WolfeNotes.com

Gov. Christie’s Pro-Gas Energy Plan Creates Democratic Crisis

Prelude

The Greek people just challenged the power of the banks, the oligarchs, and the Neoliberal policy of austerity.

Despite incredible pressure, which included closing the banks, scarcities of basic needs like medicines, and a massive propaganda campaign run by the Oligarchs who own and control the Greek press, they voted by an overwhelming majority to reject the austerity policy dictated by the European banks.

Austerity is driving depression levels of unemployment; cuts to salaries, pensions, and public services; dismantling of democratically enacted laws and regulations; and privatization of public assets (this included a requirement that the bankers approve any legislation even considered by Parliament BEFORE it was even publicly debate, thus extinguishing Greek sovereignty.)

But just days later, their government, elected on an explicit 40 point anti-austerity platform, capitulated to the banks and agreed to a humiliating set of austerity policies that are even more severe then when the debt relief negotiations began.

They lost – and the painful lesson they learned is that the European Union has no room for democracy: that the needs and desires expressed by people are subordinate to the power of money – that capitalism trumps democracy and the promise of integration into the European Union to advance social justice is a sham.

Similarly, the people of NJ are challenging the power of the energy industry, the BPU, and the pro-fossil fuels policy of Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan (EMP).

I suspect that they will suffer a similar fate as the Greek people.

But will they learn the lesson now so clearly understood by the Greeks?

Ironically, it may be easier for the Greeks to “Grexit” the Eurozone, than for New Jerseyans to exit the Christie zone.

 Hundreds Oppose Pipeline

In a battle that is escalating across the state as deeply unpopular gas pipelines and other fossil energy projects proliferate, hundreds of people turned out at a Board of Public Utilities (BPU) hearing yesterday in Manchester to oppose a gas pipeline proposed by NJ Natural Gas, parading under the Orwellian name “the Southern Reliability Link”.

For local news coverage of the hearing, see the Burlington County Times story – waiver your ass goodbye:

My family and 140 other families live within 100 feet (of the proposed line). Why are we expendable?” Plumsted resident Jim Kelleher said about the possible impact of a natural gas explosion. “My house will be a crater. My wife and children will be gone.”

The BPU soon must decide whether overwhelming public opposition is trumped by the political power of the gas industry, who are backed by Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan.

Will NJ BPU emulate the energy industry’s federal puppet FERC and serve the fossil energy industry profits over tremendous public opposition?

Gov. Christie’s EMP Is The Source of the Policy Problem

The Greek people understand exactly what the institutional and policy sources of their problem are: the European banks have been very open in dictating the specific terms of the austerity deal the Greeks must swallow.

But do all the pipeline, oil train, offshore drilling and fracking activists and renewable energy advocates understand that the Christie EMP is the single source of their common problems and thus unites their efforts?

The energy industry is openly justifying their projects on the basis that they are consistent with and promoted by the Christie EMP.

Government regulators, including BPU, are explicitly endorsing that rationale in rubber stamping industry proposals. This is made most obvious in last week’s BPU Order that approved the South Jersey Gas Pinelands pipeline:

The BPU Order went on to state this critical point:

Therefore, one of the State’s energy policy goals is for New Jersey to foster in-state generation of energy. Ibid. B.L. England provides in-state generation of energy. Therefore, this Board supports the repowering of B.L. England to help meet one of the five overarching goals of the 2011 EMP. N.J.S.A 52:27F-15 (the actions of state departments, agencies, and commissions “shall to the maximum extent practicable and feasible conform to the [EMP]”) (@ p.6-7 – emphasis mine)

By the Board’s own admission, they cherry picked just one “overarching” goal from the EMP – and it was related to B.L. England plant, not the SJG pipeline application before the Board –  and ignored other competing goals and policies and tons of science, evidence, technical Reports, conflicting laws and policies, and testimony provided by the public.

But you wouldn’t know anything about any of that by reading the news coverage or listening to the testimony at the public hearings.

