[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. On this day, after Newark set a record with five 100-degree days in a row, we turn to our climate story of the week. For the past few weeks, we've covered some big stories including Europe's lack of infrastructure to deal with a heatwave, and nationally what it means that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions was strongly curtailed by the Supreme Court, but now we're going to localize the story of climate change again and the efforts to mitigate it as well.

As folks in our listening area know, the very real impacts of climate change have more and more frequently wound up on our doorstep in the form of dangerous storms and flooding, as well as the heatwave that we've been in. It's been 10 years since Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the area shorelines and quite a bit farther inland as well. Last year, we had Ida which killed 56 people across states in the northeast and caused $31 billion worth of damage according to the Wall Street Journal.

Now, here we are at the beginning of another storm season and we thought what better time to check in on New Jersey and how Governor Murphy's ambitious climate agenda, at least what he says is an ambitious climate agenda, is playing out. A series of administrative rules, executive orders and landmark legislation have set ambitious emissions targets aiming to be completely emissions-free by 2050.

There is an initiative to block new development in areas that are likely to flood and also to buy out property owners in those areas so that they can move out of the floodplains. New Jersey also passed the first in the nation Environmental Justice Initiative, which forces regulators to consider the cumulative impacts of pollution, to make sure that poor communities and communities of color aren't bearing the brunt of industrial pollution, which all sounds great on paper.

In Governor Murphy's words, "We've got to update our playbook for sure. We got to turn it on." Making new ambitious rules is one thing, enforcing them, implementing them is a whole other.

In a new column from former WNYC staffer, Bob Hennelly, he argues that setting the bar as high as Murphy has, has actually created more problems within the Department of Environmental Protection, which Bob argues is understaffed and under-resourced. The result is that Murphy's strong climate rhetoric is actually a distraction from the fact that his own climate enforcers cannot deliver on those promises.

Is it better to set ambitious targets that might be unreachable in the hopes that those who need to will rise to the challenge, or should climate rhetoric be more realistic along the lines of what's possible given the institutional realities of governing? Ed Potosnak joins me now. He's the executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, as well as a chemistry teacher and small business owner. Ed, thanks for coming on today. Welcome to WNYC.

Ed Potosnak: Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate your interest in this important issue.

Brian Lehrer: How did I do in the intro there at explaining the situation first of all and mistakes? Anything you want to add or amend?

Ed Potosnak: I think you did a great job in giving the lay of the land of where New Jersey is amongst the whole planet in addressing what is an urgent need to act on climate change and reverse course from our addiction to fossil fuels and the greenhouse gases that we're emitting that are causing all kinds of localized weather events that are disrupting our way of life, our ability to get food from our farmers and that moral imperative to keep that going.

The other piece that's really important is health. We have high-impact areas of, like you mentioned, Newark, where asthma rates are higher, people of color and communities of color are seeing more adverse negative impacts because of the changing climate and because of the pollution. I think we're in a good place in New Jersey to move beyond the ways of yesterday into a bright green future with good local jobs that are created, but we do need to see the vision become a reality and we're at a turning point, a fork in the road on that.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get to your quote in that Bob Hennelly article in a bit, but I want to ask you first a little bit of a national frame question here. You were quoted in a different article last week with the headline, Environmental Groups Urged Murphy Administration to Immediately Release NJ PACT Rules as President Biden Moves Closer to Declaring Climate Change an Emergency. What's NJ PACT, and why haven't those rules been released yet after two years, as I understand it, since NJ PACT was announced in January of 2020?

Ed Potosnak: That's right. The governor declared in Executive Order Number 100 in January of 2020, that within two years of that we would have applicable law implemented to address climate change. NJ PACT, which stands for Protecting Against Climate Threats is that set of rules. They set a soft target deadline for themselves to release them on June 15th. That has been missed.

There's been a big outpouring of opposition from profit-driven businesses and the fossil fuel industry to the PACT rules, developers, and others because it could impact their ability to make money. What it does, very simply, is it tells folks where they can build and how they could build to ensure that they're safe with a changing climate.

