WolfeNotes.com

DEP Is A National Laggard In Adopting Standards To Protect Wetlands 

14 Other States Have Adopted Standards

“This rich data set includes sediment chemistry and water quality information that could be used to build a foundation for development of wetland water quality standards in the future.” (NJ DEP, 2019, page 14 – 15)

Back in 2019, the Murphy DEP adopted a New Jersey Wetland Program Plan – 2019 – 2022:

New Jersey has taken a multi-faceted, comprehensive, approach to managing and protecting freshwater and coastal wetlands. This four-year Wetland Program Plan is an update of the first Wetland Program Plan the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) developed in 2013. It provides a framework for the State of New Jersey to strengthen the core elements of its wetland program and to continue to reach the goals listed herein. The steps outlined will serve to direct current and future wetland protection and management efforts along a coordinated path to the benefit of New Jersey’s wetland resources and the quality of life for future generations.

That 2019 Wetlands Program Plan highlighted the need to adopt “water quality standards” for wetlands and made a commitment to adopt such standards necessary to protect wetlands.

Going back to the Whitman Administration, the NJ environmental and conservation community has long called on DEP to adopt water quality standard for wetlands, particularly to provide enforceable standards to protect wetlands from development, stormwater runoff, and withdrawal of groundwater.

At Sierra Club, I was a member of the McGreevey Transition Team and proposed such standards to the incoming administration and later worked to make that happen inside DEP. After leaving DEP, in 2005 I testified to the NJ Clean Water Council:

11. Strengthen wetlands protections

Improve protections of wetlands by: a) establish biological and hydrological surface water quality standards to control all activities, including those located outside regulated wetlands, that could impact wetlands, such as DEP water allocation, land use, and stormwater management permits;  

Importantly, as highlighted by the current drought, those standards would also protect the hydrology of wetlands, from both too little water (e.g. from water allocation permits to pump groundwater that drain wetlands) or inundation from too much water from stormwater runoff of development. Relatedly, interested readers should see the Pinelands Commission’s recently adopted standards and the science of the Kirkwood-Cohansey Project:

First, what are the probable hydrologic effects of groundwater diversions from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer on stream flows and wetland water levels?  Second, what are the probable ecological effects of induced stream-flow and groundwater-level changes on aquatic and wetland communities?

So this is not a novel issue. It is a long time deficit in the DEP wetlands program.

As a result, wetlands are being destroyed as developers evade real enforceable regulatory restrictions.

In seeming to finally bite the bullet and make a commitment to such regulatory standards, back in 2019, DEP designated water quality standards a “core element” of DEP’s wetlands program:

“Core Element 4: Wetland Water Quality Standards

The USEPA guidance for states and tribes developing Wetland Water Quality Standards indicates that water quality standards for wetlands may differ from other traditional surface water standards. They can be derived and supported using measurements of wetland function or condition and rely less on water chemistry parameters and more on a suite of measures such as ecological services and vegetation or macroinvertebrate diversity to identify and protect the full range of wetland functions and/or ecological condition.

The effort to develop meaningful and defensible Wetland Water Quality Standards is occurring nationwide and is well reported in publications and other resources by EPA and the Association for State Wetland Managers. For example, guidelines and templates are available to assist states in the process of developing narrative or numeric wetland water quality standards. To date, 14 states have developed narrative or numeric Wetland Water Quality Standards and information from these states would be used to inform New Jersey’s approach in considering the feasibility of developing WetlandWater Quality Standards.  The Association for Clean Water Administrators focal area of Monitoring, Assessment and Standards will also be an important information resource during this process.

The State of New Jersey has been a national leader in developing robust state water quality standards based on monitoring and assessment data. Similarly, as New Jersey considers the possibility of developing Wetland Water Quality Standards, wetland monitoring and assessment data collected by wetland scientists in the state would provide critical information on wetland condition and function using a reference-based approach along a gradient from high to low ecological integrity. Ecological integrity assessment data on landscape and buffer condition, vegetation, soil and hydrology metrics and environmental stressors has been collected during statewide and USEPA National Wetland Condition Assessments. This rich data set includes sediment chemistry and water quality information that could be used to build a foundation for development of wetland water quality standards in the future.“ (page 14 – 15)

The DEP typically justifies failure to adopt new regulations because they lack sufficient data to support new rules or they lack EPA approved methods.