It is critical that people understand the source of their problems in order to effectively advocate – at this point in time, they are not properly focused on the common source of the problem and how to effectively challenge or change the policy.

Climate Crisis Demands Rapid Shift in Energy Infrastructure Investments

Th environmental groups have recently gotten much better in emphasizing the climate crisis as the primary reason why we must stop expansion and investments in fossil fuel based infrastructure.

But they need to improve their explanations of how fossil investments both accelerate climate catastrophe and erect huge barriers to the necessary rapid transition to renewable energy.

They also have not risen to the challenge of what a policy of “leave it in the ground” would really look like nor have they begun to make clear policy demands regarding how such a policy would apply in NJ, where there are no fossil fuels to extract. (HINT: “moratorium“)

Accordingly, none of these issues are reported in the news and play little or no part of the organizing of the various oppositions to the many fossil projects

We can and must do much better. The upcoming August round of Christie EMP public hearings will be a crucial test.

Of course, if one shares my belief that the system is completely broken and no longer able to respond to traditional rational science based public policy arguments, then direct non-violent action and civil disobedience tactics must be engaged on a wide scale to make any difference in the status quo.

Claims of Pipeline Supporters Are Not Credible – What Is the Real Need for all that gas?

A 30 inch high pressure (722 psi) pipeline can deliver a LOT of gas.

Where is all that gas going to go?

NJ Natural Gas claims that the pipeline is needed to provide “resilience” in the event of a Sandy like emergency. Amazingly, Mayor Mancini, representing Mayors on Long Beach Island echoed that claim.

That claim was effectively ridiculed by John Weber of Surfrider, who drew laughs and applause from the crowd as he noted that gas pipelines on LBI were washed out and shut off due to the fires they caused. High pressure gas lines would have made the problem far worse. Pipelines are the cause of the problem, not the solution.

The NJ Energy Industry Coalition supported the pipeline, again based on Sandy and the need for reliability and “resilience”.

That claim was ridiculed by Doug O’Malley of Environment NJ, who found it “galling” for the fossil fuel industry to try  to justify more fossil infrastructure based on a climate drive extreme weather event like Sandy.

Another group of business representatives supported the pipeline by shamelessly and very cynically playing the military patriotism card: the need to provide gas to Joint Base (McGuire & Dix). There is no evidence that Joint Base needs more gas capacity. No one openly challenged that claim, probably due to the fear of appearing to be “anti-military”. Time restrictions on my testimony prevented me from engaging this issue – I did that at a sewer line hearing in Plumsted recently and got some catcalls from the crowd for it.

NJ Natural Gas claimed that the pipeline is not intended to serve new growth.

That claim was challenged by Jacyln Rhoades of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, who cited remarks to investors by NJ Natural Gas CEO.

Is A New Gas Plant at Oyster Creek The Endgame?

The testimony of retired energy utility engineer George Hay let the cat out of the bag and revealed what could be the real endgame.

Hay casually remarked that they next pipeline hearing may be to connect to a new gas plant at the retiring Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. As George made that comment, I watched BPU Commissioner Solomon’s face light up and smile as she nodded her head and just about winked to a fellow BPU official in the front row.

George told me afterward that gas turbine’s just happen to need high pressure 750 psi gas lines like the one NJ Natural Gas is proposing.

Assemblyman Dancer Tap Dances

Our Plumsted pro-sewer friend, Assemblyman Dancer spoke. He used the opportunity to self promote and discuss his package of bills designed to: mandate current BPU 100 foot buffer (A4503); require consideration of co-location in existing ROW (A4455) and to require BPU to consider public comment at Board meetings and to hold local public hearings (A4501)

Beware, because his so called “legislative reforms” are a band-aid – they do not change any substantive requirements that could empower or force BPU to deny gas industry requests. Instead, they actually are part of an effort to manipulate and appear responsive to critics.

