Repost To Explain Gibbstown Gas Project: The Murphy DEP Regulations Promoted Expansion Of Underground “Cavern” Storage Of Hazardous Fossil Gases

DEP Regulations Promote Industry And Screw The Public

When most people think about environmental regulations, they assume that the regulations are designed to protect the public and restrict the operations of polluting industries to protect the environment.

But, some times the opposite is true: the regulations are proposed to protect the industry.

There are many ways that regulations can protect industry and and screw the public: e.g. 1) limit competition; 2) establish barriers to market entry; 3) provide a monopoly; 4) create investment certainty and reduce investment risks; 5) provide subsidies; 6) insulate industry from enforcement of laws; 7) reduce industry liability; 8) preempt local regulation; 9) increases costs, harass competitors and drive them out of the market; and 10) even to create a market. [wonks can read the works of Gabriel Kolko].

Two years ago, the Murphy DEP pursued the latter objectives and adopted new regulations to protect their friends in the gas industry and screw the public and the environment.

Those regulations explain why the DEP just issued permits to the massive Gibbstown gas facility – literally an explosive fossil bomb that poses huge risks to the community while protecting corporate profits.

So we are reposting a May 6, 2023 post about the Murphy DEP “cavern” gas storage regulations.

Those regulations paved the way for the Gibbstown permit:

Murphy DEP Adopts New Rules To Allow Expansion Of Storage Of Flammable And Explosive Gases In Underground “Caverns”

Gas Storage Caverns Pose Huge Risks To NJ Communities

Expansion Of Fossil Infrastructure Contradicts NJ Global Warming Response Act Goals

DEP Rules Make A Mockery Of Gov. Murphy’s Climate Commitments & Exec. Orders

DEP Commissioner Recused From Decision Because He Represented Gas Industry

On Monday May 1, 2023, the Murphy DEP quietly adopted new regulations that would allow for the expansion of storage of highly flammable and explosive gases in underground “caverns”.

In the nation’s most densely populated State, what could go wrong?

I suggest people and the press read the DEP rule adoption document to get a flavor for the harsh public criticism DEP received and see for yourself  the DEP’s lame responses to those criticisms.

The poster child for the catastrophic risks these gas storage “caverns” pose to nearby communities and the climate emergency was the 2015  blowout at the Aliso Canyon cavern in California.

There was no self congratulatory press release touting the “historic” and “first ever” new DEP rules.

In an unusual move, the new rules were legally adopted by DEP Deputy Commissioner Moriarty, not DEP Commissioner LaTourette who is legally empowered to sign off on regulations.

The DEP press office surely did not highlight the fact that DEP Commissioner LaTourette was forced to recuse from the regulatory process because he previously served as private lawyer for one of the gas storage cavern corporations, Delaware River Partners LLC.

LaTourette’s former clients in the gas industry praised the DEP rules: (rule adoption, page 13)

2. COMMENT: The rules are the culmination of a considerable and concerted effort by Department staff and those in the regulated community to craft a protective and workable regulatory framework. There is a decades-long history of safe operation of underground storage caverns in New Jersey at Repauno and at a third-party facility in Linden. Given current market trends and international energy needs, underground storage caverns present a unique opportunity to serve as a driver of local and regional economic growth. The commenter asserts that it is uniquely situated to comment on the rules given its experience with managing and operating an underground storage cavern and its participation in the stakeholder process used to develop the rules over the past several years. (26) 26. David Miller, Giordano, Halleran & Cielsa, P.C., on behalf of Delaware River Partners LLC

That’s really all you need to know. The gas industry loves it. The DEP’s “protective regulatory framework” protects their profits and assures continued operation and allows expansion. Period.

The rules allow expansion of the current fossil fuel infrastructure and promote the growth of natural gas supply and therefore will result in continued and huge new greenhouse gas emissions, including methane which is 80X more potent climate warming than carbon dioxide.

DEP did not quantify or even consider the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts in the May 16, 2022 rule proposal, which got virtually no media coverage when it mattered (i.e. before the public hearing and the close of the public comment period).

