Given the climate emergency, vague long term goals that lack implementation requirements are no longer acceptable.
[Update: 3/10/25 – the recently reintroduced proposed federal Polluter Pays Climate Fund is similarly focused on adaptation, but it has broader uses of the funds, which include projects that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency, distributed energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and public health. Why isn’t the NJ bill at LEAST as broad as the federal bill? ~~~ end update.]
The Assembly Environment, Natural Resources, and Solid Waste Committee has a big agenda for tomorrow’s hearing (see the bills to be considered).
Climate, EJ, environmental lobbyists, and any media coverage are very likely to focus on the flawed Climate Superfund Act.
Of course it is important to hold Big Oil responsible for the costs of the damage caused by their greed and criminal negligence, but the bill would do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the funds generated would be limited to adaptation, not emissions reduction.
By focusing activist resource so heavily on money related issues, we are falling further behind in the battle over the need for steep and rapid emissions reductions.
This is a huge strategic error for NJ climate activists, given the upcoming Gubernatorial election. Activists and the Trenton groups who do endorsements should be pressuring candidates to make clear and rock solid commitments to support a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure and direct DEP to implement mandatory GHG emissions reductions, along the lines of recent NY State legislation.
Activists also must highlight the fact that – while the NJ Global Warming Response Act is toothless – DEP has this authority under existing law but is not using it. Instead, they have given DEP Commissioner LaTourette a pass and become DEP cheerleaders.
When I recently shared that analysis and strategic recommendations with a leader of one of the climate groups supporting the bill, I got strong pushback and falsely criticized. So, I shared the text of the bill and the prime sponsors own words.
During the Senate hearing, when the bill was introduced, Senator McKeon emphasized the narrow scope:
“This is a cost recovery act – solely that” (listen at time 50:00)
The prime sponsor (Senator McKeon) has repeatedly emphasized that the Climate Superfund Act: 1) is NOT intended to address and is NOT applicable to emissions reductions; and 2) the money is to be used for adaptation, not emissions mitigation. (see text of section 5.(a)5. regarding use of the revenues):
“(5) disperse funds to implement climate change adaptation projects”
During the Senate hearing, McKeon practically ridiculed industry critics who falsely claimed that the bill would end the use of fossil fuels. He noted that Exxon earned over $100 billion in profits and that bill would recover only a small fraction of those annual profits.
McKeon said that on the record in this Associated Press story:
“This is simply a cost recovery tool,” said the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. John McKeon. “This is about who pays for the damage: either the taxpayer pays, or the polluter pays.”
“This money will be used by mom and pop who need to elevate their house because of flooding, or to build a sea wall,” McKeon said.”
Senator, we don’t need any more seawalls or reconstruction of multiple flood damaged properties in hazardous locations!
I wrote about all those flaws last December, when the bill was heard in the Senate, see:
- NJ Senate Hears Climate Superfund Act – The Bill Would Do Nothing To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
But in addition to the Climate Superfund Act, there is an important and controversial bill up on Monday regarding DEP regulation of warehouses, A4679
Requires certain high-traffic facilities to obtain permit from DEP and annually implement measures to reduce air pollution caused by facility.
I reached out to the sponsors to flag serious flaws and request amendments, see:
Dear Senator McKeon –
Tomorrow the Assembly Env & NR Committee will hear A4679, the Assembly version of your warehouse bill, S3546.
I’d like to suggest a minor technical amendment to correct an inconsistency in the bill, and some broader policy related amendments for your consideration. I ask that you convey this request to the Assembly sponsors and OLS aides, as I lack their email contact information.
1. No Deadline for DEP rulemaking
Section 3 of the bill mandates that DEP establish an indirect source review program within 12 months of enactment. Any such program would require regulations to implement. But Section 9 of the bill, which authorizes and mandates adoption of DEP regulations, does not include a 12 month deadline.
Given the history of extensive delays in DEP rulemaking and the fact that the program can not be implemented in the absence of regulations, Section 9 needs to be amended to include the Section 3 12 month deadline.
2. No mandatory permit consistency or numerical crosswalk (or implementation schedule) between the 2050 zero emission program goal and the DEP point system.
As drafted, the bill does not require that DEP permits issued shall be consistent with the 2050 zero emission goal of the Act. This flaw makes it virtually impossible for DEP to deny a permit or impose mandatory emission reduction requirements.
The bill does not require that the DEP point system – or mitigation measures and permit conditions – be based on data that supports attainment of the 2050 zero emission goal. This flaw makes the point system vulnerable to technical and legal challenge, as their is no nexus between the points and emissions reductions or the 2050 zero emission goal of the Act.
The bill does not establish a schedule to attain the zero emission goal. This would allow DEP to defer emissions reductions to future long term goals.
The Legislature and DEP have failed to design and implement programs that meet long term goals (e.g. the Global Warming Response Act). A significant flaw driving these failures in a lack of quantitative integration of goals, timetables, and program requirements.
Accordingly, as drafted, the bill is unworkable and will not meet the stated 2050 zero emission goal, unless specific permit consistency, quantitative point system, linkages between goal and program requirements, and a phased timetable are included.
3. Exemption of greenhouse gas emissions from permit fees
Section 6.a. explicitly exempts greenhouse gas emissions from DEP permit fees.
Given NJ’s failure to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals under the Global Warming Response Act, what is the basis for that?
Greenhouse gases are explicitly regulated as “air contaminants” (pollutants) under the NJ Air Pollution Control Act. The DEP has failed to apply this regulatory authority to regulate GHG emissions under various air pollution permits. The DEP also has failed to include GHG emissions in current mandatory emissions fees for certain air pollutants.
The bill would perpetuate these major flaws.
4. No Land Use planning and regulation components
With the exception of including an indirect allusion in DEP’s annual reporting on “contribution to flooding risks” in Section 7, bill lacks consideration of NJ’s Municipal Land Use Law, the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, the Highlands Act, the Pinelands Act, and DEP’s land use planning and regulatory programs.
As such, it will do nothing to prevent unacceptable land use impacts from new warehouse development.
I understand that the intent of the legislation is focused on air pollution impacts, but it does include many other broader issues. Failure to consider land use planning and regulation is a major flaw.
5. No Consideration of Water Resources and Flood Impacts
Same flaw as #4 above.
I suggest you consider a broader and more workable bill. Given the climate emergency, vague long term goals that lack implementation requirements are no longer acceptable.
Bill Wolfe