Archive for October, 2020

After Announcing Retreat On Climate Regulations, The Murphy DEP Is In Damage Control Mode And Trying To Change The Subject

October 19th, 2020 No comments

NJ Spotlight Prints DEP Diversion, Despite Publishing A Critical Conflicting Story Just Days Prior

False impression DEP aggressively responding to climate crisis, while – by DEP’s own words – they are actually retreating

[Update below]

Just days after Murphy DEP Deputy Commissioner Shawn LaTourette announced a massive retreat from climate regulations, the Murphy DEP released an update of a Report mandated by the otherwise toothless and ignored 2007 Global Warming Response Act (GWRA).

The timing alone reflects a desperate and obvious PR move by DEP to change the subject. News management 101. Orwell.

And the lame folks at NJ Spotlight took the bait hook line and sinker and went right along with the DEP game, and without providing crucial context for the Report that their own outlet had just reported days prior.

In what could be the worst headline ever, NJ Spotlight reported:

Spotlight presents a lot of DEP’s spin on DEP’s “progress” in that favorable story.

The DEP Report may call for “major action”, but DEP’s own Deputy Commissioner just announced that DEP was retreating and delaying even minor action. The contradiction is stunning.

So for now, let’s rehash a few of the lowlights of DEP’s retreat. DEP Deputy Commissioner said: (NJ Spotlight)

“We’re not at a point, nor do we think it’s our role, to tell people: ‘Don’t build here, you shouldn’t build there, you can’t do that,’” LaTourette said. …

He said the DEP wants to avoid being the “big, bad government” that imposes heavy-handed regulations.

officials have continued to gather input via a series of virtual meetings with stakeholders and aim to formally propose new regulations “early next year,” perhaps in the first quarter, LaTourette said.

(we will do a future post on our assessment of DEP’s Report and “progress” in implementing the GWRA. I assure you that we see far less progress than NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle does. For now, see:

Mr. Latourette’s should be help accountable for his astonishing remarks about DEP’s regulatory role, “big bad government”, “heavy handed regulations”, and an open ended delay on proposing regulations that conflicts with Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order and prior commitments to propose rules this fall.

The DEP retreat from climate regulations (specifically retreat in terms of delay, in scope, and in stringency) should be major news and fodder for followup coverage documenting the responses of real climate activists (not the Penn Foundation Funded hack source NJ Spotlight chose to represent the “environmental” viewpoint).

But instead of accountability for DEP and followup coverage of the implications of DEP’s retreat, Spotlight immediately allowed DEP to change the subject and create the false appearance that they were aggressively responding to the climate crisis (instead of, by DEP’s own words, actually retreating).

This journalistic malpractice is not an anomaly, but part of a disturbing pattern whereby every time Spotlight writes what might be perceived as a critical or edgy story, the immediately followup it with a puff piece of green cover or rehabilitation.

The examples are too numerous to present here, so I’ll just mention the most recent.

On September 23, 2020, Spotlight reported that the Murphy BPU had slashed energy efficiency programs proposed by NJ PSEG by over 61%.

Public Service Electric & Gas has reached a tentative settlement with state regulators over its proposed $2.5 billion plan to invest in energy-efficiency programs for its customers, accepting a scaled-back $970 million program instead.

Obviously, a $1.6 billion 61% cut in an energy efficiency program calls into question Gov. Murphy’s commitment to his stated climate and “clean energy” goals and undermines the policies of his highly touted recently adopted BPU Energy Master Plan.

That is clearly “bad news” for the climate and bad news for the Governor

But the very next day, on September 24, 2020, Spotlight reported exactly the opposite: good news, with no mention of the bad news context: (again, ignore the headline, which is the opposite of the story content. The State did NOT put “more muscle”, as reported just a day earlier, they slashed the muscle to the bone via a $1.6 billion cut):

The state’s utilities want to ramp up spending by hundreds of millions of dollars over the next three years to convince their customers to reduce their electric and gas use, complying with a new mandate to invest in energy efficiency programs.

The filings last week by six of New Jersey’s utilities have the goal of advancing the Murphy administration’s clean-energy ambitions by reducing pollution, potentially creating thousands of new green energy jobs, and saving customers’ money, be it homeowners or businesses.

