Renewable Energy Will Not Replace Fossil Fueled Power Under The Murphy Energy Master Plan

Here is the egregiously false and misleading headline of NJ Spotlight’s story today on the collapse of the so called “clean energy” bill (emphasis mine):

Clean electricity bill put on hold — at least until next year

TOM JOHNSON, ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT WRITER | DECEMBER 19, 2023 | ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

Legislation that would speed clean energy and shut down fossil fuels pulled from committee by sponsor, ‘not ready for prime time’

At  a time when climate activists are demanding a real “shut down of fossil fuels” and the COP 28 just failed to reach consensus on a “phase out of fossil fuels”, it is simply unforgivable journalistic malpractice for NJ Spotlight to make that false claim in a headline.

There is a huge difference between legislation that would require that retail sales of electricity be from renewable energy versus legislation that would shut down in-state fossil fuel energy production.

I’ve written about that difference several times, because there is a huge misunderstanding and false assumption that the development of renewable energy capacity will displace or replace fossil fuels on a one to one basis. That is just wrong. And climate activists and media are actively promoting this falsehood or allowing this misunderstanding to proliferate uncorrected.

First of all, existing fossil power plants in NJ produce power for the regional PJM electric grid. Nothing in the pending “clean energy” bill would stop them from continuing doing so. Nothing in the bill would stop the existing plants from expanding and nothing would stop even new fossil power plants being build to export power on the regional PJM grid. This goes for power generated by garbage incinerators and so called fossil fueled “co-generation” or multiple forms of fossil energy production that is not converted to electricity that is sold to the grid.

In addition to no legislative or regulatory limits on fossil fueled power plants, market and economic incentives virtually guarantee that those plants will continue to operate and emit greenhouse gases. For example, the NJ BPU’s Energy Master Plan projects a more than doubling of demand for electric power as a result of electrification of transportation and buildings. Regional PJM demands will grow as well, creating huge demand growth and markets for power exports.

The projected expansion of renewable power will serve this growth in demand. It will not displace fossil power.

Further, under the Murphy Energy Master Plan, the engineering design of the renewable energy system (wind production and large scale solar) and electric grid call for continued reliance on fossil fueled gas fired power plants for “reliability” and peak demand.

Here is the Statement from the bill, S2978  – note that the bill itself says nothing about “shutting down fossil fuels”:

The bill would also extend the Class I RPS to require that, beginning in 2045, 100 percent of the energy sold at retail in the State be from Class I renewable energy sources.

So, I fired off this note to NJ Spotlight to demand that they correct their major error.

Dear NJ Spotlight – the headline for today’s Tom Johnson story includes this claim (which is NOT made in the text):

“and shut down fossil fuels”

That claim is factually false. Even the bill’s statement does not make that claim (see:

https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/S3000/2978_I1.PDF.

The bill would NOT “shut down fossil fuels”.

Please correct your error immediately – especially as many people only read the headline and will get a completely false understanding.

Bill Wolfe

An Open Letter

Today, the Senate Environment Committee will meet in what is probably the last episode in the lame duck session.

Chairman Smith just abandoned his so called “clean energy” bill.

Climate activists are clueless and will hold some kind of event in Trenton – they scrambled to change it from a rally in support of the bill (celebrating a “huge win”) to a lobby day. So it goes.

The NJ media won’t ask Chairman Smith why he killed his own bill and the climate activists, who have egg all over their faces won’t  admit a huge defeat (even though the bill was seriously flawed).

NJ based climate scientists are hiding under their desks and self censor.

DEP leaders and scientists are well paid cowards or corrupt political hacks.

The COP 28 just ended in failure.

So, today, we bring you a dose of scientific reality:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, Ken Dolsky <kdolsky@optonline.net>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “tom@njconservation.org” <tom@njconservation.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, “dpringle1988@gmail.com” <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, “agoldsmith@cleanwater.org” <agoldsmith@cleanwater.org>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, Matthew Smith <msmith@fwwatch.org>, MJ King <trhugger@yahoo.com>, Mark Lohbauer <mlohbauer@jgscgroup.com>, Margo Pellegrino <outriggerone@me.com>, “kaplan@envsci.rutgers.edu” <kaplan@envsci.rutgers.edu>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>, “Tittel, Jeff” <jeff.tittel@verizon.net>, Maya K van Rossum <maya@forthegenerations.org>, “tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org” <tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>, Silvia Solaun <ssolaun@gmail.com>, “Shanley, Georgina” <shanleyg2001@yahoo.com>, SUSAN RUSSELL <selizabethrussell@verizon.net>, “FENICHEL, Steven” <stevenfenichel@yahoo.com>, “sitka@comcast.net” <sitka@comcast.net>

Date: 12/17/2023 7:54 PM EST

Subject: Bad science and good intentions prevent effective climate action

Dear Chairman Smith and Commissioner LaTourette:

After reading the below scientific paper, I felt compelled to distribute it widely to NJ policymakers.

