WolfeNotes.com

Environmentalists Hiding Under Their Desks, Playing Corrupt Inside Game

Instead of Reforms, NJ Could Be On The Verge of Further Rollbacks

“People opposed every one of our measures because short-sighted people say ‘Let’s enjoy it today, don’t worry about tomorrow,'” said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who proposed a coastal commission in the 1980s in an ultimately failed bid to curb excessive development. “You just can’t do that as a state, or you have to expect that sooner or later you’re going to lose that game.” ~~~ Huffington Post 12/12/12

By the 1960s, the New Jersey shore claimed distinction as both the most developed coastline in the United States and a budding ecological disaster. Noted landscape architect Ian McHarg highlighted the rapid development of the Jersey Shore in his seminal 1969 book Design with Nature, a widely read critique of environmental planning. “Houses are built upon dunes, grasses destroyed, dunes breached for beach access and housing,” he wrote. “Ignorance is compounded with anarchy and greed to make the raddled face of the Jersey shore.”

Coastal researchers coined the term “New Jersey-ization” to describe the folly of human intervention along the shore. By 1971, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had classified 81 percent of New Jersey’s coastline as being in “critical” condition from beach erosion.

“We became a laboratory for how not to do it,” said Wolfe, the former Department of Environmental Protection analyst.

 [Update: 12/20/12 –  Better late than never – The Asbury Park Press nails it – closely follows our take, including quoting former Gov. Tom Kean on the need for a Coastal Commission and Gov. Christie’s reckless cheerleading for Rebuild Now! (see: Watchdog: How greed and politics nearly destroyed the coast – here’s my favorite contrast:

Christie, a Republican, has said that the Jersey Shore has no choice but to rebuild, and already has allowed hard-hit towns to reconstruct roads, bridges and other infrastructure without considering protections against the next storm.

“We’ll rebuild it,” Christie said days after the storm. “No question in our mind we’ll rebuild it.” […]

Kean, a Republican, said it was essential to plan for protection “because when you think of New Jersey, you think of the Shore.”

While the NJ environmental community was holding a teleconference with a handful of reporters to release a list of vague and empty platitudes, the NJ Builders Association was in the trenches in Trenton yesterday, putting an insane rebuild agenda on the table before the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee (Star Ledger story)

Dave Fisher, treasurer of the New Jersey Builders Association, said the state should come up with ways to reduce regulatory burdens and costs, streamline the permitting and inspection processes and regionalize the disaster planning and permitting processes. He also urged committee members to consider supporting a sales tax holiday for building materials and supplies or at least reduce the sales tax on those items.

Meanwhile, in Washington, on the same page with their shortsighted NJ counterparts, Republicans and business groups were crafting another fraudulent “cliff”, claiming that now President Obama was taking us over the “regulatory cliff”, with more “job killing red tape regulations” (Bergen Record/AP story):

“WASHINGTON — While the “fiscal cliff” of looming tax increases and spending cuts dominates political conversation in Washington, some Republicans and business groups see signs of a “regulatory cliff” that they say could be just as damaging to the economy. …

Under an Obama EPA that has earned a reputation for abuse, American families will be subjected to a regulatory onslaught that will drive up energy prices, destroy millions of jobs and further weaken the economy,” he wrote in a 14-page report on expected EPA regulations for 2013. The report predicts an influx of regulations that “spell doom for jobs and economic growth.”

This red meat ideological attack on regulation is getting little if any pushback in NJ – the environmental groups aren’t talking about it (they haven’t even shown up at Legislative hearings), the media isn’t writing  the stories, and no one is willing to talk about obvious failures and hold the Christie Administration accountable (other than the NJ Transit debacle).

We are in the absurd situation whereby in the midst of this backlash ideological attack on regulations, the NJ environmental community is mute, while:

1) the Asbury Park Press has strongly criticized Governor Christie and DEP Commissioner Martin, and called for a moratorium on rebuilding, stronger regulations, and a Coastal Commission;

2) A former DEP Commissioner and current developer Mark Mauriello has very publicly laid out a vision and recommended a very specific controversial legislative and regulatory reform agenda, including repeal of the right to rebuild and a new Coastal Commission;

3) the moderate and pro-economic development planning group NJ Future has supported a Coastal Commission.

