WolfeNotes.com

Pinelands Commission Ignores Climate Change Threats

NY’s Adirondack Park Plan Considers Energy & Climate Change

Are We Going From the Pipeline MOA Frying Pan to the Fracking BL England Fire?

The failure to address energy policy, climate change, and regional issues that impact Pinelands ecosystems are HUGE gaps in the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) that must be addressed immediately. ~~~ Bill Wolfe

The Pinelands Commission did the right thing in rejecting the proposed South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). That MOA would have set a horrible precedent and undermined the integrity of the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and the Commission itself.

But, in doing so, while preserving the integrity of the CMP, the Commission ignored the most significant threat to Pinelands forests and ecosystems: climate change.

As we’ve noted, Pines forests are already being severely impacted by climate change as a result of the southern pine beetle.

But threats come not just from the pine beetle:  climate change is altering rainfall patterns (inundation/drought) and the timing of seasons, wreaking havoc with the hydrology of the Pinelands and the water sensitive wetland, pond, and forest ecosystems that are adapted to current conditions.

Pinelands scientists have already demonstrated how sensitive Pines ecology is to water in a series of research projects designed to assess the hydrological and ecological impacts associated with withdrawal of water from pinelands aquifers (see: Kirkwood-Cohansey Project)

But pumping groundwater is just one way to modify Pinelands hydrology – rainfall patterns can have equivalent or far greater impacts: climate models suggest new cycles of heavy sporadic rainfall leading to inundation, followed by extended periods of drought.

Shockingly, all these impacts and risks – already documented in the scientific literature – were ignored by the Pinelands Commission in their review of the SJG project, a project that DEP was forced to concede would generate at least 2.5 million tons of CO2 emissions per year (exclusive of lifecycle methane emissions from fracking and distribution of the gas to the BL England plant).

Here was the totality of the Commission’s consideration of climate change impacts and risk, from the staff Report – note how they narrow the scope of review to the pipeline (not BL England and fracking) and deny current impacts and future threats:

Comments were submitted focused on the need for the Commission to address the broad issue of climate change with regard to this project. Comment suggested that the Commission consider the impacts of the project on the Pineland‟s greenhouse gas footprint. The Commission did investigate the potential for increases in fugitive methane emissions as part of this project and found that such emissions are associated with older pipelines and ancillary infrastructure. Newer construction materials are not prone to leaks. The NJDEP provided detail, noting that greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas transmission and distribution amount to 2.2% of total statewide emissions, thus NJDEP considers emissions from this sector small relative to total statewide releases. The NJDEP “considers this new pipeline to have a minimal impact on the state‟s GHG emissions”. Commenters raised concerns about climate change impacts associated with the production of natural gas. The CMP does not contain any standards for regulating environmental impacts associated with the production of natural gas outside of the Pinelands area. 

Worse, Chairman Lohbauer prefaced his vote by stating the fracking was of no concern to the Pinelands Commission.

Let me put the Pinelands Commission’s denial in perspective.

Could anyone imagine the Chairman of the Adirondack Park Agency – who oversees 6 million acres of forested lands that have been devastated by acid rain – – saying the midwestern coal power plants were of no concern because they are located outside the Park?

The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) has an energy policy that is expressly designed to:

integrate concerns for energy supply, conservation, and efficiency into Park planning, public education, and project review functions.

The policy is intended to protect  Adirondack park resources while recognizing that energy conservation and efficiency is critical to viable sustainable communities within the Park and within a global context. Wise use of energy resources and development of alternative energy resources offers an opportunity at a local level to contribute to the reduction of global atmospheric carbon levels.

Let’s repeat that APA policy:

 development of alternative energy resources offers an opportunity at a local level to contribute to the reduction of global atmospheric carbon levels.

In contrast with the APA, the Pinelands Commission has no policy – despite the fact that NJ’s Global Warming Response Act requires an 80% reduction in current GHG emissions. The lack of policy creates a huge void, as we saw in the SJG pipeline debate, that allows special energy interests to elevate their concerns over Pinelands ecology.

And here’s how the APA considers climate change in their forest protection planning and regulation: (Source EIS)

Could you imagine a freshwater fisheries scientist from a northeastern state – whose fisheries are poisoned by mercury – saying that midwestern coal plants are of no concern?

Take a look at how the state of Massachusetts manages the mercury issue – note that the scope of their concern is regional and not limited to the land area of Massachusetts.

In contrast, the Pinelands Commission has no policy to address impacts from pollution sources located outside the boundaries of the Pinelands that impact pines ecology. And the scope of their review of a project fails to consider lifecycle emissions and secondary impacts.

