Search Results

Keyword: ‘infrastructure’

BPU Asked To Table Pipeline Review Pending Pinelands Commission Review

June 21st, 2015 No comments

Board Must Not Repeat Past Mistakes

Here is a lengthy post growing out of the recent public hearing,  submitted to BPU – Paraphrasing Paul Simon, feel free to borrow what you like and disregard the rest and send to BPU at this address ASAP – not sure when the public comment period ends:      board.secretary@bpu.state.nj.us

Re:   In the Matter of the Petition of South Jersey Gas Company for Authorization to Construct a 24” Pipeline

Docket No. GO13030202

att/Irene Kim Asbury

Secretary, Board of Public Utilities

P.O. Box 350, Trenton,

NJ 08625-0350

Dear Commissioners:

I write to urge you to reject the subject application and respond on the record to the following questions and concerns.

I attended and spoke at the public hearing held on June 17, 2015 in Upper Township, NJ. These comments are in addition to my testimony.

1. Public hearing procedure was flawed – tainted hearing requires another public hearing

At the outset of the public hearing required by law, Commissioner Fiordaliso allowed the applicant to make “a short introductory statement”:watch here:

Part 1 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRaQSpIZTAE

Part 2 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g8S3_U5a_c

What transpired for over 30 minutes was an attempt by the applicant to preempt public comments and present sworn expert witness evidence testimony.

This was a public hearing, not a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, the applicant’s presentation was totally inappropriate and out of order, bordering on professional misconduct. The applicant not only exceeded reasonable time limits and consumed the hearing, the presentation had an illegitimate impact on Commissioners, BPU staff, and the public.

In fact, much of the public testimony, including my own, had to be refocused, compressed, and revised to rebut misleading statements made by the applicant.

The fact that the applicant’s presentation was not objected to by Board staff present and was allowed to proceed uninterupted by Commissioner Fiordaliso for over 30 minutes tainted the hearing and requires that the matter be subject to a fresh public hearing.

The Board needs a structured process to allow qualified testimony on the many energy, regulatory, environmental, safety, and land use issues raised by this application.

The Board should NOT repeat previous mistakes made in prior Board Orders of April and June 2013, particularly in getting out in front of and undermining the public decsion-making process of the Pinelands Commission pursuant to the Comprehensive Management Plan.

2. Prior Board Orders Raise questions and concerns

The Board issued two prior Orders in this matter:

  • an April 29, 2013 Order which provided numerous significant unfounded findings (e.g. “fewer air emissions”) and provided subsidies to the project, including requiring ratepayers to pay for a big part of it; exemptions from RGGI greenhouse gas emission allowance purchase requirements and Societal Benefits Charges; and a “confidentiality” agreement to keep the economics secret; and
  • a June 21, 2013 Order which curiously included a MOA with the Pinelands Commission before that controversial issues was ever discussed before the Commission, approved a host of questionable issues, from the need for the project, alternatives, safety, and the pipeline route. Amazingly, it included this statement:

BPU777

These Orders give rise to the following questions, which should be openly engaged by the Board and responded to on the record:

1) Was the Board or staff lobbied by representatives of Wolff  Samson, the firm that is representing BL England plant owner Rockland Capital?

2) who requested and why did the Board agree to include a MOA with the Pinelands Commission in the June Order, prior to the Commission’s public discussion of a MOA with BPU?

3) why was the Societal Benefits Charge exemption included in the Order? What is the legal basis and public policy rationale for that?

3. The geographic distribution of alleged benefits and costs must be determined by the Board and allocated

Based upon the applicant’s testimony at the June 17, 2015 public hearing and the May 21, 2015 amended application submitted to the Pinelands Commission, the applicant making contradictory factual claims and conflicting arguments. (I incorporate the 5/21/15 application to the Pinelands Commission by reference).

Accordingly, because material facts are in dispute that will determine regulatory outcomes, the Board must find facts and make conclusions.

Specifically, applicant makes arguments concerning pipeline “resilience” and grid “reliability” benefits to consumers.

The Board must review and determine the accuracy and credibility of the applicant’s arguments.

The Board needs to make findings of fact regarding the location of consumers that would enjoy these alleged benefits with respect to Pinelands boundaries. Such findings of fact are critical in this regard, given the Pinelands CMP requirement that the project ” “primarily serve only the needs of the Pinelands”  (see: NJAC 7:50-5.23 (b)12)

Similarly, we understand that the pipeline project entails a “dedicated line” (costs allocated to the applicant and/or BL England plant) and a “resilience line” (costs allocated to ratepayers).

The Board needs to spatially disaggregate the costs and benefits of these two lines. at least with respect to cost liability, alleged reliability benefits and alleged resiliency benefits. The spatial allocation must consider the Pinelands boundaries, given the requirements of the CMP cited above.

4. The air quality analysis if flawed

The applicant relies on what has been referred to as a DEP Air Quality Analysis.