Yet, in this context, since the storm the NJ environmentalists have been AWOL and surrendered the field in the policy and media arena. Now, after 6 weeks of sitting on the sideline, all they can do is release a list of vague platitudes? How can they possibly be behind the APP, a builder, and NJ Future in calling out Christie and demanding specific reforms?

Just like the response to the Wall Street fraud and greed driven housing bubble collapse – the product of economic deregulation – it was the lack of regulation and lax regulation that greatly contributed to the Sandy disaster.

The Huffington Post nails it:

New Jersey’s coastal land-use regulations are conspicuously lenient compared to other state an investigation by The Huffington Post has found — so lenient that authorities permitted the Cabana Club to adopt its precarious location between the seawall and the beach. Based on current state law — the fruit of a political compromise crafted nearly two decades ago — the club can fully rebuild here, in exactly the same spot. In New Jersey, owners of coastal developments possess unique rights to rebuild in the wake of storms. Whatever nature removes, and at whatever cost to taxpayers, property owners are free to put it all back.

Sandy is now testing the merits of the absolute right to rebuild like never before, resurrecting long-expressed concerns that it sets up homeowners and the government for future disasters. As New Jersey confronts the question of how and where to reconstruct its battered shore, experts warn that the state’s land-use laws are likely to perpetuate what has played out here for decades: cycles of reckless development followed by storm-inflicted devastation.

“The status quo is that you just put everything back,” said Mark Mauriello, a former commissioner for New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, who worked in the agency’s coastal program for two decades. “Looking ahead, we shouldn’t be surprised when we see areas damaged again, people hurt, and the same kind of misery we’ve seen here. Clearly, I hope people realize that’s not a good plan for the future.”

If New Jersey is to forge a different path, it may require a change in philosophy from its famously pugnacious Republican governor, Chris Christie. Since taking office three years ago, Christie and his appointees have altered the composition of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees shoreline land use, replacing several credentialed experts in environmental science and coastal management with people drawn from the business world.

The department’s current commissioner, Bob Martin — an advisor to Christie’s 2009 campaign, and previously an energy and utility consultant at Accenture — has urged the agency to adopt a “customer service focus”while serving as “a driver for economic growth.” He has marginalized the authority of scientists and coastal policy experts, critics say, primarily by transferring them to other offices.

“[Christie has] done the exact opposite of what’s needed to be done,” said Bill Wolfe, a former Department of Environmental Protection planner and policy analyst who now leads the watchdog group New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “He has been affirmatively promoting regulatory relief and taking away any development, land use planning and infrastructure expertise at the department.”

But instead of aggressively making that case and calling for bold and specific restrictive regulations, greenhouse gas emission reductions, massive renewable energy investments, and reforms in coastal land planning and use governance, the NJ environmental community is on the sidelines or is working behind the scenes with the Christie Administration.

In the wake of NJ’s worst disaster ever – with direct connections to both global warming and coastal land use planning and management regulatory failures – the environmentalists are not only missing a huge opportunity for real reforms, but I fear we are on the verge of a huge setback.

Here’s where I see this ongoing disaster unfolding in the immediate future:

1) Gov. Christie makes a Move – Enviro’s Provide Support and Cover

Given President Obama’s Executive Order and NY Governor Cuomo’s early move to appoint several Sandy recovery Task Forces, I see a similar move by Governor Christie on the horizon.

My sense is that Christie will issue an Executive Order creating a “bipartisan” Task Force or Blue Ribbon panel and that his “consensus” reforms will be focused on incentives, tax cuts, deregulation, local control/home rule, and voluntary measures.

Any reforms would be  incorporated in changes in his State Strategic Economic Development Plan (previously known as the State Development and Redevelopment Plan) overseen by the State Planning Commission, thereby sidestepping debate and totally frustrating attempts to close legislative loopholes, strengthen DEP regulations, and create a real regional planning entity like a Coastal Commission with regulatory control over land use, infrastructure, and spending priorities. 

Just remember, the State Plan has no teeth. Don’t fall for a coastal gum-job.

Look to all – including environmental groups – to praise the Governor’s “bold leadership”.

