WolfeNotes.com

DEP Conducts Press Stunts While Bay Suffers “Insidious Ecological Decline”

DEP Scientist Misrepresents Declining Ecological Health of the Bay

DEP held another “Barnegat Bay Blitz” litter cleanup on Friday – like Christie Town halls – with press in tow.

Remarkably, the Asbury Park Press quoted Commissioner Martin in this absurd headline:

• Gov. Christie wants the restoration of Barnegat Bay to be part of his legacy

Legacy? I’m reminded of Tim Weiner’s great book on the history of the CIA, “Legacy of Ashes”

As we’ve written numerous times (see this and this), Gov. Christie’s record on the Bay is awful:

• Christie vetoed a bill that would mandate pollutant reductions required to restore the health of the bay;
• Christie vetoed a bill that would have authorized counties to create and fund storm water management controls;
• Christie’s DEP rolled back protections that allow sewer service and dense development in thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive lands in the bay’s watershed, increasing pollutant loads instead of decreasing them and further reducing fresh water flows into the bay;
• Christie killed the Corzine DEP’s Clean Water Act permit to require cooling towers at Oyster Creek nuclear power plant;
• DEP got caught trying to delist the Bay from the Clean Water Act’s “impaired waters list” to avoid a legal cleanup obligation – a 7/27/12 Asbury Park Press editorial called the move “monumentality wrong headed, simply flabbergasting” (see: Despair over “impaired” list);
• Christie aggressively promoted and streamlined rebuild after Sandy, ignoring opportunities to improve land use and storm water management practices; and
• DEP Commissioner Martin issued an Order that deregulated reconstruction of public infrastructure and private development.

The bottom line is that while the ecological health of the Bay has continued to decline, Gov. Christie has blocked real reforms and actually taken steps to make conditions worse.

By any reckoning, that is a horrible record on Barnegat Bay – is that the kind of legacy “Birkenstock Bob” Martin is spinning?? (and BTW, Martin denied and lied about making that smear – either that, or Constable lied. But why would Constable lie about something like that?)

But aside from Commissioner Martin’s all too predictable spin, another DEP PR stunt, and the over the top legacy claim, perhaps the worst part of the whole thing was DEP scientist Tom Belton’s misrepresentation of the science on the health of the Bay:

Tom Belton, research scientist at the state DEP Office of Science and the research coordinator for the Barnegat Bay Research Initiative, said the bay is a suburban bay, so it is not a pristine ecosystem.

“The data that we’re collecting indicates it’s not in really heavy decline,” Belton said. “There’s a lot of really good fish here … the water quality is manageable. … A lot of people’s perceptions of the bay are based on observational — jelly fish, that’s all people want to talk about.”

It is hard to know where to start in responding to that line of bullshit.

I expect something like that from the Commissioner or the DEP Press Office, but it is shocking coming from a so called “DEP research scientist” (full disclosure: I have worked with Belton while at DEP).

Whether or not the bay is “suburban” or “pristine” – whatever those terms mean, they’re not science – is irrelevant to the ecological metrics and water quality standards that are supposed to be considered under the Clean Water Act to assess the ecological health of the Bay.

Similarly, I have no idea what “a lot” of “really good fish” mean, nor is the term “manageable” a valid term of law or science to describe water quality.

Worse, Belton crafts  a red herring to dismiss those who have warned about the declining health of the bay, implying that those assessments are based on “perception” and narrowly focused on “jellyfish”.

Belton must know that exactly the opposite is the case – it is DEP that is fixated on seriously flawed water quality standards and assessment methods that ignore numerous indicators of ecological health and paint a false picture or the health of the bay.

All while DEP has failed to properly interpret and enforce the current narrative nutrient criteria with respect to eutrophication, water quality, and ecological health.

Rutgers professor Mike Kennish, perhaps the foremost expert on the Barnegat Bay ecosystem, testified to a Special Joint Senate and Assembly Hearing of the Legislature about all that back on August 13, 2012:

Kennish went into detail to explain why the DEP’s current water quality standards and assessment methods were flawed. First, because they rely exclusively on one indicator, dissolved oxygen (DO).

