Christie Uses DEP As Political Attack Dog On Obama Clean Energy Plan
Obama plan would have little impact on NJ
Obama Plan could lower NJ energy costs
Christie and DEP credibility now at an all time low
The Department of Environmental Protection has undertaken an extensive analysis of this proposal, found it fundamentally flawed and respectfully submits that it cannot be redeemed through mere revisions. These draft rules are incomplete, needlessly complex, and impossible to implement. ~~~ Bob Martin, NJ DEP Commissioner – letter to EPA on Obama Clean Energy Plan rule
Today we call out two major misconceptions in the energy and climate debate.
Point I – Christie DEP is being used as a political weapon
PJM is the private operator of a 13 state regional power grid that serves 68 million people from NJ to as far west a Indiana and Illinois.
Often perceived as protectors of the incumbent big energy companies and hostile to “soft energy paths”, the technocrats, engineers and economists at the PJM grid are hardly wild eyed radicals when it comes to energy planning and policy. Like all engineers, they rely on data and tend to be conservative, in this case, downplaying the degree to which distributed local power, renewables, and efficiency can displace the traditional massive scale, centralized, power production and transmission system.
Recently, PJM issued an economic report on the impacts of the Obama Clean Energy Plan that absolutely destroys the credibility of the Christie DEP.
The PJM Report concludes, as Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight reports today, that:
In the short term, wholesale energy prices from power plants in New Jersey will be lower under the Obama plan, according to PJM. However, because power also is imported from other states, prices could increase by about 1 percent.
Lower energy prices? Fossil fueled power imports cause price increases of just 1% under the Obama plan?
How many times have we heard that the Obama plan would drive energy prices through the roof?
DEP claims the Obama plan is impossible to implement?
In contrast, PJM engineers found that NJ was well along the way to implement the Obama plan, thanks to progressive energy policies enacted BEFORE Christie assumed power (@ p. 56)
New Jersey has the lowest proposed emissions rate target within PJM. Because New Jersey had very little coal generation in 2012, and the majority of its energy was supplied by nuclear and natural gas combined-cycle resources, its starting point was already much lower than other states. Not surprisingly, since 86 percent of New Jersey’s 2012 covered generation came from natural gas combine cycle resources, and the state also has an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), its proposed emissions rate targets are much lower than the emissions rate of a new natural gas combined-cycle resource.
At best, the Christie DEP criticisms are grossly exaggerated – at worst, they are intentional distortions and lies used by the Governor for political purposes.
Point 2 – PJM Finds costs of RGGI negligible
Governor Christie pulled NJ out of the northeastern states Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) allegedly due to unacceptable increases in the price of energy in NJ (see NJ.com story)
“In withdrawing, I recognized that RGGI has failed to create economic incentives for fossil fuel-fired electric generators to limit greenhouse gases,” he said in the veto message. “Energy producers, accordingly, were not incentivized to use lower carbon-based fuels, improve emission controls, or increase efficiencies in production. Indeed, RGGI did nothing more than impose a tax on electricity to be borne by New Jersey’s overburdened taxpayers and ratepayers.”
I am no fan of RGGI and have written that the Gov. – while half right that RGGI had little impact on market driven emissions reductions – is lying about the costs. The costs of RGGI are minuscule, but no need to take my word for it, here is how PJM economic analysis considered the economic impacts of RGGI:
Two PJM states, Maryland and Delaware, participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative program. The RGGI CO2 prices in the model grow over time as the number of CO2 allowances budgeted within the program were reduced in order to incent further reductions in emissions. Maryland and Delaware are net importers of energy within PJM; therefore, the additional costs of RGGI included in the cost-based offers of resources within these states do not impose significant additional economic cost to PJM load. That said, in all scenarios evaluated except the 2014 transmission planning case, the RGGI CO2 prices are set to zero in order to determine the impact of the Clean Power Plan within a regional or state-by-state compliance framework for PJM.
So, once again, we see Gov. Christie engaged in exaggerations and falsehoods to support his political positions.
We all know that Christie was appeasing the Koch brothers fueled campaign by Steve Lonegan and his faux grassroots group Americans for Prosperity.
The same kind of lies, distortions, and misleading statements are applied to the costs and benefits of renewable energy.
We can and must do better than this.