WolfeNotes.com

 Corporate Planning Replaces NJ’s Long Tradition of Public Planning

State responsibilities outsourced to ineffective private, local, and voluntary efforts

Let’s begin today from first principles, and start on the high road:

• There is no more important responsibility and duty of government than to protect the lives of people.
• Efforts to protect people’s lives are essential and core government functions and powers.
• Those powers and functions can not and must not be abdicated or delegated to private groups.
• The public must play a major role in developing policies and plans that impact their lives.
• Planning for adaptation to climate change is an essential government function.

These principles hold true whether the planning function is related to the State Development and Redevelopment Plan; the Water Supply Master Plan; The Coastal Zone Management Plan, The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, the Highlands Regional Plan, or any of a slew of planning functions conducted by State government and regional planning entities – all of which have been derailed, disabled, destroyed, or delayed by the Christie Administration.

I’ve written about this set of issues several times previously and explained exactly why it was so irresponsible to outsource climate adaptation planning to private groups, specifically including NJ Future. So today’s NJ Spotlight story that features the work of the private planning group NJ Future requires that I respond.

NJ Future Is A Private Planning Outfit That Can Not Replace Government

The timing of the NJ  Spotlight feature of NJ Future (NJF) is particularly galling and a disgusting display of sycophancy parading as journalism, especially given the recent negative press coverage and editorial condemnation of NJ Future’s role in the controversy at Liberty State Park (LSP).

Scott Gurian is either an incompetent reporter, or his NJ Foundation funders are dictating coverage.

As the Bergen Record first reported, NJF secretly sought and received a $120,000 grant from the Christie DEP to conduct a study of privatization potential at Liberty State Park. Surely NJF knew that privatization and commercialization of LSP has been an extremely controversial issue for decades.

Despite huge historical battles over privatization of LSP that NJF must be aware of, NJ Future conducted that study in secret, involved no one, and kept that study secret. NJF kept that study secret despite widespread public outrage over legislation to promote development of LSP. NJF continues to refuse to release the study publicly.

These are egregious transgressions that violate the values, norms and ethics of professional planners:

Our primary obligation is to serve the public interest and we, therefore, owe our allegiance to a conscientiously attained concept of the public interest that is formulated through continuous and open debate.[…]

We owe diligent, creative, and competent performance of the work we do in pursuit of our client or employer’s interest. Such performance, however, shall always be consistent with our faithful service to the public interest.

On Monday, the Star Ledger editorial board harshly citicized NJF as one of Governor Christie’s “enablers” in a scheme to privatize and commercialize Liberty State Park, a national icon. SLEB wrote:

What that scheme entails remains a mystery. For five months, the DEP has possessed a report commissioned from NJ Future on the park’s development potential. It won’t let you read it, even though you paid $120,000 for it.

Just yesterday, I again noted NJ Future’s improper role and compromised relationship to the Christie Administration, and DEP in particular:

10) DEP’s role in planning, climate adaptation, and local land use and water supply issues should not be outsourced to non-profit groups, like Sustainable NJ and NJ Future – to avoid politically tough decisions and controversies.

NJ Future is a private planning group whose board is dominated by corporate real estate, energy, finance, and development interests. They have no duty, obligation or accountability to the public and operate under no legal or public policy framework. They have a cozy relationship with and are funded by the Christie DEP.

So, given their secret LSP scheme with the Christie Administration alone, NJF can not be trusted to serve the public interest or play an open, impartial, and transparent role in a public planning process or be an honest broker in any negotiation.

Gov. Christie outsourced controversial climate work

Planning for adaptation to climate change involves protection of people’s lives. That kind of work is an essential government function and can not and should NOT be outsourced, delegated, or conducted by a private entity.

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act and NJ’s Coastal Area Facilities Review Act vest the power and responsibility to plan for the coastal zone in State NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Legally, coastal planning for adaptation to climate change (in the coastal zone or inland) is a state government level function that can not be delegated to or replaced by local planning under the Municipal Land Use Law.

The NJ Future work NJ Spotlight favorably profiles violates core principles: it is not democratically accountable to the public, it relies on local government land use and voluntary measures, and it is outsourced and replaces State DEP core responsibilities.