Does reporter Tom Johnson, when he claims utilities want to “ramp up” spending (under a headline claiming the state puts “more muscle”) think we forgot that BPU slashed PSE&G’s energy efficiency program by $1.6 billion, over 61%, a fact he reported just the day before?

Obviously, he was providing cover for Gov. Murphy and BPU.

That is journalistic malpractice, and it is happening over and over again.

And that’s only when NJ Spotlight writes a critical story – which happens about once in a blue moon.

[Update – I failed to mention a very important point.

When DEP Deputy Commissioner LaTourette gave the interview to NJ Spotlight where he announced a major retreat on the regulatory front (using red meat right wing slogans), he knew exactly what the DEP Climate Report had found and the “major actions” that the Report would recommend. He knew they would be extremely controversial and strongly opposed by the business community.

Those “major actions” include a dramatic expansion of DEP regulations, which is taboo to powerful business interests and friends of Gov. Murphy.

So, in order to soften the blow and tamp down major opposition by the business community, he used NJ Spotlight to send a message:

“Don’t worry, we won’t regulate you. This is all just to appease the enviro’s and make the Gov. look good.”

In my next post, I will analyze just what that DEP found, what it recommended, and how the disastrously minuscule “progress” the DEP has made contradicts and destroys the credibility of the media and environmental cheerleaders, who have so grossly exaggerated and falsely praised Gov. Murphy’s fake “climate leadership”. Don’t miss it. ~~~ end update]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

NJ Audubon Benefits From And Celebrates Trump Corruption And Self Dealing

October 18th, 2020 No comments

NY Times expose of Trump tax avoidance and self dealing has direct links to NJ

Let’s begin with a question:

Why would NJ Audubon brag about “global attention” at Trump’s Bedminster NJ golf course, which is precisely the corruption and self dealing exposed by the NY Times?

While it has not be a focus of national concern, NJ people know that the roots of the Trump administration’s corruption are buried deep in NJ, from Jared Kushner (who’s “loathsome” felonious father went to prison) to Trump’s strategic advisor and fellow COVID con man Chris Christie.

For years, I have repeatedly written about one aspect of that NJ based corruption related to a Trump “partnership” with NJ Audubon at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster.

So, I was heartened to read the NY Times’ recent expose of Trump’s tax evasion, fraud and corruption, which had several links to those NJ corrupt roots, specifically at his Bedminster Golf Course regarding tax avoidance (specifically which could involve “landscaping”, “conservation easements”, “stewardship”, and other “administrative costs” directly associated with the NJ Audubon “partnernship”).

The NY Times reported:

Tax records do not have the specificity to evaluate the legitimacy of every business expense Mr. Trump claims to reduce his taxable income — for instance, without any explanation in his returns, the general and administrative expenses at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey increased fivefold from 2016 to 2017.

I assumed that this bombshell was sufficient for at least the NJ press corps to investigate and expose the details of the NJ Bedminster operation, including the NJ Audubon “partnership”.

Unfortunately, that did not happen.

But again today, the NY Times ran a scathing editorial that focused on Trump’s corruption and self dealing, including how he uses his properties, read the whole thing: The Self Dealing Administration (emphasis mine):

The appearance of impropriety is not confined to the family’s Washington hotel. From Scotland to New Jersey to Florida and beyond, Trump properties have raked in tens of millions of dollars from those seeking to curry favor with, or at least express their appreciation for, the president. …

The Washington Post has estimated that the U.S. government had paid well over $1 million to the president’s company since he took office in costs associated with the Secret Service. This includes at least 530 nights at Mar-a-Lago and 950 nights at the president’s club in Bedminster, N.J.

So, once again, the Trump – NJ Audubon “partnership” is directly in the media cross hairs.

(and this also is the place where trump conducted a COVID “super spreader” event)

So, I thought I might seed that media inquiry and remind people that, instead of terminating and being ashamed and apologizing for the corrupt Trump “partnership”, that NJ Audubon actually celebrates it!

Here is an excerpt from NJ Audubon’s 2017 “Corporate Stewardship Council Report” that summarizes the Trump deal.

