WolfeNotes.com

Elimination of Local Voter Approval Also A Political Test For Christie’s 2016 Ambitions

Water Privatization Scheme Comes With a Political Price

“This is such a bad deal for the citizens of New Jersey. This is crazy… just giving away our water supply.”   State Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex). 

I don’t think the Governor cares about NJ and Senator Smith’s criticisms, but the controversial water infrastructure privatization bill now on Governor Christie’s desk contains 2 right-wing litmus test provisions that pose a political challenge for the Governor that I’m sure he does care about.

Section 9 of the bill requires that labor receive prevailing wage.

In the Assembly State and Local Government Committee hearing on the bill, the two Republicans on that Committee grilled witnesses on the prevailing wage issue. They both opposed the bill on that ground and voted against it.

Republican base primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire sure don’t like what the view as government mandates that support “union thugs”.

The bill also would eliminate the current requirement for local voter approval of any privatization scheme.

Even one of NJ’s most conservative Senators and ALEC representative, Sussex County Republican Senator Oroho opposed that:

Sussex official speaks out against state water bill

New Jersey Herald‎ – Dec 16, 2014

A Sussex Borough councilwoman is concerned about how fast a bill called … a nonprofit advocacy group, to speak against water privatization at past …Oroho previously said that he would not vote for bill that would strip away .

Again, Republican base voters support home rule and voter referenda, so Christie would pay a political price for that in any 2016 Presidential primary bid.

So, just how bad does Christie want his privatization scheme?

As I’ve written, the Sweeney Democrats did Christie’s dirty work on that, and tried to appease their labor friends with the prevailing wage and right of first refusal provisions.

As I wrote,

And there is no doubt the bill has the behind the scenes support of and will be signed by Gov. Christie as a key feature in the Governor’s Privatization policy initiative (see:

• Executive Order #17 
• The New Jersey Privatization Task Force  
• CHRISTIE VETOES BILL THAT WOULD CHECK HIS POWER TO PRIVATIZE 
• Christie Pushing Park Privatization

But I was thinking about the policy, not the politics.

In that regard, because the bill would strip BPU’s ability to review the contract of sale of the public water system to determine if it is reasonable, the bill is also consistent with the Governor’s deregulatory policy.

In his first hour in office, Governor Christie issued:

• Executive Order #1 establishing a moratorium of regulations;
• Executive Order #2 calling for “immediate regulatory relief”, cost benefit analysis, and rollback of NJ’s strict State standards to their federal minimum;
• Executive Order #3 attacking regulations as “job killing red tape” and
• Executive Order #4 prohibiting unfunded state regulatory mandates on local governments

While the water privatization bill is part of the Gov.’s right wing privatization and deregulatory policy, still, the current politics may influence what the Governor does with the bill.

Personally, I would love it if he CV’d the prevailing wage, right of first refusal, and voter approval and sent it back to the Democrats in the Legislature.

Surely, that would kill it.

[PS – Note To Senator Smith: I felt the same way about your bill that privatized toxic site cleanup – crazy.]

Excess Sewer Capacity Fuels Development That Destroys Rural Character & Water Quality

Full Costs of $18 Million System and Who Pays Are Not Disclosed

DEP Ban on Cesspools Does Not Prohibit Sale of Property

Gated Retirement Developments Undermine Downtown Merchants & Community Cohesion

severe stream bank erosion along tributary to Crosswicks Creek

At the conclusion of Wednesday’s DEP public hearing on the proposed new sewer plant discharge to Crosswicks Creek, a few of the project’s supporters, none of whom spoke publicly, accused me of scaring people and providing misinformation.

Others claimed that they could not sell their property due to a new DEP ban on cesspools and failing septic systems, and that sewers were necessary to revitalize the downtown.

Apparently in response to issues raised during the DEP public hearing, the Plumsted Municipal Utilities Authority (PMUA) –  who also did not speak or formally present the project to the public at the hearing – posted bullet points on their website to explain or justify the project (see this for the PMUA powerpoint).

So, I thought I’d mention a few things that PMUA ignored and respond briefly to some of the myths, flaws, and unintended consequences of the New Egypt Redevelopment Plan and the PMUA sewer project.