DO monitoring is flawed for at least 2 reasons:

1) because DEP only samples once per day in too few locations, which fails to capture large swings in DO levels throughout the day. This gives extremely misleading results, and DEP has known this for over 15 years;

2) because DO fails to reflect ecosystem health, particularly for critical indicators like submerged aquatic vegetation, fish and shellfish populations, and ecological relationships.

In response to a question by Chairman Senator Smith about whether the Bay was “impaired” under the Clean Water Act and should be required to undergo a TMDL, Kennish emphasized – with 100% scientific certainty – that the entire Bay currently is impaired and has been impaired since the 1980′s.

Kennish testified that: a) the Bay is experiencing an “insidious ecological decline”; b) that what DEP is doing is “clearly not working”; and c) that DEP water quality monitoring, standards and assessment have “no scientific validity” with respect to accurately portraying the ecological health of the Bay (hit this link for Kennish testimony, et al).

Kennish was critical of Gov. Christie’s 10 Point Management Plan and admonished DEP, concluding that they need to “seriously ramp things up”.

We wrote to EPA demanding federal intervention to force DEP to conduct a TMDL based on Kennish’s research and the DEP – EPA TMDL MOA, urging EPA to withhold federal Clean Water Act funding to NJ or conduct a TMDL themselves. 

So, for Belton to imply that critics are driven by “perception” and over-reliance on jelly fish is flat out misleading and junk science.

Here are the ecological indicators Rutgers evaluated – and they are all in decline and far broader than jellyfish:

The ecosystem-based study (“Assessment of Nutrient Loading and Eutrophication in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey in Support of Nutrient Management Planning”) is the culmination of a multi-year, interdisciplinary research effort. The project characterized and quantified the estuary’s watershed nutrient loading, physical and water quality properties, biological indicators, and impacts.

“This study paints a rather bleak picture of the ecological health of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary,” explains Mike Kennish. Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor is highly eutrophic due to years of nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment. This estuary has experienced low dissolved oxygen concentrations, harmful algal blooms, heavy epiphytic loading, loss of habitat, diminishing hard clam abundance, and other detrimental effects. Since 2004, eelgrass condition has continually declined to a low point in 2010, and macroalgal blooms occurred frequently. The loss of seagrass beds is due in part to light reductions, and has a secondary impact on animal populations inhabiting them.  Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor is an estuary in ecological decline.

An index of eutrophication developed by Ben Fertig quantifies the overall condition of eutrophication in the estuary on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best. This index integrates 74,400 observations among 85 variables for 20 indicators in 6 components and is calculated based on comparisons to ecologically relevant thresholds and is weighted based on multivariate analyses. “Unfortunately, condition has gotten worse over time in much of the estuary,” notes Fertig. Eutrophication condition declined 34% and 36% in the central and south segments from 73 and 71 in the 1990s to 48 and 45 in 2010, respectively. Index scores for overall eutrophication condition are lowest in the north segment (37 during 2010), which has already undergone severe degradation, yet “the silver lining may be modest improvements in the north segment over time,” adds Fertig. Eutrophication Index values in the north segment rose from 14 in 1991 to 50 in 2009, but sharply dropped down to 37 in 2010.

It’s bad enough I have to call out this kind of bullshit from the DEP press office – but it is another kettle of fish and truly sad when the spin comes from the so called “research scientists”.

Gov. Christie Personally Directed Series of DEP Meetings to Discuss “economic development in Hoboken”

Hoboken Mayor’s role in the Sandy aid shakedown was related to local development approvals of Rockefeller

But DEP regulatory approvals for Rockefeller are completely ignored

The Rockefeller Group was worried about the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and their granting of permits, and someone from the Rockefeller Group mentioned that Mayor Zimmer had met with Commissioner Bob Martin from the DEP and Commissioner Martin painted a bleak picture. Reiner did not recall there being a specific request from the Rockefeller Group during this meeting.  ~~~ March 11, 2013 meeting, per Reiner interview

Do reporters think it is appropriate and standard operating procedure for the Gov. to have his political arm (Office of Intergovernmental Affairs) arrange a series of private Commissioner and high level DEP meetings with a major corporation like the Rockefeller Development Group to discuss DEP regulatory approvals for a billion dollar development project?  ~~~  Bill Wolfe

[Update below]

There are two primary events that are driving the various Christie scandal investigations: 1) the GWB lane closures; and 2) the alleged “shakedown” of Hoboken Mayor Zimmer.

Investigations of those two events have generated many secondary spinoff stories, including Gov. Christie’s use of the Port Authority as a “political piggy bank”; ethical conflicts and revolving door abuses by former Port Authority Chair David Samson and Lori Grifa of Wolff & Samson law firm; and the numerous tales of political intrigue and personal mini-dramas of the Christie Administration players that have emerged as the inside story has been revealed.

Of the two, the Hoboken shakedown is clearly the more serious criminal abuse.

So today – especially given our DEP experience – we want to focus on critical and under-reported aspects of the Hoboken shakedown as it is told in the Mastro Report: the highly revealing and crucial role of DEP in the scandal.

The interview summaries for that Mastro Report reveal significant details about the Gov.’s Office, the Rockefeller Development Group, and corrupt politicization of DEP regulatory oversight.

Tons of media stories have been written about the Mastro Report and the alleged “shakedown”, or  quid pro quo at play in Hoboken.

That quid pro quo went something like this: Mayor Zimmer has alleged that Sandy aid to Hoboken was used as blackmail to pressure her for support  – in the form of local development approvals – for the proposed billion dollar Rockefeller development.

Gov. Christie so called “exoneration”, i.e. the Mastro Report, spends a lot of time on this issue.

Mastro interviewed 75 Christie Administration officials. The Report includes “summaries” of those interviews.

Of that total interviewed, 9 were DEP officials, 1 was from the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust, and 1 was a former DEP Assistant Commissioner now in Gov. Office. So 11 of the 75 people interviewed were involved in environmental approvals. 

Mastro interview summaries reveal that there were a series of 3 meetings with Rockefeller and DEP regarding “regulatory approvals for Hoboken development” and “permits”.

Those DEP meetings were arranged at the direction of Gov. Christie to explore “economic development in Hoboken” (see Constable interview summary @ page 8 re: Feb. 25, 2013 email from Renna):

On or about February 25, 2013, Constable received an email from Christina Renna in the Governor’s Intergovernmental Affairs office stating, among other things, that the Governor met with Mayor Zimmer the previous week, and that the Governor wanted Constable and Martin to meet with Mayor Zimmer to discuss economic development in Hoboken.

The DEP meeting was set up by the Gov.’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) (see Renna and Constable summaries).

The Rockefeller Development Group was invited by IGA to the March 5 DEP meeting: (Renna)

Renna believed that Kelly asked Renna to set up the meeting between DEP Commissioner Martin and Community Affairs Commissioner Constable, and Mayor Zimmer. …

Prior to the meeting on March 5, Mowers sent an email to Renna asking if it was OK for the Rockefeller Group to be part of the meeting with Mayor Zimmer and the Commissioners.  Renna recalled that she did not know who the Rockefeller Group was, and the only reason she remembers the Rockefeller Group now is because that Renna went to Kelly to ask who the Rockefeller Group was. Renna recalled Kelly said that Lori Grifa represented the Rockefeller Group. Renna can not recall whether Kelly said whether it was or was not a problem for the Rockefeller Group to attend the meeting,  but Renna said that she would not have made the decision for the Rockefeller Group to participate in the March 5, 2013 meeting without clearing it through Kelly.

There is a direct tie to Gov. Christie and the issue of endorsement (Renna @ page 19):

Renna recalled emailing David Glass (DEP Deputy Chief of Staff & Legislative Liaison) to set up the meeting between DEP and Mayor Zimmer, but after reviewing the email exchange to that effect, Renna surmised that the meeting referenced in Renna’s email to Glass (wherein Renna says, “Late last week, Governor Christie met with Mayor Zimmer of Hoboken to discuss a whole host of issues”) was probably the February 2013 meeting in which the Governor specifically asked Mayor Zimmer to consider endorsing. Renna said that she did not attend the meeting.

• The March 5 DEP meeting – “Birkenstock crowd”

There was a March 5 meeting with DEP Commissioner Martin, DCA Commissioner Constable, Gov. Office (Mowers), Rockefeller Development Group, and Hoboken Mayor Zimmer.

Remarkably, Martin somehow can’t recall the name of the “two or three others” at the meeting and the “consulting firm” (i.e. Rockefeller Development Group). But Martin DID recall this – note how Martin downplays and makes anything related to Rockefeller seem to come from Mayor Zimmer, despite the fact that Rockefeller was invited by the Gov.’s Office:

Martin recalled that Mayor Zimmer then mentioned that the Rockefeller Group potentially could play a role in putting money into the build out of the project. He recalled that discussion of the Rockefeller Group was not long, but that the Mayor mentioned the Rockefeller Group’s construction on either the north end or the south end of the city could provide protection.

But Martin fails to mention lots of critically important facts that are related to development, not flood control, specifically: 1) the Gov.’s objective for the meeting, i.e. “economic development in Hoboken”; 2) the fact that the meeting was set up by the Gov. Office IGA; 3)  at the Gov.’s Office invitation, the Rockefeller Group attended the meeting; and 4) the fact that Martin directed a followup meeting on March 26 with DEP Deputy Cantor and the the DEP Assistant Commissioner for Land Use Lennon, the DEP group that reviews development projects like Rockefeller’s.

DCA Commissioner’s Constable’s account of this meeting differs significantly from Martin’s, but curiously, they both have trouble recalling what went on during the meeting and who attended, but they both distance themselves from Rockefeller and attribute anything related to Rockefeller as coming from Zimmer.

But those recollections are belied by Constable’s recollection of Martin’s “Birkenstock” smear (Constable):

Following Constable’s March 5, 2013 meeting with Mayor Zimmer and DEP, Martin subsequently joked about the irony of Mayor Zimmer’s talking about development – suggesting something along the lines of, in a joking manner, that Mayor Zimmer was part of the “Birkenstock crowd of folks typically not in favor of development.

If Martin is joking about Zimmer’s opposition to development, that obviously suggests that development – not flood control – was disussed.

And note that neither Martin nor Constable specifically recall or even mention that Rockefeller group was at that meeting. 

But, Rockefeller involvement at that meeting is confirmed by reading Renna (IGA) summary, which blows the entire Martin/Constable cover story:

Renna believed that Kelly asked Renna to set up the meeting between DEP Commissioner Martin and Community Affairs Commissioner Constable, and Mayor Zimmer. …

Prior to the meeting on March 5, Mowers sent an email to Renna asking if it was OK for the Rockefeller Group to be part of the meeting with Mayor Zimmer and the Commissioners.  Renna recalled that she did not know who the Rockefeller Group was, and the only reason she remembers the Rockefeller Group now is because that Renna went to Kelly to ask who the Rockefeller Group was. Renna recalled Kelly said that Lori Grifa represented the Rockefeller Group. Renna can not recall whether Kelly said whether it was or was not a problem for the Rockefeller Group to attend the meeting,  but Renna said that she would not have made the decision for the Rockefeller Group to participate in the March 5, 2013 meeting without clearing it through Kelly.

Rockefeller was there.

They were invited by Mowers/IGA (Stepien’s boy).

The Gov.’s objective for arranging this DEP meeting was to discuss “economic development in Hoboken”.

Dots connected.

Martin, Constable, and Renna’s attempts to downplay these facts strongly suggest a coverup.

In our next post, we explore the followup meetings at DEP on March 26 and May 9.  There is lots of information in those interview summaries that suggest that Rockefeller Development Group was provided not only undue access, but corrupt preferential regulatory treatment.

[Update: there are multiple interviews that show DEP role 0- here is Reiner recalling a March 11, 2013 meeting with Rockefeller Group, just days after the DEP March 5 meeting

The Rockefeller Group was worried about the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and their granting of permits, and someone from the Rockefeller Group mentioned that Mayor Zimmer had met with Commissioner Bob Martin from the DEP and Commissioner Martin painted a bleak picture. Reiner did not recall there being a specific request from the Rockefeller Group during this meeting.

Curiously, Mr. Brody, a lawyer and Deputy of GORR, does “not recall” Rockefeller’s attendance at this meeting. Curious indeed. There are numerous examples of selective recall with respect to Rockefeller Group.

Reiner confirms that Lori Grifa of Wolff & Samson and the Rockefeller Group had access and were plugged in in numerous places in the Gov.’s Office. He notes that such meetings with developers were “routine”, again downplaying the significance.

But this is the kicker that suggests the cover story:

Reiner remembered coming out of the meeting with the Rockefeller group thinking that the Mayor and the Rockefeller Group were working together and on the same page. 

