WolfeNotes.com

Bill Would Make Fossil Industry Pay Part Of Huge Costs Of Climate Chaos

The Bill Would Do Nothing To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

[Update 12/16/24 – The New York State Legislature passed a Climate Superfund bill which is now on Gov. Hochul’s desk: $3 billion per year for 25 years. Once again, NJ way behind NY. ~~~ end update

Update 12/13/24 – Wayne Parry’s Associated Press story does a good job. ~~~ end update]

I must admit that I enjoyed listening to the absolute panic in the voice of Ray Cantor, lobbyist for the NJ Business And Industry Association (NJBIA), as he testified to the Senate Environment Committee today in opposition to the NJ Climate Superfund Act (S3545).

Ray’s voice was shaking and he was clearly in meltdown mode.

His testimony was so deranged and bordering on climate denial that it prompted a sharp rebuke from Chairman Smith, who at the conclusion interjected that he had never more strongly opposed any testimony! Ouch!

The bill would:

SYNOPSIS

“Climate Superfund Act”; imposes liability on certain fossil fuel companies for certain damages caused by climate change and establishes program in DEP to collect and distribute compensatory payments.

I sent the sponsors a note of support, with some ideas for amendments to strengthen the bill.

Fossil industry strict liability and compensation for the damages that their fossil products caused is a great idea, and legislation is superior to litigation to recover these damages, but this bill is limited to adaptation and does nothing to reduce emissions, which has to be priority number 1.

Basically, this bill is a RGGI on steroids.

Global climate activists made the same strategic error by focusing almost exclusively on compensation – not emissions reductions and climate science – in the recent COP29.

Senator McKeon emphasized that the bill was solely a cost recovery bill (not emissions reductions or renewables). He expressed confidence in the legal basis surviving challenge.

McKeon ridiculed the opponents’ criticism that the bill would stop fossil fuels. He noted that Exxon earned $115 billion in profits, and that the bill would recover only a tiny fraction of the Exxon annual profits (just a quarter of one percent). 

McKeon made my point.

The bill was released by the Committee with minor technical amendments by a party line 3-2 vote.

I’ll leave the details for future posts and let the NJ media have at it for today’s story.

How Far NJ Sierra Chapter Has Fallen – From Activists To Cheerleaders

Sierra Club NJ Chapter Director Anjuli Matos (C), a former DEP technician, is close to DEP Commissioner LaTourette (R). Ed Potosnak, NJ LCV on left.

“De-listing means thousands of acres of water front property open for development- We stopped a power plant in Bordentown because of eagles nest , or Petty’s Island etc.” ~~~ longtime activist

NJ Sierra Club is literally pitiful.

Under a misleading headline: “DEP Proposes to Lengthen the Endangered List“, the Chapter leads with pity:

Pity the poor rusty-patched bumblebee.

Yes, but pity the NJ Sierra Chapter, for a pitiful post that provides cover for the Murphy DEP’s proposed delisting of the bald eagle!

After leading with the pity for the rusty-patched bumblebee, Sierra then highlights the good news –  the headline itself is really all you need to read – because this is all about providing cover for the Murphy DEP:

Under a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) proposed rule, conservation status for this insect would be changed to endangered.

In all, 30 species would see increased concern under the proposed rule. They include butterflies, freshwater fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and land mammals.

Back in June, we warned that the Murphy DEP proposed to delist the bald eagle.

That was not only bad conservation policy and a dangerous precedent, but it would weaken land use regulations that protect eagle habitat, see:

• Murphy DEP Proposal To Delist Bald Eagle Raises Important Questions

Of course, that DEP proposal was supported by the NJ Builders Association – gee, I wonder why.

That controversial DEP June proposal is pending adoption right now.

The Murphy DEP obviously is looking for public support to soften the blow and shape the media’s coverage of their upcoming adoption of the proposal.

Which explains the timing of the NJ Sierra Club’s pitiful post.

The Sierra Club ignores this entire controversy.