They are not intended to and could not stop any gas pipeline.

NJ History Suggests A Path Forward

I came to NJ DEP in 1985.

At that time, the Kean Administration had a $3 billion plan to build 21 garbage incinerators in NJ, one in each county.

That plan was wildly unpopular and thousands of people were turning out at public hearings to oppose incinerators, just like they are doing with various fossil infrastructure projects now.

All those anti-incineration people were organized into a formidable opposition that ultimately pressured the next Governor, Jim Florio, to declare a moratorium on any more incinerators and issue a Executive Order #8 that led to the cancellation of 12 garbage incinerators and a radical new solid waste policy and plan that set the highest recycling rate in the world at the time. [Full disclosure: I did a lot of work on these issues when I was with DEP.]

I see a similar pattern shaping up – but now the energy industry is FAR more powerful than the incinerator industry and environmental groups seem far less willing or capable to organize and make political demands.

Similarly, now the political process and government are far more corrupt and far less willing or capable of responding to democratic expressions of the will of the people.

There used to be a government for the corporate interests to “capture” – now those same forces literally own government. I got a charge from the crowd by calling it “phagocytosis”.

And the climate crisis can’t wait for those traditional political strategies to work, even if they could.

BPU Finds Gas Pipeline & Power Plant Justified By Christie Energy Master Plan

Climate Impacts Ignored, No Demonstration of Need

BPU Cherry Picks Laws, Policies, Plans, Reports, and Data

In light of important new information, this is a quick followup to my post last week on the BPU hearing where the Commissioners approved South Jersey Gas’ request to amend a prior June 2013 BPU Order (see this). Apologies in advance for the poor format of this post.

In that post, I accused BPU Commissioners of not considering extensive public comments on the project and conducting no open deliberations – that remains an accurate statement.

But I just now received a PDF (no link) of the formal Board Order approving the project (signed 7/23/15, but effective August 1, 2015).

The latest BPU Order does superficially address public comments as well as breaks new ground and thereby raises a host of issues that are actually quite revealing of how the BPU makes regulatory decisions.

Frankly, I could see no daylight between the BPU’s analysis and findings and those of the lawyers and lobbyists for SJG and BL England. The Order reads as if SJG lawyers drafted it. That is not outside the realm of  possibility, given how the trove of emails between Executive Director Wittenberg and SJG lawyers revealed that SJG lawyers drafted critical regulatory documents at the Pinelands Commission, including the MOA with BPU, the Executive Director’s Report and recommendations to the Commission, and the response to public comments document.

So. let’s take an initial look at some of the issues raised by that Board Order.

 12. No evidence or economic analysis to support claims about “price stability”

BPU makes several other unsubstantiated and questionable claims, including the the project will provide energy price stability and lower energy costs.

Costs and energy prices are not stated and do not consider benefits or social costs of carbon.

Lots to consider in this BPU Order – lots of very revealing statements made – I’ll try to get a link and be glad to provide it via email – thanks to Theresa at PPA for providing it _ Will provide links to other documents like PJM when I can.

No Accountability For Abysmal Record, as Christie Works The Hustings

I had hope the Democrats in the Legislature and media would make it a long hot summer for the Christie Administration by holding an intensive series of oversight hearings on Governor Christie’s abysmal record over the  last 5 years so that voters (and national media) in primary campaign states would know what they’re voting for.

Clearly, after the Exxon deal, we know that the Dems sure know how to put on a show.

I even teed up a list of environmental issues that illustrate that record (see this). We’re in a target rich environment.

In addition to pushback from Trenton Democrats, I had assumed that – as a leading chronicler of Christie’s environmental record – my phone would be ringing from Democrats doing oppo research and press doing accountability on Christie’s record.

Forget about that –

It seems like – whether its privatizing NJ’s water infrastructure or the toxic site cleanup program – half the Democrats in leadership are still working the “bi-partisan” Christie-crat rollback agenda and the press has other compelling things to write about, like Trump’s latest racist or ignorant remarks and whether Christie is polling at 2% or 5% (or even just 1%).