In that Report, NJ Audubon emphasizes the importance of Trump’s corruption and how the partnership is “receiving global attention”: (see page 12)

In 2017 Trump National Golf Club installed additional acres of native warm-season grasses and wild flowers, as native warm-season grasses and wild flowers, as well as restored a 10,000-square foot wetland area with native plantings as part of its overall habitat improvments at its Bedminster, NJ. Trump National Golf Club began habitat restoration e orts on the property in 2014 with large scale invasive species removals, native grass seeding and riparian plantings to bene t migratory bird and pollinators. Since then, they have continued to provide stewardship efforts to maintain the habitat while incorporating additional areas ofhabitat restoration when possible. …

All restoration efforts at the [Trump] property (which is receiving global attention due to US President Donald Trump’s frequent visits to the site), are part of the USFWS Partners in Fish and WildlifeProgram. Though the installation of native plants at the property a variety of bird, amphibian and butterfly species have been documented to be actively utilizing the property as breeding grounds.

Note that the NJ Audubon praises expansion of “stewardship” activities during the same time period (2016-2017) that the NY Times’ tax investigation revealed that Trump’s tax deductible expenses at the Bedminster course increased “fivefold”. 

Does this directly implicate NJ Audubon in Trump’s tax evasion?

Is Trump taking additional tax deductions for his 6 figure contributions to NJ Audubon that are unrelated to the “Stewardship” “partnership”?

And why would NJ Audubon brag about “global attention”, which is precisely the corruption and self dealing and tax evasion exposed by the NY Times?

Obvious questions emerge, including:

1) how much did Trump pay or contribute to NJ Audubon as part of the “partnership”?

2) Have any of Trump’s NJ Audubon related expenses for “landscaping”, conservation easements, or other “stewardship” activities been used by Trump for tax avoidance purposes?

3) Is the Trump “partnership” still in effect?

4) Will media demand that NJ Audubon CEO Eric Stiles provide information and respond to questions?

Come on intrepid journalists, I’ve teed this one up for you! (pun intended).

As  Scooter Libby wrote cryptically to disgraced former NY Times reporter Judith Miller, the Aspens are turning – so, well, let me similarly just suggest that the blackbirds are singing in the dead of night.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Environmental Leader Applauds Murphy DEP Retreat From Climate Regulations

October 17th, 2020 No comments

DEP denies role and injects another year of delay in adopting climate regulations

Given the opportunity to retract her support, Jennifer Coffey doubled down

While I was not surprised by the Murphy DEP’s recent retreat from regulations to respond – I hesitate to use the slogan “adapt”, as that tends to downplay the unmanageable severity of actual impacts –  to the accelerating climate emergency, I was shocked by how DEP publicly justified them. (see my prior post).

We followup on that with today’s post, in 5 easy pieces.

I)  Not My Job

Specifically, DEP Deputy Commissioner Shawn LaTourette (previously a corporate lawyer), claimed that it was not DEP’s role to regulate: (NJ Spotlight)

“We’re not at a point, nor do we think it’s our role, to tell people: ‘Don’t build here, you shouldn’t build there, you can’t do that,’” LaTourette said.

Perhaps worse, LaTourette spouted the anti-government and anti-regulatory ideological drivel of right wing Republicans, which NJ Spotlight of course put under a bold faced banner – just what Ray Cantor and NJ BIA asked for:

Not a case of ‘big, bad government’

He said the DEP wants to avoid being the “big, bad government” that imposes heavy-handed regulations.

II)  More Delay, with No Firm Commitment

Additionally, a key issue that was obfuscated by NJ Spotlight is the schedule for the climate regulations. Initially, DEP committed to proposing regulations this fall. Without any comment, DEP just injected at least another 6 months of delay by saying rule might be proposed next spring – delay that went unreported by Spotlight. (Yet Spotlight did provide a platform to Ray Cantor of NJBIA to suggest even more delay:

When will new regulations be ready?

Still, officials have continued to gather input via a series of virtual meetings with stakeholders and aim to formally propose new regulations “early next year,” perhaps in the first quarter, LaTourette said.

Ray Cantor, vice president of government affairs at the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, argued that the timetable is too tight for far-reaching regulations that will be based on decades-long climate forecasts.

On top of all that backtracking by DEP, LaTourette again created a false impression that climate impacts and the need for a DEP adaptation regulatory response is somehow a new issue that is poorly understood by the public:

Even if mitigation now will only start to pay dividends in 30 years or more, it’s important to win acceptance of the idea from a public that doesn’t yet get it, LaTourette said.

This was a repeat of how LaTourette blamed the public for his Covanta Union County incinerator experiment lies.

