WolfeNotes.com

This explains the mad rush to expand pipelines and power lines

Fossil infrastructure locks us into climate chaos

[Update: 2/1/16 – Good news! Project cancelled – great work people!

• Firm drops plans for $1 B NJ power plant in Hillsborough ~~~ end update]

The Christie Administration’s Energy Master Plan’s policies to promote the expansion of gas pipeline and power plant capacity has attracted another huge fossil fueled power plant, this one proposed for some of the last remaining rural lands of Hillsborough.

That Christie policy has spurred a mad rush to expand pipelines and build new power plants, with virtually no effort to plan for the actual energy needs of the state or consider climate change and the need to phase out fossil power and rapidly transform to renewable energy sources.

The “Amwell Energy Center” is proposed for a 423 acre heavily forested tract on the edge of suburbanizing Hillsborough (see above).

The power plant would be comprised of 3 “combined cycle” “combustion turbine generators” – it is not clear how much power generation capacity is planned, but the company claims the plant would serve 700,000 households, so I assume it would be large, 800 – 900 MW or more.

The developer is Genesis Power, LLC (these greedhead bastards are getting Biblical now?) – a quick Google of Genesis shows that they build power plants that PSEG then buys (see recent PSEG purchase of the 750-megawatt plant in Brandywine, Maryland).

If this plant is allowed to be built, it will lock us into fossil infrastructure for another 40 years – that’s catastrophic for climate, or else we will pay huge costs of a bailout as a “stranded investment” in the upcoming carbon constrained future.

The plant would divert investment capital from and undermine the economic feasibility of more environmentally sound clean renewable energy.

It must not be built.

Although Christie’s former corporate energy lobbyist at BPU President and energy consultant now serving as DEP Commissioner likely have given the green light on BPU and DEP approvals, at this point it looks like the company is early in the regulatory process and has begun the DEP land use permit process.

According to the Mayor:

“It is my understanding that a prospective developer, Genesis Power, LLC, wishes to construct a project in Hillsborough Township. Some residents may have received a letter concerning this company seeking wetland delineation from the NJ DEP. 

The plant would need DEP land use, water, and air quality permits, so activists must put this project on a growing list and begin to intervene in the DEP regulatory review process as well as generate grassroots opposition.

Perhaps this time- in contrast to current efforts – renewable energy, pipeline, fracking, bomb train, offshore drilling, LNG, and climate activists can connect the dots and join forces to educate, organize, and mobilize the public – including direct action – and focus opposition on holding Christie DEP accountable.

The Company certainly has connected the dots between pipelines, power lines and DEP permits and approvals.

According to the Company’s FAQ:

Why was this site selected?

The site is the intersection of three existing Texas Eastern interstate gas pipelines and multiple 500-kV electric transmission lines. …  The site provides direct access to the natural gas supply needed to run Amwell Energy Center and existing transmission lines, which will be utilized to transmit electricity into the regional power grid. Connection to both of these important infrastructure features can be accomplished within the boundaries of the site.

And perhaps citizens, local governments and the “sustainability crowd” will re-examine Master Plans and zoning ordinances – because it is very difficult to understand how this land could possibly be zoned “industrial” and thereby allow this proposal to emerge.

What is Sustainable NJ thinking here?

The project – Sustainable Hillsborough – is the most recent step in Hillsborough’s long-range effort to maintain and enhance its quality of life. It builds upon the steps that Hillsborough has already taken to promote sustainable development and environmental stewardship by adopting a long-term, strategic planning process that sets goals for the future, indicators to track progress, and actions for each goal that are tailored for all of the major community stakeholders in Hillsborough, including municipal government, citizens, businesses, schools, and partner/civic organizations.

Once again, we see sham slogans like “corporate stewardship” and “conservation” and  “Sustainable NJ” provide cover for clearly unsustainable and unhealthy policies and practices.

[End note: Readers interested in the historical development of these sham, slogans, can read this paper, perhaps the most extensive and shameful pile of bullshit ever.]