Instead of criticism, they offer praise for DEP success:

To be sure, there are conservation successes, too, notably the bald eagle, which in the 1970s was reduced to just one nesting pair in a remote corner of Cumberland County. Now, there are 262 nesting pairs located throughout New Jersey. This is thanks largely to conservation efforts and the banning of DDT, a pesticide that made eggshells so fragile chicks could not hatch in the wild.

The bald eagle would see its conservation status changed from endangered to special concern.

The osprey is a similar success story. Its conservation status would be changed from threatened to stable. There are an estimated 800 nesting pairs of this apex, fish-eating predator in New Jersey.

That could have been written by the Murphy DEP press office (in fact, something very, very similar was, read and note the similarities:

• MURPHY ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES REMOVING BALD EAGLE AND OSPREY FROM NEW JERSEY’S ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST

When NJ Sierra Club is parroting DEP press releases, you know we’re in trouble. How far they have fallen since Jeff Tittel retired..

Curiously, after praising a delisting of Bald Eagle that will REDUCE habitat protections, Sierra end the post with this contradictory CYA statement:

The Sierra Club’s NJ Chapter is advocating for stronger protections for declining wildlife populations via greater curbs on habitat encroachment and incidental harm to animals.

Sierra can’t have it both ways! How can they support a delisting, which by definition reduces and weakens protections for habitat, and then claim to support “greater curbs on habitat encroachment” (and its a LOT more than “encroachment”, the builders will now be able to destroy habitat).

That was purely a throw away line tacked on to the end of the post to mislead readers and critics of the DEP proposal and Sierra’s failure to oppose it.

Sierra also understands the timing issue and the role they are playing to provide cover for DEP:

The DEP proposed rule was subject to a public comment period that has now ended, and a final rule was expected before the end of 2024.

Exactly. Pitiful clowns.

Murphy DEP Delayed Public Records Request For Drought Documents & Data

[Update below]

The NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) met yesterday.

Before I get to the important issues I tried to put on the meeting agenda in written submissions and again during the public comment period (see this and this for details), let me first note that one issue on the DWQI meeting agenda was about development of next year’s (2025) workplan to specify what chemicals they would be developing drinking water standards for (MCLs).

The DWQI Chair suggested that they conduct a survey of members to identify priority chemicals to work on. I interjected and requested that the DWQI issue a public notice and provide an opportunity for public comment on what the DWQI workplan should be. Surprisingly the Chair agreed to do that! So folks should look for that and weigh in to help set the DWQI priorities and focus.

During discussion, DWQI member Judy Klotz suggested that the DWQI consider some kind of recommendation to insulate and protect NJ’s drinking water program from anticipated attacks at the federal level under the incoming Trump administration. Trump has pledged to rollback environmental regulations even more severely than he did during his first term (over 120 regulations) under the Project 2025 strategy to “dismantle the administrative state”. Klotz’s suggestion was ignored by the Chair.

During public comment, I supported Klotz’s suggestion and emphasized that the entire regulatory framework was in jeopardy and that there was a LOT the DEP Commissioner, Governor, and Legislature could do to block Trump rollbacks, including working with the outgoing Biden EPA. (One example: EPA & DEP have a contractual commitment called “NEPPS”. Revisions could lock in funding and program commitments via contract.)

During Trump’s first term, he issued Executive Orders that directed federal agencies to repeal and not enforce not only regulations, but funding and even basic foundational elements (data, methods, databases, etc). One example was the repeal of the EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon – so suppose the new Trump EPA erased the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System?

IRIS is the scientific foundation for DEP risk assessments, regulatory standards, and permit decisions. An Emergency Order by the Governor or new legislation could freeze current science and data from any abolition or rollback, And that’s just ONE example.

During public comment period I also posed specific direct questions to the Chair:

Status Of The DWQI Recommended “Treatment Based Approach”

What was the status of the prior DWQI recommend “Treatment Based Approach” to hundreds of unregulated chemicals? Was it abandoned and defunct? Did it require new legislation? Or is DEP planning new regulations to implement it? I cited my petition for rulemaking which was recently denied by DEP. I emphasized that current low flow conditions greatly exacerbated the risk from unregulated chemicals for which there is very little data and that pass through drinking water systems into your tap water.

The Chair completely ignored and failed to respond to those critical questions.

