In January, before COVID-19 made its presence known in the Garden State, Gov. Phil Murphy signed Executive Order 100 “directing sweeping regulatory reform to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.”
In the title of the executive order, Murphy tells us several things.
First, he tells us that the “regulatory reforms” are being done only on his executive say so. There will be no legislative give and take. These changes will not be enacted as part of any legislative package.
Next, he characterizes them as “sweeping.” The changes will not be tweaks of existing regulations, rather they will involve a significant change in the way the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) engages in the permitting process that already represents a significant burden, in time and money, on public and private projects, especially in coastal regions of the state.
Lastly, Murphy ties the changes in regulation to the broad issue of climate change providing the link to the state’s energy master plan, a signature effort of his administration, and, in his own words, nothing less than “a complete transformation of our energy policy.”
Soon after the issuing of the executive order, the pandemic made its appearance in the state, shifting attention to the immediate threat posed by rapidly growing COVID-19 infections.
Communities, including Cape May County, did not focus sufficiently on the impact of the governor’s push for regulatory reform and what those reforms are likely to do to important county infrastructure needs.
Citing a Rutgers University study on the state’s vulnerability to climate change and rising sea levels, Murphy said he is drawing “a line in the sand against climate change” by directing the reform of New Jersey’s land use regulations to incorporate climate change considerations into the DEP permitting process.
The executive order also calls for establishing a greenhouse gas monitoring program and for adopting new regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants.
Many environmental groups lauded the governor’s action. Some business groups expressed concern over the unknown costs to ratepayers and businesses.
At issue, as well, should be the method the governor used in taking such sweeping steps without public debate, in the absence of responsible impact studies that provide insight into probable costs, and with no analysis of the likely influence of the changes on infrastructure projects. This is the wrong way to generate public support in advance of a sizeable public burden.
Here, in Cape May County, we can anticipate the impact to mean serious delays and added expense for important infrastructure projects that will now be subject to new analysis concerning the influence of construction on climate change.
The Cape May County bridge replacement and rehabilitation plan was recently issued, generating expressions of public support for a long over-do and essential effort. Bridge replacement and rehabilitation are essential if we hope to maintain an infrastructure appropriate to the millions of visitors who are at the heart of our economy.
An additional overlay of climate change impact analysis, along with modifications necessary to satisfy new regulatory requirements, can only prolong what is already a 15-year plan for the bridges.
Another area of concern is the extension of Route 55, the final 20 miles from Port Elizabeth to Court House. We have long argued the importance of the Route 55 extension in terms of the economic development of the county.
Safety concerns have also been at the forefront of the case for extending the roadway. The peninsula that is Cape May County plays host to hundreds of thousands of people on any given day during the summer. A need to evacuate in advance of a dangerous storm would result in a process that the existing road infrastructure can’t accommodate.
We admit that the extension of Route 55 has been a project in limbo due to stated “environmental concerns.” Ironically, the regulations likely to be a product of climate change considerations will make reviving the project harder just as actual climate change and the increase in severe storm activity makes an evacuation route ever more critical.
The regulatory reform ordered by the governor is underway, but the public has seen none of it yet. By the time the mandatory public hearings are held, most of the proposed changes will be embedded in cement that is drying as the public speaks.
We can’t gauge the depth of our concern because we have not yet been involved in the details of the regulatory reform underway, or even in the goal-setting that preceded it. This is the danger of sweeping change via executive order. The public is left to fear what it has not yet seen.
