WolfeNotes.com

Have Republicans and Corporate Lobbyists No Shame?

Back on June 11, we challenged the Star Ledger’s PolitiFact site to fact check Governor Christie and corporate lobbyists’ claims about energy, especially on the costs and economic impacts of RGGI (see: Fact Check Christie Claims on Energy). 

We are pleased to report that they have responded to that challenge and fact checked some of those claims.

The verdict is in: yesterday the Truth-O-Meter concluded that Republicans are lying.

NJ Chamber of Commerce lobbyist, Mike Egenton. Stop the lies, Mike.

I’d also like to note that the NJ Chamber of Commerce lobbyist – just yesterday, after the Ocean Spray “manufactured horror story” was exposed by the Star Ledger as a lie - shamelessly repeated exactly that Ocean Spray lie in testimony to the Senate Environment Committee.

Worse, after repeating that lie, he then went on to attack the Sierra Club’s lobbyist for his claims about the solar installation at the Budweiser facility.

From the outset of the Christie Administration, the NJ Chamber of Commerce has engaged in a concerted campaign of misinformation, lies, and manufactured false “horror stories”. [

[Update: good article on the national strategy: How Corporate America came to dominate our discourse”.  We too have written about the Powell memo, Nader, and corporate backlash – see this)

For far too long, the media has uncritically reported the lies and spin of corporate lobbyists and republicans about the economic effects of environmental protections.

Those false claims have poisoned the public discourse.

Those lies have become conventional wisdom and the basis for reckless and  wildly destructive policies.

So, now that the Ocean Spray lie is confirmed, lets hope the media reports the lie as a fact, does more investigative journalism, and begins to fact check other false claims before printing them.

We are pleased to report that Democratic Committee Chairmen Chivukula, McKeon, and Smith have begun to do so recently.

Kudos to them for that. Let’s hope the pushback continues and expands

Obama Administration Sided With Polluters

Court Has “No Particular View” on Emissions and Climate Change 

In the most pro-corporate and worst decision since the Citizens United case where the Court struck down limits on corporate political campaign contributions, today the US Supreme Court slammed the courthouse doors on states and citizens seeking to hold major polluters accountable for the damages they cause by emissions of global warming pollutants.

The Supreme Court case is American Electric Power v. Connecticut, No. 10-174. (read the decision) [Update: footnote #2 on page 3 might be the Court’s most irresponsible statement ever made, bordering on know nothing global warming denial:

The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.  

This case was not just about states’ rights to sue – it also involved common law nuisance and private citizens’ access to the courts.

Instead of allowing citizen and state enforcement of ancient common law rights, the Court found that EPA regulations – which are not even proposed yet – are the only vehicle to address global warming harms under the Clean Air Act and hold polluters accountable. 

To provide an example of common law and illustrate just how bad this decision is, consider that NJ advocates now are opposing the Christie Administration’s coastal public access rules.

Advocates rely on ancient common law known as “The Public Trust Doctrine“. Regardless or DEP regulations, there are parallel independent common law rights and remedies that must be considered, including enforcement via lawsuits.

Just think if the NJ Supreme Court ruled that DEP regulations eliminated any posibility for citizens or Towns to enforce the Public Trust Doctrine!

The Supreme Court just did that for common law nuisance claims related to global warming harms.

You can read the NY Times and Washington Post coverage of the decision – but I’d like to add a few observations:

1. We wrote about this case on March 17 and March 18.

While I am not surprised but deeply disturbed by the Court’s decision, at least the coverage cleary states that the Obama Administration sided with the corporate polluters.

That is NOT a criticism you heard much from environmental groups or media editorials.

2. I am equally pleased that some coverage notes that the States of Wisconsin and NJ, who were original plaintiffs in the lawsuit, left after Republican Governors were elected. The Court’s decision recognized and noted this fact in footnote #3. Not only did this move undermine other states’ arguments, this is proof positive of the power of Big Oil, Koch Brothers, and Tea Party influence in the Republican party, and on NJ Governor Chris Christie:

Eight states initially banded together to sue. They were California,Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Wisconsin withdrew this year after Republicans replaced Democrats in their governor’s offices.

