Doug O’Malley, Environment New Jersey Director NJDEP Hearing on Gov. Christie’s Proposed Repeal on RGGI Regulations, 8/8/2014 Advocates Demand Action on Global Warming Formal Hearing on Gov. Christie’s Proposed Repeal of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Opens the Door for Action From accelerating sea-level rise, to stronger hurricanes, to more devastating downpours, global warming is already having an impact on New Jersey. Instead of taking action to protect future generations from the worst consequences, however, Governor Christie and his administration have proposed to repeal regulations designed to clean up power plant emissions of climate-altering pollution. This Friday, the administration will hold a public hearing on its proposal at the Department of Environmental Protection in Trenton. The Christie Administration is taking this action even as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with the Clean Power Plan, a proposed rule that will require New Jersey and other states to develop a strategy to clean up global warming pollution from power plants within the next several years. Repealing RGGI is a missed opportunity for New Jersey, both in terms of the environmental and economic benefits we could be capturing – and in terms of positioning the state to successfully implement the Clean Power Plan. Global Warming Risks New Jersey’s Future The scientific consensus on the threat posed by climate change is clear. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) puts it this way: 1. “Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.” 2. “We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.” 3. “The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.” Global warming is primarily caused by human combustion of fossil fuels, which produces carbon dioxide pollution. When carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are released into the air, they act like a blanket, holding heat in our atmosphere and warming the planet. One blanket is good... but we're heading for a 5 blanket world. The third U.S. National Climate Assessment makes it clear that global warming is already having an impact on New Jersey:    The average temperature in New Jersey is about 2° F warmer now than it was in the late 19th century.1 Melting ice and warming oceans are causing sea levels to rise. On average, sea levels are now about a foot higher than they were 100 years ago. That made Hurricane Sandy much worse than it otherwise would have been – the risk of coastal flooding on the scale caused by Hurricane Sandy has doubled over the last 60 years.2 (Governor Christie clearly underestimates the real connection between warming and extreme weather.) Warmer air holds more water vapor, which means heavier storms. Our region has experienced a greater recent increase in extreme precipitation than any other region in the United States. Between 1958 and 2010, the Northeast saw more than a 70 percent increase in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy events.3 These heavy storms increase the risk of flooding and infrastructure damage all across the state. If we do not alter course, average temperatures in New Jersey could increase by as much as 10° F by the end of the century, and impacts will become more severe.4 For example:   Heat waves will become much more common, increasing the risk of heat-related illness and damaging our agriculture. The number of days above 90 degrees could more than double by 2050, with central and southern Jersey experiencing more than 40 such days in a typical year.5 The pace of future sea level rise is uncertain, but some scientists anticipate that if we do not alter course, sea levels could rise by as much as 6 feet by 2100. Sea level rise on that scale would make Sandy-scale coastal flooding an annual or biannual event, dramatically reshape New Jersey’s coastline, and displace hundreds of thousands of people from their communities.6 How bad the problem gets depends on how quickly and how deeply humanity can reduce emissions of global warming pollution. Major Reductions in Global Warming Pollution Are Urgently Necessary Science is clear about what we need to do to avoid the worst consequences of global warming: stabilize worldwide emissions of the pollutants that cause global warming by the end of the decade and reduce them by more than half by mid-century. For the United States and other developed countries, emission reductions must occur more quickly and more steeply, with reductions of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 to 95 percent by 2050. Then-Governor Corzine and New Jersey’s legislative leaders were attempting to move toward these targets when they enacted the 2007 Global Warming Response Act. New Jersey Helped to Create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – A Groundbreaking Program Designed to Clean Up Power Plants New Jersey’s leaders recognized that cleaning up power plants would be an important part of meeting its climate targets. That’s why New Jersey helped to create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The state worked with nine other northeast states from Maryland to Maine – across geographic and partisan divides—to craft this groundbreaking program and accelerate the shift to clean energy. The structure of RGGI is simple. States issue allowances for the right to emit carbon dioxide, the most important global warming pollutant. Power plants that emit carbon dioxide have to purchase allowances to match their emissions. Over time, the number of allowances declines, putting pressure on utilities to reduce their emissions. At the same time, states reinvest the proceeds from auctioning allowances in clean energy improvements—from wind and solar energy facilities to building renovations that improve energy efficiency. The program originated in 2003, when New York Governor George Pataki circulated a letter to the governors of 10 other northeastern states calling for the creation of a regional agreement to reduce global warming pollution from their states. New Jersey joined eight other states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont—to develop a cap-and-trade program for power plants. In 2005, those states, with the exception of Massachusetts, signed a memorandum of understanding that created the program. Before the first auction took place in 2008, Maryland and Massachusetts joined as participants. By joining together, northeastern governors knew that their states could achieve greater results in the drive toward clean energy, and do so at lower cost, than they ever could ever achieve separately. RGGI Is a Proven Success RGGI has significantly helped reduce carbon pollution, while at the same time supporting economic development, creating new jobs and saving consumers money on energy in the nine states that currently participate. To date, the program has generated more than $1 billion in auction revenues that states have largely invested in clean energy solutions – providing significant benefits. According to a recent report by Environment Northeast (ENE) and by RGGI Inc., since it launched in 2009, RGGI has already helped:  Reduce carbon pollution by almost 30 percent;     Cut electricity prices by 8 percent; Create more than 23,000 job-years of work; Lock in more than $1.8 billion in long-term savings on energy bills; and Add more than $2.4 billion in economic activity to the region. Incredibly, pollution levels in the nine-state RGGI region is now down almost 50 percent below the original target set in 2005. (See Figure 1.) To ensure that the program remains effective, RGGI state governors agreed in February 2013 to make deeper cuts in power plant carbon emissions (represented by the green line in Figure 1). Through 2020, the new limit will prevent as much pollution as would be emitted by 16 million cars. At the same time, it will generate more than $8 billion in economic benefits, including energy bill savings, and more than 120,000 job-years of employment across the region. Figure 1: Pollution is down almost 50 percent from the original RGGI target. Governor Christie Withdrew New Jersey from RGGI in 2011 After pressure from anti-regulatory ideologues like Americans for Prosperity and the outof-state fossil fuel interests funding them, such as the Koch brothers, Governor Christie announced in May 2011 that New Jersey would unilaterally withdraw from RGGI. Observers widely speculated that he was positioning himself for a run for national office, which would require winning primary elections with conservative support – an audience where climate denial is common. For example, Robert Stavins, a prominent environmental economist at Harvard University, recently told Inside Climate News that "I predict that New Jersey will rejoin RGGI when and if Gov. Christie accepts that he is not a viable candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.” While the governor acknowledged that climate change is real and that it is already having an impact on New Jersey, he expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the program —despite the fact that it was New Jersey’s best available tool to cut carbon pollution from power plants and accelerate the shift to clean energy. In 2011 and again in 2012, majorities of both houses of the legislature voted to restore New Jersey’s participation in RGGI. More than 60,000 New Jerseyans weighed in with the legislature in support of rejoining the program. However, Governor Christie vetoed both bills. The legislature was not quite able to muster the two-thirds majority that would have been required to override the vetoes. Friday’s Hearing Is the Result of a Lawsuit Filed by Environment New Jersey and the Natural Resources Defense Council over Withdrawal from RGGI Governor Christie unilaterally made his decision to leave RGGI without the open discussion that state law requires. The Department of Environmental Protection simply stopped enforcing the law without soliciting public comment. In 2012, after both legislative attempts to restore the program had failed, Environment New Jersey teamed up with NRDC to file a lawsuit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. We alleged that the New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act required the Governor and his administration to provide notice of their intention to repeal a regulation like this, as well as to give the public reasonable opportunity to comment. In March 2014, the court ruled in our favor, agreeing that the Christie Administration broke the law when it excused power plants from complying with RGGI regulations. “The court ruled that the public needs to be involved.” said Susan Kraham, Senior Staff Attorney at Columbia University’s Environmental Law Clinic, who represented our groups in court. “Neither Governor Christie nor the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection can simply repeal state laws by fiat.” The court gave the administration 60 days to initiate a public process around any changes to the climate change pollution rules. The administration announced their intention to formally repeal New Jersey’s RGGI regulations at the end of May. On July 7, the Christie Administration published the official language of the proposed rule repeal and opened a 60-day public comment period. DEP scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for today, Friday August 8. The Legislature Can Override This Rulemaking and Restore New Jersey’s RGGI Rules This formal rulemaking opens up an avenue for the New Jersey legislature to take action. The legislature has the authority to override administrative actions without the need for a two-thirds majority that would be required to overcome a gubernatorial veto of a bill. Senate President Sweeney introduced a resolution initiating a process to prevent the Christie Administration from repealing the state’s RGGI regulations on July 10. Overriding the administration’s attempt to repeal RGGI rules would not immediately return New Jersey to formal participation in RGGI. First the state would have to update its regulations to match the improvements made to the program that other states completed at the end of 2013 – a process which would most likely require Governor Christie’s willing participation. However, preventing the administration from repealing the old RGGI rules would put the Gov. Christie in the position of having to enforce the old version of RGGI – which would require power plant owners to purchase allowances for their carbon emissions and generate revenues for use in clean energy programs. If the Christie Administration then failed to enforce the law, it could face further court challenges. The Clean Power Plan Will Require Gov. Christie to Clean Up Global Warming Pollution from Power Plants On June 2, 2014, the federal Environmental Protection Agency proposed the Clean Power Plan – a new rule to limit carbon pollution from power plants nationwide. This rule will place a great deal of additional pressure on Governor Christie to act to reduce global warming pollution. We believe that it provides a powerful incentive for the governor to take a second look at RGGI. The Clean Power Plan sets targets for states to reduce carbon from their power plants by investing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and switching to cleaner fuels. Under the Clean Power Plan, New Jersey will have an important role to play. The EPA’s draft target for New Jersey is to reduce its carbon emissions rate—the amount of carbon emitted per unit of power—43 percent by 2030. Governor Christie has not come to grips with what the Clean Power Plan will actually mean for New Jersey. Earlier this summer, Larry Ragonese, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, told the Asbury Park Press that “New Jersey already meets the carbon emission limits proposed by the EPA, thanks to efforts by the Christie administration and previous ones … Power plant emissions in New Jersey total 503 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour, below what he understood was the limit of 647 pounds by 2020 and 513 pounds by 2030.” However, Mr. Ragonese clearly misinterpreted the requirements of the rule. EPA modeling suggests that continuing under existing policy, New Jersey’s power plant carbon dioxide emissions will increase by more than 50 percent from 2012 levels by 2030.7 In contrast, if New Jersey were to go it alone under the Clean Power Plan, the state’s emissions would have to decrease by more than 30 percent below 2012 levels by 2030.8 The difference between those two scenarios represents a cut in emissions of more than 60 percent below business-as-usual levels. (See Figure 2.) Significant action will be required. Figure 2: Trends in Power Plant Emissions in New Jersey since 1980, Plus EPA Modeling of the Impact of the Clean Power Plan On EPA’s anticipated timeline, New Jersey will have to develop at least a draft plan to achieve the targets set in the Clean Power Plan and submit it to EPA by July 2016. (States can get up to two additional years by working with other states to form regional compliance plans – such as RGGI.) Rejoining RGGI is an obvious pathway for New Jersey (and other states) to comply. The infrastructure of the program is already developed, New Jersey has a history of participation and its utilities are familiar with the program, and it generates revenue that the state can use to accelerate its transition to clean energy and make the goals of the Clean Power Plan easier to achieve. Sitting on the Sidelines of RGGI is a Missed Opportunity for New Jersey Before Gov. Christie withdrew from RGGI, it generated $100 million for New Jersey. The governor diverted a significant fraction of that money to plug holes in the state budget, but some of it went towards advancing clean energy solutions, including solar energy and energy-efficient combined heat-and-power facilities. One of the more prominent projects funded with RGGI revenues is the solar array at William Paterson University – which will save the university $4.3 million on electricity over 15 years. Overall, neighboring states have generated more than $1.5 billion in revenues through RGGI, which they are largely using to advance clean energy solutions. Every RGGI dollar that states put into energy efficiency programs delivers more than $2 dollars in benefits, in addition to reducing carbon pollution – making the program a clear win-win. Participating states, under current plans, will reap an additional $3 billion in funding – and an $8 billion boost to the regional economy – through 2020, according to Environment Northeast. New Jersey is missing out on this opportunity by sitting on the sidelines. New Jersey Power Plants Remain a Major Source of Global Warming Pollution Every year, New Jersey power plants produce as much global warming pollution as about 3.7 million cars. Power plants rank second behind New Jersey’s transportation sector as a source of global warming pollution – and ahead of homes, businesses and industry. In New Jersey, the top five most polluting power plants are:  PSEG’s Bergen Generating Station in Ridgefield (emitted 2.4 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2011);  PSEG’s Linden Generating Station in Linden (emitted 2.1 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2011);  Red Oak Power LLC in Sayreville (emitted 1.9 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2011);  PSEG’s Hudson Generating Station in Jersey City (emitted 1.7 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2011); and  Cogen Technologies’ Linden Cogen Plant in Linden (emitted 1,601,186 metric tons of carbon pollution in 2011).  These five power plants together represent 65 percent of our power plant emissions, but only 35 percent of the energy generated. Governor Christie should take action. Supporting the Clean Power Plan, and rejoining RGGI as a sound compliance option, would be important steps forward. Notes 1 Kunkel, K. E., et al, 2013: Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment: Part 1. Climate of the Northeast, U.S. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-1. 87 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Washington, D.C. 2 William Sweet et al., “Hurricane Sandy Inundation Probabilities Today and Tomorrow,” in Thomas C. Peterson et al., eds. “Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective,” Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 94, No. 9, September 2013. Available at www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf. 3 Very heavy events defined as the heaviest 1 percen of all daily events. See Groisman, P. Y., R. W. Knight, and O. G. Zolina, 2013: “Recent trends in regional and global intense precipitation patterns,” Climate Vulnerability, R.A. Pielke, Sr., Ed., Academic Press, 25-55. 4 See note 1. 5 U.S. Global Change Research Program, Third National Climate Assessment, 2014; Figure 16.2. 6 6 feet: Martin Vermeer and Stefan Rahmstorf, “Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(51): 21527-21532, 2009, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0907765106; flood frequency: see note 2. 7 See “EPA Base Case” zip folder at the link provided. 8 See “Option 1 – State” zip folder at the link provided.