We are now bearing the fruit of President Obama’s Paris COP sellout, which gave us the voluntary framework of individual national commitments untethered to any climate science or enforceable linkage to the 1.5 degree goal.

“The Paris Agreement is built entirely around voluntary country pledges—as different as the countries they are coming from—which are still far from adding up to achieving the objectives the agreement defines. In its basic architecture, the Paris Agreement is a complete victory for the United States which has obstructed effective climate action for more than two decades but now claims leadership credentials for its role in getting all countries to sign off on this global accord.” (Source)

That compromised trajectory brings us to today’s impunity, where the COP was held in an oil producing country, led by an oil industry CEO, stacked with hundreds of oil industry lobbyists, and which failed to reach consensus on the need to phase out fossil fuels (which would be purely a rhetorical exercise and aspirational goal anyway, as there are no binding requirements and no enforcement mechanisms, thanks to Obama).

So, with that context in mind, please read this devastating paper (abstract below):

Bad science and good intentions prevent effective climate action

https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6244/

Abstract

Although the 2015 Paris Agreement climate targets seem certain to be missed, only a few experts are questioning the adequacy of the current approach to limiting climate change and suggesting that additional approaches are needed to avoid unacceptable catastrophes. This article posits that selective science communication and unrealistically optimistic assumptions are obscuring the reality that greenhouse gas emissions reduction and carbon dioxide removal will not curtail climate change in the 21st Century. It also explains how overly pessimistic and speculative criticisms are behind opposition to considering potential climate cooling interventions as a complementary approach for mitigating dangerous warming.

There is little evidence supporting assertions that: current greenhouse gas emissions reduction and removal methods can and will be ramped up in time to prevent dangerous climate change; overshoot of Paris Agreement targets will be temporary; net zero emissions will produce a safe, stable climate; the impacts of overshoot can be managed and reversed; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models and assessments capture the full scope of prospective disastrous impacts; and the risks of climate interventions are greater than the risks of inaction.

These largely unsupported presumptions distort risk assessments and discount the urgent need to develop a viable mitigation strategy. Due to political pressures, many critical scientific concerns are ignored or preemptively dismissed in international negotiations. As a result, the present and growing crisis and the level of effort and time that will be required to control and rebalance the climate are severely underestimated.

In conclusion, the paper outlines the key elements of a realistic policy approach that would augment current efforts to constrain dangerous warming by supplementing current mitigation approaches with climate cooling interventions.“

Please proceed in light of this science. However, I do not endorse the paper’s findings and recommendations concerning climate cooling (geo-engineering) interventions.

Bill Wolfe

Senate Democrats Throw In The Towel On Codifying Gov. Murphy’s Energy Goals

A Late Friday Afternoon Massacre For Clean Energy

The original two rounds of email Agenda Notices from the Senate Environment Committee stated that the controversial and highly touted S2978 – the so called “100% clean energy bill” – was scheduled for hearing at the Monday December 18, 2023 Environment Committee meeting.

I just received the third e-mail revising that agenda – the revision deleted S2978 from the Agenda.

I previously wrote to criticize that bill as deeply flawed substantively and an abuse of process to move through a lame duck session, see:

• NJ “Clean Energy” Debate Rife With Errors And Misconceptions

• NJ Legislature Considering Another Misleading Climate Bill That Sets Aspirational Goals

When the bill was posted for consideration on 12/18, the Committee Agenda Notice stated that there would be no public testimony, given the prior extensive testimony. I wrote Chairman Smith to object:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “senscutari@njleg.org” <senscutari@njleg.org>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, “dpringle1988@gmail.com” <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “Tittel, Jeff” <jeff.tittel@verizon.net>, “david@njglobe.com” <david@njglobe.com>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>

Date: 12/12/2023 7:07 PM EST

Subject: S2978 – 12/18/23 Senate hearing

Chairman Smith – I’d like to go on record to object strongly to the process for consideration of the bill S2978 during the December 18, 2023 Senate Environment Committee hearing (during a lame duck session).