• What they are not telling you or don’t want to discuss

1) Illegal discharges, cesspools, and failing septics

First of all, there are illegal pipes discharging septic and/or grey-water to Crosswicks Creek from homes and businesses. You don’t solve individual enforcement problems with a massive public sewer system – you take enforcement action, hold individual property owners accountable, force upgrade, and shut those discharges down if you have to. This is something that should have been done by the local health officer and DEP years ago.

Second, there is a lot of fear based on misinformation.

Downtown merchants and homeowners with cesspools and/or failing septics seem to think that: a) DEP’s 2012 regulations prohibit the sale of their property; b) it is impossible to manage wastewater on small lots; c) sewers are the only alternative; and d) massive new development is necessary and will pay for the sewer system (i.e. they will get bailed out).

All of this is completely false.

Here is a DEP fact sheet on the new rules, which were adopted in April of 2012.

DEP rules do not block sale of property. Replacement or upgrades to the cesspool or septic system are negotiated by the buyer and seller in the sale price of the property, just like any other condition, i.e. bad roof or antiquated heating unit etc. DEP rules do nothing to change that fact.

DEP had been working on those rules for over a decade, so all local health inspectors and local and County planners KNEW these new requirements were coming and had plenty of time to take steps to comply with them.

There were relatively cheap alternatives to failing cesspools located in densely developed areas on small lots that could not accommodate a septic field (e.g. install a septic tank in front of the cesspool). These alternatives could have been installed prior to April 2012 before the new rules took effect. The DEP rules since 1990 have required that any “correction” to a cesspool include the addition of a septic tank in front of the cesspool, effectively altering the cesspool to a seepage pit system.

Even if it was not possible to install a septic tank in front of the cesspool, the local health officer could allow a cesspool to continue to exist if he found that it was functioning and not adversely impacting public health or the environment.

With reference to smaller lots, the rules provide for a number of design considerations to deal with these situations. For example, the use of an advanced wastewater pretreatment device pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9A-8.3 provides opportunity to reduce the disposal field size in both the area required and the thickness in the zone of treatment. If a fully conforming design is not possible, N.J.A.C. 7:9A-3.16(a)1 provides the administrative authority with the ability to approve of nonconforming designs that are protective of human health and the environment.

Last, if all other options were impossible, a property owner with a failing cesspool or septic could install water conservation measures, no flush toilets, and use a holding tank.

Did your local officials tell you any of this?

No – they wanted a sewer system.

Cesspools are a Medieval technology. Construction of them was banned almost 40 years ago, in 1978. Regulations on proper construction of seepage pits have required at least two feet of unsaturated soil beneath those units since 1954. Here is DEP’s view:

These antiquated units provide no pretreatment of wastewater before discharge, allowing raw sewage to directly impact the environment. 

It is no longer reasonable, in a state as densely populated as New Jersey that has extensive natural resources that need to be protected from such discharges, to allow these obsolete units to continue to be utilized. 

Any business or homeowner that has been relying on a cesspool has absolutely no reasonable expectation that someone else will pay the cost of upgrading that system. None at all.

2) growth and community character

The DEP sewer permit is for a discharge to Crosswicks Creek of  600,000 gallons per day.

The homes and businesses in downtown New Egypt generate a small fraction of that 600,000 GPD.

Even with the proposed massive new 400 – 600 unit retirement development, less than 300,000 GPD would be required.

So why is the PMUA seeking a 600,000 GPD discharge permit?

The obvious answer is that this sewer plan is designed to promote massive new development.

Just as obvious is the fact that this plan has little to do with the publicly stated objectives to revitalize downtown New Egypt or improve water quality.

According to the 2010 United States Census, there were 2,512 people, 902 households in New Egypt (Wiki).

The extra 300,000 GPD capacity would provide enough capacity to serve 1,500 new homes – that would more than double the entire population of New Egypt – and that new growth does not include the massive new 400 – 600 unit retirement development!