For those interested in the details, I’ve written about exactly how those DEP planning and vulnerability assessment responsibilities in the coastal zone have been grossly mismanaged by the Christie DEP, see:

• Leadership Matters – How DEP Buried Report on Coastal Storm Risks
• Christie Administration Outsources Climate Change Adaptation Planning
• The Deafness Before the Storm

For a superb take on these issues from the national perspective – a critical investigative story you won’t get from Scott Gurian at Foundation Funded NJ Spotlight or the coastal advocacy groups on DEP’s payroll –  readers can revisit this Huffington Post story:

• Jersey Shore Development Failures Exposed By Hurricane Sandy

“[Gov. Christie has] done the exact opposite of what’s needed to be done,” said Bill Wolfe, a former Department of Environmental Protection planner and policy analyst who now leads the watchdog group New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “He has been affirmatively promoting regulatory relief and taking away any development, land use planning and infrastructure expertise at the department.” …

The status quo is that you just put everything back,” said Mark Mauriello, a former commissioner for New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, who worked in the agency’s coastal program for two decades. “Looking ahead, we shouldn’t be surprised when we see areas damaged again, people hurt, and the same kind of misery we’ve seen here. Clearly, I hope people realize that’s not a good plan for the future.”

The Christie Administration recklessly outsourced this climate adaptation work because for political reasons, Gov. Christie wants nothing to do with the issues related to climate change.

That’s not popular in the energy industry that writes the campaign checks or with the right wing climate denying base of the republican party who dominate the Presidential primaries Christie is now engaged in.

Recall that Christie said climate change was an “esoteric” issue he had no time for in Sandy recovery planning.

NJ is the only coastal state in the northeast with no State Climate Adaptation Plan.

Is NJ Future’s small bore work a substitute for a State Plan?

Why did the Christie DEP emergency CAFRA and Flood Hazard rules weaken existing protections and fail to meet FEMA minimum requirements?

Why did Christie DEP Bob Martin abolish the Coastal Planning Office in the Commissioner’s Office and bury it in the bureaucracy?

Why did the Christie DEP downsize and virtually abandon the vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning pilot programs they were developing?

These are the issues that need investigative journalism and reporting.

 Gov. Christie Uses Executive Power To Promote His Campaign Interests

Legislature must check Executive overreach and abuse of power for partisan reasons

[Update 7/7/15 – Uh oh, I have to chalk this one up to another “Be careful what you ask for”.

Just one day after this post (which I cross posted at BlueJersey), Democratic Leaders Senators Weinberg & Lesniak announced they were introducing legislation to force Christie to resign. (see SL story). Dems can’t muster a routine over-ride vote on minor policy bills and they think they can force Christie to resign?

As I wrote below, that is a political stunt and a diversion.

Dems should focus on the substance of Christie’s unpopular and destructive policies and educate media and voters. Dems should use the legitimate legislative powers they have that are independent of the Governor to conduct oversight and Constitutionally veto bad regulatory rollbacks now in the pipeline, like the DEP’s proposal to gut the Flood Hazard regulations.

Dems could do a LOT more with their own “bully pulpit” that would be a LOT more effective than stunts like a resign bill.

There are several major Christie initiatives underway that Dems can hold oversight of – here’s a short list off the top of y head:

• Energy Master Plan
• Water Supply Master Plan
• Flood Hazard Rules
• Implementation of Global Warming Response Act
• Implementation of Off Shore Wind Act
• NJ Transportation Trust Fund finance
• Funding Water Infrastructure
• Failure to plan for climate change adaptation
• Barnegat Bay ecological collapse
• Sandy Recovery
• Privatization of toxic site cleanup
• Enforcement of environmental laws
• Reforms of the “Exxon” NRD program at DEP
• What ever happened to the State Land Use Plan and Planning Commission?
• Does DEP still even have an Environmental Justice Program?
• Filter the toxic soup in NJ’s Drinking Water
• What’s going on with Affordable Housing?
• School Privatization – Newark and Beyond
• NJ’s housing foreclosure crisis
• Green jobs program
• What jobs and public benefits did NJ receive for over $5 billion in Christie corporate tax breaks?
• Privatization and commercialization of Liberty State Park
• Constitutional Amendment to dedicate the Clean Energy Fund and Societal Benefits Charge
• Childhood lead poisoning program update

[“Crazy” Update below]

I’ve been disgusted by the NJ Media’s daily – sometimes twice or three times a day – drumbeat coverage of Christie’s exploits in New Hampshire.

