With the Governor on vacation and Senator Sweeney's bombast being supplanted by the hand wringing surrounding the Casey Anthony verdict, you would think that Trenton's name-calling and argumentative style would be on hiatus, and you would be wrong.
Well, it's official. Gov. Chris Christie has pulled the state out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), handing a big gift to the right-wing base that gives governors like him the big money, like the kind that powers Americans for Prosperity, which has made dismantling the 10 Northeast state compact one of its prime objectives. That's AFP, whose New Jersey leader Steve Lonegan was Christie's GOP primary opponent for governor, whose Tea Party followers spent most of Christie's first year kvetching he wasn't conservative enough, AFP, front group for oil and coal interests, largely underwritten by the Koch Brothers, billionaires David and Charles. Kinda people rising GOP stars need. Dig it.
WTF sign is Sarlo standing behind?
Sarlo: Inclined to blame Christie alone for all this? Think again. When he became the first Democrat to support AFP's anti-RGGI efforts, Sen. Paul Sarlo gave Christie's decision some Democratic cover. Yes, that's Sarlo behind the sign: I Am AFP!
Christie's had just a craptastic week - sagging poll numbers at home (you know, where it counts), a star-turn robo-call for the GOP loser in hot race NY-26, a Supreme Court ruling that undercuts his whole education zeitgeist. Worse, even reporters who used to be dazzled by him are beginning to report on his excesses, and his whole bluster and bullshit act is beginning to wear (except, apparently in Iowa). I'm sure he wants to get you talking about something else, anything but all that.
Dummies: This is an intelligent governor who nonetheless plays to the dummy chunk of his base by going along with the claim that there's insufficient proof of human-caused global climate change (yay, let's burn fuel and make our pals richer). Rutgers scientists even gave him a quiet science lesson. Sierra Club is apoplectic, roaring out with a 1432-word press release I won't recount here (not posted at their site yet). But it makes a pretty good case that Christie's choosing to make things easier for corporate polluters and the coal industry at the expense of your health. And that it has created (or saved) jobs, cut emissions and is supported by the state's major utilities. Christie's already raided $65 million from RGGI, money meant to support clean energy programs, diverted to the budget deficit.
RGGi is a first-of-its-kind initiative, and threats to it are national enviro news. NRDC just posted this poll that shows New Jerseyans will probably think their governor's headed in the wrong direction - increasingly.
Nuclear power, once viewed as the panacea that would wean us from fossil fuels, is starting to show some of its hidden costs. Despite the fact that they will impact Japan’s economy and quality of life for decades to come, the Fukushima disaster is just the tip of the iceberg. As plants built during the nuclear boom times come to the end of their useful lives, more of these hidden costs will be exposed to the public. And that’s becoming evident here in New Jersey.
The privately-run nuclear reactor at Oyster Creek in Lacey Township is scheduled to be closed and decommissioned starting December 31, 2019. The plant’s owner, Exelon, has made the decision to close the plant rather than build cooling towers that would reduce the amount of heated water that is currently dumped into the environmentally-fragile Barnegat Bay.
Senator Bob Menendez sat down for an interview with POLITICO recently, and here's that video. Menendez ran the Senate's 2010 campaign strategy, a year we lost 6 seats. Part of what he talks about here is the rise of corporate spending on the right, post Citizens United, particularly the fueling of tea party candidates by the Koch brothers. Overall, Menendez says he tracked $70 million in corporate spending against Senate Democrats. He calls it "a corruption of our election system," that absent a constitutional solution, should require greater disclosure and transparency in spending.
Menendez also has strong advice for 2012 candidates, to seize the debate over gas prices, the budget and federal spending, offering a well-framed debate that resonates with most Americans simplistic cries of things like "Drill, baby, drill." That's a particularly attractive piece of advice as we approach the 1-year anniversary of BP's Deepwater Horizon explosion and the massive oil spill that dirtied the Gulf of Mexico. Menendez is against allowing an expansion of offshore drilling - both our senators are - and has an idea how Democrats can respond legislatively to the BP oil spill disaster. "Use it or lose it," Menendez says: legislation that would essentially penalize companies that do not produce on drilling leases they have already been granted.
For me, as an engineer and a political junkie, listening to Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula give a speech is a treat. The legislator from Somerset county is a walking encyclopedia on energy, both from the policy and technology standpoints. Before he went to Trenton, the engineer-politician designed power plant simulators and worked at one of the premier research institutions on Earth, AT&T Bell Labs.
Chivukula gave the keynote address at the NJ/PA Sustainability Forum on the Rutgers - Camden campus today. He provided a concise summary of the state of energy production and distribution as well as his view of the energy-political landscape.
With all the attention on other issues, Chivukula said that it’s difficult to get the general public interested in energy policy. Media coverage is sparse, and with our cheap and (usually) reliable electricity supply, he said, most people take energy for granted.
Chivukula pointed out that New Jersey gets over half its energy from the four nuclear plants in the state - three in Salem County and one (Oyster Creek) in Ocean County. But Oyster Creek’s operating license will expire in 2019. (The plant’s owners, Excelon, refused to build cooling towers to protect Barnegat Bay, hence the plant will be decommissioned at the end of the current license.) The closing of the plant will leave a 640 megawatt hole in New Jersey’s electricity production.
While he pointed out that energy is a non-partisan issue, Chivukula lamented the politicization leading to delays in the release of Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan. He said that all the governor’s people are doing is tweaking the 2008 plan, but no one in the legislature has had any input to it. Offshore wind is part of this plan, but there’s a seven-year permitting process and the deep water sites are conducive to construction only two months of the year.
He spent a lot of time discussing Governor Christie’s conditional veto of A2529, a bill to promote renewable energy, and felt that the veto was based on a fit of pique by one of the governor’s aides and not on the merits of the bill. Chivukula also pointed out that sixty percent of our greenhouse gases come from transportation, so it is critical that the Energy Master Plan address that also.
I wish I were wonky enough to understand everything in his remarks, but alas, I am not. We elect our legislators to do the hard work of understanding the issues and promoting legislation that meets our needs. While I’m leery of most politicians (in both parties), Assemblyman Chivukula is one who my gut tells me is doing the right things, and deserves our support.
That's the money quote from New Jersey Board of Public Utilities President Lee Solomon at the NJ/PA Sustainability Forum held on the campus of Rutgers University in Camden. Solomon was the opening speaker at the day-long event. more below...
We often emphasize the fact that a way to make a difference and mitigate the scourge of anti-environment, pro-polluter Republicanism is to work hard to elect progressives at all levels of government. That's critical - we need regulations, standards, and incentives that only government can provide. But that's just one aspect of making the world greener and more sustainable.
Grass-roots action must go beyond the ballot box, and Sustainable Cherry Hill is one organization that is starting to "walk the talk." Two hundred environmentalists, businesspeople, senior citizens, and politicians gathered last night at Camden Community College in Blackwood to use their collective brainpower to develop ideas for sustainability. Don't let the name of the organization fool you - there were people from 35 towns in six counties participating in enthusiastic discussion in the school's cafeteria.
It also has several provisions I championed, including tax relief for transit riders and to spur the use of solar energy.
Compared to the tax cuts for the rich and payroll tax issues, the solar energy energy bit is minor, but a description is in The Solar Home & Business Journal:
A bill that embodies the controversial tax-cut deal negotiated by President Obama's administration and Republican congressional leaders includes an extension of a Treasury Department grant program for solar energy installations...
The Treasury grant program has approved nearly 1,500 awards totaling more than $5.5 billion in payments, mostly for wind and solar electricity projects.
So far, the largest awards have been for wind projects, ranging up to about $218 million for a project in the state of Washington. Solar electricity projects have received the highest number of awards, with almost 1,200. Solar electricity awards have ranged from a few thousand dollars to about $62 million for a Florida Power & Light Co. project.
Basically, developers can get "cash back" instead of a 30% tax credit that often has little value, but if they didn't start construction by the end of the month they'd have been out of luck. The tendency to offer subsidies and then let expire, then bring them back, then expire, has really hurt the wind industry over the years. Indeed, solar energy stock prices are soaring, showing that the uncertainty was hurting them.
Hopefully besides encouraging solar energy, these grants will also encourage construction projects to start up now while people really need the jobs.
Last month, Gov. Christie said he thought "more science" was needed to convince him personally that the global warming effect is human-caused. Ignoring, or not being conscious of, real science in favor of 'science' directed by those who stand to gain maintaining the status quo, is a common refrain from the right. We've heard it before in NJ. Rush Holt, physicist and congressman, made an effort to address the Governor's concerns here at Blue Jersey.
Now there's another effort to offer some free tutoring on climate change to our Governor, hosted by a coalition of seven NJ environmental groups. Christie has been invited to attend, but you can go, too. It's open to the public. Given the Gov's busy schedule, the location couldn't be more convenient; it doesn't even require a commute (no fossil fuels burned). It's at the State House Annex. He's also been offered a private briefing at his scheduling convenience by the scientists involved.
Available to the Governor, and speaking at the State House program are Dena Mottola Jaborska (ED, Environment NJ and three well-known experts from Rutgers; Prof. Alan Robock (Dept. of Environmental Sciences) Prof. Paul Falkowski (Institute of Marine Sciences) and Dr. Jim Miller (Dept. of Coastal Sciences). The scientists will present a clear picture of the problem and discuss how climate change will impact NJ in the coming decades. I hope the Governor goes. We can't get ahead using the tremendous opportunity green technology & innovation and energy savings present if the guy at the top doesn't get it.
Climate Change Science Panel Today: 12 pm
State House Annex, Committee Room 1 on 1st Floor Open to the Public
Panel Sponsored By: Environment New Jersey, NJ Sierra Club, NJ Conservation Foundation, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Highlands Coalition, NJ Environmental Lobby, ANJEC and Audubon Society.
Good for them, but the bigger lesson is that adopting John McCain and Sarah Palin's policies in exchange for no support at all from Republicans in Congress is doubly stupid: Once for not getting what you want, and second because most such conservative policies are inherently bad. I like Obama the man, but I sure wish I felt the lesson had been learned.
Gov. Christie wants Excelon to build new cooling towers at Oyster Creek. He's right because thermal pollution from the power plant is adversely effecting the health of Barnegat Bay. Excelon says "We'd rather close the nuclear power plant than build cooling towers." That would be ok too.
Oyster Creek is a 645 MW plant - when it's operating.
it could be replaced with 645 MW of wind and solar in less than 3 years ...
The idea is that there will be offshore wind farms (green squares) whose power will be delivered to New Jersey, Delaware and Virginia with the AWC transmission line. This project would built the backbone transmission line according to google:
The Mid-Atlantic region is ideally suited for offshore wind. It offers more than 60,000 MW of offshore wind potential in relatively shallow waters that extend miles out to sea. These shallow waters make it easier to install turbines 10-15 miles offshore, meaning wind projects can take advantage of stronger winds and are virtually out-of-sight from land. With few other renewable energy options ideally suited for the Atlantic coast, the AWC backbone helps states meet their renewable energy goals and standards (PDF) by enabling a local offshore wind industry to deploy thousands of megawatts of clean, cost-effective wind energy.
The AWC backbone is critical to more rapidly scaling up offshore wind because without it, offshore wind developers would be forced to build individual radial transmission lines from each offshore wind project to the shore, requiring additional time consuming permitting and environmental studies and making balancing the grid more difficult. As those in the Northeast remember from the 2003 blackout, transmission is severely overstretched on the east coast.
The first phase of the project for $1.8 billion would connect Delaware to northern New Jersey. The Times has two interesting observations. First, even without the wind farms, moving energy from southern Virginia to northern New Jersey would help lower costs for the north. (You know how controversial new transmission lines on land across New Jersey are.) Second, there are a lot of challenges ahead, mostly man-made:
Industry experts called the plan promising, but warned that as a first-of-a-kind effort, it was bound to face bureaucratic delays and could run into unforeseen challenges, from technology problems to cost overruns.
What with the ARC Tunnel controversy, it's nice to see someone in America is willing to take on new projects. Note also that big projects are expensive even to private businesses: Government may have to provide subsidies and Wall Street will have to raise a lot of capital.
The year is 2015. Bob Landrum of Connellsville is one of the wealthiest men in southwestern Pennsylvania. A high school chemistry teacher by profession, Bob was an amateur inventor and had discovered a breakthrough in solar cell technology back in 2013. His new solar cell, using a technology that he patented, was nine times more efficient at generating electricity than the best state-of-the art cells were previously. Despite his wealth, Bob and his wife Carol sent their two children to public schools. "We want Timmy and Sarah to experience the diversity of America and they need to interact with other children from all walks of life and from all kinds of families" explained Carol.
more below the fold
With Chris Christie spending most of this month out of state for GOP political trips - sometimes with a powerful GOP lobbyist along, sometimes getting in the face of people with questions - NJDSC produced a video primer of our Governor, with some of the things he might not be mentioning as he helps Republican candidates rake in the money in the days leading up to the November election. Here it is, called "Consequences of Christie. Does it tell the story?
Anybody else going to this? What other ideas are being brought forward? - promoted by Rosi
Friday, Sept 24, at citizens, business groups, and representatives from the Board of Public Utilities and the electric utilities will speak in an open forum on New Jersey's Energy Master Plan, or EMP. As it stands today the EMP calls for NJ to generate 22.5% of the electricity we use from clean renewable sources - solar and wind - by 2021.
Details below the fold...
Salem County, New Jersey, may be best known for farming but we are also the cutting edge of energy work, with ongoing projects to develop a new solar power plant and a new nuclear reactor. Which is better? The Energy Collective reports that a new study suggests that solar is the better bet:
It's no secret that the cost of producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years. A PV system today costs just 50 percent of what it did in 1998. Breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing combined with an increase in demand and production have caused the price of solar power to decline steadily. At the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned.
Admittedly this Duke study is based on is a study of energy costs in North Carolina, and the authors plainly are advocating for solar energy. Still, nuclear plants have a record of turning into white elephants while chips have been getting cheaper and cheaper. I bet the main trends are the same here:
The plot (which you can click on) is taken from the study. Of course, nuclear has certain advantages (think nighttime) but this is an important development--encouraging for solar if depressing for nuclear. I also point to this quote from the study:
Employment in North Carolina has more to gain from investment in solar electric and solar water installations than from the same amount of investment in nuclear plant construction and operation - by a factor of three.
Yesterday, the NRDC Action Fund launched a campaign featuring a powerful new ad by renowned environmental activist and celebrated actor, Edward James Olmos. In the video, which you can view here, Olmos explains what makes people - himself included - "locos" when it comes to U.S. energy and environmental policy. Now, as the Senate moves towards a possible debate on energy and climate legislation, we need to let everyone hear Olmos' message.
Hi, I'm Edward James Olmos. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I guess that's what makes Americans "locos." We keep yelling "drill baby drill" and expecting things to turn out ok. But the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing new. The oil industry has been poisoning our oceans and wilderness for decades. It's time to regain our sanity. America doesn't want more oil disasters. We need safe, clean and renewable energy now. Think about it.
Sadly, Olmos' definition of "insanity" is exactly what we've been doing for decades in this country -- maintaining policies that keep us "addicted" to fossil fuels instead of moving towards a clean, prosperous, and sustainable economy.
As we all know, dirty, outdated energy sources have caused serious harm to our economy, to our national security, and of course - as the horrible Gulf oil disaster illustrates - to our environment. In 2008 alone, the U.S. spent nearly $400 billion, about half the entire U.S. trade deficit, importing foreign oil. Even worse, much of that $400 billion went to countries (and non-state actors) that don't have our best interests at heart.
As if all that's not bad enough, our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels also has resulted in tremendous environmental devastation, ranging from melting polar ice caps to record heat waves to oil-covered pelicans and dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico.
As Edward James Olmos says, it's enough to drive us all "locos."
Fortunately, there's a better way.
If you believe, as we passionately do, that it's time to kick our addiction to the dirty fuels of the past, then please help us get that message out there. Help us air Edward James Olmos' ad on TV in states with U.S. Senators who we believe can be persuaded to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. If we can convince our politicians to do their jobs and to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this year, we will be on a path to a brighter, healthier future.
No wonder the Governor wanted to switch attention away from his budget. Maybe he was hoping to avoid stories looking at the consequences like this:
The state raided $128 million from the Retail Margin Fund, which is generated by fees from commercial and industrial users, in the fiscal year that ended June 30, and will take $14 million under the $29.4 billion budget signed into law last week.
Greg Reinert, spokesman for the Board of Public Utilities, said the fund had never spent the money collected over the years.
Today, he said, "there's nothing left in it."
And it's not even taxpayer money he's raided to balance the budget:
"One of the problems is that this isn't taxpayer money. . . . It was ratepayer money that had been set aside and dedicated to clean energy that helps people save money and helps create jobs and helps reduce pollution, so it was a no-win situation for the environment, the economy, and the people of New Jersey," said Matt Elliott, the global-warming and clean-energy advocate for Environment New Jersey.
Sure, who needs to create jobs, help the environment and the people of NJ. I thought that Christie was planning to end gimmicks and fund raids, instead he just doesn't talk about it or calls it something else hoping you won't question or notice. Like a thief in the night, he steals from the environment so millionaires can get a tax cut.
We are witnessing the Fossil Fuel Trifecta of Disaster.
Dec. 22, 2008, the Kingston Steam Plant fly ash pond broke, releasing 1.2 Billion gallons of toxic sludge from a coal plant and flooding the Clinch and Emery Rivers and 3000 acres near Kingston, Tennessee.
April 5, 2010, an accident killed 29 miners in the Upper Big Branch coal mine in Montcoal, W. Virginia.
Since April 20, for 56 Days and counting, 50,000 to 84,000 barrels per day, 2.8 Million to 4.7 Million barrels of oil has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. If it hits the Gulf Stream we can expect tarballs from the Deepwater Horizon to wash up on the beaches of Daytona, the Outer Banks, the Jersey Shore, Coney Island, The Rockaways, Jones Beach, Fire Island, Nantucket, Cape Cod, all the way up the coast to Maine, Newfoundland, Greenland, and Iceland.
The questions are "When?" not "If?" and "How Much?"
Martin: BPU/Rutgers EMP "one of the worst pieces of economic analyses I've ever seen"
Fresh off last week's unprecedented and false attacks on DEP scientists and Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin repeats and expands his errors.
Martin now is attacking the Board of Public Utilities staff, Rutgers economists and planners, and state econometric and energy models.
A "NJ Spotlight" story by former longtime Star Ledger energy and environment reporter Tom Johnson reported on the Assembly oversight hearings on how Governor Christie's 90 day "reassessment" and more than $300 million cuts will impact the Energy Master Plan (EMP) - we wrote about the Assembly hearing here). In the Spotlight story, Martin blasted the economic analysis of the EMP.
But compare Martin's hack attack with the professional response of his colleague, BPU President Lee Solomon (who merely put a happy face on a bad Christie policy):
Cabinet officials insist they do not envision a radical rewriting of the [Energy Master] plan. But Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin and Board of Public Utilities President Lee Solomon have made it clear they believe it fails to consider the economic consequences of pursuing such ambitious targets, including reducing energy consumption by 20 percent by 2020. ...
"There has to be a cost benefit analysis on the things we do," said Solomon, whose agency will take the lead in reviewing the plan. "We can't simply impose what we would like to happen on the state of New Jersey."
Martin is even more adamant about the plan's flaws. "It is one of the worst pieces of economic analyses I've ever seen done," he said at a clean energy summit in New Brunswick last month. "They didn't put the numbers of what it would cost the ratepayer or industry."
Like the bully on the playground, someone has got to take Mr. Martin on. He can not be allowed to go around trashing things and people he knows so little about.
Although I trained in planning at Cornell's Graduate School and was a DEP planner and policy analyst for 13 years, I am no expert on the EMP and economic modeling. But it might as well be me because I don't see any profiles in courage out there stepping up to the plate and taking on Bully Bob Martin.
The economic analysis of the EMP was conducted by Rutgers University (see: Updated Modeling Document) :
The Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy (CEEEP) and the Rutgers Economic Advisory Service (R/ECON™), both located within the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, have been tasked by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to provide data and modeling support for the master plan effort.
The data for the U.S. used come from Global Insight, Inc., a national leader in economic forecasting
The economic analysis was based on econometric and energy models used widely in NJ. The modeling and economic analysis were extensively reviewed during a 2 year planning process:
A series of prior events helped to build the foundation for this report. On December 18, 2006, CEEEP and R/ECON™ presented the modeling framework used in this report to stakeholders. On January 5 and 19, 2007, CEEEP convened two technical working groups to elicit input on electric generation and transmission. In addition, CEEEP and R/ECON™ participated extensively in many stakeholder meetings convened as part of the Energy Master Plan process from late 2006 through September 2008.
The electric utilities and the business community participated in the EMP model development, planning, and economic analysis.
If the Rutgers economic analysis "was one of the worst pieces of analysis ever done" as Martin now claims, where were the energy industry experts and business community economists and why weren't they raising objections to correct such a flawed piece of work?
A valid critique of the EMP analysis would focus on its failure to include billions of dollars in economic benefits and avoided costs of dirty coal power and global warming, which should be right up Martin's alley as DEP Commissioner. But he is silent on these flaws because they make a stronger case for efficiency and renewables, while his objective is to gut those policies for short term economic rewards to the business community.
Martin is simply taking cheap shots by using after the fact economic conditions (i.e. dramatic drop in oil and gas prices; economic recession; reduced demand).
Martin's severe criticism shows he's not only a political cheap shot artist, but that he knows nothing about economic modeling, sensitivity analysis, scenario testing, or the role of models in planning. As the EMP itself explained, models are not precise and uncertainties are inherent in the modeling exercise:
In short, the Energy Master Plan must explicitly deal with uncertainty and the prospect that things will turn out differently from what was assumed. This often gets lost in the discussions as modeling is frequently assumed to be a forecasting effort with definite outcomes. The data and modeling assumptions have associated ranges of uncertainties. Even in situations in which one would think the range of uncertainty should be small, e.g., the cost of a combustion turbine, they can be surprisingly large. These uncertainties need to be considered when evaluating calculations. Although models calculate numbers to a precise value, this "precision" is a programming artifact and must be understood as such. What also should be kept in mind is that the range of uncertainty varies with specific assumptions. The uncertainty in the cost of a combustion turbine is smaller than the uncertainty of the cost of off-shore wind, which is in turn smaller than the uncertainty associated with the cost of a new nuclear power plant.
A primary driver for the current modeling draft calculations is the assumptions about the cost and magnitude of energy efficiency and demand response for electricity and natural gas. If one assumes that energy efficiency and demand response are cost-effective (which numerous studies have concluded) and that state policies can successfully influence energy efficiency and demand response, then one does not need modeling to conclude that energy bills will decrease, environmental impacts will be lessened, and the New Jersey economy will not be harmed. The modeling provides the order of magnitude, confirms the intuition, and helps target policies that can help to make these outcomes more likely. Thus, the preliminary calculations to date reflect the assumptions that they are based upon.
Here are the details, for Mr. Martin's edification (and I question whether he has even read the EMP and reviewed the modeling):
.gif)
Chivukula gave the keynote address at the NJ/PA Sustainability Forum on the Rutgers - Camden campus today. He provided a concise summary of the state of energy production and distribution as well as his view of the energy-political landscape.