III)  Worse than Christie

DEP Deputy Commissioner LaTourett’e remarks actually are worse than Gov. Christie, who  in the wake of Superstorm Sandy claimed that climate was an “esoteric” issue that the public didn’t “give a damn” about, see:

“I have no idea. I’m not a climatologist and in the last hundred days I have to tell you the truth, I’ve been focused on a lot of things, the cause of this is not one of them that I’ve focused on,” Christie said in response to a question about the role climate change could have played in fueling the Oct. 29, 2012 storm. “Now, maybe in the subsequent months and years, after I get done with trying to rebuild the state and put people back in their homes, I will have the opportunity to ponder the esoteric question of the cause of this storm. …If you asked of these people in Union Beach, I don’t think they give a damn.” NJ Gov. Chris Christie, Feb. 5. 2013

Just what does it take to get fired in a Murphy administration?

Why hasn’t DEP Commissioner McCabe or Gov. Murphy issued a public statement refuting and clarifying LaTourette’s remarks? That silence is deafening and confirms that LaTourette speak for the Gov.

All this is astonishing from an administration who claims to be a world leader in climate policy.

IV)  Environmental Leader Supports DEP – An Act of Climate Cowardice & Massive Green Cover

But what I was surprised by was that an “environmental leader” actually supported the DEP’s approach.

While I have often written about the fact that the DEP “Stakeholder process” is a corrupt form of regulatory capture and co-optation and harshly criticized NJ environmental groups (aka The Green Mafia) for their sycophantic false and damaging political green cover for Democratic administrations, this episode is by far the worst example of these abuses.

Jennifer Coffey, head of the Association of Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) said:

But Jennifer Coffey, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, endorsed the DEP’s approach to revising the regulations. “DEP is absolutely moving in the right direction in terms of addressing the impact of climate change and trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that we can keep the impacts from getting exponentially worse,” she said.

(yes, this is worse than Ms. Coffey’s absurd statement that Most environmentalists have relationships with power companies”. Of course, that rhetoric reflects the ideology and corporate style of her Wm. Penn Foundation funders.)

V)  Ms. Coffey Doubles Down And Evades

How could an environmental group support a “DEP approach to revising regulations” that rejected DEP’s regulatory role, reflected a right wing attack on “big bad government”, and, after 3 years in office, injected even more delay in adopting regulations?

Surely, Coffey could not actually be supportive of what DEP’s LaTourette said, could she?

So, I contacted Ms. Coffey via email to confirm her quote and ask if she wanted to retract or clarify her comments in support, based on Mr. Latourette’s statements.

I also asked 3 specific questions, in an October 14, 2020 email, I wrote:

Jennifer – I am writing to confirm your quote in today’s NJ Spotlight story.

I assume your quote was offered without the knowledge of Deputy Commissioner LaTourette’s comments.

If so, would you care to revise or revoke it in light of what LaTourettte said?

Or do you support LaTourette’s claims about: 1) DEP’s regulatory role? 2) About the efficacy of a climate impact. statement and property deed approach as an alternative to traditional regulation? 3) About the state of public knowledge?

Ms. Coffey responded by doubling down in her support for DEP, evading regulatory issues, and failing to respond to my 3 specific questions.

Here is her full reply (emphases mine) – which is full of spin and bullshit I will address in a future post.

I’ll simply note here that, obviously, the DEP Deputy Commissioner’s on the record statement carries far more weight in terms of conveying DEP’s actual regulatory policy than Ms. Coffey’s impressions of a stakeholder meeting and comments by DEP staffers.

Thank you for reaching out, Bill.

As I said to Jon when we spoke the other day, my experience on the NJ PACT stakeholder group leads me to understand that the NJDEP is incorporating the best available climate data to continue to guide where we can and cannot build in NJ, as the DEP has for decades through the CAFRA, Flood Hazard and other rules that have quite frankly been too weak in protecting our environment and public safety. My understanding is that PACT rules will reflect newly available science models and the correlated expansion floodplains as a result of climate change.In short, we should not be building in floodplains or in areas that we know will be flooding in the near future. Incorporating the best available climate science data that we have now, and more as it continues to become available, is essential to becoming more resilient in the face of climate effects that we know we cannot stop. The effects of climate change are here now and are affecting NJ more than any other state. We will continue to see rising sea levels and increasing precipitation that will continue to exacerbate inland flooding as sea levels continue to rise along our coast. The best models we have show that NJ will have an 11 percent increase in annual precipitation by 2050, and 37 percent increase by 2100.  It is not okay to simply assess impacts of climate change for new development, but we need to adapt to reflect new floodplain mapping and enhance stormwater management as a result of known climate impacts. We need to change both the places and ways we develop, and my participation in the NJDEP stakeholder groups has led me to believe that the PACT rules require better planning, avoid areas we know will be floodplains between now and 2050, and improve stormwater management. We need to simultaneously become more resilient to the impacts of climate change that we cannot stop and do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep those impacts from becoming exponentially worse.

