consultants who advise campaigns are often working for corporate clients at the same time—and all too frequently, these clients interests’ directly oppose the goals of any progressive coalition.Those working both sides of the street include some of the most senior aides from the Obama administration, and as well as advisers to both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns. From opposing progressive taxation to fighting for deregulation, working for corporate clients means pushing an agenda most progressives would consider a non-starter were it espoused by a political candidate.

And this is exactly what I suspect Taft Communications did in drafting Gilbert’s Op-Ed:

Solutions daring enough to solve the problems we face, like a Green New Deal, aren’t necessarily going to be “business-friendly,” and may not be endorsed by corporate America. Some consultants may—consciously or unconsciously—advise their candidates to take a softer stance on an issue because they can “see it from the business side of things.”

“Anytime you have raw sewage it’s a concern.” — Carrie Langley Director, Cochise County Health and Social Services

Bisbee Arizona is an old copper mining town – Freeport-McMoRan and Phelps Dodge (PD) have been here awhile:

PD has been operating in the Southwest for over a hundred years. Since PD is an Arizona entity that has continually received favors from the Arizona Legislators through the years, there are no financial bonds required or true estimates made of closure costs in Arizona. However, it can be assumed that Sierrita, Bagdad, Verde, Clarkdale closures will approach the $400 million per mine figure, while the larger operations at Morinci and Bisbee could run much higher than Tyrone. It’s is probable that pumping will also have to continue for some 100 years at several of them mines to keep the contaminants in the groundwater from flowing off the site.

Bisbee also has  a rich labor history (see the book, “Bisbee ’17”, made into a recent documentary film).

Bisbee today is a gentrifying old hippie town that is heavily dependent on tourism.

A tourism highlight in Bisbee is the ANNUAL BISBEE 1000 – THE GREAT STAIR CLIMB.

Well, we found one stairway – at least the bottom 20 steps – that the participants in the 29th annual Bisbee 1000 might want to avoid (see photos above and below).

That’s the site of a recent illegal discharge of hundreds of gallons of raw sewage. That’s right – raw sewage intentionally dumped onto city streets!

The raw sewage flowed down the edge of the stairs, into the streets, parking lots, and cafe’s, and ultimately into the stream that drains Tombstone Canyon, which flows into Mule Gulch and then into the Whitewater Draw and into Mexico. Mule Gulch is already water quality impaired. The Arizona DEQ recently took enforcement action for violations by the WWTP:

The NOV included failure to monitor chlorine discharges from the outfall, failure to use the proper chlorine monitoring tool, failure to operate and maintain facilities and systems of treatment, failure to meet quality-control standards, exceedance of permit levels for green algae and failure to report non-compliance.

Here’s that incredible story:

I was basking in the sun at a cafe Friday afternoon and noticed a significant rush of water down the street.

Since we’re in the desert and it hadn’t rained heavily recently, I was curious about how that much water could be flowing naturally, so after watching the flow for a few minutes, I walked across the street to trace the source of the flowing water.

As I got near, the awful smell told me that this wasn’t water running down the street, but raw sewage!

I soon got to the source about 100 yards up the hill, where I saw a City of Bisbee Department of Public Works employee operating a pump and discharging what I’d guess was a 50 gallon per minute flow of raw sewage to the street. It had been going on for at least 15 minutes.

I immediately demanded that he stop. He refused.

I then went to the nearby County Office building, which housed the County Prosecutor’s Office. I advised them of a crime in progress, described what was going on, and asked them to call the Sheriff or local police.

They refused to do so and asked me to leave.

Outside, I managed to borrow a phone, which I used to call 911 to report a crime in progress. The 911 operator told me not to worry, that she would call the Department of Public Works.

No, I said, because I didn’t have my camera with me to document what was going on, I wanted to call police and have the police respond and file a police report to document the illegal discharge so I could pursue it with US EPA and Arizona DEQ as environmental crimes.

Reluctantly, the operator agreed and 15 minutes later, local police rolled up.

The responding officer, Sgt. Silva, initially was reluctant and tried to dissuade me from pursuing the matter. The officer claimed that he was not an expert, he lacked jurisdiction, and the worker didn’t know what he was doing.

As I was trying to convince him to observe what was going on, interview the worker, and file a police report, a city water tanker truck rolled up and began hosing the sewage sludge residue down. I told the officer that they were trying to cover up their crime ad that he needed to document the raw sewage.

Sgt. Silva then walked up the hill, saw what was going on, spoke with the worker and returned a few minutes later to advise me that I was “absolutely right”.

He told me that the worker had no supervision, because the Director of Public Works was taking his sick leave before retiring and the City Manager had just resigned before getting fired. He promised to file a police report that I could pick up on Monday 2/18/19.

So, here’s the complaint I filed to US EPA and Arizona DEQ on Monday. I hope they take enforcement action and require Bisbee develop a corrective action program for wastewater infrastructure and train their workers to prevent recurrence:

City Worker Dumps Raw Sewage On Streets of Quality Hill.