Groundhog Day on “Regulatory Relief” – Echoes First Official Act: Executive Order #2

Christie campaign veto record didn’t mention legislative veto day before speech

In one of the more despicable and hypocritical moments – and there were many – of his State of the State address, Gov. Christie used the environment in a divisive way to bash public sector workers:

Because none of that [public employe pension] spending is guaranteed by the Constitution.  All of those issues; education, health care, crime, our environment, support for the poor, protection for our children would be subject to elimination to pay for the pensions of 800,000 current and former public employees. 

… We cannot deny funding for health care, education, criminal justice, the poor, our environment, our children and our infrastructure to pander to pensioners.

I don’t know whose environment the Gov. was referring to in his ironically cruel but correct characterization of the collective nature of “our environment”.

It’s always comical when right wing, market fundamentalist, anti-government ideologues try to frame “collective” public goods or common pool resources with possessive personal pronouns like “our”. And it always begs the same question: Cui bono?

Contradicting his collectivist characterization of “our environment”, Christies’ administration has waged a war on “our environment”, making Governor Christie the worst Gov. in modern history on the issue of protecting public health and the environment.

That horrendous legacy is magnified by Christie’s: policy denial of climate change; dismantling of NJ climate change programs; diversion of over $1 billion of clean energy funds; roll back of NJ’s renewable energy goals; failure to honor his promise to develop offshore renewable wind power; slowdown on expansion of solar power; promotion of construction of new fossil power plants and pipelines, including one through the Pinelands; attack on Obama EPA’s Clean Energy/climate plan; and total lack of any new environmental accomplishment over his 6 year tenure.

In just the most recent examples of Christie’s war on the environment:

• the day BEFORE the Gov.’s State of the State address, the Legislature moved to veto a massive 936 page overhaul by DEP of regulations that provide protections from flood risks (along the coast and inland rivers and streams) and NJ’s few remaining streams, lakes, and rivers that provide “exceptional” water quality.

• On the SAME DAY of Christie’s the SOS address, the Bergen Record reported that the Port Authority was reneging on a Clean Air plan to reduce dirty diesel emissions to protect residents of Newark and Elizabeth who current breath the toxic air pollution spewed from the trucks that serve the Port.

We all know that Christie micro-manages the Port Authority (is there an email bragging: “time for some pollution problems in Newark”?), and that the Port asks Christie’s permission before flushing the toilets.

While building on his horrendous legacy and ignoring environmental issues, the Gov.’s unusually long 50 minute speech used the word “environment” exactly 3 times – twice to attack public sector workers and once to pledge “regulatory relief” for Charter Schools:

This is what I heard. Charter schools in New Jersey have been successful in spite of our regulatory environment – not because of it. 

The Gov. attacked regulations with fervor:

Instead of giving charter schools the autonomy they need to deliver great education outcomes, we’re regulating them using almost all of the same regulations that apply to traditional public schools. It’s not good for innovation and it’s not good for attracting more innovative charter school operators to our state.

Today, I’m announcing that my administration will aggressively prioritize regulatory relief for charter schools.

The policy of “regulatory relief” echoed that exact same regulatory policy Christie established by Executive Order #2, his first official act as Governor, taken in the first hour of his first day in Office.

For immediate relief from regulatory burdens, State agencies shall:

EO#2 even pledged three distinct forms of “regulatory relief”: “immediate” “intermediate” and “long term”.

Finally, again playing to the Republican primary voters of New Hampshire and Iowa, on the day of his SOS address, the Christie campaign bragged that Gov. Christie’ 400 vetoes had never been over-ridden by the Legislature.

Funny, he didn’t mention the legislative veto the day before the speech.

Attempt to avoid “chaos” created by Court decision

Legislature moves to restore status quo on public access

[Update and Notes below]

Taking the Riverline into Trenton this morning, I was thrilled to see two bald eagles perched side by side at the top of a tree near their nest in the Trenton-Hamilton marsh. Awesome! Although I pass the nest regularly, I’d never seen them both so clearly before.

And when I got to Trenton for what I assumed would be a last day of the legislative session symbolic dog & pony show before the Senate Environment Committee in response to the December 22 Appellate Court decision striking down DEP’s public access rules, I saw even more extraordinary and unusual things.