And don’t be surprised if token environmental supporters Tim Dillingham and Cindy Czipf – the new NJEF and Dave Pringle – are named to represent the environmental community on those Task Forces (and later receive significant mitigation money in exchange for their support). [Those same groups and individuals have provided cover in support of Gov. Christie on Barnegat Bay, the Oyster Creek deal, gutting DEP TMDL and the Gov. veto of TMDL legislative efforts, and have accepted $1 million in State funds for “restoration” and upcoming federally funded “mitigation” projects:

“A lot of money is going to be coming into the state through federal programming, hopefully, and we need to strategically figure out where we are spending that money. As we bring in that money, we have to make sure that the waterfront is open to everyone.”

Brazen game, no? It just might explain why they fail to call for specific reforms – they are more interested in appeasing the Governor and shaking the money tree, than calling for the specific reforms they must know are the right thing to do.

2) Privatization of DEP Permitting – Pressure Builds

It is actually possible to see privatization of coastal redevelopment oversight – the Builders and others have already called for a private “Licensed Site Professional” based model for coastal permitting as a way around DEP oversight and permit requirements. Even two years before Sandy, DEP put out a bid to privatize land use permiting, a move later blocked by the Legislature;

3) Pressure mounts to deregulate and “relax” DEP rules

it is actually possible to see further deregulation of environmental oversight – DEP Commissioner Martin has already deregulated public infrastructure and announced plans to further “relax” the Flood Hazard regulations (you can watch Martin make that commitment).

Now how crazy is that  – in the wake of the worse flooding in the state’s history, the DEP Commissioner openly calls for relaxing flood regulations! (and no in the press, legislature, or environmental community calls him out for that!)

The normally controversial privatization and deregulation initiatives would be masked and provided political by the consensus bipartisan  recommendations of the Task Force – all signed on to by friendly environmentalists.

4) No Strings Congressional Block Grants Put Christie in Control

Congress seems poised to enact a “no strings” multi-billion taxpayer bailout of rebuilding, with maximum flexibility to states in the form of block grants.

5) Will Democratically Controlled Legislature Continue to Sit Back?

How can Legislative Democrats and NJ environmentalists support a multi-billion block grant dominated bailout to a Governor who has appointed a “Rebuild Czar”, provided $1.5 billion already in corproate tax breaks, and diverted over $680 million of clean energy funds (among many other things).

How is it possible to trust Gov. Christie to spend those billions of dollars in federal monies wisely – under the control of a Czar and  with no public process, no overall strategy or plan, and no new  policies, standards, and criteria in place to govern how and where the rebuild occurs and the money is spent?

This is where we are heading, unless there is a significant change in the debate.

6) The Prospects for Reform

The only brakes on the accelerating disaster that is unfolding is for Congress to put strings on federal money (I will lay that out in future post) and for NJ Legislators to enact legislation that takes unilateral control away from the Gov. and his “Rebuild Czar (more on that later too).

Of course the NJ enviro’s could mount a public campaign and wage a huge battle to convince the public to demand reforms – but, too late, that opportunity has been squandered.

That is insane – but par for the course at this insane moment in our public life.

[Update – 12/15/12 – I just heard that Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration as Secretary of State. Republican racists seem to have had a particular problem with a strong black woman. And a strong black woman representing the US as Secretary of State just made their ignorant racist little heads explode. But, Obama threw Rice under the bus, in ways similar to the Van Jones affair – both were victims of manufactured fraudulent right wing attacks. Lisa Jackson is a strong black woman too, and no doubt, racism is involved in the attacks on her (see below). But, in contrast to the meritless attacks on Rice and Jones, I think the attacks on Jackson are drive more by ideological opposition to EPA regulation than racism. And Jackson did given them the ammo to attack by using a secret email account – been there, done that. – end update]

Here’s something you likely won’t read in the Hometown NJ newspapers –

Looks like Jersey Girl and US EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has gotten herself immersed in a growing beltway scandal related to the use of secret email accounts – redolent of the Bush Administration White House. Prelude to second term exit? Get some popcorn and check it out:

House Republicans press Jackson for more info on internal email accounts

John McArdle, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, December 13, 2012

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are again pressing U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to explain her use of a nonpublic email account to conduct agency business — and to name names if she knows of other heads of federal agencies who also make use of alias accounts.

House Republicans in recent months have accused officials at EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce and the White House of using questionable methods of communication to avoid having documents relating to official business captured by federally mandated government record-keeping systems (E&ENews PM, Nov. 20).

Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and his Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) also asked Jackson today whether the internal email address could have been used to avoid providing information for congressional inquiries over the past two years.

EPA has acknowledged that Jackson was assigned two official government email addresses and that the practice has been going on for more than a decade for agency administrators. The so-called public account address is posted on EPA’s website; a second, internal one is what the administrator uses to communicate with staff and government officials.

Jackson’s internal account went by the name Richard Windsor, a combination of the name of a family pet and East Windsor, N.J., the town where she lived. EPA has said that given the large volume of emails sent to Jackson’s public account — more than 1.5 million communications in fiscal 2012 — the internal email account is necessary for effective management and communication between the administrator and agency colleagues.

EPA has said both accounts are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

In their letter today, Upton and Stearns noted that over the past two years the committee has initiated numerous inquiries seeking documents relating to actions and policy decisions at the agency.

“We recognize the utility of a secondary, internal email account for the conduct of agency business,” the congressmen wrote. “We seek to understand whether conducting business with an alias has in any way affected the transparency of the agency’s activities or the quality or completeness of information provided to the Committee.”

In the list of questions included in today’s letter — which the members want answered by Dec. 21 — they also ask whether any other heads of federal agencies are assigned an internal email address. If so, Upton and Stearns asked Jackson to name those agencies.

Click here to read Upton and Stearns’ letter.

 Government Claims of “Safe” Levels Are False

Developmental Effects in Children Occur at Levels Found

air monitoring locations, Paulsboro NJ

[Important Up front Clarification:

Literally on the last page of the ATSDR MRL methodology, the authors clarify the esssential point – I am not a toxicologist so I just read this, which makes my interpretation of MRLs inaccurate – exceedence of the MRLs are NOT assured to have adverse effects. I over-stated the science behind the MRL. Regardless I will not take this post down, because readers should know that I acknowledge mistakes in judgement, and because the MRL is still a useful tool and a precautionary approach suggests that the use if the word “safe” is misleading:

MRLs are intended to serve as a screening tool to help public health professionals decide where to look more closely. They may also be viewed as a mechanism to identify those hazardous waste sites or other hazardous substance exposures that are not expected to cause adverse health effects. The MRLs are set below levels that, based on current information, might cause adverse health effects in the people most sensitive to such substance-induced effects (Barnes and Dourson, 1988; USEPA, 1990). Most MRLs contain some degree of uncertainty because of the lack of precise toxicological information on the people who might be most sensitive (e.g., infants, elderly, and nutritionally or immunologically compromised) to the effects of hazardous substances. A conservative (i.e., protective) approach is used to address these uncertainties, consistent with the public health principle of prevention. Although human data are preferred, MRLs often must be based on results of animal studies because relevant human studies are lacking. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that humans are more sensitive than animals to the effects of hazardous substances, and that certain persons may be particularly sensitive. Thus, the resulting MRL may be as much as a hundredfold below levels shown to be nontoxic in laboratory animals. Exposure to a level above the MRL does not mean that adverse health effects will occur.  – end clarification

Air monitoring data in Paulsboro after the toxic train wreck were 10 -12 times higher than “safe” health effects levels set by federal health authorities.

According to federal scientists, the health risks of concern to these levels of exposure are developmental effects in children and the developing fetus.

Paulsboro air monitoring data were  just posted on line, showing levels of vinyl chloride from November 30 – December 11.

Results show high levels of vinyl chloride – levels that exceed federal safety health concern levels by 10 – 20 times.

At the time, State DEP and Coast Guard officials were assuring the public that the air was “safe” and that respiratory problems, coughing and light-headedness were the problems that residents exposed to the hazardous chemicals may experience.

The data just released show that on November 30, the level detected in the community was 1.2 ppm; on December 3  the level detected in the community was 5.6 ppm and on December 4 the level was 9.438 ppm.

Levels in the evacuation zone were higher, from 3 – 8.58 ppm during this period.

The most scientifically credible source of information for assessing the “safety” of these air monitoring levels is produced by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). In an effort to get the best information out to the public, I excerpted and provided a link to ATSDR information on my first post on this story on November 30.

The federal Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) publishes what are known as “minimal risk levels” (MRLs). In judging if the air is “safe”, the Paulsboro monitoring results should be compared to ATSDR MRLs.