Part I)  Technical Misrepresentations

First of all, the document in question is not – repeat not – a “DEP Air Quality Benefits Study”. The “study” was NOT conducted by DEP. Instead, the so called “study” was conducted by a private consultant paid for by the owners of the BL England Plant. According to a DEP September 16, 2013 memo to Wittenberg:

Attached is a description and results of an air quality modeling analysis conducted to assess the air quality benefit of the Repowering Project in the Pinelands Area. The figures in this memo were provided by the environmental consultant AECOM under contract with RC Cape May and under the supervision and approval of NJDEP.

So it is false to call this a “DEP study”.

 Second, the scope of the so called “DEP study” is inconsistent with what Wittenberg’s requested in terms of geographical and technical scope of work to DEP. Specifically, in a July 31, 2013 email, Wittenberg requested that DEP conduct an “evaluation of the public benefits” of the repowering to the “Pinelands area”. DEP memo:

In your email dated July 31, 2013, you requested an evaluation of public benefits of the Repowering Projects to the defined Pinelands Area.

But the so called DEP study” did NOT examine “public benefits” – it presented BL England’s views of the “air quality benefit” of repowering – obviously, a “public benefit” is very different than “air quality benefits”, which in this case was narrowly restricted to a sham comparison of coal versus natural gas emission rates.

Third, and the most serious misrepresentation, is the way Ms. Weinberg publicly presented this “study” (on Wednesday December 4 – see this for Wittenberg’s powerpoint).

 The presentation of air quality issues begins on slide 13.

Slides 13 -14 are based on the “DEP study”, while the source of slides 15 – 16 regarding historical annual operating hours of the BL England plant is not attributed. However, with no source attribution, the following the “DEP” slides 13-14 and the sequence clearly implies – and was meant to create the appearance – that the data came from the same DEP study summarized in previous slides 13 – 14.

Note that the “study” is now described as “DEP Air Quality Modeling”. Ms. Wittenberg knows that that phrase is a regulatory term of art, with defined technical content. So this description not only implies that the “study” was conducted by the DEP but that it meets DEP’s rigorous air quality modeling regulatory requirements.

 I am not making mere semantic distinctions here – Ms Wittenberg clearly understands the significance of this, because she previously served as DEP Assistant Commissioner with management responsibility over the DEP’s air quality planning and permitting groups that actually conduct modeling and impact analysis.

 There are several relevant and applicable DEP regulatory Guidance documents on air quality modeling, human health and environmental impact assessment, and power plant permitting, including:

  • Guidance on preparing an air quality modeling protocol
  • Guidance on preparing a risk assessment for air contaminant emissions
  • Guidelines for evaluating proposed emission rates
  • Inclusion of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP’s) in air permits
  • Modeling and permitting for PM 2.5 Sources
  • Procedures for conducting risk assessments to determine incremental health risks
  • Sources requiring an air quality impact analysis
  • State of the Art Applicability for Modified sources (BL England is modified source)
  • Risk assessment guidance

The so called “DEP study” Ms. Wittenberg alludes to does not come remotely close to meeting the substantive requirements of ANY of these DEP regulatory requirements for conducting air quality modeling and impact analysis from a power plant.

Ms. Wittenberg KNOWS ALL THIS so she is intentionally misleading the public and the Commissioners regarding what was done and who did it and what it means.

Fourth, it is important to understand the difference between an emission rate and actual air pollution emitted. Generally, emission rates are expressed as pound of pollution per hour. This rate must be multiplied by hours of operation to calculate pollution emissions.

This distinction is critical to understand the opponents argument that, even with lower emission rates of natural gas compared with coal, pollution will increase due to increased plant operation. (and this does not include the actual health impacts and risks of those emissions, which the so called “study” does not even attempt to consider, which is another major flaw outside the scope of this analysis).

 The so called study is based exclusively on pollutant “emission rates of  criteria air pollutants” from coal fired versus natural gas plants. The study states this (@ page 2):

BL England Air Pollutant Emissions – Current and Repowering Project

The Repowering Project will be fueled exclusively by natural gas. By retiring the two existing coal-fired boilers and converting the residual oil boiler into a gas boiler, significant reductions in air pollutant emissions will occur. Table 1 shows the hourly and annual allowableemission rates of criteria air pollutants before and after the Repowering Project. The pre-project PM2.5 emissions were assumed equivalent to PM10. The station’s current permit allowable emission rates were discounted to the limits established in the NJDEP Administrative Consent Order (ACO). The pre-ACO permit allowable emission rates were much higher.

But this so called study DOES PRESENT ACTUAL BL ENGLAND PLANT OPERATING DATA (they must be implied or assumptions in the model).

 This is a huge flaw and the public can not verify the findings because of the omission of this critical data on BL England plant operating history and the predicted on line or capacity factors of the proposed repowered gas plant.

 However, Ms. Wittenberg’s powerpoint (slides #15 – 16) provide this operating data – but that data did not come from the DEP study. The source of this data is not provided. Nor is the implied use of the data in the so called “study” explained.

It is a highly misleading practice to juxtapose data and findings from a “DEP study” sequentially with data from another source (BL England?) in a way that clearly creates the appearance that the unsourced data was part of the DEP study.

 If a scientist did this his reputation would be shot and his paper would never be published. A graduate student could not get away with such misleading crap in a Master’s Thesis.

