WolfeNotes.com

Would Reduce NJ CO2 Emissions From Power Sector Just 13% by 2035

Would reduce total State emissions just 2.6% by 2035

Methane Emissions Are Not Regulated

Unregulated free market in PJM grid would produce lower emissions than DEP rule

Proposal Would Allow NEW SOURCES of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Proposal would allow current emissions to INCREASE

Transportation and Building Sector Emissions Remain Unregulated

(*Source: Congressional Research Service Report)

The Murphy DEP just proposed the long awaited and long delayed “climate PACT” regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions. You can read the full proposal here.

Before I begin to outline the details, we need the context.  According to the DEP’s most recent Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory total GHG emissions in NJ were 97.7 million tons/year (2019).

Of that total, 19.2 million tons (20%) were from the electric power sector.

According to DEP, the best case, assuming full compliance with the rule and other rosy DEP projections, the power sector emissions would be reduced by 2.5 million tons per year by 2035. That’s just 13% of power sector emissions and just 2.6% of current total state emissions.

Transportation and building sector emissions are not regulated. They make up the large majority of GHG emissions.

Natural gas (methane) emission from major sources like pipelines, compressor stations, LNG plants, and LNG export projects are not regulated.

Electric demand is projected to double, which would greatly increase current emissions, not considering new emissions from economic growth. The proposal does nothing to address these concerns (e.g. by imposing a real cap on total emissions, prohibiting new major GHG emission sources and fossil infrastructure, phasing out current GHG power sources, mandating electrification of building and transportation sectors (new and retrofit  existing), mandating energy efficiency, increased renewable energy portfolio standards, emissions mitigation, mandatory offsets to get to “net zero”, imposing economic incentives like emission fees to reflect the “social cost of carbon”, or reviewing DEP air permits for consistency or compliance with the Global Warming Response Act emission reduction goals, like NY state climate law requires).

That is not a serious proposal and it was not designed to meet the old emissions reduction goal of the 2009 Global Warming Response Act or the new accelerated goal of Gov. Murpy’s recent Executive Order #274.

DEP even admitted that right up front, describing the proposal as an incremental “initial step“: (@ page 8)

this rulemaking is not meant to be viewed as the definitive action by the Department to ensure the State meets the 80×50 goal. Rather, this rulemaking is an initial step developed in response to current modeling and technology.

DEP also admits that the proposal would impact only a tiny handful of older power plants  – likely to retire anyway – that produce just 3-4% of NJ’s power.

But it is even worse than that.

More critical context. This lame DEP proposal comes shortly after dire warnings from scientists, and in the wake the Governor’s recent Executive Order accelerating greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.

It is far weaker than the Obama EPA Clean Power Plan, which was proposed back in 2014 (see table above) in major respects, including total GHG emissions reductions and the allowable emission rates for the power sector.

[Note: I was a critic of the Obama CPP at the time it was proposed as far too modest. Proving that point, since it was proposed, market forces alone has delivered the projected 32% Obama emissions reductions, largely due to fuel switching from coal to natural gas.]

Read this Congressional Research Service analysis of the Obama CPP and compare the emission rates to DEP’s proposal:

Here’s my first cut rapid review summary, limited to 10 bullet points:

1. Instead of simply regulating CO2 emissions (i.e. what actually goes up the stack), the DEP proposal is far narrower and only captures a small subset of the power sector that serves the grid and industrial boilers.

With respect to the power sector, the DEP proposal repeats all the loopholes and exemptions from the RGGI program.

DEP notes: (@ p. 16)

This retains huge RGGI loopholes found in definition of “compliance entity” and allowance purchase requirements:

But even within the narrow scope of the power sector that produces electricity for the grid, the impact is small: (@ p. 22)

The proposal also does NOT impose CO2 or GHG emission fees of $130/per ton air pollution emissions fees for other polluters.

DEP misleadingly uses the “Social Cost of Carbon” only to analyze the economic benefits of the proposal. DEP does not use SCC as basis for establishing emission limits or as a basis for imposing emission permit fees.

2. The proposal defines methane as a greenhouse gas – that’s nothing new. DEP defined methane as a GHG back in 2005 – but it does not regulate methane sources. That means that huge methane emissions from pipelines, compressor stations, gas plants, and LNG exports will continue to be unregulated.

DEP does not analyze any GHG emissions reductions from methane. Instead, atonshingly, DEP considers methane in the “hazardous air pollutant” impact section, showing reductions of just 81 – 92 tons per year as co-benefits.  (@ p. 65)

DEP not only fails to regulate methane, they significantly underestimate its warming potential.

Methane is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 in 20 year time horizon. But here is how DEP (under)estimated the warming potential of methane (top of page 30)

Direct methane emissions released to the atmosphere (without burning) are about 25 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of their warming effect on the atmosphere.

Gee, now why would DEP seriously minimize the warming potential of methane like that?

3. DEP’s “output based” emissions approach allows CO2 emissions to INCREASE as power production increases. Same trap as efficiency standards in cars. Emissions increase as the increase in vehicle miles traveled exceed the efficiency increases (e.g. 25 MPG traveling 10,000 miles emits less than a 50 MPG car traveling 25,000 miles)

DEP admits that: (if demand doubles, then efficiency would need to MORE than double or emissions would need to be reduce by MORE than 50% in order to reduce emissions)

“The Department acknowledges that fossil fuel-fired electric generation in the State will continue to be needed until clean energy sources come online and clean energy technology advances to meet anticipated electric demand. As depicted in the EMP, with the electrification of buildings and transportation, the EMP predicts more than doubling electricity demand.” (@ page 18)

4. The DEP emission standards are actually weaker then the Obama Clean Power Plan:

“For the first tier, on or before January 1, 2024, existing EGUs must meet an emission limit of 1,700 lb CO2/MWh gross energy output. For the second tier, on or before January 1, 2027, the applicable limit ratchets down to 1,300 lb CO2/MWh gross energy output. For the third tier, on or before January 1, 2035, existing EGUs must meet a more stringent limit of 1,000 lb CO2/MWhgross energy output.” (DEP @ p. 17)

Compare that to the emission rates in Table 1 on page 16 of this Congressional Research Service Report on the Obama Clean Power Plan:

Example: the DEP’s strictest limit (third tier) is 1,000 lbs/MWhr by 2035. Over 95% of this fossil power will be from gas plants.

In comparison, the 2014 Obama EPA CPP set a standard of 898 lbs/MWh by 2022 for gas plants!

The DEP plan is also weaker than the Obama plan because NJ has almost all natural gas generated fossil (little coal) while the Obama plan had far lower rates for natural gas plants and the overall rates included higher emitting coal. Obama EPA also required some fossil power generators to procure renewable energy to achieve the average emission rates.

DEP notes this fact: (@ p. 11)

5. The DEP admits that the free market in current PJM grid will actually produce LOWER emissions than their regulations:

First tier:

“The Department’s rough projection calculated a 1,132 lb/MWh PJM CO2 marginal rate in 2024,which is lower than the proposed 1,700 lb/MWh CO2 emission limit that existing EGUs in New Jersey would need to meet by January 1, 2024.” (@ p. 20)

Second tier:

“the Department roughly projects a PJM CO2 marginal emission rate of 1,051 lb/MWh in 2027, which is lower than the January 1, 2027, proposed emission rate of 1,300 lb/MWh CO2 for in-State existing EGUs.”

Third tier:

“Again, looking at the 2015 through 2019 annual marginal on-peak CO2 emission rate trend, the Department roughly projects a PJM CO2 marginal emission rate of 834 lb/MWh in 2035, which is lower than the proposed emission rate of 1,000 lb/MWh by January 1, 2035.”

The FREE MARKET PJM grid (unregulated) will produce LOWER EMISSIONS than the DEP rule!

CO2 emissions will INCREASE under the DEP rules.

6. And the cherry on top is that DEP allows extension of the deadlines:

“the Department proposes to allow affected existing EGUs to apply for an extension of compliance, if the EGU must continue to operate to ensure electric grid reliability. Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:27F-2.5 sets forth the circumstances under which the Department will grant an extension of the compliance deadline(s).”

7. The “modification of exiting sources” section allows “case by case” standards. This is weaker than EPA’s “New Source Review” program under the Clean Air Act, where modifications trigger stricter new source standards. Polluters will be able to extend the life of the old plants without triggering stricter new emission standards.

8. Ironically, the emission standards for NEW units are consistent with the Obama CPP.

But there should NOT BE ANY NEW UNTIS ALLOWED!!!!!!

The New York State DEC just denied air permits for a new gas plant for exactly this reason: new fossil sources fundamentally contradict the goal of reducing current emissions. For an analysis of how the NY law differs from NJ’s toothless climate laws, see:

• What A Difference A State (Law) Makes

9. In terms of estimated emissions reductions that potentially could result from the DEOP proposal (i.e. best case, 100% compliance, rosy assumptions and projections hold) DEP estimates that reductions would be 2.5 million tons per year by 2035. This is just 2- 3% of current total emissions. It is not clear if RGGI alone would exceed these reductions (I haven’t looked at the RGGI cap lately). Regardless, such paltry reductions are a joke.

But again, DEP admits that the free market alone will provide greater reductions, absent the DEP rule. DEP openly admits this on page 58:

“Nevertheless, if PJM resources are called upon to meet the State’s capacity needs, then based on the projected PJM marginal rate, the State would still realize a net avoided CO2 emissions benefit.” 

10. The DEP estimates of the fossil boiler emissions reduction provisions of the proposal are even lame – just 71,000 tons per year.

DEP estimates that the fuel requirements would be less, just 101 tons per year

Bottom line: This is not a serious proposal.

It Will allow and result in increases in emissions.

It will not regulate methane or transportation and building sectors.

This is my first cut. More to follow.

“Now the curtain opens on a portrait of today” ~~~ Joni Mitchell (listen)

Me and Bouy are creatures of habit. We so enjoy our morning routine, which starts with a walk. Here’s what that looks like.

I wait at least a half hour hour after sunrise to give all the coyotes time to get back to their dens (they keep us up at night and run Bouy to death). That also lets the sun get high enough in the sky to warm things up enough so I don’t have to wear a heavy shirt, which I get hot in and have to take off by the time we get back from the walk.

The photos really can’t do justice to this place. When the sun is low in the sky, the colors are incredibly intense: brilliant yellows, rich olive greens, incredibly deep blue skies, blazing orange/red/purple/turquoise sunsets.

Things just seem more solid, dense, and somehow real in the desert. Hard to describe, but it’s real. Even a rusted old bottle cap.

And at night we have tons of stars, the Milky Way, and total silence. To cap that all off, the sun powers my refrigerator, lights, WiFi, laptop, phone and camera!

We’re camping on the edge of a large wash, with heavily vegetated riparian corridor. Lots of small birds. I saw a huge hawk on our walk this morning. He let us get close, inside 100 feet. I’m not a birder, so don’t know what kind of hawk. I’ll look it up and find out. I put out a hummingbird feeder but haven’t seen any. Don’t know if they’re here now. Will find that out too.

We get back to the bus. Buoy gets clean cold water and fed. I brew a pot of coffee and bask in the sun. Incredible warm sun on my face in the cool morning air. That’s it!

Now, I’ve gone coast-to-coast just to contemplate.

But, no regrets, coyote!

(A local artist, coincidentally named Wolf, makes these desert scenes on license plates)

When the curtain closes and the rainbow runs away
I will bring you incense owls by night
By candlelight, by jewel-light, if only you will stay
Pretty baby, won’t you-
Wake up, it’s a Chelsea morning

Ah, Amelia, it was just a false alarm.

This is what continuity looks like

Yet the sycophants cheerlead

For 8 years, Gov. Christie’s DEP was regularly denounced by environmental groups, media, and Democratic legislators for rolling back DEP’s strict environmental and public health regulations.

Just like former Gov. Christie Whitman was tattooed with an “Open For Business” anti-regulatory agenda at DEP, so too the Christie DEP under former corporate consultant Commissioner Bob Martin was infamous for numerous DEP regulatory rollbacks.

But, as the screen shot of the above table from DEP’s “regulatory re-adoption” webpage shows, the so called “green” Murphy DEP has re-adopted many of the Christie DEP regulatory rollbacks.

The policy at DEP under Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette – a former lawyer for major NJ corporate polluters – has been one of anti-regulatory, pro-business continuity.

[When regulations expire – now on a 7 year cycle, as recently extended from 5 years by bad legislation – that provides an opportunity to strengthen them in light of weakness discovered by experience and to address changed field conditions and the evolution of science. Re-adoption with no changes is an enormous abdication.]

Yet there has been not one peep of criticism by those same environmental groups, media outlets and Democratic legislators who denounced the Christie Administration for regulatory rollbacks at DEP.

Just the opposite: they have cheered for Murphy and called him a “green ” national leader!

The only “green” thing Gov. Murphy has done is shovel wheelbarrows of billions of taxpayer dollars at corporate wind developers and pushed a multi-billion dollar bailout of the PSE&G nuclear plants.

He’s harmed the solar industry, done virtually nothing on energy efficiency, diverted millions of dollars of clean energy funds, and failed to ratchet down on the RGGI GHG emission cap or otherwise regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite a flurry of self congratulatory Executive Orders that read like press releases, he has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

He has not improved air or water quality.

He has not limited development.

The only positive regulation among the very, very few DEP adopted  – drinking water standards for “forever chemicals” – is not being enforced.

This is an outrage.

Where is the media?

[Update – because my comments function does not work, I feel obligated to share this email. Jeff Tittel disagrees with me (and he’s half right). Tittel wrote:

I disagree that environmental groups criticized christie – most sat quiet -the weenies got money – other than me Sierra  most were silent  or faint or gave him cover  – more got a voice when christies popularity plummeted after Bridgegate but not till then –

Long Delay In Climate Rules Allows More At Risk Development And More Flooding

Embarrassing Re-adoption belies DEP rhetoric on climate adaptation

Same failure to update Coastal (CAFRA) rules allows more at risk shore development

On August 2, 2021, the Murphy DEP quietly readopted controversial Christie DEP Flood Hazard Area Act regulations, with no changes (read the re-adoption notice here).

These DEP rules are commonly referred to as the “stream encroachment rules”. The DEP Notice states: (emphasis mine)

The re-adoption of the Christie DEP rollback rules exposes the failure of leadership and gross mismanagement at DEP as well as the extensive delay in DEP’s efforts to adopt regulations to reflect the current science on climate change.  The DEP inaction and delay belie the Murphy Administration’s constant PR about their commitment and high priority on climate change issues (meanwhile, NJ suffered another devastating flood).

The DEP again diverts attention from this extensive and irresponsible delay with bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and slogans:

DEP merely says they are “finalizing” these rules.

DEP completely fails to provide or commit to a specific deadline for proposing and adopting this new “REAL” climate rules.

But, based on my knowledge of this DEP Commissioner, whenever that is, I can assure you that they will be FAKE.

[End Note: even worse, the DEP also readopted without change the Christie DEP rolled back coastal regulations, known as CAFRA.

Those rules were scheduled to expire in November 2021.

Rules are in effect for 7 years.

The DEP had seven years to plan for changes to incorporate climate science. Un-fucking believable.

NJCF “Warehouse Sprawl” Essay Proposes No Solutions, While Ignoring Real Solutions That Have Worked

Sounds like a pitch to Big Corporate Foundations to fund a weak and ineffective campaign

Several longtime grassroots conservation activists in northwestern NJ have been discussing how to mount a public campaign that could pressure State legislators and the Governor to protect the few last remaining forests and farms in NJ from the devastating destruction of climate change and the most current development threats, warehouse sprawl, industrial scale solar arrays, and DEP/NJ Audubon logging.

The warehouse sprawl issue has gotten a lot of media attention, some compromised solutions by conservationists, and weak and ineffective legislative efforts that won’t work (for a discussion of them, see this and this and this). Solar arrays on farmland have gotten some attention, and conservationists have supported horrible compromises. I’ve written extensively about the DEP/Audubon logging projects, but that issue has gained little media attention or opposition by the big conservation groups.

But none of this has been linked to climate change or the need to preserve what little is left of NJ’s undeveloped landscape

In response, I’ve recommended that activists and conservation groups push for a strong regulatory model, based on strong legal and regulatory protections that former Governor’s and Legislators have supported to preserve portions of the Pinelands, Highlands, freshwater wetlands, and steam buffers, which I outlined in this post:

• The Final Frontier In NJ’s Long Running Land Use War

Instead of compromising away what little is left of NJ’s forests and farmlands, it’s time for the conservation, environmental, justice, and climate communities to work together and fight the final battle to preserve what’s left.

That “Final Frontier” proposal has gotten some support among local activists, but the large conservation groups – like NJ Conservation Foundation and the Highlands Coalition who explicitly have been asked to support it – have declined to do so.