DEP did not include requirements for the gas industry to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the “caverns” and the lifecycle green house gas emissions from the gas storage at the facility.

The DEP did not include allowable greenhouse gas emission standards for gas storage “caverns”.

Instead, DEP created a fake appearance of consideration of climate issues via a misleading “climate change impact assessment” (see: N.J.A.C. 7:1F-2.4).

That “climate change impact assessment” is fatally flawed and a meaningless fraud.

It is limited to mitigation of climate impacts and therefore allows continued operation and expansion of gas storage (i.e. the rules do not provide a scientific basis for or regulatory authority for DEP to prohibit or limit GHG emissions).

It merely requires the consideration of the following factors, which do NOT include mandatory quantification of greenhouse gas emissions or the warming potential of those emissions or the relationship to the GHG emission reduction goals of the NJ Global Warming Response Act: (see page 104-106):

  • flood hazard location risks
  • 100 year storm event (DEP’s own recently proposed flood hazard regulationsadmit that this 100 year storm standard is obsolete and does not reflect the best available current science)
  • sea level rise
  • extreme weather
  • health impacts related to flooding, not from emissions, or explosions, or fires.

[Update 5/8/23 – On the embarrassing glaring conflicting storm event standards and climate fail, I sent this email to DEP Commissioner LaTourette:

Dear Commissioner Latourette:

Are you aware of the fact that the Department’s proposed Flood Hazard Area regulation storm event standard (and flood elevations) conflict with the the Department’s adopted 100 year storm standard in the Underground Storage Caverns rule?

In addition to this glaring conflict, please explain how the Underground Storage Caverns rule considered greenhouse gas emissions, limited those emissions, and is consistent with the emission reduction limits and the legislative intent of the NJ Global Warming Response Act.

The DEP openly admitted that these caverns pose huge risks to surrounding communities: (see proposal at page 61)

The rules apply to cavern systems that are used for the underground storage of any natural or artificial gas, or any petroleum product or derivative of any petroleum product. Many of these substances are extremely toxic or flammable, which could impact the surrounding public, if involved in an incident. A release of a toxic substance could form a vapor cloud that may cause severe health effects, if inhaled. An incident with a flammable substance could result in a fire or explosion, which could impact the public by radiant heat or an overpressure wave.

But the DEP did not propose any enforceable standard with respect to “unacceptable risk” that would provide a science based regulatory standard necessary to deny a new permit, permit renewal for an existing facility, or a permit modification for expansion of the storage capacity of an existing cavern.

The rules also include privatization of the permitting process, by requiring that the gas industry hire a “third party” – and – remarkably – allowing the gas industry to determine if that third party is competent and independent:

7:1F-2.5 Third-party evaluation

(a) The owner and operator of an underground storage cavern system shall engage a third party to independently review the feasibility study as required at N.J.A.C. 7:1F-2.1, the design and construction submittals as required at N.J.A.C. 7:1F-2.2, and the process hazard analysis as required at N.J.A.C. 7:1F-2.3.

(b) The owner and operator shall determine and document that the third party meets the following competency and independence requirements:

These new rules got very limited and meaningless press coverage, so there is little public awareness, e.g. see NJ Spotlight story, which came almost 3 months after the rules were proposed and safely AFTER the June 9 Public hearing and the July 15 close of the public comment period (so the public could no nothing with the information):

But to some advocates, the proposed new regulations, if passed as currently written, would be deeply antithetical to the Murphy administration’s efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and to become a national leader in the environmental justice movement. Instead, they say the rules change offers an invitation for the oil and gas industry both to expand in New Jersey and to further exacerbate pollution and the burdens of climate change in some of the state’s most vulnerable communities.

In contrast, I post my initial analysis immediately – the day the rules were proposed – explicitly to educate the public and empower their participation in and opposition to the proposal:

Today, the Murphy DEP proposed new regulations that would govern DEP permitting of new and existing facilities for the underground storage of natural gas and other petroleum products.

I suspect that DEP will spin these rules as updating or modernizing outdated permits or regulations based on an ancient 1951 law. DEP will use the LNG restriction to obfuscate and divert.