Lack of sufficient data and EPA approved methods was exactly DEP’s rationale in recent denials of petitions for rulemaking to set water quality standards for toxic aluminum and to implement their recommended “Treatment Based Approach” to protect drinking water from unregulated chemicals.

But in this case, DEP touts the existence of a “rich data set” for “development of wetland water quality standards”, including the experience of 14 other States and EPA approved “guidelines and templates are available to assist states”.

There are rich NJ specific data, well developed science, and EPA approved methods. There is no reason for DEP not to act.

After noting that 14 States had already adopted such standards, revealingly, DEP wrote that NJ “has been a leader” – past tense.

DEP has since failed to propose water quality standards for wetlands.

Worse, the DEP’s 2023 – 2027 Update to the 2019 – 2022 Wetlands Plan delayed even the “consideration of options” for SWQS until after 2027, see: page 19, action #3.

DEP rescinded the prior 2019 commitment to develop water quality standards for wetlands, and now will merely “consider options” and will continue that consideration through 2027:

Consider options for wetlands-specific quality standards (narrative and numeric) through collective exploration involving NJ DEP Natural and Historic Resources, Science and Research, Land Use Management, Water Resource Management, as well as the Pinelands Commission and Highlands Council

The Murphy DEP has made NJ a national laggard. They just injected at least another decade of delay, which will allow destructive sprawl development to continue.

DEP is going in reverse.

DEP is not interested in protecting wetlands in a regulatory way that might stop development.

Where the hell is the NJ environmental community?

This is just another major issue that they have abandoned work on as they became cheerleaders.

New Commercial Space Program Would Funnel Billions To Musk

Abolish NOAA, Eliminate Climate Science, Privatize National Weather Service

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ~~~ FDR “Message to Congress On Curbing Monopolies” (1938)

I admit that I have not read the entire 1,000 page Project 2025 document.

In focusing on the chapters on Executive Power, EPA, and the Department of the Interior, I’ve missed a lot. A whole lot.

Absolutely insane stuff like this – and this was written by one of the so called “policy experts” who are writing the Executive Orders and proposed regulations Trump will issue on Day One:

Chapter 21 – Department of Commerce: 

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories. (p. 664)

The National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is housed in the Department of Commerce. NOAA’s  work includes incredibly critical climate science, ocean science, fisheries, and the national weather service.

So today we highlight the truly insane recommendations on NOAA.

But buried in the ruins of the dismantling Project, there are some programs that need to be expanded. Guess which ones?

Elevate the Office of Space Commerce. The Office of Space Commerce is the executive branch advocate on behalf of the U.S. commercial space industry. This office should be the vehicle for a new Administration to set a robust and unified whole-of-government commercial space policy that cements U.S. leadership in one of the most crucial industries of the future. (p. 677)

The expanded Office of Space Commerce just so happens to fit nicely within another major new government program: (Department of Defense, p. 117)

U.S. SPACE FORCE

U.S. space forces conduct global space operations to sustain and enhance air, land, and sea effectiveness, lethality, and superiority by providing secure broad-band global communications (precision position, navigation, and timing accuracy);attack warning and threat tracking and targeting capability (real-time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information); and their assured continuity of operations both by defending U.S. assets and by conducting offensive operations that are capable of imposing unacceptable losses on adversaries that might seek to attack them.

The Intelligence Community (p.229):

The Importance of Space. With China developing increasingly capable space and counterspace technologies and Russia taking more aggressive action in space, space has emerged as the latest warfighting domain

The common thread of these programs is billions of taxpayer dollars to Elon Musk’s Space X and related data, infrastructure, AI, and software support services.

There could not be a better example of the totally corrupt crony capitalism model that will operate under a Trump Administration: Dismantle, deregulate, and privatize government, while transferring taxpayer money to the Oligarchs and corporations.

The NOAA dismantling recommendations rise to the level of juvenile insanity. A few examples reveal their ideological agenda:

Policy

Ensure senior policy and decision-making positions are always held by political appointees. (p. 668)

NOAA is smeared as a driver of the “climate change alarm industry”:

Together, these form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity. (p. 675)

NOAA science and information services, like the National Weather Service and critical tasks like storm and flood warnings, should be eliminated and privatized:

NOAA today boasts that it is a provider of environmental information services, a provider of environmental stewardship services, and a leader in applied scientific research. Each of these functions could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality.

More gems: (read the full Chapter for details)

• The NWS provides data the private companies use and should focus on its
  data-gathering services. Because private companies rely on these data, the NWS
  should fully commercialize its forecasting operations.
• Review the Work of the National Hurricane Center and the National
  Environmental Satellite Service
• Streamline NMFS.
• Harmonize the Magnuson–Stevens Act with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
• Withdraw the 30×30 Executive Order and Associated America the Beautiful Initiative.
• Modify Regulations Implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
  Endangered Species Act
• Allow a NEPA Exemption for Fisheries Actions
• Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

And they pull no punches and make no bones about it, making it perfectly clear that political hacks will over-ride science:

Ensure Appointees Agree with Administration Aims. Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area.

Advisory Committees. Due to the nature of the Department of Commerce’s portfolio, many of its advisory committees are populated by activists from organizations openly hostile to conservative principles who use the committees to impede conservative policy. Upon entering office, all such committees should be reviewed regarding whether they are required by statute and abolished if they are not. Membership of the remaining committees should be reconstituted to ensure they are sources of genuine expert advice and productive contributions to the policy-making process. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) compliance and awareness of any ways the committees have been written into regulations should be considered

The corrupt program and policy agenda is a disaster for climate, weather, oceans, fisheries, scientific integrity and honest information and government services the American people rely on on a daily basis.

(And you can’t just get an App for that)

It must be stopped.

DEP Response To Public Records Request Reveals A Total Blank

“This information is not telling you want (sic) to do.” (DEP State Geologist Steve Domber memo to water purveyors,  11/20/24

heron doesn’t have a lot of water to wade in. Alexauken Creek, West Amwell (July 11, 2010). Stream flow is even lower today. (photo: Bill Wolfe)

We’ve been here before.

During a drought, there is less water in the river – and less water is released from the reservoirs to maintain the flow of the river – which means less dilution available for pollution, which means the concentrations of pollutants are higher.

This means that everything that lives in the water (“aquatic life”, particularly sensitive species like trout) and relies on water (wetlands, stream buffer lands) is impacted negatively, including the drinking water systems that take that water from the river and treat it and send it to your home.

With respect to impacts on trout, Trout Unlimited is very concerned about impacts on Delaware Watershed trout fro reduced releases from NY City Catskill reservoirs. TU warned:

As many anglers and other river watchers have noted, significant reductions in releases occurred during the brown and brook trout spawning season. There’s no sugarcoating it; this is a painful situation for everybody.  FUDR and TU are working with NYC and NYS looking for a path forward that will prevent further damage to the river and the fishery.

NJ has similar problems, including releases from Newark Watershed reservoirs to the Pequonnock River.

This means that during a drought, all the technical assumptions that DEP relies upon to set water quality standards and pollution discharge limits and treatment technology and risk assessment and minimum passing flows and reservoir releases are not valid. Keep in mind that there are hundreds (over 500) chemicals that DEP has been detected in NJ drinking water supplies that are NOT REGULATED. Their concentrations are increasing too.

The DEP Commissioner’s Administrative Order on the drought explicitly directs DEP to consider impacts on water quality (see paragraphs #5 and #6).

This is a big deal and a serious problem you would think DEP would be concerned about.

You would be wrong.

Over the last weeks, I’ve tried multiple times in multiple ways to get relevant information from DEP on the drought’s impacts on water quality and resultant risks to drinking water.

I’ve written to ask the DEP Commissioner. I’ve testified before and asked questions of the Drinking Water Quality Institute and the Water Supply Advisory Council and gotten stonewalled.

Last week, I filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for specific data on water quality above drinking water intakes, including documents and studies, based on DEP’s own Plans and documents, including DEP’s experience with the DEP’s 2016-2017 drought Order. For example, here is one of 3 OPRA requests I filed:

I request the following public records regarding the implementation and enforcement of Commissioner LaTourette’s ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2024-15, specifically with respect to paragraphs #5 and #6 and the “potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water” set forth in paragraph #6. https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/drought/ao2024-15.pdf 

1. Technical Reports and data regarding “concerns around water chemistry” and the “potential for chemical interactions between different treated waters and how that could impact corrosion of lead in domestic plumbing or lead service lines” (quoted language is from DEP Statewide Water Supply Plan, see Chapter 7, pages 204-205)

2. Technical Reports and data regarding the potential to “disturb biofilms and mineral deposits within distribution infrastructure and can create poor water quality conditions for customers.” (quoted language is from DEP Statewide Water Supply Plan, see Chapter 7, pages 204-205)

3. Technical Reports and data regarding “the concern of water quality impacts as a consequence of transferring water in ways beyond typical flows remains” (Water Supply Plan, see Chapter 7, pages 204-205)

4. Correspondence between the Department and permitted water purveyors regarding #1 – #3

Yesterday, I received DEP’s reply.

There are no monitoring data on water quality above intakes to understand the drought or levels of unregulated and regulated pollutants, or the ability of drinking water systems to treat this water.

There are no technical Report by DEP or water purveyors regarding impacts of transferring water and water chemistry leaching lead (the Flint, Michigan disaster).

All DEP provided were about 150 pages of emails regarding a single November 14, 2024 meeting with the water purveyors. The DEP meeting agenda did not even include water quality – here it is, no mention of water quality, or ecological or fisheries impacts either:

Particularly, the Department would like to discuss the following:

• System demands

• Passing Flow/Reservoir Release Modifications

• Reservoir operations updates

• Bulk Transfer Considerations

• NJDEP Reservoir Model Forecasting capabilities

• Recurring meetings

The only water quality issue raised in those emails was the risk of salt water intrusion on the Metedeconk River and risks to the Brick Municipal Utilities Authority system.

Worse, DEP went out of their way to highlight the fact that DEP was merely providing information and not requiring the water purveyor to do anything. Check this out for how lame DEP regulators have become – this email involved a model DEP created to optimize the releases from Split Rock Reservoir to augment Boonton Reservoir:

Please be aware that NJGWS is providing this information to help inform your thinking in regard to the best use of SplitRock. This information is not telling you want (sic) to do.

It is DEP’s legal responsibility to tell regulated water companies what to do!

Last year, I filed a petition for rulemaking to force DEP to monitor and mandate treatment to remove unregulated chemicals DEP knows are present in drinking water sources.

DEP denied that petition.

In the DEP denial document, they emphasized and touted their leadership

Monitoring and Disclosure of Unregulated Contaminants

The petitioner requests Department rulemaking to establish requirements for the monitoring of unregulated contaminants and the disclosure of any past and future occurrence of unregulated contaminants. As described in brief below, the Department’s many existing research initiatives, monitoring programs, intergovernmental collaborations, and regulatory efforts to address unregulated contaminants make clear the longstanding policy and practice of the Department to monitor unregulated contaminants and share occurrence data with the public. The petition is denied, insofar as it misunderstands or ignores Department policy and programs that already serve the requested ends, therefore rendering the petition moot.

I guess I’ve exposed that bullshit, specifically THIS DEP whopper:

the longstanding policy and practice of the Department to monitor unregulated contaminants and share occurrence data with the public.

Council Evades Specific Questions, Says Water Quality Is “Not Our Job”

Murphy DEP Doing Nothing With Respect To Water Quality Risks Of Drought

The NJ Water Supply Advisory Council held their regular monthly meeting today remotely. They play an important role in developing the Water Supply Plan and the Council is involved in DEP’s drought management:

P.L. 1981, Chapter 262, also known as the Water Supply Management Act was enacted by the Senate and General Assembly concerning the management of water in New Jersey and ensuring an adequate water supply for its residents. Also established by this Act was the Water Supply Advisory Council (WSAC), which advises the Department concerning the next iteration of the New Jersey State Water Supply Plan (NJSWSP) and other related water supply resource issues. At this time, the WSAC is consists of eleven members who are appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate. The eleven representatives include the agricultural community, industrial and commercial water users, residential waters users, private watershed protection associations, academic community, golf course superintendents of NJ, and two members each from investor-owned water companies and municipal or county water companies along with a representative of the nursery/landscapers/irrigation contractors industry

The only “environmental” or public interest member is Jennifer Coffey, the Executive Director of ANJEC (as the Private Watershed Protection Associations rep – in an Acting capacity.)

I attended remotely and posed the same questions to the Water Supply Advisory Council that I posed last week to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute regarding water quality issues related to the drought and NJ’s water supply system. The DWQI referred me to the WSAC for response to the following questions (specifically expressed based on text from DEP’s own documents):

1. water quality monitoring upstream of drinking water intakes
2. water transfers and concerns with water chemistry (like the Flint, Michigan scandal)
3. status of a “Treatment Based Approach” for hundreds of unregulated chemicals

The NJ drinking water system is heavily reliant on re-use of industrial and sewage treatment plant wastewater discharges, who provide the large majority of the flow of rivers used for water supplies.