For example, DEP just adopted coastal management regulations that WEAKEN existing protections for the shore and – in the wake of Sandy – promote new development in hazardous shore locations (vulnerable to coastal storm surge and sea level rise) and remarkably IGNORE climate change and sea level rise.

But Democrats never mounted any effort to promote their own coastal policy alternative to Christie’s “rebuild madness” and privatization and outsourcing of climate adaptation work, which was Senator Barnes’s Coastal Commission bill that died in silence, as Barnes fell on his sword and coastal environmental groups were AWOL.

[* Not only were they AWOL is building public support for the bill, but coastal groups were prepared to OPPOSE Barnes’ bill – ask him how I had to argue vehemently, at a Trenton meeting I wasn’t even invited to but crashed, to stop them from OPPOSING the bill. Barns thanked me several times for that. Ask him, or the enviro leaders who were in the room.]

Similarly, DEP just proposed regulations under the Flood Hazard Act that weaken flood protections and would essentially eliminate one of the most effective land use and water quality programs of the last two decades, known as “Category One” 300 foot buffer protections.

Bergen County’s Senator Bob Gordon proposed legislation to strengthen that program and update decades old flood maps, so one would assume that he would want to be first in line in defending NJ’s stream protections, particularly given the persistent flooding in North Jersey.

But how can Gordon, who Chairs the Senate Regulatory Oversight Committee or Senate Environmental Committee Chairman Smith hold hearings on the Christie DEP’s proposed weakening of NJ’s flood protection and stream buffer protection program when Senate President Sweeney said THIS about the DEP’s buffer protection program during the Corzine Administration, who was weakening the program at the time but apparently didn’t go far enough for Sweeney.

404. COMMENT: The proposed Category One designations would appear to be more about curbing development than enhancing water quality standards. Unfortunately, this new regulatory proposal tips the balance even more against the economic prosperity of the areas, district 24 and 3. (127, 221)  (source: DEP regulatory document) 

Commenter #127 was Republican Senate leader Bob Littell – does that “bi-partisan” stuff sound familiar?

Oh, and I forgot, the Trenton environmental groups are similarly compromised, because they blindly supported Corzine DEP Chief Lisa Jackson on this C1 rollback in 2008 (I think I called it”Betrayal by the Brook”)

But who knows – maybe they’ll be a massive turnout and protest at the August 11 Energy Master Plan public hearing that rivals the People’s Climate March.

Keep Hope Alive!

Legislature Must Veto Irresponsible Christie Plan To Rebuild Coast

In North Carolina, the State Legislature drew national scorn by passing a law that prohibited State regulators from considering climate change and sea level rise in coastal planning and development decisions.

Here in NJ, Governor Christie just accomplished the same objective by merely ignoring the climate issue.

Despite receiving almost 20,000 negative public comments, the unified opposition of the environmental community, rare public criticism by leading professionals and the New Jersey Climate Adaptation Alliance, and a ton of bad press, the Christie DEP just adopted new coastal Zone Management rules that not only ignore climate change and sea level rise, but actively promote development in hazardous and environmentally sensitive locations, while scaling back DEP and public oversight of important coastal land use and development decisions.

I wrote about the rule when DEP proposed it last year, urging legislators to use their Constitutional power to veto the rule as inconsistent with legislative intent, see:

• Gov. Christie’s Climate Denying Coastal Management Rule Must Be Blocked By The Legislature

We repeat that veto request today, but instead of rehashing prior posts, will let the words of others make our case. (and look at THIS legislative precedent!)

The following is from the DEP’s response to public comments document – each commenter is named and given a number. But keep in mind that these are DEP’s translations and summaries of the comments. DEP typically softens criticism.