We know that, by 2050, according to a New Jersey DEP report, the sea levels are planned to be up to about 2 feet higher than they are today. That means homes that are in harm's way or will be in harm's way in the future need to be built differently to prepare for that. These rules right now are looking at inland issues where folks can be. That's really important, to make sure that they're safe and their lives are not taken away because of climate change. We've seen that. Hurricane Ida took 30 souls and four in Elizabeth, New Jersey, which were in affordable housing that was in the floodplain. Not the newest floodplain.

The current rules are using data from 1999, so almost 25 years out of date. These new rules would use the most recent rainfall and the predictions for the future based on the available science.

Brian Lehrer: What does that have to do with whether or not President Biden declares a climate emergency, which some people have anticipated that he might have done by now after the Supreme Court hamstrung the EPA the other week, but he has not?

Ed Potosnak: It was rumored, and according to the Department of Environmental Protection, that they were going to issue these rules under an emergency, which meant when they put them out on June 15th, they would become effective immediately. With the push to get Biden to declare a climate emergency and Governor Murphy's vision of taking on climate as an emergency, we saw that as a missed opportunity then and we're doubling down to make sure we're holding our elected officials accountable for taking bold action to address climate change by making those rules effective immediately through an emergency rule or by issuing a more permanent rule-making process.

Either are fine, but nothing is not acceptable. We see the effects. This heatwave is just another reminder.

Brian Lehrer: Now, in that Bob Hennelly column that I mentioned in the intro, you're quoted under a section called, Glass Half Full. Would you say that's a good approximation for your take on the environmental efforts of the Garden State under Governor Murphy and why or why not?

Ed Potosnak: Oh, I think I typically like to look on the brighter side of things. It's no doubt that Governor Murphy is a friend of the environment and elections matter. Who we elect and put in office are critically important. It's important for folks to vote for leaders that are going to tackle these emerging challenges like climate change and protecting our drinking water, our land for future generations.

We also know that he can't rest on his laurels. Bold goals, like he set out, they require bold action. Sometimes that means two difficult headwinds, opposition groups like for-profit businesses and others. There are good goals on the books and working their way through. For example, in New Jersey, we have a goal of getting 50% of our energy from clean renewable sources by 2030.

We also have the Global Response Act, which will set some interim goals to get to 80% reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from 2006 levels by 2050. That's economy-wide. Transportation is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. We have a chance to tackle that. In addition, just yesterday, he had a big announcement on electric vehicles. New Jersey has a goal of getting to 330,000 electric vehicles by 2025. You mentioned the environmental justice law which helps to reduce pollution in overburdened communities that was led by a number of groups for over a decade, including Iron Mountain Community Corporation and the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, and Clean Water Action. Those rules are being written right now too, to protect families, to make sure that those polluting facilities are not insult over injury over this current  situation which, in a lot of cases, it is.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, if you're just joining us, this is our climate story of the week, and we're focusing on New Jersey today, both emissions, reduction efforts, and adaptation efforts, resiliency efforts in the face of climate change that's already baked in with Ed Potosnak, executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. 212-433-WNYC. If you want to get in on it with a question or a comment, 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer.

That Bob Hennelly column refers to governor Murphy's paper climate agenda, insinuating that his bold promises are meant to paper over the fact that the Department of Environmental Protection just doesn't have the resources to do the job, including his Executive Order 100, this regulatory initiative that we mentioned called NJ PACT, Protecting Against Climate Threats and a piece of legislation called the Environmental Justice Act.

Can you separate the aspirations from the impact for us as an environmental advocate? I think, as Bob frames it, if the ambition of these dramatic policy reforms might be part of the problem because it's essentially tasking one government agency, the Department of Environmental Conservation with doing all these things, that would be great if the DEC could actually do them, but everybody, including the governor, knows they can't.

