WolfeNotes.com

Christie BPU Ignores Public Demands To Respond to Climate Crisis & Accelerate Transition To Renewable Energy

What I am saying is that it’s not a crisis. The climate’s been changing forever … I just don’t buy that. I just don’t buy the fact that it’s a ‘crisis,’ I just don’t.”  ~~~ Gov. Christie (12/1/15)

During the summer, the Christie Board of Public Utilities (BPU) held public hearings to solicit public comments on how to update the 2011 Christie Energy Master Plan (EMP): (BPU explains)

In developing this update, BPU held three public hearings: August 11, 2015 in Newark; August 13, 2015 in Trenton; and August 17, 2015 in Galloway. In addition, written comments were received by BPU over a 30-day period ending August 24, 2015. A total of 82 individuals offered comments at the public hearings. In addition, 1093 written comments were received and reviewed. The written comments were posted to BPU’s website and can be found at http://nj.gov/emp/comments/2015/approved/comments_archive.html. In preparing this update, BPU considered all of the comments offered on all relevant topics in the public hearings and submitted in writing.

The BPU released a Draft Updated EMP.

On November 20, 2015, BPU issued a self congratulatory press release  and provided only a 14 day public comment period on the Draft Energy Master Plan Update,. The comment period expires today (December 4, 2015).

(See the NJ Spotlight story on the EMP release)

In Updating the EMP, the BPU virtually ignored virtually all of the public comments, the large majority of which emphasized the climate crisis and urgent need to accelerate and expand energy efficiency and transition to renewable energy programs.

While the Christie corporate lobbyist Energy Team ignored public demands, they did find time to listen and respond to the fossil energy industry and file a lawsuit against the Obama EPA Clean Power Plan, see:

• NEW JERSEY SIGNS ON TO SUIT CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF EPA CLEAN POWER PLAN

The Governor himself felt the need to announce his own special brand of climate denial – perfectly timed for the Paris negotiations – while out on the campaign trail:

“What I am saying is that it’s not a crisis. The climate’s been changing forever … I just don’t buy that. I just don’t buy the fact that it’s a ‘crisis,’ I just don’t.”

So, I am not recommending that people spend a lot of time reviewing the Draft Plan and preparing written comments on it. The Christie administration is basically hopelessly corrupt on climate and energy issues.

But I do suggest that folks should let their friends, press, legislators, and BPU know how you feel about their failure to seriously consider and respond to public demands on climate, efficiency, and renewable energy.

I actually could not find where to send comments to at BPU on the Update, so will assume that comments can be submitted to the same place that BPU website suggested for the 2011 Plan:

Written public comments regarding the 2011 Energy Master Plan Update must be submitted by close of business on Monday, August 24, 2015.

To submit comments via email, send comments to: EMPupdate@bpu.state.nj.us.

To submit comments via the US Postal Service, mail comments to:

EMP Update

Board Secretary

PO Box 44 S. Clinton Ave

Trenton, NJ 08625

 

A charade

I was doing background research on a post I am writing on pipelines in the Highlands, and I came across a summary of a meeting between DEP and the Highlands Council regarding the Regional Master Plan and DEP “interaction and collaboration” (see this for the meeting summary).

The meeting was held at the DEP building and included the DEP Commissioner’s Office and upper Management, so it was a policy meeting, not some minor technical discussion. [Notably absent were representatives from the NJGS and DEP water supply planning and allocation programs.]

I was so taken aback by the meeting summary that I decided to hold off on the pipeline post and write this quick note.

This statement in particular caught my eye, given current controversies:

There is a lot of interaction with the Highlands Council staff regarding wastewater, but the topic merits further, offline discussion.

Offline discussion? WTF!

The meeting was held a little over a year ago, on October 22, 2014.

Since that meeting, DEP has released the following major and highly controversial initiatives that have significant impacts on the Highlands, all of which were far along under development at the time of the October 2014 meeting:

1) Flood Hazard Act rule overhaul rule proposal (June 1, 2015) – now pending legislative veto.

This rule would weaken protections for stream buffers in the Planning Area.

2) Joint research Report with USGS: Median Nitrate Concentrations In Groundwater In The New Jersey Highlands Region (August 2015)

This is the second DEP research project that could be used to undermine the Highlands septic density standard, which, at 88 acres in forested areas, is the strongest in the nation and the backbone of Highlands protections.

Previously, DEP Commissioner Martin tasked his hand picked Science Advisory Board with critiquing the DEP’s Nitrate Dilution Model. That move was related to a legal challenge filed by the NJ Farm Bureau to DEP’s septic density standard, a lawsuit that has yet to be resolved and we fear Martin will settle by gutting the current DEP nitrate dilution based septic density standards.