3) costs, risks, and who pays

At the public hearing, I criticized the draft permit’s “anti degradation analysis” and “socio-economic analysis” for failure to disclose the full capital and operating costs of the sewer plant and distribution system and identify who would pay for them and how much they would pay.

In response, the PMUA posted these “facts” on the cost of the system, which raise far more questions. PMUA wrote:

So, let’s do a little math:

First, note that operating costs are not mentioned here. According to PMUA engineers, operating costs, for the sewage treatment plant alone (not considering all other costs of the system), will be well in excess of $1 million per year, and that’s just for O&M for the sewer plant, not the entire system. That is over $1,000 per household, according to PMUA engineers, and just for the sewer plant, not the entire system.

Second, note that legally mandatory connections fees for all homeowners and businesses in the sewer service area are not included. All property owners will be legally required to connect to the system, and connection costs could be additional thousands of dollars, depending on how far away from the sewer line the building is located.

Third, note that the risk and costs resulting from DEP fines and penalties  are not mentioned. The PMUA’s own engineers have stated that the facility’s treatment technology can not reliably meet the DEP’s proposed permit limits. Any violations of DEP permit effluent limits trigger automatic mandatory penalties – taxpayers will own the system and will have to pay for these, and they could be considerable and occur very frequently. This is a significant risk that the Town will not be able to get any developer to assume.

Fourth, if the full capital cost is $18 million – and I say “if”, because to is not clear exactly what costs that estimate includes, and whether it includes the conveyance system (pipes) – then the PMUA claims are very misleading and the math is flat out wrong.

An $18 million capital cost divided by 400 units in planned new retirement community is $45,000 per unit.

PMUA claims the retirement community will assume all costs and that they are $19,500 per unit.

For 100% of the $18 million capital cost to be assumed by the retirement development at $19,500 per unit would require a total of  923 units!

So either local taxpayers will pick up a huge tab for this sewer plant or else local officials are planning to build more than twice the number of new homes they have stated publicly.

PILOT payments are “in lieu of local property taxes”. Local property taxes should have nothing to do with sewer system costs, which are supposed to be paid by users of the system.

So, PMUA is misleading residents by blending those two very different issues in the same bullet point.

Finally, there is no legally binding agreement or financial document that can support the PMUA claims. They are assumptions, based on very rosy and unrealistic views of the ability of local officials to extract payments in a negotiated developers agreement.

It is my experience that developers always have more accurate information, more sophisticated financial capabilities, better lawyers, and more negotiating leverage than local governments.

Last, you need to consider how local authorities with the ability to raise revenues behave: they will expand their mission, staff up, buy lots of expensive unnecessary equipment, and become a political patronage hiring pit.

As a result, local taxpayers always get screwed by developers and things turn out badly. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

4) environmental impacts

There are a lot of negative environmental impacts that are not being disclosed by the PMUA or local officials.

The alleged positive water quality impacts claimed by the PMUA from elimination of cesspools and failing septic and the new sewer plant have not been supported by facts, and the PMUA’s own documents contradict some of those claims.

Let’s start with what they are not telling you:

Development of 1,900 new housing units for about 3,500 more people (400 retirement units plus 1,500 new units that could be built with the 300,000 GPD excess sewer capacity) would:

1) consume hundreds of acres of land, 2) destroy farms and forests, 3) create significant new storm water runoff, 4) exacerbate flooding and already severe erosion problems, 5) create non-point source pollution of Crosswicks Creek, 6) create traffic congestion, generate air pollution, and increased greenhouse gas emissions, 7) reduce aquifer recharge, 8) require pumping of at least 500,000 GPD from groundwater to provide water supply, 8) the combination of less recharge and more pumping will deplete groundwater and have adverse impacts on local wetlands, stream base flows, and plants, fish and wildlife, 10) the additional new development and land consumption will negatively impact wildlife habitat and populations, and 11) new development will severely alter the rural character and visual landscape.

More secondary development and infrastructure (gas lines? road improvements? sewer and water lines) will be needed to service all the new growth, and they will have environmental impacts too.

It is very likely – if not certain – that the new development will generate more pollution will offset any pollution reductions from failing cesspools and septics and make water quality worse in Crosswicks Creek.

