Pinelands Commission Urged To Support Probe Into Staff Role In Joint Base Pipeline Scheme

“Pretense of Military Purpose” Fabricated To Avoid Regulatory Scrutiny

Remarkably, it appears that the scheme was initiated by un-named NJ Pinelands Commission officials, who appear to have suggested it to NJNG officials who then presented it to Joint Base officials.

According to emails presented to the Pinelands Commission in public testimony on September 11, 2015, staff of the Pinelands Commission suggested that  NJ Natural Gas revise the route of their proposed pipeline through Joint Base in order to “streamline” the Commission’s regulatory review.

NJ Natural Gas officials wrote an email to Joint Base officials that said:

“We met with the Pinelands Commission last week for an initial review of our pipeline proposal and they suggested that we approach you to see if we could re-route the line through your base. They believed that this new route, along with a letter from the base that the presence of the pipeline would be a positive attribute to future base activities could streamline their process”

Got that? Commission staff actually initiated and suggested an alternative pipeline route to make it easier for the Commission to approve the pipeline. And they suggested a cover story to justify it as well.

Subsequent emails strongly suggest that NJ Natural Gas and Joint Base officials then fabricated what was described as a “pretense of a military purpose” to justify the pipeline route and avoid regulatory and public scrutiny during the Pinelands Commisssion’s review process.

The extent of knowledge and involvement of Pinelands staff in this scheme is unknown at this time.

The identity of Pinelands staff mentioned in the NJ Natural Gas emails to Joint Base official is not known, nor is it known who NJ Natural Gas officials met with from the Pinelands Commission staff, and why they allegedly provided this “guidance” to NJ Natural Gas.

The Pinelands Commission and the public have a right to know whether these claims are true and who from the Pinelands Commission staff engaged in these behaviors.

If the claims in the NJ Natural Gas’ email to Joint base officials are true – i.e. that Pinelands staff “suggested that we approach you to see if we could re-route the line through your base” and also suggested a letter from base officials in order to “streamline the process” – then staff have engaged in egregious misconduct that must be investigated and appropriate disciplinary actions taken.

Yesterday, I requested that the Department of Defense Inspector General investigate the role of Joint Base officials in this scheme (see this).

Today, I wrote a letter to the Pinelands Commission urging them to support an independent investigation:

Dear Chairman Lohbauer and Pinelands Commissioners:

I am writing to request your support for investigating serious charges made by an individual during public testimony at the September 11, 2015 Commission meeting public comment session.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend that meeting, but recently watched the video tape.

A gentleman, whose name was not audible, testified. He introduced himself as a former employee of NJ Natural Gas. He said he had filed a FOIA for emails regarding the NJ Natural Gas pipeline.

He claimed that, based on his review of emails between Joint Base officials and NJ Natural Gas, that un-named Pinelands Commission staff met with NJNG and initiated a false “pretense of a military purpose” for the NJNG pipeline.

Worse, according to tho gentleman’s testimony and the text of emails this gentleman read during testimony, un-named Pinelands Commission staff actually suggested that the gas pipeline be routed through Joint base to streamline the Commission regulatory oversight.

Here is the text of that testimony I transcribed from the videotape (boldface emphasis is mine):

“As you know, [a military purpose] affords the pipeline far less regulatory scrutiny and compliance than it would receive without an actual military purpose. …

The [NJNG official] wrote [to Base officials] “We met with the Pinelands Commission last week for an initial review of our pipeline proposal and they suggested that we approach you to see if we could re-route the line through your base. They believed that this new route, along with a letter from the base that the presence of the pipeline would be a positive attribute to future base activities could streamline their process”

If this claim is true, i.e. “they [Pinelands Commission staff] suggested that we [NJNG] approach you [Joint Base] to see if we could re-route the line through your base” … in order to “streamline [the Pinelands Commission’s review] process”, and that representatives of the Pinelands initiated and subsequently knowingly participated in a scheme to create a “pretense  of a military purpose“, then there have been egregious breaches of ethics and/or possible fraud or official misconduct.

This situation reminds me of the debate we had on abuses of the pre-application conferences during the South Jersey Gas pipeline controversy.

I urge your support for an independent and thorough investigation into this matter, perhaps by the NJ Attorney General’s Office or the State Ethics Commission.

For your information, I filed a complaint and request for investigation of this matter with the US Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office. You may review that complaint at this link:

I look forward to your timely reply and support for this request.