3) NJPDES Capacity Assurance Program overhaul rule proposal (October 19, 2015)

This rule would negatively impact Highlands rivers and streams and provide more capacity for new development in the region.

4) Water Quality Management Plan rule overall (October 19, 2015).

Major land use and water resource impacts on the Highlands. DEP has flat out lied about ann alleged “deference” to the Highlands Council, while the rule does the opposite by reserving final decisions to DEP and repealing the current policy that actually does defer to the Council.

Yet, not a single one of these major ongoing DEP science and regulatory initiatives that TARGET and have significant impacts on the Highlands was even mentioned during the October 2014 meeting.

How could that be?

Is that “interaction and collaboration”?

The only explanation is – at best – a “don’t ask – don’t tell” head in the sand attitude by the Highlands Council or a bad faith and active intent to by DEP to deceive the Highlands Council.

In addition, the controversial Fenimore Landfill fiasco had not been fully resolved at the time of the October 2014 meeting.

Yet despite the major problems that resulted from the Highlands Council’s deference to DEP on the reopening of that landfill – which created the problem – the Highlands Council representative took the following position with respect to remediation and redevelopment of landfills and contaminated and “brownfields” sites:

“Ms. Mercer then asked participants about the coordination between NJDEP and the Highlands Council regarding redevelopment and brownfields in the Highlands Region. … Highlands Council staff remarked that the Highlands Act puts the onus on NJDEP to ensure consistency with the RMP.”

Why would the Highlands Council continue to defer to DEP on landfill closure and toxic site remediation issues after the Fenimore Fiasco – (and the Ford Ringwood cleanup sellout)?

The Highlands Act mandates that ALL remediations – at landfills, brown fields, and toxic sites – be consistent with the Regional Management Plan.

The intent of that provision was to grant the the Highlands COuncil the power to set stricter standards to assure better cleanups to strengthen protections for critical water supply ground and surface water.

Why does the Council continue to ignore this power and defer to DEP?

Oh, and the DEP Highlands rules expire on December 31, 2015 – will they be re-adopted without change or “overhauled” like the stream encroachment and WQMP rules?

Of course, that critical issue also was not discussed last October.

They call this a stakeholder process.

I call it bullshit and a charade.

[PS – and of course those meetings failed to mention DEP and Highlands Council RMP review of proposed major oil and gas pipelines.]

DEP Proposal Would Roll Back Clean Water Protections

Another example of abuse of Christie’s “regulatory relief” policy

Incredibly, DEP is proposing a rule that they KNOW will increase the probability of NJPDES permit violations at sewage treatment plants and that the KNOW will reduce the number of plans required to correct deficiencies and better protect water quality.

One of Governor Christie’s most notorious self serving quips was that he liked to “squeeze all the juice out of the orange“ – which was slammed as an example of his “shameless love of freeloading”.

Following the Governor’s maxim, the Christie DEP just proposed a rule designed to “squeeze the juice” out of sewage treatment plant capacity, a move that would rollback existing protections and result in more permit violations and more pollution discharged to the State’s already impaired rivers and streams.

The DEP is proposing to gut the longstanding “Capacity Assurance Program” (CAP), which mandates that sewage treatment plants conduct a study, prepare a “Capacity Assurance Plan” (CAP), and implement corrective measures to reduce the flows of wastewater when the sewage treatment plant exceeds 80% of permitted capacity.

The objective of the CAP program is to take steps in advance to avoid permit violations and water pollution.

The CAP program requires planning for infrastructure investments and system and treatment upgrades to protect clean water, as the treatment plant’s capacity is maxed out, and assure that the facility complies with its permit limits.

Key elements of a CAP program include enforceable regulatory requirements like water conservation measures and a sewer connection ban for new developments until capacity problems are addressed.

The DEP is proposing to increase the current 80% regulatory trigger to submit a CAP to 100% of plant permitted capacity. The proposal also would eliminate key CAP implementation requirements, particularly water conservation and flow reduction measures that could be implemented by local governments. I wrote previously about the CAP program, see:

• Christie DEP’s Proposed Weakening of Sewer “Capacity Assurance” Program Jeopardizes Water Quality & Increases Risks To Drinking Water

Today, DEP held a public hearing on the proposal. The turnout was light: Sierra Club, retired professional Bill Simmons, myself and a consultant for the sewer plants.

An engineering consultant representing 4 regional sewage authorities raised a concern that flagged a fatal flaw:

“It’s too late to plan once a plant reaches 100% capacity.”

When even the experts that consult for the sewage treatment plants raise concerns about DEP water quality rollbacks, you know you’ve got a problem.

I questioned why the Christie DEP was rolling back basic water quality protections that had bipartisan support for 30 years.

I had to admit that the Christie “regulatory relief” DEP made the Whitman “open for business” DEP look good. I pointed to Whitman’s Executive Order #109: (get a load of this):

WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to take strong, decisive action to conduct water resource planning on a watershed basis to promote smart growth in a manner that accounts for further secondary and cumulative impacts of such growth.

NOW, THEREFORE, I CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, Governor of the State of New Jersey, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of this State, do hereby ORDER and DIRECT:

1. Until such time that the Water Quality Management Planning rules, currently set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:15, are repealed and replaced, the Department of Environmental Protection shall determine, consistent with its existing authority, including N.J.A.C. 7:15-5.18, what, if any, alternatives analyses must be conducted prior to the Department’s making a final decision on an application for approval of a wastewater management plan or amendment thereto and, where applicable and consistent with its existing authority, an application for approval of a water quality management plan or amendment thereto, including, but not limited to, an evaluation of depletive and consumptive water use, detailed land use, environmental build-out and pollutant loading.

I testified to raise the following objections and questions:

1. Billions in unmet water infrastructure needs, while Asset Management initiative is stalled

In 2008, DEP submitted a Clean Water Needs Assessments to US EPA that identified $16.9 billion in wastewater infrastructure needs, a 54% increase from 2004. That estimate did not include huge additional needs associated with adaptation to climate change.

To address these unmet infrastructure needs, with munch fanfare, the Christie BPU and DEP jointly DEP rolled out its new “asset management” initiative way back in 2010:

The proposal grew out of the Christie Administration’s “infrastructure asset management and financing” initiative discussed at last October’s Clean Water Council annual public hearing at DEP.  BPU President Lee Solomon spoke at that hearing – see: Clean Water Council Considering Privatization

Since then, it’s been nothing but talk – and pushback by the private water companies and public water authorities who strongly oppose new DEP regulations mandating costly asset management requirements.

The CAP program triggers a review of the condition and capacity of wastewater infrastructure to meet current and future needs while protecting clean water – this can only further the objectives of planning, asset management, and investments in wastewater systems.

Given the unmet infrastructure needs and stated objectives of the Asset Management initiative, why would DEP essentially gut the CAP program?

2. DEP Proposal Fails To Present the Benefits of the CAP program or quantify increases in NJPDES violations

The proposal notes that the increase in the regulatory trigger from 80% to 100% of permitted flows will result in a significant reduction in the number of facilities that will be required to submit CAP plans.

What will the water quality impact be of this reduction in CAP plans?

The proposal fails to present or consider or quantify the historical benefits of the CAP program – just what has it achieved? What water quality benefits will be lost by the major changes proposed?

3. The DEP’s “Flow Study” is flawed, has not been peer reviewed or disclosed to the public

As the technical basis to justify the proposed increase of the regulatory trigger from 80 – 100% of permitted flow, the proposal presents an “analysis” of a statistical correlation between the 80% trigger and subsequent violations of NJPDES permit effluent and loading limits for a limited set of parameters.

First, the parameters selected are not appropriate for discharges above water supply intakes, where concern for nitrates and low level toxic pollutants are key public health considerations.

Second, while the correlations are low, the proposal fails to disclose the fact that there would be an increase in NJPDES permit violations or to quantify these increases in violations or reveal which specific plants would be more likely to violate their NJPDES permits.

The public must be provided with this information and the DEP must consider that information in analyzing whether to adopt the proposal. The DEP should not be proposing relaxing regulatory requirements that they KNOW will statistically increase the probability of NJPDES permit violations.

Given these serious question about the DEP’s methodology for this study and the conclusions its supports, the study must be released to the public and subject to peer review before it can be relied upon for regulatory purposes.

4. The use of averaging ignores critical high wastewater and low stream flows

The proposal would extend the current 3 month averaging period used to determine existing wastewater flows to a 12 month period.

There are two problems with this approach and they lead to the same water quality problem:

First, the use of an average dampens high flows that cause NJPDES violations. Many water quality standards are designed to protect against impacts from “critical conditions”, e.g. water exceeds a temperature that kills fish. The DEP proposed CAP approach ignores critical conditions from high flow discharges (or low flow streams); and

Second, the extension of the timeframe to 12 months also masks single or multiple high flow NJPDES violations that could be significant.

In addition to these problems, it appears that the DEP ignored stream flows – there may be interaction between low stream flows and violations of permitted flows that must be considered, particularly in ecologically significant receiving waters or for discharges upstream on water supply intakes.

DEP and EPA NPDES regulations express concerns for these sensitive locations:

The DEP has not considered these site specific concerns regarding sensitive areas in the proposal, which is a fatal flaw that must be resolved prior to adoption of the proposal.

5. The proposal skirts the issue of whether flow is an enforceable permit condition

The proposal concedes the fact that there are now – and will continue to be in the future – many known exceedences of NJPDES permitted wastewater flows at sewage treatment plants.

We believe that flow is an enforceable permit condition.

We urge the Department to enforce exceedence of NJPDES permitted flows and to abandon this proposal which would lead to an increase in violation of permitted flows.

If DEP is looking the other way by drafting NJPDES permits that specify wastewater flows as a “monitor only” permit condition, that is an abuse and potential violation of the Clean Water Act.

We will take this issue up with EPA to assure that DEP is enforcing wastewater flows in EPA approved NJPDES permit conditions.

Perhaps even more important, in the WQMP proposal DEP seems to be grandfathering current permitted flows and treating these flows in the CAP proposal as a done deal.

However, many NJPDES permitted flows were issued without conducting a federally mandated antidegradation review or consideration of cumulative impacts on assimilative capacity.

In some cases, assimilative capacity (i.e. the maximum amount of pollution a river can handle without violating water quality standards) has been over allocated and permits issued with flows and loads that would violate SWQS.  Therefore, these flows have no valid scientific or regulatory basis and expansion in current discharges to the permitted capacity is NOT a sure thing or a “done deal”.

While this is more of a WQMP issue than a CAP issue, they are inter-related because both rules apply to permitted flows.

6. The proposal is inconsistent with the proposed revisions to the Water Quality Management Planning rules

The proposal discuses one technical inconsistency with the WQMP rules and how that inconsistency will be addressed.

But the proposal ignores at least two significant policy inconsistencies:

First, the proposed WQMP overall would eliminate the current requirements to remedy any inconsistencies between a proposed WQMP and a NJPDES permit, particularly with respect to conflicting flows. The DEP would now approve WQMP plans that project wastewater flows that conflict with permitted flows and/or can not be handled by the receiving water.

The WQMP proposal creates conflicts and unrealistic development expectations that will result in future NJPDES permitting issues, as well as jeopardizes future water quality.

The proposal also ignores future regulatory constraints on wastewater flows and/or pollutant loadings that may be imposed under the antidegradation review requirements or imposed under the TMDL program.

The proposed CAP changes exacerbate those WQMP problems with respect to exactly what constitutes wastewater flows and loads, by extending the day of reckoning of necessary planning for reaching permitted capacity.

Second, in general, the WQMP proposal relies more heavily on local governments.

The proposed CAP revisions would conflict with that overall approach be eliminating local governments from the requirements to submit CAP plans. Current CAP requirements include the joint participation of both the wastewater plant and local governments.

The proposed CAP revisions are not only inconsistent with the proposed WQMP rules in this regard, but they undermine effective CAP planning.

For example, wastewater authorities lack the mission, jurisdiction, authority, legal control, and expertise to address and manage flow related issues – such as water conservation measures and other land use planning/zoning, infrastructure and physical sewer connections – that impact flows to a treatment plant.

The proposed elimination of local government from the CAP program is ill advised.

We will raise these policy and regulatory corners with US EPA.

We’ll keep you posted on this as events develop.

From The Enron Scandal To Climate Denial

A key member of NJ Gov. Christie’s Cabinet likes to brag about his energy expertise:

An accomplished business and industry leader with recognized expertise in energy and utilities, in 2008 Commissioner Martin retired as a partner with over 25 years of experience at Accenture LLP, the world’s largest business and technology consulting firm. ~~~ Bio of Bob Martin, Christie  DEP Commissioner

I wonder if NJ Governor Chris Christie’s Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin  – who brags abut his energy consulting career at Accenture and “chaired the [Gov.’s] energy and utilities Transition Team” – is the source of this advice (or failure to provide advise) to the Governor on climate change: (NJ.com)

“What I am saying is that it’s not a crisis. The climate’s been changing forever … I just don’t buy that. I just don’t buy the fact that it’s a ‘crisis,’ I just don’t.”

Pressed to answer why, Christie again answered, “Because I don’t believe it is. I just don’t see that there’s any evidence that it’s a crisis.”