Climate activists and all NJ citizens should be blasting DEP and Ms. Coffey for this cowardly and corrupt abdication.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

The Murphy DEP Refuses To Regulate To Protect Against Climate Impacts

October 14th, 2020 No comments

DEP Says It’s Not Their Job To Say NO

DEP Rejects Regulation, Relies Exclusively On Risk Disclosure & Private Property Deed

A "Climate Impact Statement" and deed recording solves this problem?

A “Climate Impact Statement” and deed recording solves this problem?

The Murphy DEP just stated that the equivalent of a termite inspection is adequate to address climate impacts and risks.

This is not a joke or hyperbole.

Frankly, after just reading today’s NJ Spotlight story on the upcoming Murphy DEP Climate regulations that have been dubbed PACT, I’m beside myself and so angry I can’t think straight.

We predicted this was coming over 3 months ago, based on DEP’s release of their climate science report, see:

And over a year ago, I wrote in detail about how the Murphy DEP signaled this was coming, see:

But while I knew this was coming, I am astonished that DEP would openly admit to such a gross and irresponsible abdication of their authority and responsibility to protect people, public health, and the environment from the accelerating climate catastrophe.

Former corporate lawyer and current Murphy DEP Deputy Commissioner Shawn LaTourette (who should have been fired after the fiasco and lies about the Union County Covanta incinerator PFAS experiment) openly admitted the DEP’s collapse:

Although developers and builders fear the new rules will tighten limits on where they can build in coastal and inland areas, the regulations are unlikely to do that, LaTourette said in an interview with NJ Spotlight News. …

“We’re not at a point, nor do we think it’s our role, to tell people: ‘Don’t build here, you shouldn’t build there, you can’t do that,’” LaTourette said. “It is about making folks assess their risk and recognize the risk they are taking on. We are not saying: ‘You cannot build in a future flood-risk area.’ We’re saying that in a future flood-risk area, you need to at least do what you do now in an existing flood-risk area, which is: assess the risk, and notice that risk. It will forever live in the deed record of that property.”


It’s not DEP’s role to say “you can’t do that”?

It’s not DEP’s role to say “Don’t build here, you shouldn’t build there”?

Mr. LaTourette is a lawyer, which makes his open admission even more astonishing.

Has he not read the NJ Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act? The Flood Hazard Area Control Act? The Coastal Area Facilities Review Act? The Water Pollution Control Act? The Highlands Act?

Each one of these laws not only provides legislative authority to DEP to SAY NO and regulate development, they require DEP to do so.

Lambertville, NJ (Hurricane Irene flooding, August 2011). Swan Creek in background.

Lambertville, NJ (Hurricane Irene flooding, August 2011). Swan Creek in background.

Mr. LaTourette’s statement contradicts 40 years of NJ environmental law, regulation, and policy.

It’s an astonishing abdication. Absolutely Astonishing.

But the fact that it applies to climate impacts makes it even worse.

A photo from Monmouth County of the affected pipe (source: Star Ledger)

A photo from Monmouth County of the affected pipe (source: Star Ledger)

Instead of relying on traditional DEP regulation, LaTourette takes a page out of the radical libertarian Cato Institution play book and says the Murphy DEP will rely on private market forces.

Specifically, DEP will rely on disclosure of risks via a “climate impact statement” and deed recording, basically a builder and  buyer beware program.

This is a radical policy that goes beyond the failed right wing corporate policy of voluntary compliance, because at least there were underlying standards that the private sector voluntarily complied with. DEP retained authority to look behind the voluntary compliance to ascertain true compliance status.

The new radical disclosure – property deed approach relies exclusively on market mechanisms and abandons DEP’s regulatory role entirely.

This can not stand.