According to the public notice for that hearing: (emphasis mine)

“Please note that public testimony regarding S2978 was previously taken at the November 20, 2023 meeting of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee, and no additional testimony will be taken regarding S2978 at the meeting.”

It is my understanding that prior testimony involved a Senate Committee Substitute (S2978 SCS), not the original version of S2978 – so the notice is misleading.

The bill posted for the 12/18/23 hearing is the original introduced version of S2978, not the SCS that was the subject of the prior hearing.

Therefore, despite the many confidential negotiations on the introduced version that led to the SCS, it is impossible for the public to know what legislation is under consideration.

You obviously are aware that ramming critically important and controversial legislation through a lame duck session undermines the public’s trust in the legislature.

To compound that problem by banning public comment on an unknown version of the bill – regardless of the merits and extensive prior testimony – is totally unacceptable.

I urge you to reconsider this approach.

Bill Wolfe

More recently, I wrote to criticize a NJ Spotlight Op-Ed supporting the bill by Sierra Club and NJCF:

——— Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <t>

To: Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, tom@njconservation.org, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov, Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov, ferencem@njspotlightnews.org, jonhurdle@gmail.com, asmScharfenberger@njleg.org

Date: 12/14/2023 8:00 AM EST

Subject: EO 315 – today’s Op-Ed

Anjuli – In today’s NJ Spotlight Op-Ed, you made this (false) claim: (emphasis mine):

“The goal of reaching 100% clean electricity by 2035 became state policy last March, when Gov. Phil Murphy signed Executive Order 315. This bill established the goal of 100% clean energy in law, and for the first time, required that the vast majority of clean resources should be located in New Jersey.”

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/12/op-ed-nj-should-lead-speedy-energy-transition/

EO 315 is not a “bill” and it established no “law”.

https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-315.pdf

Executive Orders do not carry the force and effect of law, establish no substantive regulatory requirements that must be met, and are not enforceable. As a former DEP professional, surely you must know this. So I must assume your false claim was intentional, or a lie.

That false claim must be corrected immediately (copy to NJ Spotlight).

Rhetorically, you also managed to essentially dismiss “traditional” Clean Air Act regulated air pollutants, like mercury, lead, fine particulates, and hazardous air pollutants to “co-pollutants”. That is not a lie, but it misleads the public and lets polluters and DEP off the hook by downplaying traditional air pollution permit and regulatory issues and the public health impacts and risks these pollutants cause and contribute to. It also undermines public participation in DEP air permitting.

Do better.

Bill Wolfe

It is unclear why Smith abandoned the effort – and I certainly can’t claim credit for it – but given the substantive policy flaws and the abuse of the lame duck session, it was the right thing to do.

But it is another serious political setback of Gov. Murphy’s so called climate leadership.

Hoffman Capably Led NJ DEP’s Water Supply Planning And Geologic Science For Years

I just learned that NJ’s longtime State Geologist, Jeffrey Hoffman has retired, effective December 1.

As State Geologist, Jeff managed several critical DEP water resource protection (water quantity and water quality) and geological science programs of the NJ Geological Survey

These programs included everything from mapping old mine sites, designating “critical” water supply aquifers, analyzing and allocating groundwater, determining the “safe yield” of watersheds, drought monitoring and management, to crafting the NJ Water Supply Plan, to fundamental geological and hydrological science of NJ’s aquifers.

That work was not only scientifically complex and had huge implications for the environment and economy, but was often politically controversial as well. Jeff navigated those controversies extremely well and with a people friendly demeanor. He was a nice guy.

NJ’s water resources are better off as a result of Jeff work, and that is something to be very proud of.

On a personal note, I’m sorry to say that I can’t recall when Jeff was appointed State Geologist (a hugely important position established in Legislation). But I know it was at least 20 years ago, as I recall working with him during the McGreevey DEP on the Highlands Act and implementing regulations (circa 2002).

[Correction: I just learned that Hoffman was appointed State Geologist by Gov. Christie in 2015, so my work with him was prior to that. He began at DEP in 1981, I began at DEP in 1985.]