PMUA claims that the sewer plant would “have no impact on stream flora and fauna”.

There is no evidence to support that statement and it is false.

First, see the above set of impacts the sewer plan will have.

Second, the sewer plant will discharge new pollution loads of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), heavy metals (copper, lead, nickel, zink, mercury, et al), dissolved and suspended solids, and organic chemicals, including things like household hazardous chemicals, contraceptive, prescription drugs, and endocrine disrupting compounds from the metabolism of pharmaceuticals.

As I stated at the hearing, most of these pollutants are toxic to plants, fish and aquatic organisms and some of the organic chemicals are causing profound ecological damage, including recent studies that have shown “dual sexed” fish in the Delaware River.

To claim that the discharge of these pollutants to the Crosswick Creek  – in any amount – would have “no impact” is a ludicrous claim that has no basis in science and that claim is found nowhere in the applicants documents or DEP draft permit.

5) The Redevelopment Plan and downtown New Egypt – Lousy Planning and Loss of A Sense of Place

Downtown New Egypt is surviving but not thriving. The Redevelopment Plan won’t change that, it will make matters worse.

There are national and regional economic conditions that have a far larger impact on the economic wellbeing of downtown New Egypt than the lack of sewers. There are more cost effective other things planners, architects,  and merchants can do to promote downtown revitalization that don’t involve sewers.

Local officials are making false promises to residents and downtown merchants that lack of sewers is what explains their economic distress and that sewers and new development are some kind of magic bullet that will resolve these economic problems.

That is misguided policy, poor planning, and contradicted by the town’s own Redevelopment Plan.

First of all, a large gated senior development  located in a farm field almost a mile from downtown, along roads with no sidewalks, will not help create a “vibrant, diverse, pedestrian friendly, downtown”.

Senior communities are parasites on downtown merchants and communities.

They are sterile and isolated places with no stake in the community –

Their residents won’t attend your football or soccer games or Halloween Parade or graduation or civic ceremonies.

They will not shop downtown and support your local merchants – they will go to nearby regional and more upscale outlets. Sure, they tend to have lots of money to spend, but the don’t have kids, they won’t make neighborly friendships, and they won’t get politically engaged in your local issues except to make selfish demands, which they will enforce by voting in high numbers as a block.

They will not support your school system because they pay no school taxes and have no kids and no interest in educating your kids.

Seniors have higher rates of accidents and health events – like heart attacks, strokes and falls –  that require costly emergency services. They tend to demand more security and police protection. They demand that the sidewalks are smooth, the roads get paved and snow plowed immediately – and that fire Departments and other public services are at their special disposal.

They drive everywhere and create lots of traffic and the need for costly new road improvements, traffic lights, turning lanes, signs, etc. They are politically active and can force local government to meet their needs and impose costs on the rest of the community. These are significant costs to the community that no one is talking about.

Senior citizens don’t walk 1/2 mile along roads with no sidewalks to go downtown New Egypt for a quart of milk and to shop.

Senior citizens living in gated, professionally landscaped developments don’t go to the local Agway for lawn maintenance, supplies, and home repair stuff.

In sum, retirement communities are a disaster for the downtown business district and any ability to build community cohesion and what’s called “a sense of place”.

Last, the Redevelopment Plan includes condemnation of existing homes and the use of eminent domain – even if the Plan succeeds, there are gentrification issues that must be considered.

And this is what the people of Plumsted are tying their future to.

A Test For NJ Governor Christie:

Will Christie Protect US Domestic Gas Producers by Vetoing Gas Import Project?

Will Christie Continue His Huge Support of Gas Pipeline Companies and OK The Deal?

Or Will Christie Continue to Duck The Project Due to National Political Ambitions?

We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some. . . . In fact, the problem . . . is that we’re actually producing so much oil and gas . . . that we don’t have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it where it needs to go.” ~~~ President Obama

Keep these fundamentals in mind while thinking about the off shore Port Ambrose LNG import facility:

First, for obvious economic profit reasons, the US energy industry strongly supports energy exports and offshore export facilities. So do Congressional Republicans and the Obama administration. Exports would provide a lucrative high priced foreign market and alleviate domestic low prices associated by gluts in US production, particularly for Marcellus shale fracked gas.