The failure to address energy policy, climate change, and regional issues that impact the Pinelands are HUGE gaps in the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) that must be addressed immediately.

Otherwise, we go from the pipeline MOA frying pan to the fracking BL England fire.

If  risks are “of substantial concern” to SJG, they must be of even greater concern to the Pinelands Commission 

Opponents of the South Jersey Gas Co. proposed pipeline through the Pinelands National Reserve have cited data and numerous examples of pipeline safety failures that have led to explosions, fires, fatalities, and property and environmental damage.

In response, instead of addressing those issues substantively, these issues have been ignored or the opponents been accused of fear mongering and “emotional” appeals (e.g. see the AP story that went national).[or this condescending, fact free, ill informed and flat out factually incorrect (no compelling need was required or even attempted to be demonstrated – that is the waiver standard) editorial by the  Press of Atlantic City ]

However, in South Jersey Gas Co.’s (SJG) petition to the Board of Public Utilities (BPU),  the Company explains the reason they need the “Reliability” gas line.

Basically, SJG says they need the “reliability line” because the existing pipeline is vulnerable.

SJG notes that a “system upset condition” along the existing gas pipeline infrastructure is of “substantial concern” to the company.

Such a “condition” –  a vulnerability ascribed vaguely to actions by “careless third party excavators” or “external forces” – would knock out gas service to 60,000 residential and commercial users in Cape May county: (Source: SJG petition to BPU – 10/31/13)

The BPU petition does not include “system upset conditions” resulting from pipeline design, construction, or operation.

When I asked a SJG official what a “system upset condition” was defined as, he replied that those conditions could include:

seismic event (earthquake); terrorism; explosion; fire; damage by excavation along the pipeline route; leak; loss of pressure; etc

So, in translation, I guess that means that shit happens.

But what is the probability that shit might happen?  How do we reduce that probability? What would happen if shit happened? What would be the result and impacts?

Is that an acceptable risk?

So, if the existing gas line is vulnerable to a “system upset condition”, doesn’t it logically follow that the new pipeline would be vulnerable as well?

How could pipeline design and construction avoid “external forces” like earthquake, terrorism, and excavation?

SJG acknowledges that the existing gas infrastructure is vulnerable. In fact, they base the need for the project on precisely such vulnerability resulting from vague “system upset conditions”.

Curiously, while they note the vulnerability of the existing gas infrastructure to “system upset conditions”, they do no admit the existence of such vulnerabilities for the proposed new pipeline.

Nor do they describe or discuss specific kinds of “system upset conditions”; what the probability and risks of such conditions are; or what the impacts of such conditions would pose for the Pinelands forests or the people who live there.

That is a glaring defect in the rationale for this project and its review by BPU, DEP, and the Pinelands Commission.

Sorry guys, “just trust us” is not an acceptable regulatory practice.

SJG can not have it both ways – if the existing pipeline infrastrcutreu is vulnerable to “system upset conditions”, then the new pipeline is vulnerable as well.

Those vulnerabilities must be honestly and transparently characterized, quantified, analyzed, prevented, and mitigated.

And if those vulnerabilities are “of substantial concern” to SJG, they must be of even greater concern to the Pinelands Commission in reviewing the proposed pipeline.

Thus far, that has not been the case.

DEP Threat to Close Park Put a Gun to Commission’s Head

DEP plan called “The epitome of the nanny state”

Lack of public participation & DEP Strong Arm Tactics Contribute to Embarrassing Defeat

“People do not need a safe corridor to walk through the woods.” ~~~  Bill Wolfe, Hunterdon County Democrat

NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED.  ~~~ D&R Canal Commission to DEP

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin – his initial over-reaction and clear cut plan began the problem. He was embarrassed today.

[Update 12/20/13 – Hunterdon County Democrat story: DEP plan to remove trees on Bull’s Island rejected – end update]

(The Hunterdon County Democrat wrote an excellent set up story:  Eighty ‘old growth’ sycamores targeted for removal at Bull’s Island in wake of camper’s death).

Voting to kill the plan were Robert M. Bostock, Chairman, Mary Allessio Leck, Phillip Lubitz and Bruce D. Stout.

Thank you Commissioners !!!!!

Thank you to all the people who came out today and reached out to the Commissioners to oppose the DEP plan!!

Even those Commissioners who voted in favor of the plan had serious concerns about it and wanted to see significant changes in the number of trees cut and the restoration plan.

The majority of Commissioners questioned DEP’s “risk tolerance” and preferred to simply warn the public about potential hazards from falling trees, not cut any trees, and open the park to passive recreation.

DEP simply flat out rejected that approach, claiming that hazardous trees and liability required trees to be cut.

In contrast to strong opposition to tree cutting, there was consensus on the Commission regarding support for several aspects of the DEP plan, including closing the island to camping, removing infrastructure, and designating the Central and northern portion of the island as a Natural Area.

The plan was strongly opposed by about a dozen residents, the only support coming, ironically, from Emile DeVito PhD of NJ Conservation Foundation who viewed the plan as a means to secure DEP’s commitment to a Natural Area designation for the northern portion of the island.

I was very impressed by and applaud the Commissioners, not just for the outcome of the vote, but by the way they conducted themselves. They all carefully scrutinized the DEP plan, asked DEP tough questions, and listened to public criticism. They deliberated openly and were flexible in seeking a compromise with DEP, but were firm and stood by their convictions in a brave vote.

The Commissioners all were appointed by Governor Christie, so it took courage and a strong sense of independence to reject Gov. Christie’s DEP Commissioner’s plan.  Such courage is rare – and let’s hope it spreads south to the Pinelands Commission!

Frankly, I was very surprised by the outcome of the vote and the quality of the Commissioners. I want to apologize for any inference that may have been created when I criticized Gov. Christie’s wholesale replacement of the members of the prior Commission.

DEP officials did a bad job in defending a bad plan.

DEP’s overt threat and inflexible approach to negotiating with the Commission doomed their efforts. DEP failed to listen and respond to  the Commission’s and the public’s concerns – the Commissioners were willing to provide DEP multiple opportunities to avoid a vote, requested that DEP allow for adequate public participation, and to come back with a better plan that incorporated valid concerns raised by comments.

DEP took a “my way or the highway” approach, threatening that if the Commission did not approve the DEP plan today, then they would close the park to public access for the entire 2014 year (again).

Several Commissioners took strong exception to that “threat”.

Rich Boornazian, DEP Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources – a real estate man with no environmental training or government experience

DEP Assistant Commissioner Boornazian, frankly, was an embarrassment and did an incredibly poor job responding to public and Commissioners concerns.

At one point he blurted out (this is a quote):

It would have been nice if Sandy just knocked them (the trees on Bulls Island) all down.

State Forester Lynn Fleming presented the DEP plan – she was somewhat condescending and clownish and also could not respond to several inconsistencies, contradictions and flaws the Commissioners and the public pointed out.

And DEP Commissioner Martin’s representative on the Commission, Mark Texel Director of Parks, went off on a rant in defending the DEP threat to close the park, at one point describing trees as “multi-ton fatal weapons” (verbatim quote).

(Maybe Commissioner Martin could send this team down to the Pinelands to threaten those Commissioners too – that might swing the vote for us!)

DEP’s plan was estimated to cost $352,000,  71 % for tree removal ($250,000).

I love Bull’s Islands and visit often. Having been involved in trying to stop the DEP’s poor judgements for more than 2 years now, I am extremely pleased with today’s outcome.

Next steps

1) DEP re-open the park,with warning signs posted at entrance points to the northern portion of the island;

2) DEP form a Bull’s Island park planning group to develop an alternative plan over the next 120 days;

3) that plan should include afforestation of the central portion of the island that previously was the campground; elimination of camping; removal of infrastructure; and creation of a loop trail;  and

4) DEP should form a Bull’s Island Natural Areas designation work group, headed by Emile DeVito, NJCF, who volunteered today to do that work.

Target deadline for all this is July 1.

Some ironies are too cruel to bear in silence

Let me preface and ground a post that is sure to be denounced as a deeply insensitive and disrespectful attack, in an intellectual tradition.

The philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a classic text “The Irony of American History” in 1952. The work took a painfully honest look at the reality of what he called “the  ironic element in the American situation”.

These ironic contrasts and contradictions must be analyzed with more care presently. Our immediate prefatory concern must be the double character of our ironic experience. Contemporary history not merely offers ironic refutation of some of our early hopes and present illusions about ourselves; but the experience which furnishes the refutation is occasioned by conflict with a foe who has transmuted ideals and hopes, which we most deeply cherish, into cruel realities which we most fervently abhor.

Richard Sullivan, the first Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner and longtime Pinelands Commission Chairman died last week. He was 86.

He led a long and productive career in environmental management, and served as the leader and model for an entire generation of NJ’s environmental managers.

The timing of his death should have prompted reflection on policy and shown a bright spotlight on the health of two institutions his spent his life building, the DEP and the Pinelands Commission.

It didn’t. Just the opposite.

The silence was deafening. The reflection nowhere to be found. The cowardice rank. The delusions palpable. The cynicism dripping.

There was not even an attempt to link Sullivan’s legacy of accomplishment in building institutions and public policies to the current state of affairs in Chris Christie’s NJ.

It was as if the long intimidating shadow of Christie could squelch discussion of a man’s legacy and its relevance to current policy controversies.

Instead, we got the “end of an era” meme – thank Mike for that.

(and you’all be sure to be civil in tone and keep  your  voice down, as the Governor, his minions, and the corporations dismantle everything the man stood for).

That was the thrust of this eloquent tribute from Mike Catania, which at times read more like a lecture on style and the need to speak in a civil tone than on content of Sullivan’s legacy of building strong institutions and policy (see:  THE PASSING OF RICHARD SULLIVAN: THE END OF AN ERA IN THE GARDEN STATE

Aside from the “end of an era” (obviously a disparaging allusion and surrender to notions of the end of big government, regulations, and planning and an acceptance of corporate dominance), here’s how Catania considers Sullivan’s legacy with respect to the Christie regime, closing his essay with this wish:

I shall miss Richard dearly, and I can only hope that the civility, respect, and reliance on sound science that he practiced so fervently will not pass away with him.

Civility, respect, reliance on science – features of character and style – not the substance of a legacy of laws, regulations, institutions, plans, policies, enforcement, and budgets – all of which are contradicted by our current Governor Christie.

And in another painful moment, before the last Pinelands Commission meeting, we heard a personal eulogy from newly installed Commissioner Avery (on recently deceased Commissioner Haas), followed by very brief personal remarks by Commissioner Ashmum regarding her friendship with Sullivan, and then paid along  moment of silence to Sullivan before the Pinelands Commission meeting last friday – the meeting where the Commision sat back in silence as the AG’s Office and State Ethics Commision attacked one of their most prominent members.

The Commission meets in a lovely building named after Sullivan. Is that a contradiction or an irony?

Plumbing the depths of cynicism and contradiction, DEP issued a timely and opportunistic press release, touting the “Christie Administration’s remembrance “– all while the Christie/Martin Team dismantle DEP and gas the pines.

So, lets cut to the chase and ask: What would Richard Sullivan have done in the height of his powers?

Would he have allowed a gas pipeline MOA and an $8 million bribe to sully the integrity of the CMP he wrote and compromise the independence of the Pinelands Commission he helped build?

Would he sit back silently as the former lobbyist for the NJ Builders Association – installed by Governor Christie as the Commisison’s Executive Director – manipulated, misled, and lied to the public and Commissioners in her loyalty to the Gov. in promoting a gas pipeline through the pines in violation of the CMP forest protection standards?

Would he have back sat in silence as hacks from Trenton targeted a fellow Commssioner on trumped up ethics charges?

Would he have allowed the staff and Commissioners to ignore climate change and fracking, perhaps our two most pressing environmental issues, in the course of review of a regional fossil fuel infrastructure project?

Would he have let DEP hacks waltz into a public hearing on the draft MOA – at the 12th hour – to a huge controversy they helped create, and then let them leave without responding to questions from Commissioners and the public regarding their testimony in support of the project?

Sullivan was a gentleman, not a puppet – so, I don’t think so.

Which brings me to two closing points as I wrestle with the absurd contradictions we now face at the Commission:

Kate Millsaps of the Sierra Club made an excellent point during her testimony on Friday opposing the pipeline.

Millsaps told the Commisison a stunning and painful truth:

that the federal Natural Gas Act, a weak federal law written by and for the gas industry, has stricter environmental impact statement and review requirements for interstate gas pipelines than the Pinelands Commission does!!

How could the energy industry dominated FERC conduct more aggressive environmental impact reviews than a regional State land preservation oriented  institution like the Pinelands Commission? How is that possible?

That is similar to a point I previously made, where I criticized the absurdity of the Commission’s review process and exposed the fact that the South Jersey Gas Co. has a greater concern  for climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from their pipelines than the Pinelands Commission does.

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.

So, a question for our current Commissioners at the Pinelands and DEP: what would Richard Sullivan have done about all that?

BL England Plant Gets Below Market Rates and Millions in Subsidies

South Jersey Gas Seeks Rate Increase Before Pipeline is Even Built

South Jersey Homes and Businesses Will Pay More To Subsidize BL England

Corporate Profits Prevail Over Public Interest

“Today, a new era of accountability and transparency is here.” ~~~ Gov. Chris Christie, Inaugural speech, Jan. 19, 2010

Compliance and Ethics Program: Since our company was founded, we have had a reputation for being an honest and fair company with which to do business. Over time, we have demonstrated the ability to operate transparently by establishing policies and procedures that ensure integrity and fair business practices. ~~~ South Jersey Industries

[Update below]

On November 29, 2013, South Jersey Gas announced their request to BPU for a huge rate increase, which would cost the average homeowner, at least $18 per month:

Should the full amount of the request be approved, a typical heating customer’s monthly bill at 100-therms would increase by $18.43, from $128.31 to $146.74.

For context of how much gas 100 therms is, consider the fact that the proposed Pinelands pipeline to BL England  is designed to carry 20 million therms per year – so, doing the math, the proposed rate increase, if applied equally to the BL England plant, should be a whopping $307,176 per month.

But that ain’t gonna happen – businesses and homeowners will see huge rate increases while BL England gets cheaper gas and exempted from energy taxes and charges.

That’s right – BL England will pay far less for gas than other south jersey businesses and homeowners. All while consumers pay for the lion’s share of a $100 million private gas pipeline dedicated to the BL England plant, as well as the $8 million bribe to the Pinelands Commission to get it approved.

Is that all part of SJG’s “honest and fair business practices”?

The SJG rate increase request appears to include an up front recovery of the full costs of the controversial $100 million Pinelands pipeline, which was scheduled to begin construction in 2013.

Do typical local construction contractors get paid up front for work not even done yet? (see the controversial Christie policy that allowed that:  GAS UTILITIES LOOK FOR RAPID RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE)

This filing primarily seeks to recover costs for $553 million of necessary infrastructure investments made to enhance the safety and reliability of SJG’s system that will have been and will be spent between September 2010 and the end of 2014. 

But regardless of whether this huge SJG rate increase reflects the costs of the proposed Pinelands pipeline, why did Board of Public Utilities (BPU) keep the economic details of a below market gas deal between South Jersey Gas Co. (SJG) and the BL England plant (BLE) secret?

Is that part of Gov. Christie’s “new era of transparency”?

Here is the secrecy provision from the BPU’s April 29, 2013 Order:

(Source: BPU Order April 2013)

If you look at the fine print of you gas and electric bill, you might see that as a consumer of energy, you pay a very small per unit energy consumed fee  known as the “Societal Benefits Charge” –  that funds clean energy programs is NJ. It cost a homeowner a few dollars a month, but large energy consumers, like the BL England plant, could pay millions of dollars a year.

So why did BPU grant BL England millions of dollars of subsidies from exemptions from charges like the Societal Benefits Charge, paid by all other energy consumers?

Here are the exemptions from the BPU Order:

(Source: BPU April 2013 Order)

Could that secrecy and all those millions of dollars in subsidies and loopholes it be the result of insider access and revolving door lobbying of well connected former officials?

Consider the fact that BL England’s lead legal Counsel is John Valeri, now at Wolff Samson – a former lawyer from the Whitman Governor’s Office and EPA.

So it is almost certain that Valeri’s inside access produced these kind of results, which provide huge corporate profits but are strongly not in the public interest or those of south jersey ratepayers.

Did Mr. Valeri work on any energy issue while employed by the Governor?

Why aren’t any of these issues investigated or reported in the press?

Are there any intrepid reporters out there? There are at least 3 huge stories here –

• corporate subsides, tax breaks and loopholes – while small consumers get screwed
• secret regulatory deals
• revolving door access from former Governor’s Office lawyers and questionable ethics

Hello!

Update: 12/19/13 – Looks like BL England got a much better deal from BPU and that south jersey consumers got screwed, compared to this deal in central Jersey. South Jersey consumers pay 60% of the $100 million pipeline, which is dedicated to the BL England plant. The Cape May “reliability” crap is cover for that ripoff. On top of that abuse, south jersey consumers pay far more for gas than BL England does::

N.J. Natural Gas strikes long-term deal to provide service to Sayreville power plant

“Red Oak, a natural gas-fired plant, will be responsible for the cost of connecting to NJNG’s distribution main, which now runs within 600 feet of the facility.

New Jersey Natural Gas, which is a subsidiary of New Jersey Resources, said its customers won’t pay for the cost of connecting or providing natural gas service to the plant.” – end update]