At approximately 12 pm on 2/15/19, an employee of the City of Bisbee Arizona’s Department of Public Works intentionally pumped hundreds of gallons of raw domestic sewage onto the street (Quality Hill Road). This was not an accidental release, storm event, or failure of a wastewater pipeline or septic system. The sewage was pumped by a motorized pump. The sewage ran down hill and discharged into a stream that drains the area. Upon my observation of this ongoing discharge (it went on for at least 15 minutes at what I’d estimate was at least 50 gpm), I confronted the employee and demanded that he immediately stop the illegal discharge. He initially refused to do so, but did cease a few minutes later. I then contacted local police, who responded, investigated, and filed a police report. Sgt. W. Silva of Bisbee Police Dept. was on scene to observe the discharge and interview the worker. Shortly after Sgt. Silva arrived, a water tanker truck arrived to wash down the sludge residue. In addition to discharging raw sewage directly to a regulated surface water (water of the US), the discharge of sewage had direct contact with numerous people walking, parking, and dining in nearby Cafe’s. My dog was exposed as well. Raw sewage has high levels of pathogens (viruses and bacteria), nutrients, and possible household chemicals, and therefore the illegal discharge violated applicable water quality standards in the receiving water. A police report will be available on 2/18/19.

John Eyre from Arizona DEQ called me this morning. I asked him about enforcement for illegal discharge and for violations of applicable permit requirements and water quality standards for “waters of the US”.

He seemed less than enthusiastic and suggested that there were complicated facts. We had an interesting discussion.

John told me of longstanding wastewater infrastructure problems and a pre-existing consent order with Bisbee regarding historic and cultural resources that limited what could be done.

When I asked him whether US EPA signed off on that, John mentioned a prior lawsuit settlement agreement between US EPA and ADEQ that applied. Apparently, the impacted water bodies are not regulated “waters of the US”, but are solely under the jurisdiction of ADEQ, not US EPA.

[Update – those claims by Mr. Eyre of AZDEQ appear to contradict a recent NPDES permit issued by AZDEQ to the Bisbee WWTP which authorizes discharges to “waters of the US”. The discharge is to Greenbush Draw, tributary to the San Pedro River, so that may be a different receiving water than the Whitewater Draw. I don’t know the local hydrology and regulatory classifications.]

John asked me for photos. After I shot the photos, I spoke with a bartender in Contessa’s to see if they were aware of the problem. The bartender said she had witnessed the event and that the raw sewage was “flowing like a river”.

Here’s some of the after the fact shots I took today and sent him – notice the stains and sludge that still remain:

State bill follows ALEC model and Trump Infrastructure Plan

More Privatization and Pay-To-Play Politics

Decarbonization of the economy and conversion to a 100% renewable energy infrastructure will cost many billion dollars. We simply can not afford to tack on 15 – 20% more in corporate profits, graft, and crony capitalism that the bill would produce.

(Update: 2/14/19 – in an unusual and embarrassing move, the Committe held the bill, with no explanation or public testimony. Hopefully its dead. Minor victory. ~~~ End update.)

Tomorrow, the Senate Environment Committee will consider proposed legislation (S2958) which would “Establish the “Energy Infrastructure Public-Private Partnership Act.”

In plain language, this means more privatization of energy infrastructure (billions of dollars of investment and profits are involved to finance the transition to efficiency and renewable energy).

NJ Spotlight ran the set up story yesterday, which inadvertently exposed the vultures circling the carcass of our decrepit 19th century energy infrastructure, gleefully anticipating another round of pay to play, patronage, profits, and pillage (P3):

The legislation would allow private entities to be responsible for designing, building, financing, operating, and maintaining the energy projects. The bill provides a lot of flexibility on financing, letting private entities take advantage of tax abatements, long-term bonding, and other funding mechanisms.

“It has the potential to fund billions of dollars of projects that otherwise would not be done,’’ Goldenberg said. In some cases, the projects could include renewable energy — like solar or wind or geothermal — as well as more conventional power systems, like combined heat and power.

We recently suggested that Spotlight had turned a blind eye to the privatization issue, perhaps due to conflicts of interest with Spotlight contributors. But we were wrong – no more blind eye: they now fully embrace and promote it.

The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Sarlo (D) and Oroho (R-ALEC).

As we’ve noted, Senator Oroho is the NJ Chair representative on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

ALEC was exposed as a Koch brothers funded right wing ideological think tank and propaganda mill that drafts radical model legislation that is then stealthed into State legislatures to further a corporate agenda of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, dismantling of government and austerity, among other radical right wing projects.

Not surprisingly, the NJ bill closely follows the ALEC model bill, Establishing a Public-Private Partnership (P3) Authority Act

This Act establishes a state Partnership Committee and an Office of Public-Private Partnerships to identify and establish public-private partnerships and approve qualified bidders, requests for proposals, and template contracts. The Act is designed to improve public operational efficiency and environmental performance, promote public safety, attract private investment in the state, and minimize governmental liabilities.

Ironically, the ALEC model is actually more sensitive than the NJ bill to public participation, open government, accountability, and transparency and seeks more objective technical performance standards for public-private partnership agreements and contracts.