Drinking Water Risks And Water Quality Monitoring Under Commissioner LaTourette’s Drought Order

What is the ambient river water quality upstream of drinking water intakes during the extremely low flow drought conditions? What are the risks of regulated and unregulated chemicals in that source water? Do current drinking water treatment systems remove these chemicals? How does the Department coordinate the wastewater treatment plants with the downstream drinking water intakes? For example, if there is an accidental chemical spill that impacts a river, the downstream drinking water intakes are shut down.

The Chair directed me to the Water Supply Advisory Council and felt that these issues were better addressed there, not at the DWQI.

I objected by noting the broad legislative charge to the DWQI to make recommendations regarding not just MCL’s but “implementation of the drinking water program”. I stressed the expertise in toxicology and risk assessment at the DWQI and the institutional composition of the DWQI, which includes laboratory and treatment experts and the private water purveyors.

No response to that from the Chair or members of the DWQI. Pure cowardice.

Risks And Impacts Of Water Transfers – Is NJ Replicating Flint Michigan?

I asked about how paragraphs #5 and #6 of Commissioner LaTourette’s drought Order regarding water quality were being implemented, including for reduced reservoir releases, reduced minimum flow requirements AND any water transfers.

Weeks prior to yesterday’s meeting, I filed an OPRA public records request to obtain this water quality data as well as communications with the drinking water purveyors, BEFORE the DWQI meting. DEP failed to respond by the legal deadline and instead delayed response for an indefinite period.

I asked how the public could be assured of the quality of the drinking water during drought, particularly given the DEP Water Supply Plan’s findings that during the 2016 – 2017 drought Order, which clearly stated that water purveyors refused to comply with the DEP Ordered water transfers due to concerns about changed source water chemistry leaching lead from distribution pipes, which is exactly what happened in Flint, Michigan.

The DEP representative on the DWQI responded, by assuring me that things were under control and referred me to DEP “Guidance” and US EPA regulation and Guidance. I was told that the DEP’s “Drinking Water Watch” (DWW) website regularly posted the data.

During the meeting, I pushed back on the DWW claim by asking whether that data included source water data, e.g. the chemicals upstream of drinking water intakes. I got misleading replies to which I pushed back by noting that DEP’s Water Supply Plan explicitly states that DEP lacks authority to require sampling of source water.

After the meeting, I Googled those documents and found that the DEP Guidance is not enforceable and not applicable during drought emergency.

I found that the EPA regulations and Guidance were not enforceable and that NJ, as a state with “Primacy” under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and DEP is the lead agency and not really directly supervised by EPA.

So, the public can have no assurance about or confidence in the safety of their drinking water, especially during drought.

The DWQI is evading its responsibilities and not responding to important science based questions.

The DEP is not cooperating in sharing information, is not replying timely as required by law to OPRA requests, is not conducting a transparent program, and is evading regulatory updates and enforcement.

Folks might like to know about that. So where are the environmental groups and media?

[Update: 12/13/24 – I resent being stonewalled and gaslighted by DEP bureaucrats, so I filed the following OPRA public records request just now. This will be interesting. I’ll share DEP’s response:

During the 12/10/24 meeting of the Drinking Water Quality Institute, in response to my questions, I was directed to 2 document: 1) the NJDEP Guidance “SOURCE WATER CHANGES AND TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS” and 2) US EPA Guidance “Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water Systems”.

I request the following public records regarding those 2 documents:

1) technical reports submitted to the DEP by regulated water purveyors pursuant to those Guidance documents (and DEP & EPA regulations) during the 2016 – 2017 and current (2024) droughts, including pursuant to DEP Administrative Orders.

2) correspondence between NJ DEP and regulated water purveyors regarding the two subject Guidance documents (and DEP & EPA regulations during the 2016 – 2017 and current (2024) droughts, including pursuant to DEP Administrative Orders.

3) correspondence between NJ DEP and US EPA regarding water quality data, technical Reports, or implementation regarding the two subject Guidance documents (and DEP & EPA regulations during the 2016 – 2017 and current (2024) droughts, including pursuant to DEP Administrative Orders.

Oh, I used to be disgusted
And now I try to be amused ~~~ Elvis Costello

In an Orwellian upside down world and a big FUCK YOU to forest preservation and Highlands and Delaware River activists who strongly opposed the project, today NJ Gov. Murphy issued an “Environmental Excellence Award” for logging forested lands along the Merrill Creek reservoir.

Incredibly – and you can’t make this stuff up – the award was for “Healthy Ecosystems and Habitats” (DEP Press release):

Healthy Ecosystems and Habitats: Merrill Creek Reservoir

Merrill Creek Reservoir uses a Forest Stewardship Plan to manage wildlife habitat and implement conservation projects to improve forest habitat, manage native grassland, and create and enhance demonstration pollinator gardens. In addition, reservoir staff create underwater structures and conduct monitoring to support fish populations and are working with NJ Audubon to test a deer barrier system as an alternative to conventional deer exclusion fencing options.

Recall that recently, the Murphy DEP has faced strong public criticism and press coverage for similar logging in forested wetland to create habitat in Wildlife Management Areas (Glassboro WMA, Sparta Mountain WMA, et al) and in the Highlands and the Pinelands.

And once again, corrupt NJ Audubon is involved to provide cover and tap into government funding (and just look at who is the “ecologist” at Merrill Creek).

The logging project that received the excellence award exploited loopholes in DEP regulations and was opposed by ecologists and forest preservation advocates: (Op-Ed)

Tree removal, particularly large trees, is a well-known contributor to flooding. For this reason, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection prohibits vegetation removal in riparian buffers within flood hazard areas. However, an exception exists for commercial logging. This means logging falls under “agricultural use” and bypasses flood hazard area regulation.

Recently, Merrill Creek implemented a plan to harvest timber around the reservoir. Logging poses numerous threats to water quality. Run-off from logged areas can cause erosion, washing mud and silt into sensitive trout production streams. This deprives fish and amphibians of oxygen and pollutes drinking water sources for the entire region.

The fact that DEP could recommend that the Gov. issue such an award is strong evidence of how out of touch the DEP and Governor are and demonstrates that they arrogantly ignore the concerns of the public.

DEP Sampled Trenton Homes And Found Lead Levels 10 TIMES Higher Than A Toxic Waste Site – Over 3,400 parts per million!

DEP Did Nothing And Hid The Data From The Community

DEP Drinking Water Expert’s Lawsuit Against DEP Shows How DEP Gags Staff, Suppresses Science, And Withholds Information From The Public

(Source: DEP Policy – from DEP’s legal brief in response to a DEP expert’s lawsuit against DEP)

The excerpt above is what is known as a Gag Order. It requires that any DEP expert must get DEP management approval BEFORE they can say anything to the public. Controversial information is withheld by DEP management and press office review. But I am getting way ahead of myself, so let’s begin with the story.

One of NJ’s few remaining investigative reporters, Jeff Pillets, has a good story today in NJ Spotlight regarding criminal corruption of NJ’s lead removal program in Trenton, see:

• Trenton lead pipe replacement program under scrutiny after contractor charged in Newark scheme

Pillets is working for a new outfit called the The Jersey Vindicator  which looks like a good old school investigative journalism based publication – check them out. I was surprised that NJ Spotlight published his critical work, as they generally steer clear of critical coverage and real investigative reporting.

The criminal investigations into Newark and Trenton’s lead line replacement programs expose a Piñata of lax regulatory oversight and enforcement failures, primarily at DEP’s drinking water program.

Readers wondering how this could happen and where the hell DEP has been all this time, might be interested  in taking an insider’s look into how DEP actually operates and why the DEP’s drinking water program is so dysfunctional, see:

• DEP Drinking Water Expert’s Lawsuit Against DEP Reveals How DEP Managers Suppress Science On Controversial Issues

Bu you won’t read about any of that in NJ Spotlight.

Pillets’ NJ Spotlight story closed with a quote from Eric Olson of NRDC that diverts attention and provides cover for the DEP by targeting others and withholding criticism of DEP:

Some local officials and water utilities, Olson added, have withheld critical information from the public.