The Mayor has publicly painted a very different picture, and so did the NY Times story. – end update]

end update]

In the meantime, hit the links to the documents below, from our friends at PEER:

 

 

Christie Administration’s Deregulation and Disinvestment Bring Dirty Water

NJ Waters Fail to Meet Standards and DEP Cleanup Plans Are Ineffective

All While US EPA Lamely Asks:  How’s My Waterway?

Last week, we wrote about how the Christie Administration’s austerity policy was accelerating the deficit in clean water infrastructure – both wastewater treatment and drinking water systems, see:

• Christie DEP Dodges Tough Decisions of Water Infrastructure

We also posted a few pictures of one stream negatively impacted by the Fenimore landfill, see:

• A Different View of Fenimore Streams is Revealing

Of course, the “insidious ecological decline” of Barnegat Bay is another example of Clean Water Act impairment we’ve written in some detail about.

And for years, we have written about Gov. Christie’s deregulation and privatization policies.

So today, we put it all in context, based upon the data in US EPA’s new “enhanced version of “How’s My Waterway” app and website initiative.

We thought we’d outline some of the consequences off that set of Christie policies, in terms of clean water in NJ. (hit link for complete picture).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an enhanced version of “How’s My Waterway,” an app and website to help people find information on the condition of thousands of lakes, rivers and streams across the United States from their smart phone, tablet or desktop computer.

The How’s My Waterway app and website, http://www.epa.gov/mywaterway, uses GPS technology or a user-entered zip code or city name to provide information about the quality of local water bodies. The new version of the site includes data on local drinking water sources, watersheds and efforts to protect waterways, as well as a map-oriented version of “How’s My Waterway” designed for museum kiosks, displays and touch screens, available at: http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mywaterway/kiosk/.

“Communities and neighborhoods across the U.S. want to know that their local lakes, rivers and streams are healthy and safe to enjoy with their families, and providing that information is a priority for EPA,” said acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water Nancy Stoner. “The enhanced version of ‘How’s My Waterway’ provides easy, user-friendly access to the health of the places we swim, fish and boat, where we get our drinking water, and what is being done to curb water pollution. People can get this information whether researching at a desktop or standing streamside looking at a smart phone.”

Take a look at some of the “NJ highlights”  – I wish EPA made strict enforcement of the Clean Water Act as high a priority as providing information via websites and trendy user friendly app’s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did Gov. Christie’s Office Early Involvement Shape Utility Resilience Plans?

Christie Gov.’s Office’s Fingerprints are on the PSEG Plan

Shock Doctrine Applied to Billion Dollar Public Utility Regulatory Review

Was There a Wildstein War Room at BPU?

[Update: 4/10/14 – Holy moly! According to this Bergen Record story, PSEG didn’t even consider sea level rise and climate changeQ

Izzo also said that as the company looks to the future, it sees the need for more work in models by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other agencies about the effect climate change will have on the state’s coastline and inland rivers.

“There’s a whole slew of assets that, based on new FEMA maps, have some increased risk based on these designations that we haven’t made part of this first request,” Izzo said. ~~~ end update

Back when Gov. Christie was riding high – draped in his blue fleece – responding to the Sandy crisis, I vaguely recall how he demagogued strong public outrage over the utilities’ slow response to restoring power.

I seem to recall the Gov. calling the utilities on the carpet, especially JCP&L, for their poor preparation and performance, and promising reforms.

But now, 18  months later, I don’t think anyone realizes how significant an impact that the Gov.’s intervention may have had on the utility response, including PSEG’s controversial $2.6 billion (over 5 years – $3.9 billion over 10) “Energy Strong” resilience plan now before the Board of Public Utilities.

There are direct fingerprints of the Gov.’s Office on it. I don’t think that has been reported thus far.

So, with a whole new context, i.e. the passage of 18 months, political scandal, and a whole new perspective on how intervention by Gov. Christie’s Office in the GWB toll plan went down, I was just now reading Rate Counsel’s brief opposing the PSEG  Energy Strong  plan.

I was reminded of this infamous quote by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

On the afternoon of September 11, Rumsfeld issued rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of possible Iraqi involvement in regard to what had just occurred, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” — meaning Saddam Hussein — “at same time. Not only UBL” (Osama bin Laden), Cambone’s notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. “Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not.“^[56][57]

We all know the disaster that became of that Rumsfeld recommendation.

You could say that Rumsfeld was engaging in his own version of what Naomi Klein called the “Shock Doctrine” – i.e. taking advantage of a crisis to ram through a highly unpopular, costly, poorly justified, ideological agenda. Klein provides examples:

At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts…. New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters — to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy.

In Rumsfeld’s case for attacking Iraq, this was the stealth Neoliberal imperial agenda laid out in a “Project for a New American Century” – specifically see: Rebuilding America’s Defenses

The reasons I  am reminded of that quote stem from Rate Counsel’s devastating critique of the PSEG Energy Strong proposal.

Could the NJ utilities have interpreted Gov. Christie’s intervention as a green light for them, a la Rumsfled, to “Go massive”? Perhaps so.

Rate Counsel’s critique suggests that PSEG corporate managers engaged in their own form of Shock Doctrine – literally capitalizing on the post Sandy crisis.

Numerous examples of this abuse jump right off the pages of Rate Counsel’s brief:

• Early political involvement of Gov. Christie’s Office forced the agenda

In a scathing critique, Rate Counsel describes how the PSEG Energy Strong Plan was initially conceived.

Essentially, there was no planning. The chronology shows it was hurried and justified by after the fact rationales. The proposal was driven by  seat of the pants emails, with direct  involvement of Gov. Christie’s Office:

• a non-existent planning process – “Move Quickly – Go Massive – Sweep It All Up”

There was a shocking lack off planning in developing a multi-billion 10 year investment program.

The involvement of the Gov.’s Office, a remarkably short period of time to develop the plan, the lack of standard analysis, and the fact that the PSEG plan bypassed internal review, suggest, at best, a recklessly poor plan.

At worst, they suggest a cynical opportunity to seek windfall profits – a shock doctrine strategy – on the part of PSEG.

Rate counsel calls it a “wish list”:

The Company is asking for pre-approval of projected costs and a leap of faith that the wish-list put together by the Company’s engineers should prevail over the conclusions of several different independent engineers that recognized better and often cheaper alternatives.

• fundamental technical flaws

How to respond to the “climate change resilience” issue is fascinating, and raises a host of complex new scientific, economic, and policy issues.

Rate Counsel raises many of those complex issues, but ignores perhaps the most significant issues, such as:

• would we be better off investing billions of ratepayer dollars in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (renewable energy,  conservation and efficiency), instead of trying to “harden” inherently vulnerable infrastructure?
• what are the social costs of climate change? Avoidance of those costs are benefits;
• are there better ways to finance the costs of adaptation, like a carbon tax which also would incentivize emissions reductions?
• can regulatory mandates achieve more cost effective and equitable results? (e.g. polluter pays)
• how does the precautionary principle apply in risk management and capital investment planning?

But Rate Counsel does expose a series of fundamental flaws in the PSEG plan. They are too numerous to go in to detail here – those interested should read the whole brief.

But they include a failure to consider the probability of future extreme storms, to project the impacts of those storms, or to evaluate whether the proposed “hardening” investments would prevent damage to energy infrastructure.

• bypassing PSEG’s own internal project review and selection process

The PSEG proposal bypassed PSEG’s own internal review processes – and with no apparent justification:

Electric Program Review, and Selection Process

PSE&G has a long-standing, multi-level review process for capital projects proposed by its utility operating personnel. Known as the Investment Evaluation System (“IES”), PSE&G’s internal capital spending review process involves scrutiny of both the technical and financial aspects of proposed projects, prior to implementation …

As described above, the Energy Strong Program includes numerous capital projects which are both costly and significant in scope. However, PSE&G did not follow its rigorous IES process for the review and selection of its proposed Energy Strong electric projects. P-2R, p. 9. PSE&G claims that its use of a less rigorous review process was necessary because Energy Strong’s “benefits fall outside of our current scorecard metrics.” P-2R, p. 9; RCR-E-86. So, rather than vetting the proposed Energy Strong projects through the IES process, the Energy Strong projects included in the Company’s filing were selected by a group of personnel from PSE&G’s Asset Management, Engineering and Field Operations staff. P-2R, p. 6.

Rate Counsel concludes that the BPU approval of PSEG plan:

will result in a guaranteed return to shareholders, a transfer of risk from shareholders to ratepayers, and a further erosion of the integrity of the regulatory process.