 Fifth, In addition to all this – and this is a HUGE gaping flaw in the air quality review – the scope of the study was limited to “criteria pollutants”, which means that it did NOT address the most important pollutants that will be emitted by the pipeline project – directly and indirectly – greenhouse gases CO2 and methane!

Let’s repeat that: the Pinelands Commission ignored greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts from a major regional fossil fuel project, when:

1) The Pinelands Protection Act and the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) provide clear authority, jurisdiction, policies, standards, and regulations pertaining to the air quality and ecological impacts of projects regulated by the Commission – including primary, secondary, induced, and cumulative impacts;

2) The sole – exclusive – stated purpose of the South Jersey Gas Co, pipeline, according to Commission staff, is:

To supply natural gas to the existing Beesley’s Point coal-fired electric generation plant (B.L. England) located outside the Pinelands, in Upper Township

(note that the staff’s stated purpose does NOT include “reliability”, a justification that clearly waspost hoc).

3) The South Jersey Gas pipeline will directly emit greenhouse gases, as will the BL England power plant and other gas users;

4) According to the US Forest Service and the Commission’s own scientists, Pinelands forests and ecosystems currently are being adversely impacted by climate change caused by theemissions of greenhouse gases (GHG);

5) greenhouse gases (GHG) have been defined and regulated as “air pollutants” in NJ since 2005;

6) The NJ Global Warming Response Act mandates that statewide GHG emissions be reduced by 80% from 2006 levels by the year 2050 – the Commission’s decisions must be guided by these mandatory emission reductions;

7)  current US EPA regulations mandate that gas pipelines report greenhouse gas emissions;

6) current US EPA regulations mandate that gas fired power plants report GHG emissions;

8.  there are readily available US EPA adopted GHG emissions factors for regulated activities and sources, including natural gas drilling and gas wells, storage facilities, transmission lines, pipelines, and related infrastructure;

9) proposed EPA regualtions will require GHG emissions reductions from gas power plants;

10) South Jersey Gas Co. voluntarily reports to investors current greenhouse gas emissions:

The US Environmental Protection Agency finalized a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, which required LDCs like South Jersey Gas to put in place monitoring and recordkeeping systems that are establishing the baselines for reporting that went into effect in 2010.

SJI management understands that there are risks and opportunities associated with this challenge. Our responsibility to customers and shareholders is to prepare for a carbon-constrained economy in the future. Our company has taken action to better understand the sources and magnitude of GHG emissions for our overall enterprise, including an enterprise-wide GHG inventory completed in 2010. Using this information, we are regularly evaluating options to reduce GHG emissions within our operations and continue developing options for our customers to reduce their emissions as well. We are committed to remaining informed about GHG policy developments and to developing strategies that allow us to capitalize on opportunities stemming from climate change initiatives.

5. Impact on off shore wind and on shore renewables must be considered

There was credible public testimony offered at the public hearing that the project, and BL England re-powering, would create infrastructure capacity and transmission barriers to off shore wind and on shore solar.

We understand that there is – or was – a moratorium on connections to new solar capacity.

The Board must make determinations with respect to these adverse impacts and if they exist, either address and resolve these issues prior to final decision or include them as conditions in the Board’s Order of approval.

6. Project Related grid upgrades must be specified and costs allocated as part of review process

The applicant has argued that failure to gain approval of the pipeline will lead to costly grid upgrades.

The Board needs to evaluate the credibility of this argument and find facts.

7. The Board must consider a shadow price of the social costs of carbon in project review

The project is a major fossil fuel infrastructure project. It’s lifecycle imapcts involve well drilling and fracking emissions; transmission and distribution emissions; and combustion emissions at the BL England plant.

EPA has developed emissions factors and lifecycle assessment methods to address these issues and derive cumulative lifecycle impacts.

Additionally, EPA applies a “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC) during regulatory review of major rules, see:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html

Specifically, EPA has applied a SCC in the Clean Power rule (see regulatory impact assessment):

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf

The Board must include SCC as a shadow price or in otherwise reviewing this project

8. Consistency with all policies of the Energy Master Plan must be considered

The applicant’s presentation cherry picked various policies from the current Energy Master Plan (EMP). Those selective applications of EMP policies led to misleading conclusions.

The Board should review this project for consistency with the totality of the EMP, including energy efficiency, demand management, peak demand management, and renewable energy policies.

9. Impacts on attainment of the emission reduction requirements of the Global Warming Response Act must be assessed

The applicant failed to consider the impacts of the project on the State’s ability to meet the requirements of the GWRA.

The Board must review and find facts with respect to this critical issue, especially for a major fossil infrastructure reject with a 40+ year design life.

10. The Board’s scope of review must consider lifecycle impacts, including secondary and cumulative impacts

11. Emergency service scenarios undermine the applicant’s resilience and reliability arguments

We understand the the Board has ordered the applicant to serve residential and commercial gas customers and stop provision of gas to BL England in the event of a capacity shortfall.

Similarly, a major coastal storm would very likely inundate the BL England plant and known it out of service.

Both these probable scenarios conflict with the applicant’s resilience and reliability arguments. The Baord must address and resolve these conflicts.