Asked which scientists supported his assertion, Christie said: “I didn’t say I was relying on any scientists. I don’t see evidence that it’s a crisis.”

If Gov. Christie is not relying on scientists, is he relying on his Transition Team Energy Chair and current DEP Commissioner and cabinet member?

I also wonder how Accenture, as “the world’s largest business and technology consulting firm”, feels about a former career executive and Partner there being affiliated with climate denial?

Does that instill confidence in the firm? Add value? Provide Shareholder support?

Does the current Accenture Board and management team see it as harming the reputation of the firm or its brand?

Does Martin reflect the scientific capabilities of the firm?

Given the fact that Accenture was spun off from the criminal prosecution of Arthur Anderson for its role in the Enron scandal, I guess they’re used to handling scandals over there.

Perhaps a reporter might given the firm’s PR people a call and ask?

[PS – if we’ve got it all wrong, i.e. if Martin has been banging on the Gov.’s door for 5 years warning about the climate crisis, all Martin needs to do is make a public statement to clarify his views on the issue of climate change and separate himself from the Gov. If not, he is tarred with the Gov.’s brush.

Some things are worth resigning over, Bob]

[Update – Came across this Accenture Report – ironic, no?

Regulatory Policy Impacts Clean Air, Clean Water, Land Use, & Climate Change

Eyewitness News Reporter Jim Hoffer: – “You’re saying that this executive order will bring the polluters and government to an even cozier kind of relationship?”

Wolfe: “Right, it will make government facilitate, not regulate, but actually promote the interest of the polluters, protect the polluters, not the people of the state.”

Whether on the campaign trail or at a Trenton State House press conference, Gov. Christie reflexively rails against taxes and regulation. Those two issues are the meat and potatoes of traditional Republican politics.

Christie’s tax policy is routinely examined and criticized: everyone knows Christie vetoed the millionaire’s tax, blocked the gas tax, and provided over $5 billion in tax breaks to corporations. There have been hundreds of news stories and many “Think Tank” reports on the Christie tax policy.

But what about regulation?

The issue Gov. Christie regularly slams with slogans like “job killing red tape”?

Not so much.

I closely follow Trenton policy and media affairs, but – with the exception of a few superficial stories about Lt. Gov. Guadagno’s “Red Tape Task Force” –  I can’t recall an intrepid state house political reporter popping up at a press conference and asking Gov. Christie about his regulatory policy.

I do recall that there was one NY reporter, a TV reporter – the only reporter I am aware of that EVER asked Christie a direct question about Executive Order  #2 “regulatory relief” policy – Jim Hoffer from WABC TV news, who asked Christie a question about Executive Order #2 “regulatory relief” policy –

You can watch Governor Christie flat out lie in response to Hoffer’s question.

Ironically, long before the story broke on Christie’s Exxon billion dollar sweetheart deal – and the Exxon climate coverup revelations –  that question was asked as part of a story on the Bayway refinery: ( – at time 2:28 – transcript)

Wolfe says the massive spill in the gulf occurred because B-P cut corners on safety while the regulators looked the other way. Wolfe says Gov. Christie is making the same mistake, by issuing executive orders.

Bill Wolfe:  – “This executive order will put into force of law, the exact same policies that led to the disaster in the Gulf.”

Eyewitness News Reporter Jim Hoffer: – “You’re saying that this executive order will bring the polluters and government to an even cozier kind of relationship?”

Wolfe: “Right, it will make government facilitate, not regulate, but actually promote the interest of the polluters, protect the polluters, not the people of the state.”

Governor Christie, who months ago called for a ban on all oil and gas drilling off the Jersey coast, disputes claims he’s weakening the state’s environmental oversight.

Governor Christie: “There’s none of that stuff going on. I don’t know where you’re getting that from but none of that is going on.” 

Hoffer: “In your executive orders when you call for less regulation?” 

Governor Christie: “No, what we call for is common sense regulation, we don’t call for less regulation, we call for common sense regulation.”

FACT: Christie Executive Order #2 calls “for immediate relief from regulatory burdens”. “Relief” means “less regulation”.

So, as the media spotlight is focused on the Paris climate negotiations and now that Gov. Christie’s Republican nomination campaign seems to have been restored to life by the New Hampshire editorial endorsement, perhaps some intrepid reporter might ask Governor Christie about his regulatory policy in his own Executive Orders.

Even Christie Whitman took a LOT of media heat for her “Open for Business” regulatory policy.

So why is Chris Christie given a pass?