Jeff strongly opposed the concept of “deep aquifer recharge” I advocated and ultimately got incorporated in the Highlands Act. That science and policy concept is the scientific foundation for the DEP’s extremely stringent development septic density standards, which are based on a “non-degradation standard” to protect groundwater and thereby significantly limit new development.

Jeff took the position that the concept was not well developed and was not adequately supported by the scientific literature. He recommended minor tweaks to then current NJ Geological Survey science and methods. I countered that the science was uncertain but was more than adequate to support a policy decision to be made by the legislature, not DEP regulators.

Thankfully I won that internal debate, despite the fact the DEP Commissioner Campbell agreed with Hoffman’s recommendation.

Over the years, we also locked horns on major battles, including the Christie DEP rollbacks of the Highlands regulations (baed on misinterpretations and misrepresentation of NJGS science) and various iterations and updates of the Statewide Water Supply Plan over many years.

Jeff was a competent and hard working professional and a good man to work with. He will be missed.

DEP Denies Petition To Force Stronger New Rules To Protect Drinking Water

In the December 4, 2023 edition of the NJ Register (see: 55 NJR 2430(a), the DEP issued a formal denial of my petition to force DEP to respond to long known threats to public health posed by the presence of hundreds of unregulated chemicals DEP’s own research has documented to be present in NJ drinking water.

These currently unregulated chemicals include a toxic soup of pharmaceutical chemicals known to be “endocrine disruptors” and industrial chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer and other serious adverse health effects, even at very low levels (parts per billion and trillion).

In response to their own science that exposed these risks, 15 years ago DEP proposed a new regulatory strategy to require treatment to remove this entire class of chemicals, instead of going through the incredibly slow and expensive individual chemical by chemical risk assessment based regulatory process for adopting current drinking water standards known as MCL’s (for “maximum contaminant levels“). DEP is way behind in adopting science and risk assessment based recommendations by the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute on more than a dozen chemicals already, and it typically takes many years for DEP to adopt an MCL.

US EPA explains why the current MCL process is broken:

“The current approach to drinking water protection is focused on a detailed assessment of each individual contaminant of concern and can take many years. This approach not only results in slow progress in addressing unregulated contaminants but also fails to take advantage of strategies for enhancing health protection cost‐effectively, including advanced treatment technologies that address several contaminants at once. The outlined vision seeks to use existing authorities to achieve greater protection more quickly and cost‐effectively.” ~~~ (US EPA, March 2010)

But for over a decade, DEP has dragged its feet and worked hard to keep these threats below the public radar.

The limited NJ media coverage of these issues has been narrowly focused on individual unregulated chemicals, e..g. “forever chemicals”. Worse, media coverage not only ignores the much larger threats posed by hundreds of these chemicals, but their coverage is framed in a way to mislead the public and create the false impression that DEP is doing a very good job. NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle’s coverage of “forever chemicals” is a prime example of these media failures.

But my petition forced DEP – for the first time, to my knowledge – to acknowledge the problem, summarize the science, and, most importantly, signal a regulatory response. I strongly urge media and readers to read both my petition and the DEP’s rambling denial document. Here’s the key DEP conclusion:

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Department acknowledges that research conducted to date has demonstrated the presence of unregulated contaminants in water supplies. As described above, the Department is involved in varied and continuous efforts to obtain more complete information about the occurrence, toxicity, and possible treatment approaches for these contaminants. As the results of these ongoing efforts are analyzed, the Department will determine whether science supports initiating a regulatory monitoring and treatment program for currently unregulated contaminants.

So, the writing is on the wall. DEP is signaling that they can no longer ignore the problem and likely will do something on the regulatory front.

Which is very likely why – as I wrote Sunday – the corporate water companies are seeking to ram a bill through the lame duck legislature in oder to avoid the costs of these new treatment requirements and pass them all on to consumers, with no regulatory review of the economic justification and profits they are making.

Of course, if that bill passes and is signed into law by the Governor, it will make it much harder for DEP to adopt stringent new regularly requirements to mandate removal of these chemicals, because DEP will face strong political pushback based on the costs and impacts to consumers, as the private corporate water companies get a huge pass from this billion dollar problem.

And NJ Democrats, who control both the Legislature and the Governor’s executive branch (DEP and BPU) power, are supporting and pushing the corporate agenda.