3. While the Supreme Court deferred to EPA to impose regulatory solutions, EPA has been backing away from regulation for many months now.

In fact, the Obama brief went so far as to say EPA may never effectively regulate global warming emissions. The NY Times story included that fact:

“The agency has said it will act by May 2012, although the government’s brief said it is possible EPA ultimately could find “imposition of such standards inappropriate.” 

The political system is broken – we are being denied solutions in Congress, the Executive Branch (EPA), and now the Courts.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

~~~ JFK, 1962

Back in the spring of 2009, I took a daytrip down to south jersey to spend the day rambling around.

I happened upon a “prescribed burn” that had gotten out of control and wrote about it briefly, with more photos here.

The so called “control burn” fire, which I assume was done for agricultural purposes, created a small wildfire that had several negative consequences.

It required emergency police and firefighter response, caused air pollution, threatened nearby farms and residential buildings, and potentially destroyed important ecological values, like habitat.

So, while I am aware of the natural and necessary role of fire in ecological dynamics, especially in Pinelands forests, today I was somewhat surprised to listen to some environmentalists unconditionally support a bill that would promote and loosen protections on “prescribed burns”. The bill would (See: S2169):

• make prescribed burns a “property right”
• put the NJ Forest Fire Service in complete control of the prescribed burn program with no mandatory safeguards and little public accountability
• fails to include technical requirements and public review of “prescribed burn plans”, such as surveys or safeguards to protect habitat, forests, threatened or endangered species, air or water quality, minimize safety risks or nuisance effects, or involve nearby property owners
• prescribed burn would be deemed to be in the public interest, would not constitute arson, trespass, or a public or private nuisance, and would not be considered to be illegal air pollution.
• eliminates any liability for damages caused by prescribed burns on private lands

Fire risks to the public and private property are largely caused by inappropriate development at the forest edge (and don’t forget that the “Tree Massacre” was justified by some at DEP as a fire prevention measure).

A prescribed burn program gives a false sense of assurance that fire risks can be managed, thus inviting more inappropriate deveopment in fire risk zone, like Pinelands forests.

There is also potential risks for prescribed burn to do real harms – and even if done safely, there are competing objectives at play.

As such, balancing risks and policy calls should not be made by the NJ Forest Fire Service without public involvement and clear legislatively established standards to safeguard against unintended consequences and risk to public safety, private property, and ecological resources.

And elimination of liability fro damages or injuries caused by “prescribed burns” invites a lower standard of care and raises risks – what is known as “moral hazard.

It is not good public policy to pass such a bill.

The environmental groups supporting the bill were acting more in their own interests as private landowners seeking to avoid public accountability and liability, than stewards of the public interest.

The Senate Environment Committee will meet tomorrow (Monday 6/20/11) to hear the Senate version of a bill to reverse Governor Christie’s plans to withdraw from RGGI (see:  S 2946)

The Senate hearing provides another opportunity for Legislators to show that they are serious about global warming, and not just playing political games.

It is simply astounding that Republicans voted “No” on party lines last week in the Assembly Environment Committee vote on A4108.

Obviously, Assemblywoman Coyle’s well heeled and highly educated Somerset County constituents know global warming is real and demand real solution, not political games.

And we’re sure that they are willing to pay far more than 28 cents per month on their electric bill (the current RGGI charge) to be part of the solution to the world’s climate change crisis.

It also gives Republicans another chance to move beyond pure unprincipled partisan loyalty to Governor Christie, and show that they see global warming as more than a political football.

So we will be closely watching how Republican members Beck and Bateman vote.

And I’m not convinced yet the Democratic Chairman Bob Smith is serious in reforming the RGGI program – ironic in that Senate President Sweeney was the sponsor of the original RGGI legislation that Governor Christie has abandoned (for RGGI’s legislative history, see this and this and this and this).

So, here are 9 specific amendments that should be considered and will serve as a test of whether this Committee is serious:

Dear Chairman Smith:

Please accept this email testimony on S2946. I am providing suggested amendments in advance of the hearing, so that there is sufficient time for consideration and for OLS to draft amendments.