According to ATSDR,

In order to address the congressional mandate to ascertain levels of exposure that present a significant risk to human health, ATSDR develops minimal risk levels (MRLs) for priority hazardous substances most frequently found at hazardous waste sites. The MRLs are health guidance values derived based on the most sensitive non-cancer adverse health endpoints.

A MRL if defined as:

An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. …

MRLs are derived when reliable and sufficient data are available to identify the target organ(s) of effect, or the most sensitive health effect(s) for acute (1-14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (365 days and longer) exposure durations and for the oral and inhalation routes of exposure to the substance. …

MRLs are derived using the no-observed-adverse-effect level/uncertainty factor (NOAELlUF) approach that ensures that they are below levels that might cause detectable adverse health effects in the people most sensitive to such effects.  

Exceedence of the MRLs equates to exposure with an “appreciable risk” of “detectable adverse effects” in children, the most sensitive population.[Note: these are for non-cancer effects. As I wrote, vinyl chloride is a potent carcinogen.]

Here are the ATSDR MRL’s for inhalation of vinyl chloride: for acute exposure (1-14 days) the MRL is 0.5 ppm. The MRL for an intermediate exposure (lasting 15 – 365 days) is more than 10 times lower, 0.03 ppm

The health effects of concern resulting from exposure to vinyl chloride  are developmental effects.  Children are far more susceptible to vinyl chloride exposures. Developmental effects are define as:

As defined in the ATSDR (1995a) guidance, develop­ mental toxicity is any adverse effect on the developing organism from implantation through prenatal develop­ment or postnatally to the time of sexual maturation. These effects can result from exposure prior to implan­tation (either parent) or during prenatal and postnatal development. Systemic, immunological, or neruological effects seen in the developing organism prior to sexual maturity may be considered secondary to adverse de­ velopmental effects.

ATSDR - safety levels for vinyl chloride

On December 8, 2012, the South Jersey Times published a “fact sheet” provided by public officials that said the air monitoring results show “safe” levels:

1. Is the air safe?

Yes – Air monitoring results indicate that the air in the community is safe. Before schools are re-opened, the air inside and outside the schools will be tested to confirm that they are safe to enter. Similarly, upon the homeowner’s request, we can test the air in homes in the area to confirm that they are also safe to re-enter. …

7. Am I at risk for long-term health effects?

No – Short-term exposures to the low levels of vinyl chloride that may have occurred before the evacuation do not present a long-term health risk to residents in the area. Vinyl chloride is rapidly removed from the body after exposure is over.

There is no indication that exposures such as those that may have occurred in the evacuated community after the derailment increase the risk of cancer or any other long-term health effects; however, vinyl chloride has been shown to cause cancer in people exposed in the workplace to high concentrations for many years.

That is a false , incomplete, and misleading statement.

The air was NOT safe because it exceeded the ATSDR MRLs by 10 – 20 times.

In addition to respiratory effects, children and developing fetus’ in the community that were exposed to these levels were put at risk (of cancer and non-cancer effects especially in susceptible populations, like children).

On December 5, 2012 Larry Rangonese of DEP was quoted by Reuters as saying this:

Respiratory problems, coughing and light-headedness were the problems that residents exposed to the hazardous chemicals may experience, “but there is no long-term effect,” said Lawrence Ragonese, spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.

“We are being very conservative because we are worried about your health,” he said.

As I wrote on December 6, that was a false, incomplete, and misleading statement. The levels detected exceeded ATSDR MRLs and were not “safe” for children. Larry never even mentioned the risks of adverse developmental effects recognized by ATSDR.

As I’ve also noted, the consulting firm CTEH has a highly questionable performance track record.

The current “fact sheet” on the Paulsboro website, produced by CTEH – updated on 12/11/12 – is still misleading:

Vinyl Chloride

Should I be worried about health impacts from vinyl chloride?
The highest concentrations of vinyl chloride detected are hundreds of times lower than the concentrations that would produce symptoms from the short-term exposures that could occur here. 

To be clear, the community monitoring results I report here were taken outside the evacuation zone – this mens the evacuation zone should  have been much larger. As I said in the South Jersey Times on December 7, 2012

“I believe that, if I were in charge, there would’ve been a broader and earlier evacuation,” said Wolfe, who stated he was forced out of the DEP for “blowing the whistle” and revealing the department’s scientific research. “The (chemical) exposure should be zero. Why take a risk that’s unnecessary? ... and they should have given the correct expectations to people right away. if you don’t know, say that you don’t know. Be consistent. Be up front with people.”