The existence of pollution discharges directly upstream of drinking water intakes raises OBVIOUS concerns, particularly during drought when river flows are dominated by wastewater discharge and particularly given the presence of hundreds of unregulated chemicals, euphemistically referred to as “emergent contaminants”.

For context: the chemical that caused the notorious childhood cancer cluster in Toms River NJ was an unregulated emergent contaminant, just like the current “forever chemicals” getting so much attention and microplastics (this link is a teaser for upcoming posts).

The Chairman of the Council simply refused to respond to my questions, by claiming (falsely) that the questions were beyond the scope of the Council. DEP experts who staff the Council sat mum, as they practically hid under their desks.

But the “environmental” and “public” member, Ms. Coffey, felt the need to respond and interjected to attempt to rebut my questions, dismiss my concerns, tout the DEP, and defend the Council and the Water Supply Plan!

As Joe Biden likes to say: Let me be clear. Ms. Coffey is an ill informed, ignorant, and dangerous hack.

I attempted to respond to her misstatements, but was prohibited from speaking by the Chairman. So much for public dialogue!

Here is my immediate email reply to Ms. Coffey after the meeting ended (with a copy to DEP Commissioner LaTourette):

Jenn: Your attempt to rebut reveals that you don’t know what I was saying or what you are talking about. 

1) NJ Water Supply Plan – source water chemistry concerns, Flint Michigan redux:

Specifically, the Water Supply Plan revealed disturbing conditions during the 2016-2017 drought, at page 204 – 205 of Chapter 7

“as part of the 2016 Drought Warning, water transfers were ordered between several systems in order to preserve storage for those systems at highest risk. As a result, an estimated 1.8 billion gallons of water was preserved in critical reservoirs as a result of water transfers ordered between 2016 and 2017.

However, one finding from the 2016-2017 drought was reluctance from many water suppliers to make the complete transfers as ordered due to concerns around water chemistry. Following the 2015 re-emphasis within DWSG on the implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule, many water suppliers became more aware of the potential for chemical interactions between different treated waters and how that could impact corrosion of lead in domestic plumbing or lead service lines. Since then, water suppliers, particularly in the Northeast region have improved their understanding of the chemical interactions of their waters. However, the concern of water quality impacts as a consequence of transferring water in ways beyond typical flows remains. Reversing flows at interconnections or distribution and transmission mains can disturb biofilms and mineral deposits within distribution infrastructure and can create poor water quality conditions for customers.While in acute emergency conditions transient water quality issues like this may be overlooked by some customers, it may still have overall damaging effects on public trust in the quality of their tap water. Regular maintenance and proactive efforts to enhance distribution water quality remain essential to minimize these disturbances when they do occur.” (end quote)

2. The DWQI Recommended A “Treatment Based Approach” for “Emergent contaminants” – PFAS, PFNA, PFOA, et al are not the only ones – READ DEP’s REPLY TO MY PETITION FOR RULEMAKING in the December 4, 2023 edition of the NJ Register (see: 55 NJR 2430(a)

3. A fundamental of Climate science says the historical data and trends are no longer valid. DEP climate science report and recent regulations recognize that with respect to rainfall and flood elevations.

But the WS Plan is still based on old data and invalid statistical methods.

4. Source Water Sampling – Read the WS Plan – response to public comments document:

DEP’s “Response to [Public] Comment Document” on the draft plan:

“Currently, the Department currently has limited authority to require individual and untreated source water quality data. Future water supply plans are anticipated to take this work further and these comments will be considered as that occurs. Recommendations in the Final Plan are made to require raw water/pre-treatment water quality data for many public supply sources.” (end quote)

You obviously are clueless about all this and are an embarrassment.

Wolfe

Gov. Murphy needs to replace this unqualified cheerleader.

The Unitary Executive Runs Into the Wall Of the Corporate State

One of the least talked about and most significant authoritarian threats from the Trump Administration’s “Project 2025” is what is known as the “Unitary Executive”.

Trump’s authoritarian view of his Presidential powers under the “Unitary Executive” are laid out in the first Chapter of Project 2025 “White House Office”.

Chapter 2, “Executive Office of the President Of The United States“, puts a finer point on it, and does not hide the radical authoritarian intent:

In its opening words, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”1 That enormous power is not vested in departments or agencies, in staff or administrative bodies, in nongovernmental organizations or other equities and interests close to the government. The President must set and enforce a plan for the executive branch. Sadly, however, a President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country.

The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people.

Trump has said he wants to be a Dictator, and this is how he will do it.