12. The applicant’s resilience and reliability arguments to the Board conflict with arguments made to the Pinelands Commission

The “dedicated line” will not be used by or provide gas service benefits to residents of the Pinelands.

The power production at BL England will be distributed by the PJM grid, not to specific consumers in the Pinelands region.

The Board must find facts in this regard.

13. The Board must consider that the BL England Plant is located in a coastal hazard area

The BL England plant is highly vulnerable to climate change indicted sea level rise, storm surge and coastal storms. It is not reliable and will be inundated according to current projections of sea level rise.

Given these facts, it would be irresponsible for the board to approve the project. It will not be “used and useful” for long

14. The Board must determine if there is a need for the project

The applicant relies on outdated PJM demand projections that not only exaggerate demand growth, but fail to adequately include efficiency, demand management, and renewable power

The Board must update these projections and find facts to determine need.

15. The Board should table the application until the Pinelands Commission final agency action on the project

Respectfully,

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Trenton’s Railroad and Pipe Dreams

June 15th, 2015 No comments

The paramount risk of oil and gas infrastructure is climate change

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

Scientists warn that we must leave at least 80% of currently known fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate chaos and the end of agricultural and industrial civilization as we know it.

NJ’s Global Warming Response Act sets a State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050.

To meet those kind of existential threats will require radical and rapid change in our energy infrastructure.

It will require huge economic dislocations – basically the end of the fossil fuel industry – and dramatic changes in lifestyle and a “revolution in values”, something Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called for back in 1967 in his famous Riverside Church speech “A Time to break silence” .

[Update 6/18/15: In virtually identical language, today the NY Times reports:

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Thursday called for a radical transformation of politics, economics and individual lifestyles to confront environmental degradation and climate change, as his much-awaited papal encyclical blended a biting critique of consumerism and irresponsible development with a plea for swift and unified global action. ~~~ end update]

Last week, Chris Hedges, a writer who lives right here in Princeton, spoke in Boston about the kind of changes, what he calls “rebellion”, that will be required (hit this link to watch the video of that talk)

We cannot resist effectively unless we understand how corporate power works and the nature of inverted totalitarianism.

Otherwise, we are responding to an illusion – a belief that appealing to [US Senators] Markey or Elizabeth Warren is going to work.

We don’t have any time left, as anyone who’s been reading climate change reports knows.

It is becoming increasingly terrifying. […]

We have surrendered power to these corporate forces that seek to profit on the death throes of the planet.

Our first job, for those of us who care about creating a sustainable future, recovering our democracy, and fostering the common good is  close study of power itself.

And if we don’t make that close study, then we are going inevitably to funnel energy into a dead political system. […]  a Van Jones role of funneling all of this hope, all of this passion, all of this work, and a significant amount of money right back into a dead political system.

And we don’t have time for that anymore. We don’t have time to fool around. We have to get militant, very fast.

Hedges went on to suggest that anti-fracking activists get old junk cars, drive to the location of the fracking projects, and abandon them in the road. And to sustain this kind of non-violent civil disobedience every day. Like Mario Savio famously said (watch):

There’s 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!

But Hedges might just have well have been speaking from the moon – his voice and ideas are ignored in Trenton (and we don’t have anything close to resembling Senators Markey or Warren for the environmental lobbyists to at least attempt to justify the lobbying).

Illusion reigns and there’s no breaking silence there, unless it’s to break wind.

Today was another example, as Democratic legislators were praised by environmentalists for what amount to symbolic gestures on oil pipelines and oil trains.

There were important opportunities to discuss these kind of challenges today in Trenton, during debates on a Senate Resolution opposing the Pilgrim oil pipeline and on a package of bills regulating safety of railroad oil and chemical shipments (see S2858 (Weinberg/Gordon) and S2979 (Weinberg/Sacco) and SCR 165 (Weinberg).

The Senate Resolution opposing the Pilgrim Pipeline did not even mention climate change or the need to meet the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act or to stop investments in fossil infrastructure.

Substantively, it was a toothless symbolic gesture that can not be enforced.

The oil train package did not even mention climate change or the need to meet the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act or to stop investments in fossil infrastructure.

Substantively, aside from failures to address core issues, even on the stated narrow objectives, the legislation was weak, at best.

The oil train legislation sought to require new emergency response plans. These plans would be kept secret and would be overseen by the DEP.

The DEP has failed to even express a concern about the rail safety issue, and refused to disclose information.

So why would a routine DEP regulatory bill – with no real mandates, enforcement, or even public disclosure – accomplish anything?

The “emergency response” to a train derailment and fire/explosion of a railcar carrying highly volatile Bakken crude oil is to evacuate the area and let the fire burn out.

The fires and explosions are simply to dangerous to even try to extinguish.

The “emergency response” to  a train derailment that caused an oil or chemical spill in the Oradell Reservoir would be to install booms and shut down the reservoir as a water supply.

The “emergency response” to an oil pipeline break in the NJ Highlands near the Wanaque Reservoir would be pretty much the same.

No real “emergency response” and “cleanup” is feasible. Once the accident occurs, it is too late.

So how is a law that requires the railroad to prepare an emergency response plan anything more than a band aid on a gaping wound?