More to follow after I get a chance to calm down and collect my thoughts.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Pinelands Commission “Approves” Over A Mile of Gas Pipeline Replacement With No Public Review

October 8th, 2020 No comments

After years of pipeline battles and litigation, Commission still has no policy

Another example of failure to address the climate emergency

“inadvertent return of drilling fluid … may occur during the installation”

According to the Pinelands Commission’s September Management Report (excerpt below), Executive Director Wittenberg, via a letter, determined that replacement of over a mile of gas pipeline by South Jersey Gas was not subject to the Commission’s review.

The Wittenberg unilateral letter was issued with no public process or Commission vote, yet it imposed regulatory requirements designed to avoid “potential inadvertent return of drilling fluid that may occur during the installation“.

Executive Director Wittenberg came under withering criticism – including by the Philadelphia Inquirer  and Pinelands Commissioners – for her favorable treatment of South Jersey Gas during prior gas pipeline controversies and her unilateral action and manipulation of the Commission. (“my baby, just wrote me a letter“)

More recently, in July there was a damaging accident caused by inadvertent return of drilling fluid during pipeline construction, and permits were suspended. 

Here is the excerpt from the Commission’s Management Report (emphases mine):

“South Jersey Gas (App. No. 2020-0083.001): On September 21, 2020, the Commission staff issued a letter indicating that the replacement of 5,900 linear feet of natural gas main in the Hamilton Mall area of Hamilton Township did not require an application to the Commission. No application to the Commission was required because the proposed main would serve development which has received all necessary approvals and permits (N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.1(a)6). The September 21, 2020 letter requested that South Jersey Gas prepare a contingency plan to address any potential inadvertent return of drilling fluid that may occur during the installation of approximately 1,135 linear feet of natural gas main by horizontal directional drilling under the Atlantic City Expressway. The letter indicated that the contingency plan should provide for the immediate notification of the Pinelands Commission regarding the inadvertent return of drilling fluid.”

This is completely unacceptable administrative practice.

The letter also reveals the Commission’s longstanding failure to adopt enforceable requirements to address the climate crisis and fossil infrastructure.

Here is the text of the cited exemption: (see: NJAC 7:50-4.1(a)6)

The installation of utility distribution lines, except for sewage lines, to serve areas which are effectively developed or development which has received all necessary approvals and permits;

These are exactly the kinds of loopholes in the CMP that must be closed and beefed up with enforceable requirements to address the climate emergency.

But, as we learned by reading the Commission’s August Management Report, they have done absolutely nothing on the regulatory front and still are diddling with “guiding principles”:

  • Land Use, Climate Impacts & Sustainability (LUCIS): The LUCIS Committee met on August 28, 2020. The Committee discussed the five guiding principles that would be incorporated into a preliminary amendment of the CMP regarding climate change. The Committee agreed that a draft resolution establishing the guiding principles be drafted for their review.

I wrote Commissioner Lohbauer, who has been a leader on climate and pipeline issues, the following note as a heads up:

Commissioner Lohbauer – According to the Commission’s September Management Report (excerpt below), the Commission “approved” a 5,900 linear foot gas pipeline replacement by South Jersey Gas, with no public process, allegedly because the project was exempt from CMP review requirements.

Even if that were the case – which I do not concede without analyzing the Commission staff’s written regulatory analysis if one even exists – the Commission imposed regulatory requirements (i.e. contingency plans) absent any regulatory process.

This is unacceptable administrative practice and poor policy and planning.

As fossil infrastructure ages and replacement is sought, there should be phase out policies and plans and retrofit requirements – including energy efficiency, electric conversion of buildings, renewable energy installation, etc at the Commission approved development the pipeline served.

Are you aware of this? Are you advocating CMP amendments to enforce these kind of climate and energy policies?


Bill Wolfe

We’ll let you know what we hear back. I’m not expecting much.

[End Note: NJ DEP also has regulatory responsibilities – see my note to Department Assistant Commissioner Vince Mazzei:

Hey Vince – saw that you recently briefed the Pinelands Commission on the development of DEP’s climate PACT regulations and thought you might be interested in this, which also applies to DEP’s wetlands (401 WQC) and stream encroachment rules. Has DEP issued enforcement action or modified regulations on “inadvertent return of drilling fluid that may occur during the [pipeline] installation”?


Categories: Uncategorized Tags: