WolfeNotes.com

So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late (listen)

Buoy - front porch. Along the Watchtower

“C1 buffers create overwhelming development constraints”

BPG Carter Road – vacancy at existing office park (East Track)

Today, just a brief update on the ongoing litigation in Hopewell Township (Mercer County) on the “Berwind Property Group” (BPG) project.

I will do so in a limited way: my intent is only to illustrate the power of a “Category One” (C1) waterbody designation by DEP, using Berwind’s own legal brief to do so.

This story provides important lessons to those who seek to preserve land and protect water quality. In particular, it highlights the power of regulatory tools to preserve land.

In this case, the “de facto” open space created by the C1 designation was far greater than land preserved under a conservation easement deal. Preservation of the conservation easement lands was provided in a negotiation with local conservationists, in exchange for not objecting to the proposed development under the Berwind GDP.

The C1 designation shows that such compromises are not necessary. Regulatory tools can preserve open space at zero public taxpayer expense!

The Berwind case was appealed to the NJ Supreme Court, where a citizens group won a victory. I will not go into the details here, so for background on the project and issues involved, see:

• Hopewell Citizens Group Wins NJ Supreme Court Victory (January 13, 2011)
• NJ Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Massive Berwind Development in Hopewell Township (October 26, 2010)
• Grandfather Loophole guts DEP Stream Protection Plan (June 5, 2008)

As we have written in detail, when the project was before the Planning Board for the final hearing on preliminary site plan approval on May 29, 2008, my testimony was blocked by Berwind lawyers (see paragraph 89, on page 13).

The June 9, 2011 Berwind brief now confirms everything I previous said and had stated in my written testimony that was blocked (with the exception of the Stream Encroachment permit expiration issue, which I had not addressed). Here is an excerpt, starting at paragraph 33 on page 23 (emphases mine):

33. The Plaintiff in this action contends that BPG’s site plan approvals are invalid because, allegedly, the Board should have delayed its vote on BPG’s application pending effective date of the new C1 rules.

34. If it is determined that BPG’s application should have been made subject to the new C1 rules, it will be impossible to construct the Project as approved under the GDP.

35. Moreover,regardless of whether the Court determines that the new C1 rules should have applied to BPG’s application, the new C1 rules will render the Project infeasible for construction.

36. The Stream Encroachment Permit will expire on November 29, 2012, and as a result of NJDEP’s amendments to the C1 rules, as of the expiration of the permit, BPG will be prohibited from developing within three (300) feet (sic) of the Stony Brook tributaries to the extent such development is not completed or substantially completed.

[37]

38. As shown in Exhibit 1, the C1 areas [stream buffers] create overwhelming development constraints on the East Tract ..

[39]

40. In other words, the total C1 classified area (approximately 179 acres), which will otherwise act as de facto open space, is actually more than the acreage of the entire West Tract (approximately 169.5 acres).

The BPG brief then goes on to detail the specific portions of the proposed development – approved by Hopewell Township under the GDP – that are located in the 300 foot C1 stream buffer: 90% of approved building P-1 (81,900 sq. feet); 50% of building P-2 (45,500 sq. feet): 10% of building P-3 (9,100 sq. feet): 30% of Building P-4 (27,300 sq. feet); along with a substantial portion of the road infrastructure and drainage facilities.

Overwhelming development constraints indeed!

Which is exactly why the Christie DEP has killed the C1 program and why we will see no more C1 upgrades (thanks again Dave Pringle!).

Instead of more C1’s and stronger water quality protections, DEP is now working on a new stream classification scheme – apparently with EPA support – to downgrade protections in order to provide waivers and relief from water quality protections.

More to follow on another troubling problem at DEP.

preserved land, by conservation easement (West Track)

Anne Hoskins, PSEG’s Senior Vice President of Public Affairs & Sustainability, has a pretty good Op-Ed running today at NJ Spotlight, see:

Investing in New Jersey’s Energy Future -Prudent investing recognizes that not all energy sectors need the same amount of help, or any help at all

As traditional fossil/nuke dominated energy companies go, PSE&G is fairly progressive.

The perspective Ms. Hoskins offers in this Op-Ed is on the sane side of the spectrum of the business community’s advocacy effort in the contentious debate on the Christie Administration’s Energy Master Plan (EMP) revisions.

Unfortunately, business interests in this debate are dominated by the usual suspects, I will call a cabal.

This cabal is focusing on a shortsighted, commercial electric rate cutting, irresponsible, global warming denying,  anti-regulatory, anti-investment, race to the bottom strategy.

The cabal is led by the Chamber of Commerce, NJ Business and Industry Association, and what is known as the “Large Power Consumers Coalition” (or somesuch – this is the front group for NJ’s big oil, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries who use significant amounts of power).

So, I thought I’d jot down a few items that could cement PSE&G commitment to investments in a sustainable, carbon free, clean energy future.

Readers should jump in and let me know the stuff I forgot to mention in this note:

Dear Ms. Hoskins – this Op-Ed is a thoughtful and good faith effort. There is much that I agree with.

But we encourage PSEG to take Ten additional more aggressive steps:

1) abandon nuke plans – forever
2) abandon long distance transmission plans – forever
3) abandon support of “clean coal” technologies (IGCC, et al) – forever
4) shut down 2 existing coal power plants (Mercer, Hudson)
5) shift billions of dollars in shareholder investments allocated to #1 – #4 to: a) energy efficiency;  and b) local, small scale, distributed renewable power (including residential rooftop and community solar, not just large scale commercial installations at brownfields/landfills, corporate office parks, etc)
6) pledge to phase out importation of coal generated power in 5 years
7) pledge to not accept frack gas supply contracts for existing gas distribution system (and agree to no further gas pipeline capacity expansion)
8.  phase out current ratepayer subsidies for the recovery of costs that should be borne by shareholders, including dereg stranded costs, coal gas site cleanups, and nuclear decommissioning. As you note, a sustainable policy would shift scarce subsidy resources to efficiency and renewables.
9) use PSEG influence, resources, political power, and lobbying clout to enact legislation, regulation and EMP revisions that:

• Legislatively over-ride the Governor’s exit and get NJ back in a strengthened RGGI program, including lowering the cap by at least 40%, increasing the scope beyond electric sector to all sectors; and making emissions reductions mandatory and enforceable by DEP regulation, similar to the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain Program many tout as a model for RGGI
• expand RPS beyond 30% (with an annual escalator);
• establish a minimum floor price, long term procurement and contracting process for solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal/wave energy;
• restrict the definition of Class I renewables to exclude garbage incineration and other sham energy recovery technologies;
• expand investment resources by increasing the current Societal Benefits Charge
• develop an electric car infrastructure in a decade or less
• bring back Employer Trip Reduction mandates, with enhancements such as telecommute
• expand public investments in public transit, including dedicated and sustainable funding via energy, carbon, or gas taxes
• public investments in energy technology development, including a pilot tidal/wave energy demonstration/feasibility

10) Develop and invest significant PSE&G shareholder resources in a public education campaign to support and achieve the goals of the Global Warming Response Act

Then I would applaud PSEG and support this op-ed!

(readers – what did I forget?)

RGGI and Solar Combined Cost Homeowners 3 Cents Per Day

Billion Dollar Issues Completely Ignored in Christie Energy Plan

As an antidote to more of the same old “he said/she said” journalism about the so called high costs of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and solar programs, I thought I’d again publish a few facts.

Another classic example of this “he said/she said” dynamic  is found in today’s Bergen Record story about Governor Christie’s veto of a bill to keep NJ in the RGGI program.

The  Record reported:

He [Gov. Christie] said the program did not change energy producers’ behavior. Instead, he said, “RGGI does nothing more than impose a tax on electricity. Moreover, it creates an unlevel playing field for our resident businesses that must compete from the fourth-highest energy-cost state in the country.”

Business and conservative groups have pressed for New Jersey to leave RGGI, saying it drives up energy rates because utilities pass along the cost of their carbon credits to customers. Environmentalists have said the rate increases are minimal.

There is no need to report the RGGI cost issue that way. The actual costs are presented prominently in readily accessible public documents.

This is not some esoteric or a tangential issue either – it is the cornerstone of the Governor’s argument and the first and foremost goal of the Christie Energy Master Plan, i.e. “to drive down the costs of energy for all customers” (the plan’s #1 goal stated @ page 1).

That cost reduction goal is the primary rationale for a selectively applied new cost benefit test targeted only on solar and renewable power incentives (see page 7), but not coal, gas an nuclear power subsidies or the full suite of external public health, environmental, and social costs (see below).

[Note: A key fundamental assumption of the Christie energy policy is that alleged high costs of energy drive business out of the state and discourage new instate private investment and economic growth. That premise is stated on page 94 of the EMP:

Higher retail electricity prices may cause industrial and commercial entities to relocate, while reducing the likelihood of new manufacturing capability being formed in New Jersey (111).

Given the importance of this premise, I checked out footnote 111, which is cited as “CEEEP Solar Report, December 27, 2010 (page 1).”

I called the Rutgers Professor in charge of the modeling and reviewed the document cited.

The Rutgers professor confirmed the fact that the CEEEP Report cited DOES NOT support this statement – the analysis does NOT provide evidence to support or itself find that high energy costs “may cause industrial and commercial entities to relocate, while reducing the likelihood of new manufacturing capability being formed in New Jersey.”

Christie energy policy is founded on myth and ideology – and I caught them red handed in misrepresenting Rutgers Reports in an attempt to support that myth.

Back let’s get to RGGI costs – which are not highly complex or economic modeling issues subject to interpretation and reasonable debate, for example, like huge issues that are ignored and/or not quantified, including:

• public health costs of air pollution caused by carbon power

• $120 billion annual environmental costs of coal power

• social costs of carbon
  

• multi-billion dollar net benefits of environmental regulations

• subsidies to the energy industry

• (or some of the other absurd aspects of NJ energy policy).

In contrast to these complex issues, we are talking about simple facts here.

I have published the RGGI cost data, provided links to it, and written about them here – e.g. see “Fact Check Christie Claims on Energy”.

I regularly send emails with these facts (with links to the published documents) to the press corps in complaints about misleading claims by a range of lunatics and liars, including Governor Christie, Steve Lonagan, the Koch Brothers funded and created Americans for Prosperity and their Tea-bagging associates, the NJ Chamber of Commerce and NJ Business and Industry Association (and all their fellow traveling “Kingpins of Climate denial”.

The facts have been presented in credible expert testimony to the Legislature.

During those same hearings, the spin and lies of the lunatics have been challenged aggressively and exposed by Legislators in at least 3 legislative hearings.

Despite all this, I have never once seen them published in the main stream media (with the exception of Bill Potter, who has done so at NJ Spotlight).

Nor have I seen the Governor called out or held accountable for what are, at best, gross exaggerations and falsehoods.

The facts are not subject to dispute – they are provided in Governor Christie’s own draft Energy Master Plan (EMP)..

These FACTS illustrate gross distortions – and downright lies – by the Governor, his supporters, and the aforementioned RGGI and solar opponents.

So, once again, here they are (cut and paste and put it on the refrigerator):

• According to BPU data, the average residential monthly bill is $129.59.
• The so called high cost of subsidy to solar you hear so much about is $0.63/month (no typo, that 63 cents per MONTH).
• RGGI cost is even LESS – $0. 42/month – that’s 42 cents per month.

Sources: EMP. See Table 4 (page 50); Table 5 (p. 53) and Figure 27 (p. 51)

Are you willing to pay $1.05 PER MONTH for RGGI and solar? (and that cost does not include significant benefits)

The Governor and his global warming denying head of the BPU feel that those costs are too high.