The NJ bill expands a pattern by NJ Democrats of privatization of critical infrastructure, with an important difference. (ALEC has model legislation on all that as well – interested readers can start with wastewater).

Prior NJ Democratic legislative initiatives to promote privatization of toxic site cleanups, drinking water, wastewater treatment, and, most recently, stormwater management, have been stealth efforts that mask the real policy objectives and ideological assumptions.

With this effort to expand privatization of energy infrastructure, the ideological mask is off. No more stealth. Democrats now brazenly reveal their corporate ideological agenda.

The NJ bill explicitly is based on Neoliberal austerity assumptions (recall the Grover Norquist quote about making government small enough to “drown in the bathtub”). The bill finds that:

The need to upgrade the State’s energy infrastructure comes at a time of fiscal austerity and budgetary constraints. Governmental entities have witnessed dramatic reductions in available revenues as a consequence of the recent recession and major storm events, among other reasons, which have adversely affected the ability of State, county, and municipal governments to make needed investments in energy infrastructure.

Austerity and government budget cuts – as well as tax cuts and corporate subsidies that drain government budgets – are a matter of ideology and conscious policy. They are not, as the bill claims, a “consequence of the recent recession and major storm events,”

Based on this Orwellian finding, the bill openly promotes privatization:

b. The Legislature therefore determines that:

     (1)  It shall be the public policy of this State to foster energy-related public-private partnerships that will enable governmental entities to partner with private entities to develop needed state-of-the-art energy projects and obviate or minimize the need for capital investments in energy projects by governmental entities, taxpayers, and energy public utility ratepayers;

     (2)  In order to foster the energy projects contemplated by P.L.    , c.    (C.      ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), it is necessary and appropriate for the Legislature to authorize the use of public-private partnerships to leverage private sector financial resources and expertise and permit governmental and private entities to share the responsibilities and benefits of these projects;

Shamefully, the bill promotes this ideological agenda hiding under the skirts of so called “weather events”  – no mention of climate change – like Superstorm Sandy and slogans about “vulnerability” and “resilience”:

2)  The increasing magnitude and frequency of weather events, such as Winter Storm Quinn, Hurricane Irene, and Superstorm Sandy, and the devastation they inflicted on the State, has revealed the vulnerability, inadequacies, and obsolescence of the State’s energy infrastructure, which has failed, sometimes for prolonged periods of time, to provide adequate, reliable, and resilient service to the State;

Weather events? Not climate change? ALEC is a climate denier too.

Yet the bill would do nothing to mandate reduction in fossil energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the underlying vulnerability and damaging energy infrastructure.

The NJ bill also shares core premises and programs of the failed Trump Infrastructure Plan – a plan denounced by national Democrats and many others, who railed against privatization, corruption, conflicts of interest, and “crony capitalism”. The Hill reported:

Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have unveiled a new report that bills the administration’s proposal as a “bait and switch,” slamming the public-private partnerships the White House is slated to expand in the plan.

“We can all agree that our infrastructure needs a major investment and upgrade, but indications of the president’s plan simply won’t cut it,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the committee, said in a statement. ….

But the proposed expansion of public-private partnerships quickly ran into opposition from critics, who say the incentive program won’t provide an adequate revenue source for a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. infrastructure.

“While there may be room to increase the usage of [public-private partnerships] in the United States, it is unrealistic to expect a large enough increase in projects to account for the level of investment that the economy needs or the administration is promising,” Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee said in their report.

Critics of the administration’s expected principles emphasize the federal government’s crucial role in funding infrastructure, while Trump himself has questioned whether the use of public-private partnerships for infrastructure would work.

Private firms would look to invest in projects that can recuperate costs through potential revenue sources like user fees or tolls, but critics are also concerned about both profitability and possible conflicting interests between the public and private sectors...

The administration is also running into allegations of corrupt conflict-of-interests in its drafting of a plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. Democracy Forward, a nonprofit group, released a report Tuesday accusing the Trump administration of creating a proposal borne out of “crony capitalism.”

“President Trump’s infrastructure strategy would leave American communities behind, as private special interests like his friends and business associates get rich,” the report says.

The NJ Democratic bill also closely follows a failed national Republican US Senate Bill – known as the Energy Savings Through Public-Private Partnerships Act of 2017

Yet we hear about none of that from cheerleading NJ Spotlight.

The NJ bill comes at a time when national progressives are driving the policy agenda, with calls for a Green New Deal, Medicare For All, and expansions of government and the public realm are receiving huge media coverage and public support.

A time when Neoliberalism and austerity have been intellectually discredited and shown as failures

The NJ bill comes at a time when discussion of Socialism and criticism of capitalism are no longer taboo in American politics.

So, why are NJ corporate Democrats going in the opposite direction?

Are there any progressive voices in the NJ Democratic Party that can stand up and call this out?

Decarbonization of the economy and conversion to a 100% renewable energy infrastructure will cost many billion dollars. We simply can not afford to tack on 15 – 20% more in corporate profits, graft, and crony capitalism that the bill would produce.

Will the “green” groups raise these concerns, or are they wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate Democrats?

We’ll listen in tomorrow and let you know.