Ed Potosnak: I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. We do know that the New Jersey DEP is shorthanded comparatively year over year from flat funding that's been for over a decade. Flat funding with increased costs through inflation, this is pre the inflation numbers we're seeing now, means a cut. Although they claimed, over time, that there were retirements and attrition lowering costs for higher paid employees leaving, we have seen numbers at the Department of Environmental Protection go down.

They claim there's efficiencies, et cetera. This year, there was a modest increase $45 million, which is about 60 jobs that are being added back to the roles as a net positive, which is a step in the right direction. This is the first year of the governor's second term. I don't think that the words are just words. I do think there is a part of this that is just challenging.

I recall speaking with the governor about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and he had said, getting back into RGGI, as it's called, it's just flicking a light switch on. That took two years. That's how long that light switch turned from flicking to getting back into RGGI because governmental processes and stakeholder input, et cetera, which are critical for transparency are time-consuming.

The concern is, some of these things we have seen slip, and we've seen them slip because very powerful interest groups have been pushing hard back against the commitments. For example, there's a group running around claiming that the vision of New Jersey moving towards more renewables is going to be a big burden financially. I call it an energy tax on families and businesses.

They have this fake number that they've come up with about all the things the government's going to force you to do. They've spent millions in advertising digitally on the radio and other places to convince people that moving towards clean energy, which will protect their lives and their health, is going to be more expensive and devastate our economy. In fact, the board of public utilities, which is a separate agency is about to adopt a report that says quite the converse.

In fact, moving to a clean energy economy is going to save families money, just like getting an electric vehicle saves you from fossil fuels, and the cost of gas at the pump. I have an electric vehicle, I'm saving $185 a month over buying a gas car. I don't think it's just whether the staff is ready or sizable enough, I think there is big opposition to a lot of these landmark commitments. We're seeing it in offshore wind, with local opposition being funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry along our coast.

The governor's committed to 7,500 megawatts of offshore wind, and they're in line to be built with good local jobs in New Jersey to create the supply chain and the building of those wind turbines to produce the power for half of our homes in our state. It's a big deal and it's not paper thin. That's real and it's happening, and it's exciting, but we don't want to lose ground on the other pieces.

I think where it comes back to glass half full, one of the jobs we do at New Jersey LCV is we hold our elected officials accountable. We have to make sure they have accurate information and that voters speak out about what they want to see because, on the other side, they have deep pockets and a lot of money, and their profits are on the align and they can tend to slow things down or disrupt the machine altogether and cause catastrophic failure, and that means not moving forward on the commitments the governor has, and we don't want to see that happen.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a clean energy personal finance question for you, I think, from Joan in Somerset. Hi, Joan, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in. You're on with Ed Potosnak executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters on our climate story of the week. Hi, Joan.

Joan: Oh, hi. I pay a little bit extra on my PSC&G bill to get electricity from clean sources, such as solar and wind. I was wondering-- I think a lot more people would choose this option if it costs less rather than more. We could actually get all of New Jersey using clean energy if they would just reduce the price of that clean energy choice.

Brian Lehrer: Joan, thank you. Why would the clean energy option on the PS&G bill cost more, if you know? Is it something that the government could or should subsidize to incentivize consumers to choose it?

Ed Potosnak: Yes. I would love that to be the case. Actually, a couple of years ago, that was the case. Towns were able to do something called energy aggregation, where they take all of the residential homes and aggregate their energy to a third-party supplier at whatever percentage of renewable energy they want.

In many cases, I know Livingston was at 100% and it was cheaper than the local utilities cost for the production of the energy, but things have changed. We all know what's happening with gas prices and diesel at the pump. The war in Ukraine with Russia has skyrocketed energy costs. Right now, when folks are going out to bid through these energy aggregation programs, they're coming back more expensive at the current mix, which for the state of New Jersey, is 24.5% renewable energy.

It's coming out more expensive in most cases for local towns to do that. It's interesting I'm on council in Franklin township in Somerset. Joan, we are looking into energy aggregation for our municipality with 100% opt-in which means folks would have to choose that option like you do, but if we can have more families that are part of a bulk purchasing agreement, we hopefully can lower that option and make it more affordable.

I think with time competitive to the current pricing for the percentages that are mandated under the state's requirements, for every family to be able to afford to do it or be able to do it through that energy aggregation. It's a great idea. The state has programs in place for it.

Local municipalities have to take steps to enact those, and that renewable portfolio standard is set to be at 50% by 2050. It'll be scaling up in the next couple years and that means that we'll be getting more of our energy from renewable sources like so solar and wind.

Brian Lehrer: Joan, thank you for your call. John at the Jersey Shore, you're on WNYC. Hi, John.

John: Hey Brian. Great segment. Thanks. Thanks to your guest. One thing that wasn't addressed by your guest or the Bob Hennelly article is the drastic overreliance on beach fill. I'm not even going to call it beach replenishment because they're not replenishing, they're just filling the beaches and they wash away, and then they fill it again, they wash away.

These army core projects of beach fill, they're hugely expensive. They're not effective. They wash away, yet it's one of the state's main strategies against climate change and sea level rise.

There are efforts to double the amount of state money going for beach replenishment, and people just need to put their foot down and say, "No, enough, we need to get serious and come up with some other strategies." I think that's something that's lacking on the state level.

One other comment, you in your intro, Brian, you talked about a program of buying out properties. You're probably referring to the state's Blue Acres Program, which they get great kudos for and they also are renowned around the country for this Blue Acres Program. What people don't know is the fact that they don't buy any property near the coast, they are buying properties upland and inland along rivers in places like Sayreville, South River, and Woodbridge. They're never buying anything near the coast and we need to change that strategy and go long term, start buying properties in flood-prone areas near our coast.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. Ed, what do you say?

Ed Potosnak: I think that the caller is on the right track on a lot of wood he is describing. Beach replenishment is an issue that I know enough to be dangerous about. There are concerns with the size of sand that's replenished and what's happening in the natural landscapes. As well as the development along our coast, it's pretty extensive. The Jersey Shore is an icon, but in many cases, there's nowhere for that water to go as it runs off.

We need to start thinking about how we develop differently and how we adjust to what we would call resiliency to the more frequent intense storms. I will say also while at the same time mitigating climate change which means reducing the amount of carbon so that the storms aren't washing away the sand in the future, as much as they are now. How we're addressing that really requires some really good thinking.

There are concerns with beach replenishment programs because they're not lasting, and costly. Without a beach, folks aren't going to visit their shore homes or for vacation. It's a challenge.

Brian Lehrer: This is WNYC FM HD and AM New York, WNJT FM 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong, WNJO 90.3 Toms River. We are New York and New Jersey public radio and live streaming at wnyc.org. A few more minutes on our climate story of the week with the Executive Director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, Ed Potosnak.

Ed, you sometimes get frustrated being an advocate at the state level that what we do at the state level doesn't matter that much. We can twist ourselves into environmental policy pretzels. We can pay more out of pocket for all kinds of things to try to do the right thing, but unless something happens at the national level and at the international level, it's not actually going to affect the amount of climate change that then comes back to haunt people at the Jersey Shore, in Newark, elsewhere in New Jersey, in the long run.

Ed Potosnak: I don't, but I will say I have a Jada's perspective as the leader of a atatewide environmental organization. I think we have massive opportunities in a state like New Jersey in two fronts. One, we serve or protect around 9 million people. That's critical for us. That's our friends and our neighbors, our offspring, our children and their children. That's very motivating to me every day.

While other countries are failing to take action or the federal government sadly is not able to meet that expectation, I feel good every day going into work with our members and our staff to what we're able to accomplish. I think the second thing why I think it's not demoralizing is that we can set the bar and inspire other states and other nations to act right here in New Jersey.

Early in his term, Governor Murphy was doing just that. I referred to him as the greenest governor in America, and he was raising the bar for states. The first candidate and governor elected commit to a 100% clean energy by 2050, but in this race to combat climate change, other folks have eclipsed us. There's an opportunity here in the last leg for him to take that number one position again. That's where we really have the opportunity.

I get up every day to go to work and I think we have massive opportunities. We do need to deliver and work with our elected officials to do that in the legislature, at the county level, at the local level, and of course, our governor to make sure we're able to accomplish what the people need into the future to protect them from climate change and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

We get co-benefits of combatting climate change, but also the improved health; less asthma, less cancer, that go along with climate pollution. There is also all those particulate matters and carcinogens. I don't subscribe to the federal level is the only place to go. You certainly get more bang for your buck. You cover a lot of states there, but we've been doing that for quite a long time and not seeing those kinds of results.

I think that action is in the states. I think they can lead the nation. If states get together, we can combat this despite anything happening in Congress. I think we'll ultimately inspire Congress and inspire the world to match these bold ambitious goals and actions, a number of which we've undertaken in the action category in New Jersey and some yet to come. I hope we can talk about that in a upcoming show.

Brian Lehrer: One more call. Zach in Jersey City, you're on WNYC. Hi, Zach.

Zach: Hi. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Zach: Great. Long time first time. Brian, you're excellent. You're actually part of the reason why I've gone into policy is listening to you for so long. Ed, thanks for being on here. Actually, I first want to just quickly mention community solar. The previous caller, I think her name was Joan, was asking how residents and businesses can pay less for clean energy. I work for a Jersey city company called Salt Edge. We are one of several companies that own and operate these community solar facilities.

I would say if you're a New Jersey resident or business, Google that, and you'll see that you can sign up and actually have guaranteed savings. We offer even more savings for low and moderate-income residents. The reason why I'm calling actually is that, to talk about the interconnection issues. As a state like New Jersey that does have a long history of solar energy gets up into those higher percentages of renewable energy, there starts to be an issue with the infrastructure, and you can't have the utilities depending upon a piecemeal approach of one renewable energy project pays for an upgrade to this power line and another one pays for this other power line.

This starts to really get in the way of these statewide goals. I wonder if the guest can talk about interconnection cost sharing or a bigger statewide approach that Phil Murphy, who has been great, but this is another one of the areas where you need to have a really specific plan for how to address these energy infrastructure limitations.

Ed Potosnak: There is a bill sponsored by Senator Smith in the legislature that attempts to address the interconnection issues, the long lag time between installation and activation between when the solar can be captured and used. I have a personal experience. I put solar panels on my house and I finished up my final inspections in November. We're in June. Oh, sorry. We're in July, almost August and I'm still not connected to the grid.

I think there's two pieces. There's the utilities and the grid itself which is called PJM, having concrete deadlines that they need to meet. Then in addition, I think that the solar installers need to be held to account too between the time that the final inspections come for our residents like me, and handing that paperwork in. I won't say who my provider is, but it took them two months to fill out a one-page application for the interconnection. We would've been five months ahead of where we are now had they just gotten that right in.

I think all along there are fingers to be pointed at and improvements to be made. There's no reason, especially this summer with the cloudless skies that we can't be capturing that energy. It's very unfortunate and we definitely need to do better. That's part of cutting the red tape where the vision and getting it done are two different things.

Sometimes government can be a very unwieldy monster and you can get stuck in this rabbit hole and can't even see the light to get out. I think getting these projects activated is one of those things where we just need to revisit from A to Z what happens in the process and what we can do, what laws need to be changed in processes to get these projects turned on when they're ready to turn on, not six months a year or longer later.

For commercial, it's even larger or large scale what they call grid-scale projects, it can take even longer. We've got challenges in that area. No reason to have solar panels that aren't producing energy just sitting around waiting for people to fill out paperwork. It's not a good thing to see.

Brian Lehrer: That, folks, is our climate story of the week for this week on preventing and adapting to climate change in New Jersey. Want to give credit again to my former colleague, Bob Hennelly, whose article on insidernj.com helped inspire the angle for this segment. Of course, we thank our guest, Ed Potosnak, Executive Director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. Ed, thanks. We look forward to continuing the conversation another time.

Ed Potosnak: Me too. Thanks, Brian. Appreciate it.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.