They are giving the Governor a huge platform to spout all kinds of lies, and not just about himself, but about major public policy issues.

The stories are written with little or no context, explanation of the policy issue, or rebuttal by expert sources or pushback by Democratic partisan sources.

The result is that voters are further misled about discredited right wing economic ideas – from austerity, to pensions, to privatization of education, to recycled Reagan  trickle down: Neoliberal economic fundamentals: tax cuts for the rich and corporations and regulatory rollbacks and privatization.

The debate is pushed further to the right –  Google “Overton Window” – just what Christie’s corporate backers want.

In a refreshing exception to this trend, Matt Katz of WNYC has an important story in today’s NJ Spotlight. Listen  to or read the whole thing.

Katz lays out 5 specific issues where Christie is using his broad Constitutional Executive power to unilaterally dictate policies for his own partisan and personal political campaign benefit, and to the detriment of NJ’s best interests and the longstanding preferences of NJ voters.

That is an extraordinary abuse of power (and far worse than NJ taxpayers picking up the tab for his State Police security detail, which has gotten critical news coverage).

Where are the Democrats in pushing back against this gross abuse of power? (the call for Christie to resign is not serious and amounts to a diversion. By calling for resignation, Dems get a cheap political hit without having to do the heavy lifting on educating voters about his radical pro-corporate policy ideas, some of which the Christie-Crats still support. That’s one reason Dems have done so little to challenge Christie’s environmental “dismantling” for almost 6 years).

But Democrats don’t have to lay back and take it –

They have Constitutional power to veto regulations and they can hold oversight hearings and take testimony – including subpoena power – to flesh out the issues and hold the Governor accountable, challenge his moves, and embarrass the Gov. in NH and elsewhere.

How would it look on the campaign trail if a sitting Gov.’s own legislature rebels against his policy proposals and abuse of power? Surely, that would be a story.

Democrats can make it a long hot summer for Christie by holding Legislative Oversight hearings on the various Christie abuses of his Executive Power.

The first place they can start is with their Legislative power to veto regulations –

“I spent the last 5 years dismanting the overreach that she [NJ DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson] did in New Jersey and our environmental protection area.  ~~~~ Gov. Chris Christie, Iowa, 3/7/15 (video)

There are numerous examples of that dismantling. 

Just weeks ago, Christie’s DEP provided another huge example of that dismantling – they proposed a regulation that would dismantle existing flood protections, some enacted by the Corzine/Lisa Jackson DEP, the very protections Christie bragged about dismantling.

Here’s the regulation. Have at it!

Christie a Fiscal Conservative?

Federal taxpayers ponied up over $60 billion in Sandy recovery money – about half of that to NJ.

How would Christie respond to a question in NH about why his Sandy recovery plan puts all that development back in harms way, where it will be destroyed again and require another taxpayer bailout?

NJ is one of the worst states for repeat flood damage claims against the federal flood insurance program, triggering even more taxpayer subsidies.

How would fiscally conservative NH voters feel if they knew that not only is Christie putting all Sandy damaged real estate back in harms way, but that he’s actually weakening existing flood protection regulations? A move sure to trigger even more taxpayer subsidies. Is that conservative governing?

Is Christie A “Conservative Without Conscience”?

There are a lot of practicing Catholics in New Jersey and New Hampshire – I’ve yet to see Christie asked to respond to the Pope’s Encyclical and how that comports with his record on climate change and energy.

The Dems have been in bed with Christie for a long time, but they say they’ve changed their ways.

If so, they need to get off their asses and make this a long hot summer in Trenton.

State Government and the lives of people of NJ are not Chris Christie’s personal toy.

[Update – today’s Bergen Record story gets it exactly backward – the major problem is not that Christie is absent and can’t effectively govern. It’s HOW he is governing.

The bigger problem is that Christie is using NJ to advance his personal political objectives and holding NJ hostage to his political campaign . That is a gross abuse of power that must be challenged.