First off, DEP Commissioner Martin was there early and eager to testify – I think this is only his second appearance before a legislative committee in his 6 year tenure (aside from annual budget hearings).

[Note: Commissioner Martin refiused numersous requests to testify before the Senate Environment Committee. Yet Chairman Smith gave Martin a complete pass for this gross pattern of intransigence. But when Martin requested a special hearing, he got it unconditionally granted by Smith. Bad move.]

Chairman Smith opened the hearing by saying that Commissioner Martin had called him (and unnamed environmental leaders) yesterday to say we have an emergency situation as a result of the Appellate Division decision striking down DEP’s regulations for lack of legislative authorization.

Smith agreed that this was an emergency that justified immediate introduction and passage of a bill – in the next 72 hours before the end of the session – to “avoid chaos” in important coastal programs. Smith said he would not allow any amendments but would listened to testimony. (S3321 – the bill would amend CAFRA and the Waterfront Development Act to authorize DEP to regulate public access and require access, either on-site or off site – text not available electronically yet.)

Smith said he had spoken with Senate President Sweeney and the bill was already on the Senate board list for Monday, the final day of the session. Smith said Martin told him that he had spoken with Assembly Speaker Prieto and presumably the bill was greased there as well.

Martin then testified that the court decision jeopardized significant public access programs, including a threat by the US Army Corps of Engineers to suspend beach replenishment and coastal dune construction.

Senate Van Drew, a co-sponsor of the bill, then appeared to testify, at which point Smith joked of the need for “a defibrillator”!!

[Note: Via this remark, Chairman Smith had no problem making it very clear that he does not agree with Sen. Van Drew. Yet Smith failed to do the same for Christie Cabinet member DEP Commissioner Martin. Another bad move that show weakness.]

It was surreal.

Evocative of Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine, but a bill is being rammed through merely to retain the status quo. Since the status quo regulatory framework was defined by the Christie Administration and is seriously flawed, obviously this is not ideal. By claiming that an “emergency” exists, Martin avoids critical scrutiny and a public debate on the Christie public access policy. How convenient!

Chairman Smith then pledged to create an Ad Hoc Stakeholder group in the new Legislative session to re-examine the DEP’s public access rules and new legislation to revise them.

I question whether such a group could ever produce a consensus or whether their recommendations would produce legislation that would advance the public trust doctrine and expand public access, including strict legislative standards on essential elements like pre-emption of municipal powers over beaches, closing loopholes to assure that all facilities are included in the program, and requirements to provide parking, restrooms, and financing for off-site access.

There were minor objections by the Chamber of Commerce, who asked to weaken the “feasibility” standard for providing public access by adding the word “appropriate”. Smith rejected that, no amendments.

The NJ Business and Industry Association also raised objections and asked for an amendment to exempt Homeland Security designated critical infrastructure. Smith rejected that as well and admonished Sara Blum to get her act together and better coordinate with her Chamber of Commerce colleague.

The attorney for the Hackensack Riverkeeper & NY/NJ Baykeeper – the plaintiff in the lawsuit that created the problem – testified, but failed to understand Chairman Smith’s direction. She asked for amendments. She claimed that the bill would NOT reinstate the DEP 2012 CAFRA rules (as expected by DEP and legislators) and did not address all the issues ruled on by the Court.

After her testimony, echoing my “Pyrrhic victory” characterization, Chairman Smith quipped: “Always remember: be careful what you wish for”, which drew laughter from the audience who understand how ridiculous the testimony and legal challenge were. Both groups now have zero credibility.

But I don’t find it funny – I think it is outrageous that Riverkeeper and NY/NJ Baykeeper were so incompetent in launching the legal challenge that produced the Court’s opinion.

After brief testimony by many supporters of public access, including coastal and bayshore Mayors, and the Committee approved the bill unanimously.

I had not planned to testify when I signed up to support new legislation in concept (a bill was not even available).

But after I heard the lawyer for the plaintiff disagree that the current DEP rules struck down by the Court would be restored via passage of the legislation, and thinking about that for a moment, I decided to make one procedural point.

The Governor and DEP have emergency rule making powers.