But make no mistake, just the opposite is the case: in fact, the proposed rules effectively promote expansion of fossil infrastructure,protect existing permits, and continue a dangerous practice that should be banned.

Underground storage caverns are part of the fossil infrastructure network. Although DEP fails to even mention this or analyze the need for this infrastructure capacity, California regulators analyze the need for storage capacity and explain the role of underground storage:

This is all just insane.

More to follow – so I’ll close now with a line from one of my favorite movies, Cool Hand Luke:

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Murphy DEP Proposed Permit To Construct Massive Fossil Gas Storage “Caverns” Along The Delaware River

Project Recalls DEP Commissioner’s Worst Revolving Door Abuse Ever

DEP Multiple Permits And New Regulations To Promote Expansion Of New Fossil Infrastructure Make A Mockery Of Gov. Murphy’s Climate And Renewable Energy Transition Claims

“Moving Energy, Powering Tomorrow”

The Murphy DEP recently proposed a permit to allow construction of “two new 640,000-barrel hard rock underground storage cavern systems” for fossil gas, primarily highly flammable and explosive gases methane, propane, & butane, AKA “Liquified Petroleum Gas” (LPG)

Take a look at the massive scale of the fossil infrastructure involved at the Repauno Port & Rail Terminal (hit this link to watch video)

The Gibbstown Logistics Center sits on over 1,600 acres located next to the Delaware River in Gloucester County, New Jersey, on the grounds of Dupont’s former explosives manufacturing site known as the Repauno Plant. The facility stores natural gas liquids (NGLs), like butane and propane, in underground caverns and transfers NGLs from trucks and railcars to cargo ships for export. The Gibbstown Center is owned by Delaware River Partners LLC, a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, who has plans to expand the facility in order to accommodate exports of liquefied natural gas from the proposed Bradford County LNG terminal in Wyalusing, Pennsylvania. For more information on the Dock 2 Expansion Project and actions being taken by local community groups in opposition, please visit the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.  [Source: Oil and Gas Watch]

Delaware River Partners, LLC, previously was legally represented by Shawn LaTourette, who secured DEP permits for the facility. LaTourette currently is the DEP Commissioner, creating what I called “The Fastest And Most Egregious Revolving Door Ever”.

LaTourette’s DEP not only issued many additional permits to Delaware River Partners, they crafted an entire new set of regulations specifically to promote the expansion of the Delaware River Partners Gibbstown Logistics Center.

DEP Commissioner LaTourette was forced to recuse, so those rules were adopted by Sean D. Moriarty, Deputy Commissioner, a man with many related massive ethical challenges.

As we warned 3 years ago when the new DEP “Underground Cavern rules” were proposed, this project was a done deal:

the Gibbstown LNG project [is] seeking expansion of the current cavern capacity of 186,000 barrels to 3 million barrels! 

I can’t recall any industry or facility ever getting this kind of intensive and favorable regulatory treatment by the DEP.

DEP is taking public comments on the construction permit until June 14, 2025 (here’s information on how to comment from Delaware Riverkeeper).

Of course, the DEP construction permit rules (the new cavern rules) governing this construction permit allow DEP to decouple the construction permit issues from other environmental permits the DEP already has issued (e.g. wetlands, stream encroachment, air pollution) and well as required future permits for water pollution, et al. The Delaware River Basin Commission apparently previously has issued their approvals as well.

The DEP construction permit rules also allow DEP to separate the construction permit from “operating permits” that regulate critical public safety issues involved in massive storage of highly flammable and explosive gases. Those critical issues will be considered at some future point under NJ’s “Bhopal bill”, known as the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA).

And of course, the DEP not only allows “segmentation” of numerous permits, but totally fails to even consider the climate and cumulative impacts  of this massive fossil infrastructure.

So, given the revolving door corruption and the broken and dysfunctional DEP regulatory framework, this all amounts to some kind of sick joke that makes a mockery of the bullshit slogans from Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner LaTourette about the climate emergency and the need to transition to renewable energy.

And the Repauno facility’s Logo shoves it right down our throats and openly brags of their commitment to the fossil future:

“Moving Energy, Powering Tomorrow”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NY Times’ Advice On Response To Trump Dismantling: “Get Creative With State Policies”

NJ Democrats Still Have No Strategy Or Plan To Respond

I’ve been writing to NJ Legislators and the Murphy DEP Commissioner for months now, urging them to develop a strategy to respond to the Trump “dismantling of the administrative state”, including making specific procedural and substantive recommendations on how to do so.

So today, I read with interest a NY Times editorial that urged State policymakers to “get creative with State policies“, see:

I sent legislators and DEP Commissioner LaTourette an excerpt of #2 on the NY Times’ list, because I’ve been saying exactly the same thing.

I have been recommending a strategy to block the Trump rollbacks whereby the DEP (or Legislature) could adopt the federal regulations and programs and scientific and technical information under NJ State law as NJ State regulations.

Those recommendations included a petition for rulemaking designed to block Trump clean air rollbacks of hazardous air pollutant protections that was published in the May 5, 2025 edition of the NJ Register and another petition for rulemaking to block Trump EPA rollback of a Clean Water Act permit program to limit the discharge of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” into NJ drinking water sources.

The NY Times wrote:

“2. Get creative with state policies.

Josh Green, governor of Hawaii: In May, Hawaii became the first state to pass a climate impact fee that will enable us to protect ourselves against future climate-related disasters like the devastating Maui fires. A small 0.75 percent increase in the hotel tax for all travelers to Hawaii will generate $100 million per year, which may also be used to bond $1 billion annually. These resources will fund new research, development and deployment of strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions, protecting and restoring ecosystems and building climate-resilient infrastructure and communities. This is just one example of how state and local governments can take control of their own fates and survive harsh federal cuts.”

I closed my note today with this repeated question:

What are you doing to be creative, take control of NJ’s fate, and protect NJ’s interests from the Trump dismantling?

Of course they ignore me, but can they just ignore The NY Times too?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dog Senses Danger, Runs Owner Away To Safety

An Amazing Dog Tale

On Sunday, Charlie and I were sitting on a bench at Old Swedes historic site, a fine place where people walk dogs.

Nearby, a couple and their dog were having lunch at a picnic table under a large old mulberry tree.

Suddenly, out of the blue, the well behaved calm dog bolted full speed for the exit gate. There were no dogs or people he was running towards that might explain this sudden bolt.

The dog’s mom immediately shouted to call him back and when he didn’t stop she ran after him.

Just then, not 2-3 seconds after the woman ran after the dog and was 30 feet or so away from the picnic table, there was a loud crack, like a rifle shot (but not quite that loud).

A large branch from the top of the tree broke off and began tumbling down the canopy through the tree’s branches.

It got blocked and stuck on the way down and didn’t hit the guy who remained seated at the table. It was a large branch that looks to be at least 6 inches in diameter and maybe 25 feet long, so it could have caused serious injury if not death.

Given the highly unusual nature and timing of the dog’s bolt, I strongly suspect that he somehow heard or sensed the branch about to snap and ran away to get his mom out of harm’s way.

Dogs truly are amazing!

(or was in the spirits from the nearby graveyard that saved the day?)

(photos above and below shows a large branch from that same trees that fell over the picnic table last year. Luckily, no one was sitting there when it fell.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Small Victory – Traffic Calming In Queen Village

After 2 Nearby Pedestrian Fatalities

In a small victory for local activists, the City of Philadelphia recently installed traffic calming measures at 3 intersections in Queen Village along Carpenter Street: at Front, Moyamensing, and 2nd.

I cross each one multiple times per day walking the dog and have almost been hit many times, particularly at Front street (photo above).

Last year, on July 25, 2024, I wrote several city planning and transportation officials to demand that they install traffic calming (stop sign, cross walk, and speed bumps – see letter below).

I was amazed when I immediately received replies from city officials.

Mason C. Austin, Director, Transportation Planning wrote twice, the same day and with a followup:

Hi Mr. Wolfe,

The Streets Department is chiefly responsible for implementing the types of changes to the street bed to which you refer in e-mail.  The first step would be to make a formal request for these changes through that department’s Traffic Calming Request form here: https://www.phila.gov/services/streets-sidewalks-alleys/request-traffic-calming-for-a-residential-street/

I checked and the 100 block of Carpenter is indeed eligible for review (it exceeds the minimum width by 4 feet and the minimum length by approximately 50 feet) through that interface. 

After you enter your request there, the Streets Department will review your request, score it, and contact you for further information if it’s selected for traffic calming.  Additional information about that process can be found at the link above.  Unfortunately, as staff members of the Planning Commission, neither Kyle nor I are involved in the selection process, so we’re unable to provide assistance beyond directing you to this resource.  Nonetheless, I hope this is helpful. 

-Mason

He followed up a few day later with additional guidance (which I followed and can be used by others to make more things happen):

Apologies for the delay, it took me some time to get an answer to this.  The suggestion I received was that you contact the district traffic engineer for Center City/South, Harry Hua: harry.hua@phila.gov.  It was also suggested that, if possible, you have someone who lives on the affected block submit the request.

I hope that helps! 

-Mason

I thought that I must have written a kick ass letter, but when I mentioned it to dog friends at Old Swedes, I learned that a month earlier, a man had been killed on June 25, 2024, just one block away at the intersection of Front and Washington.

So, the city’s response was likely in response to that fatality.

Then, on January 3, 2025, another man was killed and his wife injured at the same intersection!

People shouldn’t have to get killed before obvious safety issues are addressed.

Letter below. This is how its done.

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: kyle.brown@phila.gov

Cc: fkummer@inquirer.com, bruce.bohri@phila.gov, terrell.brown@phila.gov, mason.austin@phila.gov, jada.ackley@phila.gov, , sonja@bicyclecoalition.org

Date: 07/25/2024 8:51 AM EDT

Subject: Pedestrian crosswalk questions

Mr. Brown – Good day.  I am a resident at […] Street, Philadelphia, 19147.

As you are a Transportation Planner, I am writing to inquire about the process, standards, and criteria for the City to create a pedestrian crosswalk, with traffic calming (speed bump), and signage.

The location is the intersection of Carpenter and Front Street.

The location is adjacent to Shot Tower Recreation Area, which receives heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic, particularly children and moms in strollers. That location is also used by many dog walkers and pedestrians traveling to and from Old Swedes Historic Site.

A pedestrian crosswalk would provide safety improvements for the pedestrians and cyclists crossing Front Street.

Front Street is one way and has parking on both sides. Parked cars make the visual sight lines required to safely cross the intersection very difficult. I believe that the posted speed limit is 25 mph, but that limit is exceeded by the large majority of vehicles in my experience (I cross 6 times a day, every day, at approximately 7:30 am; 12:00 pm and 5:00 pm). Drivers use Front after either crossing or turning off Washington Avenue and tend to retain prior excessive speeds. I have never observed police enforcing speed limits there.

There are handicapped accessible curb cuts on both sides of Front Street at this intersection.

I have anecdotal support of users of Shot Tower and Old Swedes. I’m sure I could generate considerable public support.

Accordingly, a designated pedestrian cross walk, signage, and traffic calming measures are justified, given:

1) the proximity and adjacency of special uses (Shot Tower and Old Swedes);

2) the volume of pedestrian and cyclist traffic at this location;

3) the special vulnerability of the population of users (e.g. young children, busy mothers, distracted tourist unfamiliar with city streets, and seniors);

4) the limited sight lines;

5) the volume and speed of the traffic (sorry, I do not have traffic count or accident data, which I assume your office has);

6) the lack of police enforcement of the speed limits; and

7) strong local public support.

Additionally, although I just became aware of it and have yet to read it, I’m confident that this would be consistent with the recently adopted pedestrian and bicycle plan, see:

https://www.phila.gov/media/20230901072757/PCPC.Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Plan-Progress-Report-2021.pdf

I appreciate your timely and favorable response that outlines the specific next steps to make this happen.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment