Senate Democrats Throw In The Towel On Codifying Gov. Murphy’s Energy Goals
A Late Friday Afternoon Massacre For Clean Energy
The original two rounds of email Agenda Notices from the Senate Environment Committee stated that the controversial and highly touted S2978 – the so called “100% clean energy bill” – was scheduled for hearing at the Monday December 18, 2023 Environment Committee meeting.
I just received the third e-mail revising that agenda – the revision deleted S2978 from the Agenda.
I previously wrote to criticize that bill as deeply flawed substantively and an abuse of process to move through a lame duck session, see:
When the bill was posted for consideration on 12/18, the Committee Agenda Notice stated that there would be no public testimony, given the prior extensive testimony. I wrote Chairman Smith to object:
———- Original Message ———-
From: Bill WOLFE <b>
To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “senscutari@njleg.org” <senscutari@njleg.org>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, “dpringle1988@gmail.com” <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “Tittel, Jeff” <jeff.tittel@verizon.net>, “david@njglobe.com” <david@njglobe.com>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>
Date: 12/12/2023 7:07 PM EST
Subject: S2978 – 12/18/23 Senate hearing
Chairman Smith – I’d like to go on record to object strongly to the process for consideration of the bill S2978 during the December 18, 2023 Senate Environment Committee hearing (during a lame duck session).
According to the public notice for that hearing: (emphasis mine)
“Please note that public testimony regarding S2978 was previously taken at the November 20, 2023 meeting of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee, and no additional testimony will be taken regarding S2978 at the meeting.”
It is my understanding that prior testimony involved a Senate Committee Substitute (S2978 SCS), not the original version of S2978 – so the notice is misleading.
The bill posted for the 12/18/23 hearing is the original introduced version of S2978, not the SCS that was the subject of the prior hearing.
Therefore, despite the many confidential negotiations on the introduced version that led to the SCS, it is impossible for the public to know what legislation is under consideration.
You obviously are aware that ramming critically important and controversial legislation through a lame duck session undermines the public’s trust in the legislature.
To compound that problem by banning public comment on an unknown version of the bill – regardless of the merits and extensive prior testimony – is totally unacceptable.
I urge you to reconsider this approach.
Bill Wolfe
More recently, I wrote to criticize a NJ Spotlight Op-Ed supporting the bill by Sierra Club and NJCF:
——— Original Message ———-
From: Bill WOLFE <t>
To: Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, tom@njconservation.org, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov, Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov, ferencem@njspotlightnews.org, jonhurdle@gmail.com, asmScharfenberger@njleg.org
Date: 12/14/2023 8:00 AM EST
Subject: EO 315 – today’s Op-Ed
Anjuli – In today’s NJ Spotlight Op-Ed, you made this (false) claim: (emphasis mine):
“The goal of reaching 100% clean electricity by 2035 became state policy last March, when Gov. Phil Murphy signed Executive Order 315. This bill established the goal of 100% clean energy in law, and for the first time, required that the vast majority of clean resources should be located in New Jersey.”
https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/12/op-ed-nj-should-lead-speedy-energy-transition/
EO 315 is not a “bill” and it established no “law”.
https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-315.pdf
Executive Orders do not carry the force and effect of law, establish no substantive regulatory requirements that must be met, and are not enforceable. As a former DEP professional, surely you must know this. So I must assume your false claim was intentional, or a lie.
That false claim must be corrected immediately (copy to NJ Spotlight).
Rhetorically, you also managed to essentially dismiss “traditional” Clean Air Act regulated air pollutants, like mercury, lead, fine particulates, and hazardous air pollutants to “co-pollutants”. That is not a lie, but it misleads the public and lets polluters and DEP off the hook by downplaying traditional air pollution permit and regulatory issues and the public health impacts and risks these pollutants cause and contribute to. It also undermines public participation in DEP air permitting.
Do better.
Bill Wolfe
It is unclear why Smith abandoned the effort – and I certainly can’t claim credit for it – but given the substantive policy flaws and the abuse of the lame duck session, it was the right thing to do.
But it is another serious political setback of Gov. Murphy’s so called climate leadership.