While I oppose the DEP’s rules, I advised that in order to eliminate any legal ambiguity that might invite another lawsuit, DEP should adopt the current rules via emergency rule making procedures.

More to follow, before this new public access/public trust Ad Hoc Stakeholder process kicks off.

[Embarrassing endnotes:

1. I like Senator Codey, but today he made a revealing and perhaps the dumbest remark I can recall – this is what he said:

My fear is that if we don’t do something, chaos will result.

People will be running though people’s yards and saying I have beach access.

I think we all want beach access – but unregulated? Absolutely not.

WTF is he smoking? Does he really think the hordes of bennies will descend on the mansions of Mantoloking?

2. Speaking of dumb and embarrassing moves, check this one out:

Before the hearing began, I struck up a conversation with the gentleman sitting next to me. I began by noting the unusual appearance by Commissioner Martin. I recalled the only two times he had appeared. The gentleman seemed to question that claim, so I cited the 2 specific hearings and he stood down. I then noted that the Christie Administration was taking the issue very seriously and getting out in front of the issue and framing the debate.

I then asked who the gentleman was representing – and he introduced himself as Bob Consodine, head of DEP Press Office!!

Yikes! Totally humiliated, I then introduced myself –  and he immediately and curtly said he knew who I was! ~~~ end ]

[Update – 1/8/16 – 

1. This “emergency legislative” strategy is not without legal risk.

By DEP requesting and the Legislature passing and Gov. signing a new law, they are confirming the Appellate Court’s ruling that DEP lacked legislative authorization to regulate public access under CAFRA and Waterfront Development laws.

Currently, there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of CAFRA and/or waterfront development permits with public access conditions.

If DEP lacked legal authorization to impose those conditions, they could all be invalid, subject to appeal and not enforceable.

2. The prudent approach would be for DEP to file an appeal with the NJ Supreme Court and exhaust the judicial process.

It is highly unlikely that the US Amy Corps would abandon coastal projects or federal funding during a judicial view process.

During the appeal process , there would be time for the legislature to consider amending and strengthening the current laws on Public Trust doctrine and public access issues, including specific standards and policies.

Only if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case or affirmed the Appellate Court should DEP and the Legislature acknowledge a lack of existing authority.

The “emergency” approach only invites more ultra vires challenges.

3. The “emergency” is manufactured in order to dodge accountability and frustrate democratic debate. ~~~ end update.]

A Climate Challenge To The Good People of Pennington, NJ

The notion of shaming a person who has defied social norms is a longstanding tactic in American culture and literature – from Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter to Megan’s Law.

But just what are the parameters of social norms that deserve widespread social shame? Is shame a legitimate political tactic? If so, should shame be focused on individuals or on their corporate employers and investors?

I have argued that appeals to shame are naive and ineffective and that the focus of activists should be on the systemic nature of capitalism and the corrupted regulatory apparatus.

While we all know of the racist and anti-semitic outrage of the Nazi “yellow badge”, few know of similar indirect forms of social pressure, short of shaming, like the  FDR’s “Blue Eagle” campaign.

But, more recently, did you ever notice those little yellow flags in your neighbor’s front yard that are supposed to warn you about the risk of recent pesticide spraying? Do you think homeowners are just a little ashamed of that?

You want shame? Suppose we had a little red flag that warned that a climate criminal lives here?

Regardless, the Climate disinvestment movement seeks to use a form of shame as a tactic to discredit and shame corporations, e.g. see the NY Times story:

• Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Harnesses the Power of Shame

The logic of the campaign is that diminishing support from the markets will create financial hardship and ultimately lead fossil fuel producers to change. But there is an open secret: For all its focus on stock holdings, the true impact of divestment campaigns has nothing to do with a company’s investor base, share price or creditworthiness. […]

But that does not mean divestment campaigns have no consequences. What they do best is good old-fashioned public shaming.

The Oxford researchers found that the negative publicity can create reputational headaches.

“It becomes much harder for stigmatized businesses to recruit good people, to influence policy and, occasionally, to raise capital,” Mr. Caldecott said.

Divestment campaigns also give activists a focused — and easy to understand — object for their outrage.