This raises several question about how these errors and misleading statement were made and continue to be made:

• Who produced the false and misleading fact sheets?
• What was the scientific basis for DEP’s December 5 false statement quoted above?
• Who provided scientific advice to the DEP press office?
• Did hired gun CTEH produce the fact sheet? The advice to DEP? Evacuation?
• What was the basis and risk level for defining the evacuation zone?
• Who provided the scientific health effects info to define the evacuation zone?
• Who hired CTEH? The Coast Guard? Conrail? DEP?
• What role did CTEH play in these errors?

We demand answers.

Will NJ environmentalists and Democrats seek real RGGI reform?

We have written here numerous times about serious flaws in the Northeast States’ “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” (RGGI), particularly with respect to the so called “emissions cap” which in fact is not a cap at all but a formula to allow dramtic increases in emissions.

We estimated that contrary to the statements that RGGI would reduce emissions, that emissions actually would rise by up to 30% under RGGI, see:

• Green House gas emissions continue to rise – NJ’s control efforts a sham
• Christie RGGI Withdrawal Plan Slammed at Trenton Hearing
• Christie Bowing to Koch Brothers on RGGI
• Some Facts on the Costs of RGGI and Solar

Telling that truth put us in the extremely awkward position of agreeing with portions of Governor Christie’s rationale for terminating RGGI in NJ (regular readers of this site know we are no friend of Christie!).

Telling that truth and challenging our colleagues to seek cap reductions have not made us popular here in NJ environmental circles, where tremendous resources have been invested in supporting the failed RGGI program and in urging Democrats to over-ride Gov. Christie’s veto of legislation seeking to keep NJ in the RGGI program.

But, it turns out we were wrong – RGGI “cap” needs to be reduced not by 30%, but by 45%!

So, we feel vindicated by this Report – written by RGGI creators and supporters – about the need for ratcheting down the emissions cap.

So, we repeat a previous key question we asked: Will NJ environmentalists and Democrats seek real RGGI reform?

POLICY: RGGI cap needs to be strengthened by 44% to prevent emissions rise — study

Christa Marshall, E&E reporter

Published: Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Carbon dioxide emissions will rise in the Northeast unless officials dramatically change a regional carbon trading program, a new report from an environmental group warns.

The report from Environment Northeast finds that the existing carbon cap of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) should be strengthened by at least 44 percent — or from 165 million tons to 91 million tons of allowed regional CO2 annual emissions — to prevent greenhouse gas output from rising from current levels in the next decade.

That rise could occur because emissions currently are 45 percent below the trading program’s cap, meaning that utilities can increase their CO2 output and still meet the initiative’s emission restrictions, said Peter Shattuck, a director at Environment Northeast. Only a strengthening of the carbon cap will change utility behavior enough to prevent an emissions rise, he said.

“Emissions from power plants in the RGGI program fell to their lowest level on record through the first three quarters of 2012,” the report states about the initiative.

The historically low annual emissions in 2012 — 91 million tons of CO2 — came from a combination of factors, including an ongoing shift from natural gas generation in the region and energy efficiency investments, Environment Northeast said.

The cap-and-trade initiative, which limits utility CO2 emissions in nine states from Maine to Maryland, is considering the possibility of tightening the program’s carbon cap starting in 2014. It recently modeled four options in that regard, including a new 91-million-ton annual emissions limit.

The initiative and state representatives are expected to make a decision on any changed emission limits and other possible tweaks to the program’s offset rules by the end of the year.

That 91-million-ton plan, though, is the only option of the four currently on the table that would be strict enough to keep emissions from climbing back up from 2012 levels, Shattuck said. The other options modeled by RGGI would change the cap to 106 million tons of CO2, 101 million tons or 97 million tons.

Economic growth will raise emissions

 

The initiative’s own modeling shows a general rise in emissions in the years ahead, because of economic growth, the end of funding for some New York efficiency programs and the likely closing of a nuclear power plant in the region, Shattuck said. He also released a letter from Exelon, Calpine, Long Island Power Authority and several groups supporting the idea of capping emissions at 2012 levels.