Michele Siekerka – corporate hack and former Christie DEP Assistant Commissioner

And political hack and former Christie DEP Assistant Commissioner revolving door Michele Siekerka is an idiot – her quote is self contradictory: if Lt. Gov. Guadagno and Chief of Staff Egea are running state government, then by definition Christie “can’t address the issue”:

“Anyone who thinks that he can’t address an issue in New Jersey if he’s not physically here on soil in New Jersey is crazy,” said Michele Siekerka, president of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, who is in regular contact with Christie’s staff and Guadagno. “Between the lieutenant governor and his chief of staff, Regina Egea, we’re in very good hands.”

And calling people “crazy” is exactly the arrogant attack mentality of the Christie administration – as others have observed, it reeks.

Citizens Battle Corporate Giant Dupont and Lax Government Regulators

Tom Paine’s “Mutual Support” In A Battle With Corrupt Corporate Power

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies. ~~~ Declaration of the Occupation of New York City   (“Occupy Wall Street”)

I like to stay away from the patriotism flag waving stuff, but, as this 4th of July approaches, we provide a take on the authentic Revolutionary Spirit that’s alive and well in Pompton Lakes NJ.

There, in a battle that has raged for years, a brave handful of true patriots have fought on two fronts – first with the giant corporate polluter Dupont; and also with an indifferent or corrupt local government, and lax and at times hostile government regulators at the NJ DEP and US EPA.

It is a remarkable story of struggle by “commoners”.

A handful of residents, organized under the banner Citizens for a Clean Pompton Lakes (CCPL), have fought and sustained this asymmetrical war as citizen volunteers, with virtually no resources or external support.

CCPL, their voluntary association, has remained vibrant for years, as they have come under attack by their own local officials, who care more about protecting Dupont and the “image” of the Town than the health and well being of the people who live there.

These patriots have been attacked by their own fellow residents, who have been manipulated by Dupont and corrupt local officials to believe that it is these local patriots fighting for cleanup of Dupont’s mess that are the problem, not the Dupont corporation who poisoned the town for decades.

Dupont and corrupt local officials have lied repeatedly and shamelessly to downplay the risks of the pollution. Their combined efforts have managed to convince many residents that the CCPL patriots – by seeking to hold Dupont and DEP and EPA accountable for cleanup of their toxic pollution –  have created a stigma and severely depressed their property values and stifled investments in downtown businesses and revitalization.

In the warped world of local officials, its the citizen activist, not the corporate pollution, that is the problem.

Remarkably, Dupont even funds the salary of  the town’s “environmental officer” – Ed Merrill – who shamelessly shills for his corporate paymaster.

The Commissioner of the NJ DEP even used a grant to entice an outside group (Passaic River Coalition) to intervene to create local divisions and undermine the efforts of CCPL. I was told that first hand by Ella Filippone, former PRC head who died recently.

The Big Environmental Groups – with resources and large paid professional staffs – have not lifted a finger to help the residents whose community, namesake Lake, and even the air inside their homes have been poisoned by cancer causing chemicals from the Dupont site (or toxic impacts to wildlife).

Elite Conservation groups are engaged in co-optation and window dressing.

[It’s gotten so bad, Dupont actually funds NJ Audubon work – see this and this. Despite the fact that Dupont is perhaps the biggest toxic polluter of Delaware River and Bay and that those waters fail to meet Clean Water Act standards, note how NJ Audubon’s non-regulatory work will not obligate Dupont to stricter water pollution discharge limits, or additional cleanup requirements, or Natural Resource Damage compensation. The sole purpose is to provide green cover for Dupont and fund Audubon’s operations.]

The Big Foundations – who like to talk the talk about environmental justice and authentic grassroots organizing – have done nothing to help. Worse, they have actually DEFUNDED the only environmental group that supported residents, the Edison Wetlands Association – while refusing to fund my work as well.

Some see a larger pattern, and think that Foundations might be corrupt and might have intentionally crippled the ability of  New Jersey’s once numerous and active grassroots groups to battle corporate power and big polluters and rapacious developers.

Where have all those local grassroots groups gone? Where has the focus on corporate accountability, cleanup of toxic sites, and the need for aggressive enforcement of strong environmental laws gone? Why is there no aggressive climate campaign?

Instead, the Foundation money has gone into open space and the elite conservation groups that are land trusts. They take care of their own. It’s a process that abandons both grass roots and advocacy that I’ve called Foundation Fail.