“The goal is not to bankrupt the fossil fuel industry. We can’t do that with divestment alone,” said Bill McKibben, whose group, 350.org, is a leader in the divestment movement. “But we can help politically bankrupt them. We can impair their ability to dominate our political life.”

So, while we do NOT agree with the efficacy of the shame tactic, if that tactic is going to be deployed, if it is going to be effective, we think it might be equally or more usefully focused on individuals as well as corporations and that it might be brought home – literally – to those individuals.

So, today, we take a shot at what such a local shaming campaign might look like.

Objectively, if one considers the devastating effects of climate change on hundreds of millions of people currently living on planet earth – including death and displacement, and not counting the death and destroyed lives of future generations – then arguably we need a mechanism to defend people and society from “climate offenders”.

So just how might we defend ourselves from “climate offenders” using shaming tactics?

Like NJ, the Pennsylvania Legislature has concluded that some  people warrant special attention because of acts they have committed that harm innocent children, people, and society:

Pennsylvania’s General Assembly has determined public safety will be enhanced by making information about registered sexual offenders available to the public through the internet. Knowledge whether a person is a registered sexual offender could be a significant factor in protecting yourself, your family members, or persons in your care from recidivist acts by registered sexual offenders. Public access to information about registered sexual offenders is intended solely as a means of public protection, any other use prohibited.

Pursuant 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.28, the State Police has established this website to provide timely information to the public on registered sexual offenders who reside, or are transient, attend school, or are employed/carry on a vocation, within this Commonwealth.

Such a shaming system would, as the Pennsylvania legislature concluded – “be a significant factor in protecting yourself, your family members, or persons in your care from recidivist acts by registered [climate] offenders.

I once lived in Hopewell, NJ, and had frequent involvement with our neighbors, the good people of Pennington Boro.

In fact, I can think of no other place in NJ with a more righteous, politically correct, and liberal sensibility than Pennington Boro, where a person is socially ostracized for going over 15 mph on Main Street or enjoying a competitive youth soccer game.

So today, we register our first “Climate Criminal” – Jim Benton, head of the NJ Petroleum  Council – who lives right in the heart of liberal Pennington Boro.

In Trenton, Benton and his fossil energy lobbyists friends tend – as Bill McKibben warned against- to “dominate our political life.”

How do the good people of Pennington feel about that?

Jim’s thoughts on our climate crisis are presented in today’s Bergen Record story:

[Jim] Benton argued that if that happens, it’s a good thing for the state’s economy because the industry provides high-paying industrial jobs. He dismissed Tittel’s warnings of dire consequences to the environment.

“What we are going to see in New Jersey is increased investment in infrastructure, in the delivery system,” he said. “It will really supplement the industry’s presence there.”

Hey Jimbo – how about if we locate the next refinery and pipeline in Pennington? Right in your backyard.

It is a target rich environment – there are many more “Climate Criminals” yet to be named and shamed.

We hope to bring you more.

September – October

(hit links above photos to get story)

Sham Energy Markets Governed By Energy Industry Lobbyists

Oh, Those Green Radicals In Morristown!

Labor Day

Crumbling Urban Infrastructure – Too Close to Home

Neglect of Bulls Island State Park Is A Scandal

EPA Adds Insult To Injury At Crown Vantage Superfund Site in Milford, NJ

Christie DEP Granted A Stewardship Award To This Site

God Bless The Child

Christie DEP Covering Up Reasons for Publishing Faulty Drought Data

DEP (*Permit condition) Ordered Halt to Pumping River Water to Fill Wanaque Reservoir 

What Is The Meaning of Hurricane Joaquin?

Dear Senator Bateman

We Dedicate This Week To Stopping the Christie DEP Rollbacks Of Protections of Category One Streams and Reservoirs

Sidney Brook: NJ’s First Stream Designated “Category One” Based on “Exceptional Ecological Significance”

An Ode On The Paulins Kill – An “Exceptional” Resource

None of This Is Cost Effective

Rittenhouse Square

Sandy Victims Occupy State House Park On 3rd Anniversary

Advocates Protest Christie DEP Water Rules As A Threat To Highlands