Just like fracking, these are risk that are too high to regulate, manage, and respond to – the only real solution is to prevent them.

Regulation simply can not work. We need prohibitions.

And the only real prevention strategy is to stop extracting oil and natural gas and shipping it in pipelines, trains and barges.

Senator Weinberg, discussing one of the rail safety bills released today by the Senate Transportation Committee, expressed disappointment and could not understand why CSX railroad opposed her bill to require that bridge inspection reports be submitted to the NJ State Department of Transportation “unless they have something to hide”.

Duh!

Over two years ago, I explained the flaws in what is effectively privatization of railroad safety at the federal level:

“According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), railroad bridge safety is left up to the railroads! 

FRA said:

The Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 mandates that all track owners inspect their railroad bridges at least once per calendar year. Prior to the passage of this legislation, railroad bridge inspections were highly encouraged, but not mandatory. The new statute requires track owners to conduct and then submit risk management reports to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In addition, track owners are required to document their yearly inspections and are also subject to random audits. Owners of structurally deficient railroad bridges can be levied fines of up to $100,000 and information on deficient railroad bridges will be published in the federal registry.

Citizens concerned about the state of railroad bridges in their communities are encouraged to contact the owner of the bridge first. However, the FRA is always available to concerned citizens and can be contacted via email at: RRSWebInquiries@dot.gov 

The system is badly broken, folks.

Like Hedges says, we don’t have time to fool around and “We have to get militant, very fast.”

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

A Land Trust Is No Place for A Hard Hitting Climate & Pipeline Campaign

June 10th, 2015 No comments

Quisling Accommodationist Installed At NJCF

A Platform For Foundation Funding and Corporate Mitigation

This is what co-optation looks like

File this one under “be careful what you ask for”.

Last October, in the wake of the People’s Climate March, I blasted NJ conservation groups for failure to seize the momentum and  opportunity and mount a real climate campaign (see:  People’s Climate Collapse? What’s Wrong With the NJ Environmental Community? A Wake Up Call)

Guess they were too busy with the new environmental activism, which means  (and this is a real list of well publicized events, rattled off the top of my head, in just the last month or so – you can’t make this stuff up):

planting milkweed; keeping NJ highway medians safe for pretty flowers; writing corporate Foundation grant applications; hosting fundraisers; burning and logging forests; planting bushes alongside electric powerlines and gas pipelines; meeting with Corporate Stewardship Councils; taking Walmart and energy company grants; buying expensive “eco-goats”; writing propaganda Op-Eds promoting theft of billions of dollars of environmental funds; selling sustainable rain barrels and compact fluorescent bulbs; holding road rally’s with highly polluting cars; conducting cultural carnivals; planting flowers at the local shopping center hardware stores; pubcrawls; expensive eco-tours; seafood  festivals; picking up litter; certifying voluntary local feel good measures; promoting state funded greenscam projects (e.g. beach replenishment for birds, dredge spoil disposal in wetlands, and stormwater detention basins in Barnegat Bay)  in exchange for State DEP and federal grants……….

I repeated that criticism more recently, in a March 21, 2015 post: Multiple Pipeline, Rail Oil Shipments, and Off Shore LNG & Drilling Controversies Provide Huge Opportunity to Educate and Organize on Climate Change

Right now in New Jersey, thousands of residents – many of whom were previously politically inactive or not affiliated with “environmental” groups or causes  – are turning out to public hearings and demonstrations to protest all forms of fossil infrastructure: pipelines, oil rail shipments, off shore LNG ports, electric transmission lines, and power plants.

The recent announcement by the Obama administration to open up the Atlantic coast to off shore oil and gas drilling has sparked huge public outrage, activating thousands more opponents of fossil infrastructure.

These battles provide enormous opportunities to inform, activate, and organize thousands of people to the common threads that link all these fossil infrastructure projects: climate change.

These battles provide “Occupy” like public platforms – events, protests, and formal public hearings – to gather huge groups of like minded people in a unified collective endeavor – politics and democracy in action – a means to build the climate movement.

These controversies can generate significant media coverage to shape public opinion and hold elected officials accountable.

As Bruce Dixon has written in his series: Organizing 101 in response to Ferguson and the “Black Lives Matter” movement:

It’s not a movement unless it’s organized, and it might never happen unless YOU organize it.

Unfortunately, I hope I’m wrong, but from where I sit, I don’t see this kind of advocacy and organizing happening.

And even more recently, in a personal note about the financial collapse of NJ PEER, I bitterly rued the dynamic that led to PEER’s demise, see: After A Decade At The Barricades, The Lights Go Out At NJ PEER:

But, all that effort is not supported financially by the funders of the NJ environmental community.

They put their big corporate money in far less threatening – and far less effective – organizations and “campaigns”:  ”Keep it Green” – “Sustainable NJ”  – Citizens Campaign – NJ Future – Together NJ – Yay!

So, with all that said, the good news is that it looks like someone was listening and has ponied up some money to fund a climate and pipeline campaign.

The bad news is that they installed a lame, lying, quisling accommodationist to head the campaign and housed it in a land trust.