We are not fans of RGGI or similar market based trading schemes. But if the Democrats are serious in seeking to over-ride the Governor’s veto on RGGI, we hope they get serious and fix RGGI.

Because while Gov. Christie has made numerous misleading claims about RGGI, he is half right in saying it is broken in terms of failure to make emissions reductions.

Worst – Governor – Ever

[Update #2 – 8/23/11 – Star Ledger reports: Gov. Christie sends Barnegat Bay stormwater basins bill down the drain

BARNEGAT — Gov. Chris Christie has vetoed a bill that would have assessed fees on property owners in Ocean County to repair and retrofit stormwater basins as part of a plan to clean up Barnegat Bay.

That’s a nice headline, but the story but gets a critical fact wrong in the lede – the bill would NOT have assessed fees. The bill was enabling.

Basic fact research is not hard to do – all a reporter needs to do is read the bill – or an easier way is to read  the OLS fiscal note on the bill. The Governor and the Ocean County Republicans have misrepresented this issue several times now, and I’ve tried to clarify that, so here it is again:

No impact on State funds; Ocean County public property owners may be liable for user fees if stormwater utility is established.The bill authorizes, but does not require, Ocean County, or the Ocean County Utilities Authority, to establish a stormwater utility for the purpose of creating a stormwater management system pilot project to help manage the county’s stormwater runoff systems.

The bill authorizes Ocean County, or the Ocean County Utilities Authority, to finance the operation of the stormwater utility system through the imposition of user fees on property owners and the issuance of bonds.

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is directed to create a stormwater utility guidance manual to provide guidance to counties and authorities seeking to establish stormwater management systems.

The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) estimates that, provided the pilot program is established, the fiscal impact of the bill on public funds would be limited to user fees imposed on publicly-owned properties in Ocean County.  Any DEP costs incurred in carrying out its responsibilities to Ocean County should be covered by its five percent allotment of annual user fee revenues provided under the bill.

The story also fails to point out the factual error and hypocrisy of Governor Christie’s rationale for vetoing the bill. Just last week, Governor Christie correctly said a proposed Port Authority toll increase was a user fee, not a tax increase. But he made no such clear distinction here:

In his veto message, Christie said his 10-point plan addressing the health of the bay is designed to make improvements with existing funds.

“While I fully share the sponsors’ concerns about Barnegat Bay, now is not the time to increase the tax burden,” Christie wrote in his veto message Friday.

“I simply cannot support this imposition of the additional fees that would be required under this bill.”

The Ocean County Republican Freeholders feel the County has done its share on the Bay. I agree  they sure have. They have aggressively promoted the over-development that has destroyed the Bay.

Heckof a Job Freeholders!

Update #1: 8/21/11 -see my other post that focuses on the Christie RGGI veto.

Kirk Moore of APP tells the ugly story: Gov vetoes bay storm-water bill

“Notwithstanding my administration’s strong and dedicated commitment to the Barnegat Bay environment, I cannot support new fees imposed in addition to what are already the nation’s highest property taxes,” Christie said

This echoes Christie’s prior “Drop Dead!” message.

Back in May, Governor Christie vetoed a related stormwater management bill, so this current veto marks Christie’s third veto of bills to restore Barnegat Bay.

Amazingly timed with the “Monster Algae Bloom” currently lurking off the NJ Coast, the Governor has now vetoed 2 storm-water bills and the  TMDL bill]

BILLS VETOED:

S-1815/A-2577 (B. Smith/McKeon, Barnes) – – ABSOLUTE – “Ocean County Stormwater Management System Demonstration Act”

S-2946/A-4108 (Sweeney, Smith/McKeon, Chivukula, Stender, Barnes, Gusciora, Vainieri Huttle) – ABSOLUTE – Clarifies intent of P.L. 2007, c.340 regarding NJ’s required participation in Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Governor Christie Vetoes S-2946 (hit link for veto message)