Those groups are now getting pressure from their own members to support something strong along the lines I’ve recommended. Specifically, NJCF and HiCO have been asked to support an approach with teeth that would broaden the focus from merely improving the siting of warehouses – a business friendly approach that actually promotes more warehouses and solar array developments – to actually protecting forests and farms and addressing the climate emergency (forests and soils “sequester” a lot of carbon, while warehouses and trucks emit a LOT of carbon).

Into that behind the scenes debate, Michelle Byers of NJ Conservation Foundation (NJCF) recently wrote about the warehouse sprawl issue in her column “The State We’re in” (“Seeking Solutions For Warehouse Sprawl”).

Curiously, Byers’ essay quotes Julia Somers, who heads the NJ Highlands Coalition, a coalition whose mission was enabled by passage of the Highlands Act and works on implementing it. [Note: corrected. Original wrote “created”, which was poor writing on my part]

But Byers and Somers say nothing about solutions that they know have worked to preserve forests and farms in the Highlands!

Byers’ essay was the typical puff piece by NJCF.

It proposed no solutions.

She praised Gov. Murphy, State legislators, and the State Planning Commission.

She ignored solar arrays and the entire issue of climate change.

She didn’t talk about preserving forest and farmlands or mention the planning and regulatory solutions she knows have worked in the Pinelands and the Highlands.

She undermined the efforts of local activists who are seeking to build public support for real solutions.

And she did so at a critical time, when the Murphy DEP is about to propose “Climate PACT” regulations and the Governor could be contemplating his legacy and be persuaded to back climate, forest, and farmland preservation as his legacy.

I’ve seen this sellout multiple times over the years.

Byers’ essay reminded me of the debates with had in the 1990’s.

At that time, some of us – the leaders were Jeff Tittel (not yet with NJ Sierra), Bill Neil Director of Conservation at NJ Audubon, and Curtis Fisher, head of NJPIRG and then McGreevey’s environmental policy aide, myself included as Sierra Club and then at McGreevey DEP and many local activists throughout the Highlands who had spent years in local land use battles – proposed an aggressive Pinelands in the Highlands campaign. Politically, this was pitched as a legacy for Gov. McGreevey. It was based on a scientific report by US Forest Service.

But NJ Conservation Foundation and the then multi-State Highlands Coalition that focused on the broader Appalachian Highlands Region, strongly opposed a NJ Pinelands regulatory model.

They claimed that it was not remotely politically feasible due to high property values, incredible development pressure, and the the political power of the development lobby.

They had no stomach for that kind of fight.

Instead, NJCF supported and had received Foundation funding for a small bore and ineffective campaign to designate the Highlands as a “region of significance” under the toothless voluntary State Plan.

Tim Dillingham had recently left NJ Sierra Club to head that NJCF Highlands State Plan campaign. When Tim left, I became Acting Director until Tittel was hired about 9 months later. (BTW, NJCF recently did the same thing to sell out the Sourlands Region, where a voluntary and ineffective local scheme was adopted).

Obviously we rejected that failed approach and pitched the Highlands Act to Gov. McGreevey. The rest is history.

I sense the same Foundation funded ineffective voluntary, toothless, local NJCF sellout is in the works for what’s left.

I sense that Byers’ piece was really a set up for pitching a proposal to the  Big Corporate Foundations (Wm. Penn, Dodge, etc) for another totally lame, voluntary, small bore, local “warehouse sprawl” campaign.

I urged my local activists friends to not let that happen and instead get out in front of the debate to frame a real proposal.

Here’s my note, which I no share with all NJ readers – don’t let NJCF sell out the last best chance to protect what’s left!

Friends – NJCF and the Highlands Coalition need to pretend they’re doing something.

This is very likely the pitch to the foundations for funding a campaign.

Time is right to get out in front of them so they don’t propose a very weak and ineffective solution

When we debated whether to seek a Highlands Act, NJCF and others OPPOSED that because they had already begun a lame Foundation funded campaign to get the Highlands designated a “region of significance” under the toothless State plan.

If you’re ever going to move, the time is now to ask Michele and Julia to support something strong, along the lines I’ve outlined.

Be bold! Do it widely within the conservation community so they will feel some pressure before wiggling out and selling you out.

Wolfe