Basically, what it amounts to is consolidation of power in Trump’s White House and elimination of the concepts of independent regulatory agencies and the progressive era and New Deal  of norms of expertise, the public interests, science, and the civil service.

In their place will be government by the fiat of Trump’s authoritarian power, administered by a cadre of political loyalists, lackeys, and nepotism. This circus will be augmented by a shadow government “DOGE” comprised of his billionaire Tech Bro’s like Elon Musk, Peter Theil, & Co.

Like Trump’s White House staff appointments, this pack of incompetents and ideologues will not face FBI background checks and Senate Confirmation.

Trump will dictate policy and decisions via Executive Order and management edict; hire and fire heads of agencies and 100,000 expert civil servants; eliminate entire agencies; use government for retribution; and reward his billionaire backers via contracts, subsidies, privatization, and deregulation.

Significantly, he will over-ride Congress’s core power of the purse by impounding appropriated funds, e.g. withholding Social Security payments, educational funding, or federal aid to Democratic States and cities who resist and don’t toe the line.

[Note: and Trump doesn’t need a Government shutdown or reconciliation package to do so – he can just impound the money and not send the SS checks!]

And the right wing US Supreme Court will not stop him: He’s acting as The Unitary Executive and has total immunity for “Official Acts”.

China LNG Export Deals Will Test Trump’s Power

Trump complains that the ‘Deep State” sabotaged his first term agenda. He ain’t seen nothing yet: wait until he runs up against the “Corporate State”.

The US Department of Energy just released an important Report on the export of liquified natural gas (LNG):

• 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports

DOE intends to use the Study to inform its public interest review of, and ultimately decisions in, certain applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA applications), future proceedings, and for other purposes.

Trump wants to “drill, baby, drill” and nominated a corporate energy CEO as Secretary of the Department of Energy, see:

• Trump picks oil-industry CEO Chris Wright as energy secretary nominee

Trump’s core foreign and domestic economic policy is “America First”.

Trump has long harshly criticized China, see:

• What Trump Has Promised on China in a Second Term

Trump has many times said he will impose sanctions and tariffs and even military means to block China (e.g Biden already imposed tariffs on Chinese manufactured items like solar panels and electric vehicles).

The DoE Report documents that LNG exports will increase costs of energy for US consumers, impose billions of dollars of additional costs on US businesses, and thereby contribute to inflation and unemployment.

And here is where that DOE Report exposes contradictions that test the power of the Trump Unitary Executive and “America First” principles, by pitting corporate power and his DoE Secretary directly in conflict with his core political commitments with respect to China.

The DoE Report emphasized:

C. China is the World’s Largest LNG Importer

According to the EIA, China is the world’s third largest natural gas consumer and the world’s largest LNG importer, averaging 9.5 Bcf/d in 2023.90 The country is growing its regasification capacity more than any other country in the world, and in 2022 had 5.7 Tcf of existing regasification terminals, plus 5.5 Tcf of regasification capacity under construction with operational start dates between 2023 and 2026.91 […]

In the Defined Policies scenario, China is projected to import 28.8 Bcf/d of LNG in 2050. In the Net Zero 2050 (Moderate CCS) scenario, which represents the lower bound for projections of global gas demand in the modeling conducted as part of this study, China is projected to import 13.4 Bcf/d of LNG in 2050.

China’s contracting activity with operating and proposed LNG export projects to be sourced with U.S. gas has significantly increased over the last several years, with Chinese LNG buyers signing sales and purchase off-take agreements for U.S.-sourced LNG with several operating, under construction, or proposed LNG projects including Calcasieu Pass, Corpus Christi Stage III, CP2,
Plaquemines LNG, Rio Grande LNG, Sabine Pass, and Mexico Pacific Limited. 97 While not all of these contracts are associated with projects that have non-FTA authorizations from DOE or, if
authorized, that are under construction pursuant to a final investment decision, these agreements show an increased interest from China in holding a position in U.S. LNG exports. (page S-46 – 47)

BOOM!

Will Trump honor his commitments to “America First” and exercise his Unitary Executive powers to direct his corporate fossil Secretary of Energy, Secretary of State (Rubio, if confirmed, is a China hawk), and EPA Administrator to deny all permits and approvals for the LNG export facilities, infrastructure and fracking wells who will provide gas to China?

The whole world is watching.

More on the climate and economic findings in our next post – the DoE Report projects HUGE increases in LNG exports.