While I opposed RGGI from the outset, given the failure of national global warming legislation and the fact that RGGI states’ recently wrote to EPA to support using RGGI to satisfy compliance with forthcoming EPA New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions for existing sources under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, I support the objectives of the bill to assure that NJ remains involved in RGGI.

[Note: EPA projects that the upcoming new Clean Air Act “New Source Performance Standards” (NSPS) regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal power plants will reduce current emission by at least 10%. But RGGI would allow those emissions to increase by 10 – 30%. So if EPA adopts the state recommendations and allows RGGI to satisfy NSPS compliance, we are talking about 20 – 40% increase in emissions from coal power plants. That is HUGE. I doubt most NJ legislators are even aware of how EPA and State actions are related.]

However, passing a bill to merely retain RGGI in its current form would be an empty gesture. RGGI must be reformed in light of 6 years experience and the forthcoming new EPA NSPS rules.

Therefore, I strongly urge you to adopt amendments to clarify and strengthen RGGI’s original objectives.

Given the Governor’s withdrawal statement and DEP’s testimony before Chairman Chivukula’s Committee, it is a virtual certainty that the Governor will veto this bill.

Therefore, it is even more important that you pass a bill that eliminates political considerations and strictly adheres to sound policy and science.

As you know, the RGGI caps are far above current electric sector emissions. When the original RGGI MOU was signed in 2005, NJ’s RGGI caps were 10% above then current emissions.

DEP testified to Chairman Chivukula’s Cmte. last week that the cap is 30% above current emissions.

The Governor has used this fact to claim – correctly – that RGGI is ineffective in terms of changing behavior of energy producers and consumers. PSEG themselves described the affect of RGGI as “negligible” (see page 59) 

Environmentalists (i.e. NRDC and Environment NJ) testified that RGGI originally was designed to undergo an internal performance review scheduled for 2012. The expectation all along is that the generous caps would be renegotiated and lowered.

However, given the Administration’s opposition to RGGI, it would be foolish to think – even if the bill were to pass and NJ remain a part of RGGI – that the caps would be lowered via the RGGI administrative negotiating process among State Governors.

Outside intervention and legislative policy direction are required.

With that in mind, I recommend the following amendments.

1. Legislatively reduce the RGGI cap in statute to current 2010 emissions, or the most recent actual emissions monitoring data. This would lock in any emissions reductions that have been achieved and assure that emissions do not increase.

2. Eliminate the discretionary use of “up to 100%” of revenues derived form RGGI auctions and mandate that 100% be used for the legislatively specified purposes. This would be consistent with your announced intent to Constitutionally dedicate the RGGI proceeds.

3. Delete reference to and required consistency with “the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by NJ and other states on December 20, 2005.” This would be consistent with legislatiely establishing policy and lowering the NJ emission allowances (cap).

4. Insert the year “2008” to clarify that the Corzine Energy Master Plan goals and principles are to be considered, not the proposed changes by Governor Christie.

5. Delete the subsidies, exemptions and loopholes of the original RGGI legislation provides to a cogeneration facility, combined heat and power, and any other “on-site generation facility”.

6. Mandate that all RGGI records shall be public records and subject to the Open Public Records Act.

7. Mandate that DEP adopt the January 20, 2009 proposed greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting rule that was killed by Governor Christie’s Executive Order moratorium (see: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/012009a.pdf

This will provide actual NJ data to base decisions on, not projections based on federal emissions factors and fuel use estimates.

8. Eliminate the $7 per ton relief valve. If we are going to have a market based trading scheme, prices should be determined by supply and demand and the market.

9. Eliminate the $2 per ton price cap for certain emission sources.Market assumptions require a level playing field between all sources.

Let me know if you’d like these proposed amendments formatted to the provisions of the current bill. I’d be glad to go over this with OLS staff.

Thank you for your favorable consideration.

Bill Wolfe, Director

NJ PEER

Small pond behind my house was loud with frogs. Many jumped into the water as I walked the perimeter.

This is far more than I recall in the last few years. Is this just my anecdotal perception or is it a good year for frogs? 

Calling all experts! (for those who don’t hit links: Dying Frogs Sign Of A Biodiversity Crisis)