Over the last 5 – 10 years, the Big Foundation money has migrated away from those efforts – which built the NJ environmental community and were responsible for NJ’s strong environmental laws –  and to a few large elite conservation groups who do nothing on corporate pollution and real grassroots citizens campaign to battle corporations and their captured government regulators. Instead faux and ineffective campaigns get funded.

Places like Pompton Lakes are a perfect illustration of the abandonment of Foundations of any real local grassroots support – and when the Foundation grants dry up, the Big Environmental Groups walk away too.

Even the media has backed away, after Dupont and their local minions organized a letter writing campaign to reporters and editors attacking critical media coverage.

But the patriots in Pompton Lakes have not been discouraged by that cowardly abdication by Foundations and Big Green.

They have battled on – very effectively.

Ask Dupont about that – and their Chemours spinoff – and their army of PR flacks, lawyers, and lobbyists. The David of Truth Telling citizens have held their own against the Goliath Dupont PR machine.

The patriots in Pompton Lakes have created more negative press coverage and leveraged more targeted and effective pressure on Dupont and government officials than the Big Green groups typically do in well funded campaigns that employ scores of paid professional staff. Remarkably, they accomplished that with no resources – zero!

One tiny illustration of that is how Pompton Lakes has been the national poster child for the implications of Dupont’s Chemours spinoff.

And that is the Revolutionary spirit – citizens in “mutual support“ battling the power of big and corrupt corporations (like the British East India Corporation) and oppressive or uncaring governments (like King George and is corporate cronies ) – that prevailed in 1776.

I salute the Patriots in Pompton Lakes NJ – you know who you are.

Documents Show That Christie DEP Caved to Builders and Business Lobbyists

IF Stone was right – many of the dirty deals are hidden in plain sight, buried in government documents that very few people read.

The Christie DEP just proposed to repeal – as in eliminate – the 300 foot wide vegetated buffers that protect “exceptional” high quality waters known as “Category One” (C1) waterbodies from the destruction and pollution caused by major development (wonks can read DEP’s rationale, which starts on page 10 – 11 and continues on p. 57).

[Technical clarification:

The C1 SWRPA buffers in the storm water rules, which are water quality BMP’s are repealed, but the 300 foot buffers created by those rules are redefined as “riparian zones” and retained in the stream encroachment rules. The C1 buffers have regulatory ties to the Clean Water Act and federally approved water quality standards and antidegradation policy. These are important legal factors, e.g. for Clean Water Act mandated water quality certifications, NJPDES permits, anti degradation reviews, municipal storm water ordinances and permits, TMDL’s, et al

Legally and technically, SWRPA C1 buffer protections are far stronger than “riparian zone” protections.

There is a complex two step rollback process:

1) SWRPA eliminated and redefined and replaced by weaker riparian zone standards;

2) a new mitigation scheme is created to allow relief from the riparian zone standards – this effectively eliminates the buffer program and replaces it with a mitigation scheme. There simply are no longer buffer standards. If a developer can’t meet the standard and wants to disturb the riparian zone, all he has to do is mitigate that disturbance.  ~~~ end clarification]

As I’ve written, that proposal would increase flood risks and water pollution and allow more destruction of thousands of acres as of critical headwaters, intermittent streams, and ecologically sensitive lands along streams, lakes, and rivers (riparian habitat).

Why would the DEP do that? Who is behind this move?

Documents show that the Christie DEP reversed a decade of regulatory policy and in doing so specifically embraced – almost word for word – the position of the NJ Builders Association, Chamber of Commerce, Business and Industry Association and National Association of Industrial and Office Parks.

[NOTE: This is one of the DEP rules that Gov. Christie called “overreach” and bragged about dismantling, something that should be relevant now that he has declared his candidacy.]

A Brief Regulatory History

In regulatory jargon, those C1 buffers are known as “Special Water Resource Protection Areas” (SWRPA’s). Those protections are provided to waterbodies that have “exceptional” ecological, water supply, fisheries, or recreational significance.

Disturbance or destruction of natural vegetation in SWRPA buffers is flat out prohibited, with very limited exceptions.

That means that builders can’t build or locate stormwater infrastructure or outfalls in the buffers and their development potential allowed under local zoning is limited, in some cases significantly such that projects must be scaled back and located away from sensitive streams.

The C1 SWRPA protections were adopted by the McGreevey DEP, in a series of rules in beginning in 2002. The C1 SWRPA buffers were a key component of Gov. McGreevey’s commitment to strengthen protections for NJ’s water resources. Approximately 2,000 miles of streams, rivers and reservoirs received C1 SWRPA protections, a hugely significant policy.

The C1 SWRPA buffers were strongly opposed by the development community because they significantly restrict development potential. Builders legally challenged the DEP rules in Court and lost.

In rules adopted in 2007, the Corzine DEP expanded the C1 SWRPA by incorporating them in the Flood Hazard Act permit program known as “stream encroachment”. That program is intended to reduce flood risks by, among other things, limiting disturbance of “riparian zones”.

The stream encroachment riparian zone protections are not a strong as the C1 SWRPA buffer protections, but they apply to a broader set of activities.

Back in 2007, the developers and business community opposed the Corzine DEP expansion, arguing that the C1 SWRPA were inconsistent with and duplicative of the stream encroachment “riparian zone” protections.

The Corzine DEP explicitly rejected those arguments. The Corzine DEP proposal expanded the reach of the C1 SWRPA buffers by consolidating two similar programs to improve protections for water quality and reduce flood risks.

Since then, the C1 SWRPA buffers were targeted for elimination in the Christie DEP Transition Report.

But, upon review of the C1 program to respond to the Transition Report’s criticism, even the Christie DEP issued a Report that found that the SWRPA buffers were justified by science. DEP scientists recommended expanding existing C1 SWRPA protections to an additional 121 stream miles.

Who Killed The C1 Buffers? – The Fingerprints are in the documents

In a huge reversal, the Christie DEP now proposes not to expand but to repeal the C1 buffer protections.

The Christie DEP justified the repeal of C1 SWRPAs on the following basis (from DEP proposal):

The fact that SWRPAs and riparian zones apply to different sets of surface waters has led to inconsistent protections for surface waters and some confusion for both Department staff and the regulated community. (@ p. 11) …

While the SWRPA is similar in some respects to the 300-foot riparian zone along C1 waters and tributaries that are considered regulated waters under the FHACA Rules, three major differences between the riparian zone protections and the SWRPA protections to C1 waters and their tributaries have resulted in unintended and problematic consequences. (@ p.58)

The problematic consequences are that the developers hated those rules and they killed or downsized major corporate office park and housing developments.

That was the intent of the program – not what DEP now calls “unintended consequences”.

But that Christie DEP rationale to kill the buffers sounded familiar to me, so I looked into the regulatory documents.

Low and behold, look at who opposed the C1 SWRPAs for exactly those same reasons back in 2007 (from DEP rule adoption document):

102.COMMENT: The provisions of the proposed new rules, which are justified as water quality measures, are duplicative of and inconsistent with the water quality provisions of the Department’s Stormwater Management rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8, and should therefore not be adopted. (7, 18, 33, 46, 53) 

According to the DEP document, commenter #7 is the NJ Business and Industry Association; #18 is the NJ Chamber of Commerce; #46 is the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks; and #53 is the NJ Builders Association.

Back in 2007, the Corzine DEP explicitly rejected those arguments (from the DEP adoption document):

But another disturbing point also must be made.

The environmental community urged DEP to create and strongly supported the C1 buffers back in 2002.

In fact, the program reality originated from the recommendations of Tom Borden during the Windy Acres development battle in Clinton.

So why now, as those critical protections are being dismantled, are they silent?

[Update: Here is another revealing gem by the a same crowd, showing that the real opposition to DEP rules is based on land use development restrictions:

314.COMMENT: The Department has failed to provide any substantive justification for the proposed requirement for over-detention by determining the “flood hazard area design flood elevation” using 125 percent of the 100-year flow rate. Potential flooding impacts from existing developments should be controlled by retro-fitting existing conditions, not by squelching future development. This point was made in comments on the report of the Flood Mitigation Task Force, which the Department ignored in the proposal. (7, 18, 33, 46, 53)

Raise the Bar – Stop Praising Symbolic Gestures

Climate & Clean Energy Coalition kicks off in Trenton – 6/25/15 – I had serious reservation about posting this photo and writing this post, but decided truth was superior to propaganda

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

I can see the train wreck coming.

Given the cast of characters, it will be a rehash of RGGI with emissions caps 45% above current emissions and all sorts of loopholes and gaps, as we noted at the time:

RGGI’s regional emission reduction goals are modest – 10% by year 2019 – and NJ’s burden is even lighter. NJ’s 22.9 million ton emission share amounts to a 1% reduction from current in state power plant emissions. The RGGI emissions inventory and “caps” do NOT consider emissions from energy imports from coal plants. RGGI does not address 60-70% of the problem from other major green house gas emissions sectors, such as transportation and buildings. So RGGI is only a small part of major efforts that will be required to meet the Corzine GWRA emissions reduction goals.

It will be a rehash of the toothless Global Warming Response Act, which we also noted at the time:

Contrary to media coverage and political spin, simply put, the law amounts to little more than aspirational goals and a misleading sham. Here’s why.

It will be a 80% renewable energy goal that is a mere aspiration without the required increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standards to enforce the goal. The current bill has been gutted, as Bil Potter wrote:

But before the bill was released from committee, key requirements were stripped away. Most important, in its current form there is no increase in the “Renewable Portfolio Standards” (RPS). The RPS mandates the minimum percentage of electricity sold in New Jersey that must come from renewable sources — primarily solar and wind. Without a steady and predictable increase in the RPS, the solar industry goes from boom to bust, whatever the long-term goals are for the state.

I really support your efforts and I really don’t want to say “I told you so” when a new Democratic Governor signs a toothless package of bills in 2018.

So here are some real, short term, and feasible demands that activists should be making, instead of symbolic gestures like Legislative and municipal or county resolutions.

[A far more serious and better tactic and organizing tool is a “Vow of Resistance” like the NY fracktivists used, putting the politicians on notice that people are prepared to put their bodies on the line and engage in civil disobedience.]

Demands are going to have to come from the bottom up, because Trenton lobbyists will not get outside their comfort zones or push Democratic friends.

1. Eliminate the current $50 million cap on liability for spills

2. Put teeth in the Global Warming Response Act by requiring that environmental permits demonstrate compliance with the 80% emission reduction goal over the design life of the project. This would include permit renewals as a ratchet down provision for existing facilities, forcing retrofits (or purchase of carbon offsets if not technologically feasible);

3. Put teeth and close loopholes in current environmental permitting requirements by mandating that the cumulative and lifecycle impacts of a project be considered, including greenhouse gas emissions (link to enforceable standards in #2 above) and public health impacts (like the public health science basis for the NY State fracking moratorium)

4. Closing the gaping loophole in NJ environmental law by requiring an Environmental Impact Statement for major projects, along the lines of SEQRA in New York State.

[Update: technically, the NY DEC selection of the “No Action” alternative in the fracking EIS is the legal basis and regulatory tool that implemented the ban on fracking in NY.

It is a freaking amazing coucnicence that I wrote this post this morning, before the NY DEP SEQRA Final decision document was just issued today.

I am proud to note that I attended and testified at the first NYS DEC  SEQRA herring on fracking, see:

• A Fracking Shame  ~~~ end update]

5. Restore the renewable portfolio standard increases in the pending 80% renewable energy bill (link above)

6. Eliminate the current 2% cap on solar net metering (like the 80% renewable bill, that bill’s already been gutted too and it hasn’t even passed yet).

7. Close the loopholes in the Highlands Act for pipelines, which are exempted from buffer restrictions(see Section 32 b.(1))

8. Amend the Pinelands Act to prohibit new pipelines and mandate energy efficiency.

9. Put teeth in “green building” codes.

10. Establish a new carbon tax to put a price on carbon and capture the social costs of carbon and use the revenues to finance mass transit infrastructure.

11. Constitutionally dedicate the current Societal Benefits Charge that goes to the Clean Energy Fund.

These are merely stop gap short term tactics that rely on traditional regulatory barriers – offered off the top of my head.

I’m sure there are many more that could be listed (like DEP air permit review requirements – like consideration of GHG emissions and risk assessments tied to real public health standards).

There are other economic regulatory reforms that could be put in place at BPU, like eliminate the cost test from the Off Shore Wind Act, which fails to consider social costs of carbon or environmental benefits.

Nationally, a similar set of demands could be focused on FERC and the National Gas Act.

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.”