In sum, it appears that PSEG decided to “Go Massive” in a bald faced Shock Doctrine strategy.

Failed leadership, warped priorities, and regulatory loopholes allowed that to happen

After nearly 18 months of Sandy recovery, there are some moves to get the bay restoration program moving again. …

Like other speakers at the Ocean County College event, Kauffman suggested this era of rebuilding after Sandy is an opportune time to fix pollution problems by including new “green infrastructure” in rebuilt neighborhoods.

But given the pace of rebuilding public infrastructure damaged from the storm, there has not been much time to incorporate those changes in a big way, noted Angela Andersen, Long Beach Township’s recycling coordinator. ~~~ Pollution, Sandy  Threaten Barnegat Bay, a $4 billion economic engine  (APP 4/5/14)

Before Sandy struck on October 29, 2012, Gov. Christie’s stated #1 environmental priority was his 10 point Barnegat Bay Management Plan. Remember that?

The DEP had launched a host of mostly public relations activities in support of that plan. Recall “The Barnegat Blitz”?

The residents of the region, the press, the legislature, academic institutions, US EPA, and coastal conservation groups all were focused on what nationally recognized  Rutgers professor Mike Kennish described as the Bay’s “insidious ecological decline” and potential ecological collapse.

Proliferating jellyfish were the symbol of that collapse.

Pressure was mounting  and consensus was beginning to emerge for the need for a federal Clean Water Act imposed solution called a “TMDL”, for “Total Maximum Daily Load”.

Here is what I was writing about all that in the weeks prior to Sandy:

• Going in Circles on Barnegat Bay – DEP Says No Impairment
• BOGUS BARNEGAT BAY CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH IS DEATH SENTENCE
• DEP Must Stop Spinning on Barnegat Bay TMDL and Impairment
• Who Killed Barngat Bay?
• DEP Decade of Delay on Barnegat Bay Warrants EPA Intervention
• Barnegat Bay Suffering “Insidious Ecological Decline”

Sandy changed all of that –

But it didn’t have to be that way.

I’ve been writing about that from many perspectives, with numerous specific criticisms of how what I call Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild Madness” is failing: wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, putting more people and property at risk, and missing huge opportunities for land use reform and risk reduction.

Many mistakes were made  – that’s water under the bridge – but they are being repeated and compounded as we speak.

The latest effort is an attempt to build awareness and support for the economic benefits of the bay in the business community.

Economist Kauffman spoke at a first-ever event hosted by the Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey, bringing together local business owners with an interest in the bay, local government and agency workers. Foundation executive director David Wheeler said the intent is to build a business constituency for stepping up restoration efforts on the bay and in its 660-square mile watershed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to build a business constituency, but that strategy will fail miserably unless conservation groups  have the spine to tell the business community that they will have to pay more to do business, they will have to restrain their economic aspirations, and they will have to accept far more regulation and regional planning.

Thus far, I see none of that.

And Straw men like this must stop:

But another environmental professional cautioned against fixating on restricting new development as a solution.

“I’ve heard that if development just stopped, everything would be fine,” said Marshall Robert, an engineer whose Asbury Park firm RowBear helps clients deal with environmental issues. In fact, Robert stressed, “if we were to preserve every last acre, that wouldn’t solve the problem … All you’re doing is maintaining pollution to the bay.”

Shame on you Mr. Robert, because no one ever claimed that all we need is a ban on new development and everything wold be “fine”.

Here are elements of the path to getting back on track. I’ve written about each one many times:

• Revitalize Citizen and Conservation Group Leadership
• Eliminate the Right to rebuild under CAFRA and Flood Hazard Act
• Close the CAFRA loophole so that individual homes/projects get DEP reviews
• Restore the Coastal Management Program at DEP
• Prepare a Climate adaptation plan, in light of sea level rise, based on a policy of strategic retreat
• Form a Coastal Commission to regionally plan, coordinate funding, and regulate development
• Invoke the Clean Water Act – TMDL Program: enforceable pollution reductions & timetables
• DEP must start regulatory integration and enforcement of multiple silo programs
• Establish a Stable Source of Funding based on realistic huge costs of restoration
• Science Driven Response – “seriously ramp things up”

Until all these things occur simultaneously and people get serious, the Bay’s fate is sealed.

It’s dead.