I chose Jon Miller’s comments because they are on point and it is very unusual for a professional association to make such strong public criticism. That is an indicator of just how irresponsible these DEP rules are – and there are additional powerful criticisms regarding destruction of natural resources; e.g. promoting restaurants and marinas in shellfish habitat, which previously was prohibited:

Jon Miller,  on behalf of the New Jersey Association for Floodplain Management:(#96)

76. COMMENT: Sea level rise, driven by global climate change and by geological, climatic, and human factors particular to our region, poses a growing risk to New Jersey, threatening property, infrastructure, ecosystems, and livelihoods. Intensifying development in increasingly vulnerable coastal areas will magnify this risk. The proposed rules do not consider the effects of sea level rise; incorporating sea level rise into the permitting process is critical if it is to meet its goal of not putting the inhabitants of the New Jersey shore at risk. The Department should address this issue when revising the rules.

Half of the housing stock in northern New Jersey is about 50 years old, and approximately one-sixth is over 80 years old. Construction that takes place today has the potential to place shore residents in harm’s way for much of the rest of this century. Failure to incorporate sea level rise in permitting coastal development is not consistent with sound risk management.

In addition, rules that encourage further development in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding over the course of the century will be costly in both economic and human terms. The Department is strongly urged to revise the rules taking into consideration the effects of sea level rise on flood hazard areas. The commenters provided citations to reports/studies that they assert support their position see Kenneth G. Miller et al., “A Geological Perspective on Sea‐Level Rise and Its Impacts along the U.S. Mid‐Atlantic Coast,” Earth’s Future 1 (2013): 3–18, doi:10.1002/2013EF000135; John Church and Neil White, “Sea‐Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century,” Surveys in Geophysics 32, no. 4 (2011): 585–602, doi:10.1007/s10712‐011‐9119‐1; ; and Trevor Houser et al., American Climate Prospectus: Economic Risks in the United States (Rhodium Group, 2014), http://www.climateprospectus.org/. (76, 96)

Commission’s Rules Lack Adequate Safeguards To Protect Pinelands In Light of New Science

NJ Has A Rich Tradition Of Using Moratoria To Drive Stronger Laws

[Update below]

The Pinelands Commission held their regular monthly meeting on Friday (July 10).

While there wasn’t much of substance on the official agenda for the meeting, the public comments – quoting Thoreau and the Pope – were well worth the price of admission.

A man who lives and traveled from Philadelphia, a member of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance (PPA), injected some perspective into the otherwise banal bureaucratic deliberations :

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone. ~~~ Thoreau

He not quite trumped (or “pre-empted” as Chairman Lohbauer accused me of doing when I presented the “People’s Report” in response to the misleading Executive Director’s monthly Report to the Commission) my quote from the Pope’s encyclical, imploring the Pinelands Commissioners to respond to the climate crisis by imposing a moratorium on pipeline reviews.

The Pope challenged each one of us, individually and organizationally, when he wrote:

Following a period of irrational confidence in progress and human abilities, some sectors of society are now adopting a more critical approach. We see increasing sensitivity to the environment and the need to protect nature, along with a growing concern, both genuine and distressing, for what is happening to our planet. Let us review, however cursorily, those questions which are troubling us today and which we can no longer sweep under the carpet. Our goal is not to amass information or to satisfy curiosity, but rather to become painfully aware, to dare to turn what is happening to the world into our own personal suffering and thus to discover what each of us can do about it.

It speaks volumes about a culture when the Federal Reserve Chairman’s use of the phrase “irrational exuberance”  of financial markets winds up on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers and becomes a slogan that is indelibly inked into mainstream discourse, while the Pope’s invocation of “irrational confidence in progress and human abilities” is virtually ignored.

But let’s get back to the Pinelands Commision.

Before I invoked the Pope, I focused on public policy.

I urged the Commission to follow the lead of their nearby sister regional planning entity, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), and enact a moratorium on review of pipeline applications – South Jersey Gas and NJ Natural Gas are now seeking approval for major new pipelines through the Pinelands.