The initiative did not respond to a request for comment, but it faces pressure on both sides of the issue.

The group Americans for Prosperity, a group co-founded by oil billionaire David Koch, has led many public events against the program and targeted state candidates supporting it.

Earlier this year, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed another bill from his state’s Legislature urging his state to return to the program. Christie pulled New Jersey out of RGGI in 2011 (ClimateWire, May 27, 2011).

“RGGI did nothing more than impose a tax on electricity to be borne by New Jersey’s overburdened taxpayers and ratepayers who already pay some of the highest energy costs in the country,” Christie said in his official veto message this year.

Supporters of the program say that the initiative’s funding of energy efficiency programs via carbon auctions counters any upward push on electricity prices.

In its report yesterday, Environment Northeast analyzed electricity data from the Department of Energy and concluded that electricity prices across the region have decreased by 10 percent since the initiative’s launch four years ago.

Senate Again Manipulates Raw Post Sandy Emotion to Obfuscate Issues

Chairman Sarlo - in the windbreaker, not the fleece - feels the pain of witnesses (12/11/12)

[Update 12/21/12 – Arthur Silber says much more clearly and powerfully exactly what I was driving at in this post:

The fundamentally unjustified and highly selective focus — on feel-good stories on one hand, and on only narrowly delimited evils on the other — always seeks to achieve a whitewash of this kind: it attempts to obliterate the reality of the obviously related, but unacknowledged greater evils in the broader system. In this sense, all such efforts are cover-ups, they are intellectually dishonest, and they are always lies.

[Update 12/12/12 – Mainstream news coverage takes the diversionary bait; Asbury Park Press and Star Ledger

Yes, the special interests and politicians are playing the news cycle like a fiddle –  textbook news management. The US Army Corps and beach replenishment people did that early, and crafted a false narrative about the alleged efficacy of beach replenishment.

Now, it is pretty clear that the media pack is now in the emotional trauma and nostalgic phase of the story – back on November 28, the NY Times began that phase with the story about affordability and gentrification in rebuild (see: Post- Storm Cost May Force Many From Cost Life,  so it’s no surprise that today we see this on bungalos and this on crisis counselors  for examples of that.

So, when do we get to the public policy and planning phase? Or do we just skip all that?

For example, there is virtually a news blackout of the Obama Executive Order establishing a Task Force. A Google news search showed only 150 hits and not one of those stories lead with the Executive Order – all mentioned it tangentially in stories focused on the $60 billion appropriation request. Another major media failure.  –end update]

I’ll write about tonight’s Senate hearing tomorrow, but this is the news headline and photo I think the Chairman was trolling for.

He even made an overt mention of the windbreaker – but hey! No way that can compete with Governor Christie’s fleece!

Never mind talk about laws and regulations, you know, political stuff, which is the legal reality and how the rest of the country views the NJ circus – we’d rather prey on people’s emotions and mislead people.

But, despite all sorts of denial and what the Chairman wants to hear in Monmouth County, here’s what the rest of the country is reading (see: Jersey Shore Development Failure Exposed by Hurricane Sandy)”

New Jersey’s coastal land-use regulations are conspicuously lenient compared to other states, an investigation by The Huffington Post has found — so lenient that authorities permitted the Cabana Club to adopt its precarious location between the seawall and the beach. Based on current state law — the fruit of a political compromise crafted nearly two decades ago — the club can fully rebuild here, in exactly the same spot. In New Jersey, owners of coastal developments possess unique rights to rebuild in the wake of storms. Whatever nature removes, and at whatever cost to taxpayers, property owners are free to put it all back.[…]

The department’s current commissioner, Bob Martin — an advisor to Christie’s 2009 campaign, and previously an energy and utility consultant at Accenture — has urged the agency to adopt a “customer service focus“ while serving as “a driver for economic growth.” He has marginalized the authority of scientists and coastal policy experts, critics say, primarily by transferring them to other offices.

“[Christie has] done the exact opposite of what’s needed to be done,” said Bill Wolfe, a former Department of Environmental Protection planner and policy analyst who now leads the watchdog group New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “He has been affirmatively promoting regulatory relief and taking away any development, land use planning and infrastructure expertise at the department.”

Oh well – but just how far will that windbreaker and fleece go?