Clearing the air at New Jersey ports and airports

The New Jersey Clean Air Council will hold a public hearing tomorrow (4/9/08) in Trenton to explore ways to reduce air emissions at ports and airports in the Garden State.

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Lisa Jackson will open the session at 9:30 a.m. in the DEP’s first-floor, public hearing room.

The DEP is located at 401 East State Street in Trenton.

————————————————————————————-
Don’t miss an important environmental meeting, conference, forum, symposium or other great networking or social event. Sign up for our complimentary, email alerts by sending a blank email to: enviro-calendar@aweber.com

Check out our current calendar listings at: Enviro-Events Calendar

Clearing the air at New Jersey ports and airports Read More »

Week’s top environmental & political news

Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them
to our website for free public use.

Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York–and beyond– that appeared during the past week.

April 4, 2008
April 3, 2008
April 2, 2008
April 1, 2008
March 31, 2008

To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News
page is updated, simply send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com

Week’s top environmental & political news Read More »

Changes ahead for site remediations in NJ

Significant changes are brewing for New Jersey’s environmental site remediation program.

The Senate Environment Committee and the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee will hold joint hearing on April 15 to take testimony on proposed changes.

Topics for discussion include:

* The use of licensed site professionals to review some remediations;
* Remedy selection/encouragement of permanent remedies;
* Engineering and institutional controls;
* Standards for the remediation/replacement of underground tanks;
* Site remediation enforcement issues;
* Issues concerning remediation funding, and,
* Change in use of contaminated sites.

The fact that both committees are meeting together is an indication that serious changes are in the works.

The meeting will be held at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 4 on the St Floor of the State House Annex. That’s the building to the right when you are facing the State House in Trenton.

As we learn more about the details, we’ll pass them on to our blog readers.

If you’re not already subscribed, you’ll can sign up for alerts either by email or RSS.

If you don’t know what RSS means, don”t worry. Most people don’t. Just send a blank email to: epfreeblog@aweber.com and we’ll notify you by email whenever the blog is updated.

If you’re a member of the cognoscenti who have come to appreciate RSS, click on the “Subscribe in a reader” link in the upper left-hand column to receive updates in your favorite news reader.

Changes ahead for site remediations in NJ Read More »

New developments in NY’s LNG barge saga

New York’s new governor David A. Paterson hasn’t had much time to weigh the pluses and minuses of the liquefied natural gas barge that TransCanada Corporation and Shell Oil are proposing to install in Long Island Sound, so the New York Times is trying to help him out.

In a March 31 editorial, the Times pleads:

“New York regulators and Gov. David Paterson may be the last hope for scuttling the project, although officials in Connecticut have promised federal lawsuits, too, if that is what it takes.”

The newspaper duly notes that the project has passed several environmental reviews since it was introduced in 2004, but then goes on to dismiss it in this light-hearted fashion:

“Long Island Sound could probably survive the addition of a permanent industrial barge the length of four football fields, and fishing boats and pleasure boaters could probably learn to cope with gas tankers, and everyone could probably live with the remote possibility of a big gas explosion in the Sound. But it’s not worth the accumulation of these insults to the Sound and its stressed ecosystem. Natural gas is cleaner than oil or coal but still a globe-warming fossil fuel.”

The editorial may have been the newspaper’s official position, but it wasn’t it’s final word.

Today, just three days later, in the paper’s “OUR TOWNS” section, writer Peter Applebome gave the project a few more kicks, noting that:

“political opposition to Broadwater has become something of a steamroller, with almost no visible support in Connecticut and only modest pockets on Long Island, including among some labor and business groups.”

So, there’s little left for the governor to do but to stick a big fork in the side of the 1,215-foot-long, 100-foot-tall energy barge. Right?

Well, not so quick. Applebome cautions that the project is “still very much alive.” He provides four reasons.

“One is the bottomless pockets of its big-energy sponsors, TransCanada Corporation and Shell Oil. The second is support, overt and covert, in New York, where the City Council has backed the project as part of a long-term strategy to provide natural gas to the city. The third is a federal regulatory process that is extremely friendly to the energy industry; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last month voted 5 to 0 in favor of the project. And fourth is the fact that one person matters in the regulatory process more than anyone else. That would be the governor of New York, who has enormous power to kill the project or keep it alive.”

We suspect that Mr. Applebome has four reasons of his own for not declaring the project DOA.

#1 He likes a good drama as much as much as the rest of us and hopes to write at least one more story on the Broadwater saga.

#2 He wants to appear fair-minded, despite the fact that his piece does its best to blow the barge clear out of the Sound.

#3 When dealing with New York politicians, he’s clearly learned to hedge his bets.

#4 He hasn’t yet read his paper’s March 31 editorial

For the latest news on why one of the “bottomless pockets” in the project is hanging tough, we turn to London where Thompson Financial News reported on Tuesday that:

“UK utility National Grid Plc says it will sell its 2,480 megawatt Ravenswood Generating Station in New York City to TransCanada Corporation for $2.9 billion. The disposal is a regulatory requirement associated with National Grid’s acquisition last year of Keyspan.”

The American financial press picked up the story and concentrated their focus on the cost of the acquisition. But Dan Durett, yesterday in his blog, made the connection between TransCanada’s Ravenswood purchase and the Broadwater proposal, writing:

“TransCanada owns or has interests in the producers of approximately 7,700 megawatts of power generation. The company also owns generators in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, according to its Web site. TransCanada, along with Shell US Gas and Power LLC, is also planning to build the Broadwater Energy liquefied natural gas terminal off Long Island Sound, which could bring the gas from Broadwater to Ravenswood and convert it to electrical power and sell it to the people of New York.”

So a veil slowly parts, and the plot thickens. Stay tuned.

More: Pols: FERC’s Broadwater Approval Is No Surprise
For Broadwater, All Eyes Are On Albany
NY and CN face off over LNG terminal

New developments in NY’s LNG barge saga Read More »

Is NJ facing an expanded nuclear future?

It’s starting to look that way.

The (Newark) Star-Ledger reported yesterday that it had obtained a copy of the state’s much anticipated Energy Master Plan revision. That document apparently concludes that:

“the greenhouse gas (reduction) mandates point toward nuclear energy to produce carbon-free electricity at a lower price per megawatt-hour than fossil-fueled plants.”

This shouldn’t come as shocking news , since the state’s largest energy company, Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), and a pro-nuclear advocacy group, the NJ Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition have been saying the same thing at every chance.

No amount of energy conservation and investment in alternative production technologies, like solar and wind, will provide enough new energy to keep pace with increasing consumer demand, they say.

The Star-Ledger story notes that PSEG is considering building a nuclear unit in Salem County, where it already has three nuclear stations. A state energy policy that makes a case for additional nuclear generation would be a major plus in helping the company overcome expected opposition from environmental groups and to attract support from the financial community.

PSEG surprised some observers last year when it broke ranks with other state utilities and provided an early endorsement for Governor Jon Corzine’s call for a 20 percent reduction in energy use in New Jersey by 2020 and a 20 percent shift in total power supplies to renewable sources like solar and wind.

In recent months, PSEG has announced plans for an ambitious program designed to help customers install energy-conservation measures and equipment. More recently, it filed an application seeking state approval to construct a major offshore wind park.

Are those announcements proof of a solid commitment to energy conservation and to alternative energy or simply smart public relations moves designed to provide environmental cover while the company pursues it primary objective –gaining state approval for a new nuclear plant?

It’s too early to say, but a recent development caused both the state Board of Public Utilities and the Office of the Public Advocate to raise questions.

Both are objecting to the company’s plan to disconnect its power plant in Bergen County from the regional power grid that serves New Jersey and to sell the plant’s electricity, instead, to energy-starved New York.

In a March 11 story, the Star-Ledger reported that…

“Both the BPU and Public Advocate’s rate counsel have intervened in the case, which is pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The case, although involving a relatively small power plant in the regional power grid, could have huge implications by setting a precedent in disputes centering around importing and exporting of electricity. ”

At the very least, we think it raises another question.

If New Jersey’s growing energy needs are so voracious that they mandate the construction of a new nuclear reactor, why is the state’s largest electric utility making deals to sell off a chunk of that precious supply to a neighboring state?

What are your thoughts? Let us know by clicking on the “comments” line below.

Is NJ facing an expanded nuclear future? Read More »