That’s right, fresh off the strategic disaster that duped NJ voters, known as “Keep It Green”, according to news reports, that very same Tom Gilbert now moves to NJ Conservation Foundation to head a new “Cimate, Energy and Pipeline” campaign:

With multiple proposals for oil and natural gas pipelines into and through New Jersey — and a slew of organizations fighting those proposals — one state environmental group is hoping a soft-spoken activist can organize the pipeline opposition.

Thomas A. Gilbert, 45, a longtime activist known for his land preservation work, will begin working June 15 as a campaign director at New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

I won’t comment any further today on the substance, if you hit the links, my thoughts on this are pretty clear.

I see this NJCF “campaign” as a dangerous vehicle to both drain Foundation funds from real activism and divert public demands and co-opt activism.

And, a closing personal note to Senator Smith who is quoted in that story essentially praising Mr. Gilbert:

Senator, you know god damned well that Tom Gilbert had absolutely nothing to do with the Highlands Act.

And you also know that I spent many weeks meeting with you and OLS staffers to draft that bill, which you sponsored.

[End Note: and while we’re airing all the dirty laundry today, let me say that this was not the first time that a good idea and real campaign proposal was hijacked by the Foundation funded weenies.

In a huge irony,  a 1/25/13 Dodge Foundation letter from Chris Daggett declined funding of my Delaware Bayshore campaign proposal on this basis:

Your proposed engagement of environmental partners to build community support for an ecosystem benefits approach to regional planning in the Delaware Bayshore is commendable, but is not consistent with your stated primary organizational mission of protecting public employees and monitoring natural resource management agencies.

Dodge and Wm, Penn foundations subsequently pumped millions into a weenie campaign, derailing that real proposal for some of the ineffective tactics I criticize above.

They are doing the same thing with climate & pipelines. As I noted above, a climate & pipeline campaign is “not consistent with [NJCF’s] stated primary organizational mission”.

I discuss the Bayshore campaign scam in more detail in this April 2014 post:

end update

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Pipeline Debate: Finally Engaged, But Still Mis-focused

May 28th, 2015 No comments

Looming Climate Catastrophe Must Drive Policy Debate

Global Warming Response Act Emissions Reductions Must Be Focus

Could the media and policymakers be catching up to the activists? If so, the Foundation funding can’t be far behind.

There is a series of set up stories running for NJ Spotlight’s Pipeline Roundtable tomorrow.

Yesterday’s story by WHYY focused on Pennsylvania fracking –

The gas industry sure has done a great PR job by changing the subject from NY State’s fracking ban, which was based on public health risks – that framing and narrative were quickly revised by industry propaganda.

Today Tom Johnson lays out the NJ story in NJ Spotlight:

Tom’s piece today is pretty good, but, as I’ve been complaining for some time now fails to put the infrastructure and energy policy debate in the proper climate context.

It also also allows some energy industry propaganda to go unchallenged by facts or rebuttal by environmentalists.

So, here are a few thoughts and links to documents that I think should be driving the debate, from the climate perspective:

Finance capital is a scarce resource.

By investing billions of dollars in gas infrastructure (wells, pipelines, power plants, etc) we are diverting necessary capital from efficiency and renewables.

These infrastructure debates MUST begin with the imperative of the climate catastrophe and the need to make a rapid transition to a low carbon future.

In addition to diverting scarce capital, the economics of “cheap” gas undermine investments in efficiency and renewables.

This dual economic dynamic is a disaster and virtually guarantees irreversible and catastrophic climate change.

The jobs and “manufacturing renaissance” arguments are all spin no substance.

There’s no “manufacturing renaissance” – look at the data:

Local pipeline jobs are greatly exaggerated – alternative energy is more job producing:

And I wonder how Senator Sweeney feels about his South Jersey constituents having to pay higher monthly gas and electric bills for the SJG Pinelands/BL England fiasco?

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

“New” Pinelands Pipeline Proposal Based on Brazen Lies

May 24th, 2015 No comments

It’s Still The Same Pipeline, Same Route, & Same BL England Re-Powering Project

Still The Same Violation of Pinelands Forest Standards

Sham re-submission a test of the integrity and independence of Pinelands staff

‘Cause you’re still the same
You’re still the same
Moving game to game
Some thlngs never change
You’re still the same ~~~~ Still The Same (Bob Seger, 1978 – yes, the Hippies and all the good music were all long gone by 1978)

[Update: 5/28/15 – The Pinelands Commission posted the SJG application documents on the website.  Review them yourself and see what’s “new” – ~~~ end update h/t TL of PPA)

On Thursday May 21, 2015, South Jersey Gas Co. (SJG) submitted an amendment to their application to the Pinelands Commission seeking approval of the pipeline as “private development” under the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

Remarkably, according to news reports, if staff concur with SJG’s “new” arguments, the Pinelands Commission will not vote on the project (see process for review of “private development“), which would be an arrogant and incredible abuse of democracy and law.

Staff decisions are under the control of Executive Director Wittenberg.

As we’ve noted, Executive Director Wittenberg – a former lobbyist for the NJ Builders Association appointed by Governor Christie – is in the tank for South Jersey Gas and following orders of the Governor’s Office.

Don’t be fooled by news reports, which unfortunately were spun by SJG’s new media consultant and got the story wrong.

From news reports we select the worst, being the Press of Atlantic City story. That paper has editorialized in support of the pipeline  and went along with SJG’s media strategy to embargo the announcement for maximum spin, but has since updated and revised that story, to include critics. To cover their tracks, the updated version conveniently deletes any mention of the embargo agreement:

Here are the other stories: NJ Spotlight; Star Ledger; Burlington County Times.

  • Part One – The “New” Spin

SJG offers a handful of talking points allegedly based on “new” information about why the “new” version of the pipeline meets the requirements of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

SJG has blended the regulatory compliance demonstration points with media spin talking points.

  • A) Compliance Arguments

We start first with SJG’s formal regulatory compliance arguments:

  •  The contractual agreement between South Jersey Gas and RC Cape May Holdings requires the pipeline to be used to supply natural gas to the B.L. England plant, located in the Pinelands, on at least 350 days out of the year.
  • PJM Interconnection and the Department of Environmental Protection both have determined that absent significant electric transmission system improvements, repowering the B.L. England facility is necessary to avoid electric reliability violations inside the Pinelands and the surrounding region.
  • A repowered B.L. England plant will supply about 86 percent of its electric output to the Pinelands once the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant retires in 2019.
  • A repowered B. L. England plant will help to reinforce electric reliability and reduce electricity congestion charges within the service territory of Atlantic City Electric, which supplies about 73 percent of all Pinelands residents, including the entire population of Atlantic and Cape May counties.
  •  A repowered B.L. England facility will dramatically reduce harmful air pollution within the Pinelands

We briefly rebut them in order:

1) The gas supply contract with BL England requires that SJG supply gas on 350 days/year – this allegedly shows that the pipeline “primarily serves” the Pinelands.

There is nothing “new” here. The supply contract was reviewed by the BPU 2 years ago.

In fact, BPU’s approval includes conditions that require that gas to the BL England plant be diverted from BL England plant and shifted to residential and commercial users under certain conditions, so this allegedly “new” information conflicts with an existing BPU Order.

Furthermore, the “new” information contradicts the prior justification for the pipeline, which was to provide “reliability” service to Cape May gas customers in the event of an emergency. This back up infrastructure was called “resilience”.

2) PJM and DEP reliability determinations, even if valid, are not “new” and have absolutely no legal relevance or factual bearing on the issue of whether the pipeline complies with the CMP Forest standards.

The forest standard requires that the pipeline “primarily serves” the Pinelands.

Aside from being irrelevant, the “reliability” arguments apply to the regional electric grid and gas infrastructure, which are located primarily outside the Pinelands region and therefore that argument contradicts the “primarily serves” argument.

3)  The retirement of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant has nothing to do with whether the gas pipeline complies with the CMP. It is an energy planning and policy issue outside the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Commission and the CMP.

As previously noted, the Oyster Creek plant – and the BL England plant – both produce power that is connected to and distributed by the 13 state regional PJM power grid.

By definition, those plants do not “primarily serve” the Pinelands region. The grid does not work that way.

4) Increased electric reliability and reduced congestion charges in the Atlantic City electric grid, even if valid, have nothing to do with whether the gas pipeline “primarily serves” the Pinelands and complies with the CMP.

As noted previously, these are energy regulatory matters that are outside the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction and the requirements of the CMP.

The fact that Atlantic Electric serves 73% of Pinelands residents would be a fact that would be relevant to the issue of whether  an Atlantic City electric infrastructure project “primarily serves” the Pinelands – but this is a South Jersey Gas Co. gas infrastructure project – wrong company, wrong type of project!

5)  Whether a repowered B.L. England facility would dramatically reduce harmful air pollution within the Pinelands would be a factual question that would be relevant to whether a BL England plant project, conducted by owner RC Cape May Holdings, was consistent with the forest standards and the CMP.

But again, first of all, this is not “new” information or a “new” argument.

The air quality benefit argument was presented by DEPin December 2013 (see also this post, and note that all the links to the DEP documents have been shut down by DEP):

Second, the argument is not accurate – as I noted, the so called “air quality analysis” did not validly compare existing emissions with repowered emissions in light of days of operation. The analysis was based emission rates.

A very different conclusion would result if total emissions were considered, based on peak plant (a few hours per day on 25 days per year) versus base load (24 hour per day, 350 days per year) operation.

Furthermore, the air quality analysis did not consider lifecycle, secondary and cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases, which are regulated pollutants under NJ DEP regulations.

Finally, the BL England plant air emissions argument does not apply to a SJG gas pipeline project – different companies, different energy infrastructures.

  • B)  Media Spin

South Jersey Gas Co. has hired a media consulting firm – here are some arguments they spun the press with:

1) There are “new” deed restrictions placed on connections along the pipeline route, thereby preventing new secondary development along the route through the Pinelands. Press of AC:

South Jersey Gas is also pursuing a deed restriction with the state Board of Public Utilities, so residents of the Pinelands Forest Area would not be allowed to tie into it, thus negating the fear it could spur development there.

“We are going to the BPU and asking them to tell us we are not allowed to connect unless ordered to do so by them,” Fatzinger said. “It puts teeth in a committment we already made.”