I advised the Commission that the DRBC moratorium on fracking was based on the DRBC’s recognition that their existing regulations had gaps and flaws and lacked adequate safeguards to protect basin resources from an avalanche – up to 20,00 wells according to the DRBC’s analysis – of applications for fracking well drilling approvals.

The Pinelands Commission is faced with an analogous situation: Pinelands forests, water, and ecological resources are currently being impacted by climate change; gas pipelines have significant lifecycle impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; and existing Pineland CMP regulations are not adequate to adequately consider and regulate all pipeline impacts, especially those from lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.

I advised the Commission that a moratorium is technically and legally justified, and is vitally important given the proliferation of pipeline projects; the exploding public opposition to pipelines; and serious gaps and flaws in Pinelands regulations that were identified during the prior debate on the SJG pipeline debacle.

In addition to the DRBC moratorium, NY State recently imposed a moratorium on fracking due to lack of scientific data on health impacts from fracking and numerous unavoidable and irreversible significant adverse environmental impacts that were documented during an extensive public EIS review process

NJ has no comparable EIS statement preparation and public review requirements, which alone is adequate to justify a moratorium on any pipeline reviews until one is established.

NJ has a long and rich history of using moratoria to trigger major environmental reforms, ironically one even spurred the creation of the Pinelands Commission.

The historical irony is made richer by the fact that the creation of the Pinelands can be considered a collateral benefit of opposition to off shore oil drilling and the construction of pipelines across the Pinelands to refineries on the Delaware River. Then, the battle was to block off shore drilling and oil pipelines from east to west –  today’s fight is to block drilling of Marcellus fracked gas and gas pipelines from west to east – 50 years and we’ve come full circle!

1. Gov Byrne declared a moratorium on certain permits which led to passage of the Pinelands Protection Act

2. Gov. Kean declared a moratorium on issuing certain permits, which led to the passage of the Freshwater Wetlands Act

3. Gov. Florio declared a moratorium on garbage incinerator approvals (permits and financing) that led to the 65% recycling rate (highest in the world at that time) and killed 12 planned incinerators, see:

• Executive Order #8
• News coverage:

(*Full disclosure: I am proud to say that I worked on the Florio moratorium and the new progressive solid waste plan. That plan adopted a then world leading 65% recycling rate. The Florio policy also included source reduction, a policy hierarchy, with incineration as a last resort, regionalization, and pioneered new technical methods like lifecycle assessment and materials management. This planning occurred simultaneously with other major progress, like integrating energy at DEP to expand DEP into DEPE. Sadly, most of those reforms have since been gutted by Governors Whitman and Christie.)

4. In contradiction to this historical leadership and use of moratoria to leverage reforms, our current morbidly obese Governor issued his own MORATORIUM – on REGULATIONS!!! See:

• EO #1

Until sanity can be restored in Trenton and BPU, the regional planing entities like the DRBC, Pinelands Commission, Highlands Council, and Meadowlands Commission have to pick up the slack and innovate to respond to the climate crisis.

Even the Pope has spoken.

There is no where else to hide.

[End Note:  ask the reporters and editors at NJ press outlets:

1. Why do they report on trivial BS while ignoring the content of what the Pope says and how that might apply to Gov. Christie’s policy.

2. Why do they report about a letter to the Pinelands Commission from 4 prior Governors but IGNORE the fact that prior Governors have used moratoria so effectively?

Do they know that Christie imposed a moratorium in new regulations and that it killed a drinking water standard for perchlorate, a toxic chemical?

[Update: I recently suggested a list of a dozen specific demands for the new Clean Energy Coalition to raise the bar and petitioned BPU to table the SJG pipeline review, recognizing that:

Real solutions lie in demands to leave fossil in the ground and impose moratoria on fossil fuel extraction, pipelines, trains, ports, and related infrastructure.

Like Chris Hedges said:

“We don’t have time to fool around. We have to get militant, very fast.”