Government officials “need to avoid the false reassurances about the safety of tap water that have been offered in a mistaken and paternalistic belief that the public cannot handle the truth about the threats posed by their tap water,” Olson said.

Notice how Mr. Olson fails to mention the DEP as among those who “withhold critical information from the public” and provide “false assurance about the safety of tap water” and manifest a “paternalistic belief that the public cannot handle the truth about the threats posed by their tap water”.

Why would Mr. Olson give DEP a pass?

Why would NJ Spotlight let him get away with that?

Are Mr. Olson and NJ Spotlight aware of the DEP Gag Order policy – which DEP defends in their legal briefs in response to a lawsuit by a veteran 30 year DEP expert? I published that months ago and it is a public document.

The Trenton lead pipe story reminded me of another scandal in Trenton, the one where the State School Construction Corporation and DEP allowed toxic soil to be imported and used as clean fill during construction of the Martin Luther King Jr. school.

In order to prove that the toxic soil had no impact on the community – and cover the State’s legal ass for their criminal negligence in allowing this to happen – DEP conducted a study, see:

• Final Report submitted to the NJDEP On Exposure and Health Assessment within the Community Surrounding the Martin Luther King/Jefferson School Construction Site

This study included “swipe samples” of the indoor window sills of homes near the school construction site to determine, among others, lead levels people were exposed to in their homes.

The DEP study used unusually sophisticated and costly chemical finger printing. The purpose of that was to uniquely finger print chemicals in the imported toxic soil and distinguish that soil from “background” levels in the community. Why would DEP conduct that kind of metals speciation, which they rarely do? Like I said, DEP wanted to cover the SCC and DEP’s ass and prove that they were not the culprit.

Of course, the DEP study found that the lead inside people’s homes did not come from the imported toxic soil. DEP used this finding to absolve themselves: case closed, no impact. DEP issued a press release, required dust control measures at the construction site, and distributed a highly misleading “Community Guide” that downplayed risks. Time to move on.

But wait a minute: What level of background lead did DEP find in people’s homes in Trenton?

For the indoor swipe date, see Table 5 on page 33.

Lead is found at astonishing high levels: 3, 488 ppm is the mean (average) level found.

The DEP lead toxic site cleanup standard for soils in 400 ppm. That means Trenton homes had lead levels 10 TIMES higher than a hazardous waste site.

These findings should have triggered an emergency declaration and forced cleanups throughout the community.

But DEP did NOTHING.

I blasted them for those failures at the time when I was Director of NJ PEER. Perhaps that’s another reason the NJ PEER was defunded and shuttered, after previously receiving 10 years of NJ environmental Foundation grant funding support?

And where were all the current lead grifters back then? Why didn’t they all criticize DEP and warn the community?

There was no government or Foundation money to access back then. So they were nowhere to be seen.

When government is throwing hundreds of millions of dollars around, the grifters are sure to follow.

Those grifters are not just the criminal contractors – but include Foundations and environmental groups.

I just looked into the Biden Administration’s designated NJ’s “Lead hub” behind all this crap.

It is the usual grifters’ Foundation and government grant based gig – with the usual trough feeding Democratic Party operatives. The Co-Chair is Deb Mans and a major NJ based funder is The Fund For NJ. Amy Goldsmith CWA has her hand in the pie as well. There is an explicit link to funding by Biden’s infrastructure programs.

Here’s all you really need to know: (source: Lead Free NJ)

State and local governments should seek designation of American Rescue Plan funds to remediate lead in homes.

And as I’ve written before, NJ Future is involved not just for the Foundation and government money, but to protect their real clients in the real estate development community and the private water companies.

The NJF strategic objective is to make sure that the costs of the infrastructure and lead pipe removal programs are allocated completely to the public sector (taxpayer), not the developers and water company shareholders.

The other objective is to ensure that the regulatory agencies, DEP and BPU, do not crack down and impose additional regulatory requirements or target them for costly upgrades or things like development impact fees and off site improvements.

Thus far, they succeeded brilliantly – the program is 100% publicly funded, there are no new government regulations or fees, and the grifter money is flowing freely!

There are multiple scandals in this one post. Will the media wake up?