Second, for the same economic reasons, the US energy producers – but not all pipeline companies –  oppose energy import facilities – to protect US markets and US production and to avoid compounding low prices associated with the current market glut of gas in the region.

Third, the so called “Port Ambrose” offshore LNG project is an energy IMPORT facility that is supported by a major US pipeline company. Gov. Christie has consistently supported expansion of gas pipelines.

Fourth, it is a no brainer that the US energy industry, especially during the current steep decline in world oil prices, would strongly oppose any energy import facilities, such as Port Ambrose.

Fifth, regardless of whether the gas is exported or imported, there are huge greenhouse gas emissions associated with the operations.

Now to the story.

• Obama “all of the above” energy policy invites Climate Chaos

The Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) announced the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Liberty Natural Gas LLC, Port Ambrose Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port License Application for the importation of natural gas.  The release beings a 60 day public comment period and series of public hearings (See this for DEIS documents).

The favorable review of Port Ambrose represents another example of the Obama administration’s “all of the above” energy policy that has driven record fossil fuel production, exports, and infrastructure expansions (pipelines, rail, ports). Emissions from these oil, gas, and coal production will offset and/or exceed any greenhouse gas emissions reductions his EPA has proposed to secure.

Obama policy will drive emissions beyond what scientists see as irreversible tipping points that will result in climate chaos, including virtual destruction of current agriculture.

• Import or Export? Bait and Switch?

The Coast Guard goes out of its way to stress that this project is a import facility – and to distinguish that from an export operation:

Please note that this application is only for the construction and operation of a deepwater port that could only be used as a natural gas import facility. The considerable technical, operational, and environmental differences between import and export operations for natural gas deepwater ports is such that any licensed deepwater port facility that proposed to convert from import to export operations would be required to submit a new license application (including application fee) and conform to all licensing requirements and regulations in effect at such time of application. In addition to payment of the application fee, licensing requirements include, but are not limited to, completion of an extensive environmental impact assessment and financial resources review which would include public participation.

Why would the US government – support gas imports when US markets are glutted and at a time when the price of oil and gas are dropping to record lows?

Clean Ocean Action has proposed an explanation, suggesting that the real objective is gas exports and this project is just a bait and switch:

Port Ambrose would have a 750 million cubic feet per day capacity (by way of comparison, the recently approved Cove Point Maryland LNG export project has a capacity of 1 billion cubic feet per day).

Port Ambrose proposes to connect to the existing Transco pipeline that serves NYC and Long Island

the existing Transco Lower New York Bay Lateral in New York State waters 2.2 nautical miles south of Long Beach, New York and 13.1 nautical miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey.

Given that location, the demand for gas in NY City and Long Island region, Governor Cuomo’s ban on in NY fracking, and the outrageous regulatory bad faith that a bait and switch would entail, I must disagree with COA that this is a Trojan Horse export facility.

• What will Christie Do?

Under federal law, any final Coast Guard’s approval of the project could be vetoed by Governor Christie.

Before Christie was running for President and before Republicans were aggressively promoting energy exports, Christie exercised his veto power to block a previously proposed offshore LNG facility known as Port Liberty.

As late as March 20, 2012,  in a letter NJ Attorney General Chiesa reiterated Gov. Christie’s “steadfast opposition to the proposed deepwater port”.

But since the alternative new and modified Port Ambrose import project has been proposed, Gov. Christie has been silent.

The emergence of the new project and the Gov.’s  odd loss of his bold outspoke voice coincides with Christie’s pursuit of the Presidential nomination.

I think we all now realize that Christie will not buck the energy industry and the national republican party to protect the best interests of NJ.

• Bad News

So, with all this background in mind, I was again deeply disappointed with Jim O’Neill of the Bergen Record’s coverage. O’Neill ignores all this, while pouting Christie in a favorable light for his prior veto:

• Coast Guard issues report on off-shore gas port

The project’s opponents remain confident that Governor Christie will eventually veto the project, just as he did with a similar proposal in 2011. In his veto message at the time, Christie cited fears about damage to the state’s commercial fishing and tourism industries and concern the facility would undermine the state’s investments in developing alternative, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

Confident in a Christie veto? Absurd.

Christie concerned about undermining investments in off shore wind? Laughably out of touch.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, here’s NJ Spotlight:

• BPU Blocks Off Shore Wind Project Along Jersey Coast for Second Time

Why Is a Public University Polling Operation Ignoring Critical Public Issues?

Source: Eagleton Institute, Rutgers (12/18/14)

[Update below]

I saw todays news coverage of the latest Eagleton issues poll and decided to drop by and look at the actual polled questions.

Right off the bat, I read a trend chart that validated something I’d previously written about almost 2 years ago, see:

• Christie’s Favorable Poll Rating Due Entirely To Sandy

That trend has to be one of the most significant aberrations in political polling history – Christie’s Great Sandy Bubble.

Take a look at the poll results above – note when Christie’s favorable ratings skyrocketed and his unfavorable ratings dropped like a stone.

It was all a result of the Governor’s cynical manipulation of the Sandy disaster – his Blue Fleece Bubble has now burst.

Why has so little – to nothing – been written about such an enormous aberration in the history of political polling?

Perhaps worse, in reviewing the question and issues Eagleton polled, I was shocked to find a total neglect of all the critical public issues of the day. The issues that mean the most to the people of the State. The issues that have drawn the most attention of media and activists alike.

So, I fired off this note to the folks at Eagleton asking them what’s up with that? We’ll let you know if we get a response:

Greetings – I just checked out your most recent poll on Governor Christie’s performance.

Frankly, I was shocked to find that the issues that are demonstrably of most importance right now – as measured by several criteria – are not even on your polling radar.

In case you haven’t noticed, there are thousands of NJ residents actively involved in organized efforts – which have been the subject of huge public displays, including formal involvement at public events and informal protests – regarding the following issues:

• income and wealth inequality, loss of upward mobility, decline of the middle class, and overall fairness
• climate change, extreme weather events, and renewable energy
• privatization of public schools
• segregation of communities and public schools
• police violence and racial profiling of black men
• land use and environmental quality
• transportation
• crumbling water, sewer, & energy infrastructure
• affordable housing crisis
• cuts to unemployment, social safety net and seeming war on the poor
• immigration

Where have you been? Are you paying attention to public events? From policy wonk reports to the people in the Streets, at local government hearings, on the State House steps, etc.

Why are none of these issues on your polling radar? (and please don’t say that “education” addresses the privatization and segregation issues)

Bill Wolfe

[Update – Wow, this is perhaps the most rapid and intelligent response I’ve ever got to. Kudos to Eagleton – let’s hope they broaden their polling operations:

Mr. Wolfe,

Thank you for your email. We’re always glad when folks bring ideas to our attention.

You are absolutely right that there are many issues beyond the ones we’ve included in our routine question about the “most important issue”. The reality of survey research is that we simply cannot ask about everything every time. It’s frustrating, but true. We try to keep the questions to a reasonable length so that people are willing to talk to us, and in order to manage the costs of each Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. This means we always have to make choices about what to ask and we always wish we could ask more.

In terms of our standard issue question, we identify the top 8 or 9 issues through “open ended” questions generally once or twice a year, and then include the ones people name most in the list. So from time to time we DO ask a question that lets people tell us what issues they are most concerned about in their own words. We don’t do this every time because it is very time consuming and costly. And routinely, people tell us – in their own words – that their top issues in NJ are taxes, the economy, jobs, and education. Other issues generally fall behind these, though not always.

As for the specific issues you mentioned, we have done versions of several of those quite recently. In fact, we just asked about perceptions of state road conditions (related to a gas tax increase), as well as about the grand jury decisions in Ferguson and Staten Island.  While it has been a while, we have asked about climate change in the past – New Jerseyans strongly believe it is happening.

You can see all of our releases on our polls at our website: http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu. There you can look through years of press releases and examine our data archives which lets you look up polls all the way back to 1971. The whole site is searchable, so you can find releases on various topics over the past five years or so.

Again, we very much appreciate your interest and ideas for questions we might ask in the future.

Best wishes,

Dave Redlawsk
Director, Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling

Another Example of Gov. Christie’s National Political Ambitions

Despite horrible record, Christie DEP had the audacity to take credit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

[Update: 12/21/14: AP story:

• New Jersey critiques U.S. power plant plans, calls rules ‘impossible to implement’

Bill Wolfe, founder of New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the DEP’s letter is troubling partly because he believes Obama’s proposed rules are too weak and cede too much control to state governments in the first place.

He also said it’s the latest in a string of actions Christie has taken on environmental issues.

“He doesn’t deny science,” Wolfe said. “He’s willing to acknowledge the problem, but he’s not willing to do anything about it.”  ~~~ end update]

Tom Johnson has a great story running today in NJ Spotlight about the Christie DEP’s comments on the Obama EPA’s proposed  rule on greenhouse gas emissions reduction from existing power plants, see:

• STATE DEP CLASHES WITH FEDERAL EPA OVER GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS

 The state Department of Environmental Protection is opposing the Obama administration’s proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, calling the draft rule fundamentally flawed.

In a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, the state described the draft rules as “incomplete, needlessly complex, and impossible to implement,’’ according to a letter from DEP Commissioner Bob Martin. The state agency said the proposal could not be redeemed through mere revisions and ought to be scrapped.

Ironically, the story comes just one day after news reports of EPA’s $500,000 grant to NJ for climate change research, see:

• EPA Rewards Christie DEP’s Climate Change Denial & Coastal Management Failures

My guess is that EPA Region 2 Administrator Enck and Bergen Record reporter Jim O’Neill are both feeling pretty embarrassed right now – Gov. Christie’s DEP just told EPA to pound sand the day after they were on a very different page.

But thankfully, Tom Johnson did not buy the Christie DEP spin and held them accountable to a terrible record on climate:

Nevertheless, the state still has a long way to go to achieve an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, a target set by a law passed by the Legislature under the Corzine administration. To reach that goal, the state identified three primary programs for reducing emissions: the state’s new Energy Master Plan; a program to promote cleaner-running vehicles in New Jersey; and participation in a regional initiative to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants.

The Christie administration pulled out of the regional initiative, and efforts to promote cleaner and zero-emission vehicles have been spotty at best. As for the Energy Master Plan, some of its initiatives to produce cleaner electricity are stuck in neutral, particularly a plan to promote offshore wind along the coast of New Jersey.

Tom could have mentioned a lot more, like diverting over $1 billion in Clean Energy Fund to pay for corporate tax cuts and using the Energy Master Plan to reduce efficiency and renewable energy goals, and promote new fossil plants and pipeline infrastructure.

Despite this horrible record, the Christie DEP had the audacity to take credit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33%:

In New Jersey, the Christie administration argues it is ahead of the proposed reductions the EPA is calling for, saying it has cut carbon dioxide emissions — a primary component of global warming — by 33 percent, more than the 30 percent target the federal agency has set as the 2030 goal for the entire nation.

The Christie administration has done NOTHING to reduce GHG emissions.

The alleged 33% reduction is as result of economic recession; fuel switching to natural gas (with questionable assumptions about lifecycle GHG emissions from gas); and efficiency and renewable energy plans and programs put in place BEFORE the Christie Administration started dismantling all climate initiatives and promoting fossil energy in the new Energy Master Plan.

If anything, the Obama EPA rule sets the bar far to low on emissions reductions and it gives states far too much power and control in the design and implementation of the emissions reduction program.

The 40+ year history of the Clean Air Act SIP process demonstrates that State’s rarely if ever make timely and sincere efforts.

As I’ve written, the SIP process is technocratic, captured by polluters, and actively hostile to the activism required to make real deep emissions cuts and accelerate the change to a low carbon economy.

And politically, Jeff Tittel gets it right – this is another example in a growing list, where Gov. Christie is appeasing corporate campaign funders and putting his national political ambitions above good public policy and the best interests of NJ.