This also is an “old” argument.

In fact, the Pinelands Commission’s draft approval of the old MOA specifically included conditions that required such deed restrictions.

More importantly, the argument totally contradicts the “primarily serves the Pinelands” requirement. If connections in the Pinelands are prohibited, the pipeline clearly does not serve the Pinelands gas consumers.

2) There are design changes to the project – this was picked up by the Press of Atlantic City story:

The company has also changed some aspects of the pipeline design, Fatzinger said.

The interconnection station in Upper Township has been moved outside the Forest Area, and about four miles of pipeline would be laid using directional drilling rather than open-cut trenching to minimize surface impact, particularly in Forest Area, he said.

I got a kick out of this one –  first of all, removing an interconnect from there forest area is irrelevant to whether other portions of the pipeline project that remain in the forest area comply with the CMP.

But more importantly, by admitting that the prior project would have “surface impact” in the forest area, it completely contradicts the original arguments that the pipeline route would have “minimal disturbance”,  followed existing roadway right-of-way, and would haven little to no impact on the Pinelands!

  • Part Two – Background – how we got here

We restate this for context and so that people remember why the Pinelands Commission staff found that the pipeline was not consistent with the forest area standards and violated the CMP.

I always thought it was an obvious bold lie for the South Jersey Gas Corporation (SJG) – a private, for profit, corporation – to attempt to use the Board Of Public Utilities (BPU) to seek a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Pinelands Commission to resolve conflicts with the forest standards of the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

Under the Pinelands Commission’s CMP regulations, a MOA can resolve a conflict with a standard, if an “equivalent level of protection” of Pinelands resources can be demonstrated.

However, a MOA is limited to a “development initiated by a state or local public agency” (see NJAC 7:50-4.52) – it is obvious that SJG is not a “public agency” and that the pipeline was not to be “initiated” by the BPU.

That big lie failed, ironically for other reasons, when the Commission deadlocked in a 7 – 7- tie vote on the MOA on  January 10, 2014.

But, as we repeatedly warned – particularly during the Assemblyman Fiocchi ethics challenge:

Wolfe also clarified that the matter was in fact still a live “contested case” as a result of the South Jersey Gas litigation, and the matter was still pending before the Appellate Division.

Despite the Commission’s 7-7 vote on the proposed MOA, the SJG pipeline application has never been withdrawn, thus the application technically still remains before the Pinelands Commission.

Although the MOA was defeated and SJG legally appealed that action by the Commission, SJG never withdrew their underlying original pipeline application, and it always remained before the Commission.

SJG now seeks to amend and revive Commission review

Under CMP rules, the pipeline is defined as “public service infrastructure”:

“Public service infrastructure” means sewer service, gas, electricity, water, telephone, cable television and other public utilities developed linearly, roads and streets and other similar services provided or maintained by any public or private entity.

“Public service infrastructure” is only allowed in the forest area under certain conditions.

The underlying reason that SJG try to rely on a MOA was because the pipeline would violate the forest standards of the CMP, which require that the pipeline (NJAC 7:50-5.23 (b)12)

Public service infrastructure intended to primarily serve the needs of the Pinelands

The Pinelands Commission staff found that the SJG pipeline project was not consistent with the forest standards of the CMP because the pipeline dod not “primarily serve” the Pinelands.

SJG agreed with and did not challenge that finding.

Nothing has changed – legally or factually – in the design of the project to alter that original staff finding.

The only thing that has changed is the political composition of the Pinelands Commission.

Staff must demonstrate their independence and integrity and reaffirm the original determination.

  • Part Three – Conclusions and Future Directions

Here are the only talking points you need to know:

  • There is nothing of legal or factual relevance that is “new”
  • The same original conflict with the forest standards of the CMP remains
  • The Staff’s credibility and integrity are on the line – they must not bow to political pressure and must reaffirm their original finding that the pipeline is not consistent with the forest standards because it does not “primarily serve” the Pinelands. 

If staff re-affirm the prior determination that the pipeline is not consistent with the forest standards, then the only option (short of denial) is for SJG to seek “waiver of strict compliance”.

As we’ve previously noted, the CMP requires that waivers may only be issued for projects with a “compelling public need” and for which there are “no feasible alternatives” – the SJG pipeline does not meet wither of these standards.

Take a look at what Pines rules require::

7:50-4.64  Standards for establishing compelling public need    

  1. (a)  An applicant shall be deemed to have established compelling public need if the applicant demonstrates based on specific facts and the Pinelands Commission verifies that one of the following conditions exist:
    1. The proposed development will serve an essential health or safety need of the municipality or, in the case of an application serving more than one Pinelands municipality, the county in which the proposed development is located, and:
      1. The public health and safety require the requested waiver;
      2. The public benefits from the proposed use are of a character that override the importance of the protection of the Pinelands as established in the Pinelands Protection Act or the Federal Act;
      3. The proposed use is required to serve existing needs of the residents of the Pinelands; and
      4. No feasible alternatives exist outside the Pinelands Area to meet the established public need and that no better alternatives exist within the Pinelands Area;

No way this project can meet these standards. NO WAY (see also 7:50- 4.62).

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: