Search Results for: community solar

NJ environmental bills on Senate short list

What pieces of environmental legislation are likely to top the agendas of the environmental committees in the Senate and Assembly when the New Jersey state legislature returns from its summer recess later this month?

EnviroPolitics put that question to the chairmen of both committees:
Senator Bob Smith (D-Middlesex/Somerset) and
Assemblyman John F. McKeon (D-Essex).

Today we have Senator Smith’s answer:

The top two environmental issues for the Senate Environment Committee this fall are:

1. Licensed Site Professionals, and
2. Electronic-Waste Recycling

Identical bills creating a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) program within the Department of Environmental Protection
(S-1897/A-2962) have been introduced by the two environmental committee chairmen.

The idea is to streamline the DEP’s review process for contaminated sites in order to whittle away at the department’s backlog of more than 20,000 cases.

LSPs hired by companies seeking to remediate contaminated sites would be authorized to: review and submit all necessary paperwork to the DEP, develop remedial plans, supervise the cleanup and certify that it is performed in conformance with DEP’s technical requirements.

The DEP supports the LSP program. It also has the backing of the business community. Several of the state’s major environmental organizations are concerned, however, that the LSP’s might be pressured by those paying their fees to cut corners.

For more see: Bills aim to speed enviro-cleanups in New Jersey

Electronic Waste Recycling – Senator Smith and Assemblyman Reed Gusciora were the sponsors of a relatively new state law requiring the recycling of all used computers and television sets. Their legislation was passed in a flurry of activity in the final days of the last two-year legislative session which ended early in January, 2008.

Several New Jersey-based electronics manufacturers and their trade associations complained that the bill contained numerous flaws. The sponsors are now working with those parties and others on a bill that would implement changes.
Other current issues: Senator Smith is the sponsor of numerous bills working their way through the Legislature that are designed to stimulate the development and installation of alternative energy sources, including solar and wind. He says the most important is
S-1538 which would change the state’s legal definition of “farming” to allow the installation of solar panels and windmills on tens of thousands of preserved farmlands across the state. Down the pike: Smith says there is a major effort under way to reach agreement on a stable funding source to offset property losses in areas affected by the Highlands Act and to replenish the state’s landmark farmland and open space preservation program. He predicts an agreement sometime in the spring of 2009.

NJ environmental bills on Senate short list Read More »

PA’s big stake in carbon sequestration tests

The nation’s energy crisis would be yesterday’s news if so-called, clean-coal technology can be proven to work effectively and economically.

That’s a big ‘if’ –perhaps a long shot–but it would provide an enormous economic boost to coal-producing states like Pennsylvania, which:

* Has anthracite coal reserves in excess of 7 billion tons
* Is the nation’s second largest exporter of electricity, and
* Generates 55 percent of its electricity from coal

The Bush Administration, to the chagrin of some environmental groups, is committed to the technology and is spending millions on projects to test the viability of “carbon sequestration.”

What is it? Simply put, it’s the process whereby greenhouse gas-producing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would be captured (rather than escaping to the atmosphere) and injected into old coal mines, salt mines and other below-surface cavities.

Will is work? And at what environmental and financial cost?

At present, large-scale carbon sequestration is as much concept as reality, but Congress has appropriated funds to test whether it can provide a real-world solution to the world’s CO2 emissions problem.

Yesterday, the Department of Energy announced awards of more than $126.6 million for carbon sequestration tests in California and Ohio–the Department’s fifth and sixth large-scale projects.

“The formations to be tested during the third phase of the partnerships program are the most promising of the major geologic basins in the United States. Collectively, these formations have the potential to store more than 100 hundred years of CO2 emissions from all major point sources in North America,” said Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer.

“Tests like these will help provide the confidence and build the infrastructure necessary to commercialize these technologies, and will enable the U.S. to continue using its vast resources of coal while protecting the earth for future generations.”

According to the DOE, the new projects are designed to demonstrate the entire CO2 injection process – pre-injection characterization, injection process monitoring, and post-injection monitoring – for large scale injections of one million tons or more to test the ability of different geologic settings to permanently store CO2. The Department says it plans to invest $126.6 million in the two projects over the next 10 years, while “industry partners will provide $56.6 million in cost-shared funds to make these projects a success.”

More information on the DOE projects is available here.

Many in the environmental community see the funding as a wasteful diversion from more promising technologies, like solar, wind and cellulosic ethanol.

Greenpeace on Monday released a study called “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate.”

Is carbon sequestration research a good use of your federal taxes? Let us know what you think about this or related energy issues by clicking on the “comment” line below.

MORE:
Anthracite coal mining in Pennsylvania
Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
The Status of Carbon Sequestration – Cleantech Blog
Putting the genie back in the bottle – Bizmology blog

PA’s big stake in carbon sequestration tests 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 »

Who’s Reggie and why is he so disliked?

One of the most far-reaching pieces of environmental and economic legislation to engage New Jersey lawmakers in years almost slipped by with virtually no public notice.

Indeed, that may have been the intent of the proponents of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (nickname: Reggie) when it was introduced late in the Legislature’s two-year session which ends on Monday, Jan. 7. The weighty and complicated bill got the classic fast-track treatment–quick committee hearings, constant changes on the fly and limited opportunities for testimony, media attention, education of the public, clarifications, or opposition to form.

If the strategy was to ram the complicated and potentially controversial bill through the Legislature’s lame-duck session it was a wise lobbying move. During lame-duck–the period between the November election and session’s early January expiration–the average lawmaker is less likely to raise questions, since his or her attention is fragmented by the large crush of bills attempting to win final passage. In addition, many lawmakers may feel less accountable to voters since they either are retiring from the Legislature at the session’s end or have lost re-election bids in November.

In the last month, identical versions of “Reggie” quickly cleared key committees in both houses over the objections of major business organizations and the Public Advocate who argued that the bill posed too many unanswered questions to be rushed. Environmental leaders, who had initial objections, seemed mollified by evolving versions of the legislation. All that stood in the way was a Jan. 3 hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. After that, the legislation was scheduled for a final approval votes in both houses on Monday, Jan. 7, the Legislature’s final session.

That still may happen. In fact, the smart money would say it will. But the innocuous-sounding Reggie bill is no longer going unnoticed. In fact, except for the NJ Department of Environmental Protection and the state’s utilities, the bill is now drawing heated opposition from virtually all other traditional interest groups–the business community led by the NJ Business and Industry Association, a now engaged and enraged environmental community, the editorial writers at the state’s largest newspaper, and others who spent hours on Thursday before the Appropriations panel highlighting the bill’s shortcomings and urging that it be held for revamping in the new session that opens on Jan. 8.

What is Reggie? And why is it causing such a fuss?

The bill would authorize New Jersey to join a compact of northeast states that are trying to ratchet down the levels of carbon dioxide emitted from power plants. They’d do that by charging utilities millions of dollars for those emissions in the form of ‘allowances’ which would be publicly traded and sold to companies that cannot or will not reduce their emission levels.

The huge chunk of money that this ‘cap and trade’ exercise is expected to generate would be doled out by the state for a wide variety of alternative energy and conservation projects and strategies, from encouraging businesses to install solar and wind systems to funding residential energy-conservation measures and even the planting of trees (which absorb and neutralize carbon dioxide).

Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? The DEP thinks so. And you’d expect environmentalists to be applauding as well. But the devil is in the details and the details are what put large industrial energy users, public interest groups and traditional environmental organizations shoulder to shoulder at the witness table on Thursday excoriating the measure.

For details, see the Bergen Record’s Plan to reduce greenhouse gas called a sell-out and the Star-Ledger editorial Too many flaws in greenhouse gas bill

So who wants the bill? The governor does. It’s part of his global warming response plan. The DEP does. It’s apparently a key part of the agency’s Energy Master Plan, although that document, promised in the fall, is still under wraps, not quite ready for prime time.

Perhaps most importantly, the state’s largest utility, PSEG wants it and that’s why the smart money, despite the level of opposition, will be betting the bill clears both houses on Monday and gets a quick signature into law by Governor Corzine.

PSEG is a major political powerhouse in New Jersey. It has extremely smart management, a team of seasoned lobbying and public relations practitioners and a glittering stable of outside lobbing talent on retainer. It also has tens of thousands of retirees in the state who depend on the continued success of the utility’s stock (something the company reminds legislators whenever necessary) and a large pool of cooperative union and other employees who know how to make phone calls and write letters.

PSEG’s staff has been all over the bill since it’s introduction, offering advice, participating in back-room negotiations on amendments, testifying at hearings and monitoring the opposition.

Why is the energy company expending so much effort and money on a bill that will raise the cost of the electricity it buys?

For starters, the legislation allows the energy company to get into the business of marketing and installing energy-savings systems and devices in hundreds of thousands of homes and business across the state–potentially an enormous new revenue stream. Moreover, it streamlines the rate-making process so the utility can pass on the costs (and potential losses) resulting from such ventures to consumers, even allowing for automatic approvals if the state Board of Public Utilities fails to act on a rate request within 180 days. (Utility industry attorneys testified Thursday that the average BPU rate case takes a year and a half).

Also, by supporting the governor and the DEP, the utility scores big political brownie points.

Why is that important? PSEG is keenly interested in expanding its nuclear generating facility in Salem County. Guess whose approval it will need for that one.

This weekend, both sides are calling, faxing and emailing legislators. The New Jersey Environmental Federation, for example, has sent an alert to thousands of its members urging them to email legislators and ask for a no vote on the bill. Opponents and supporters will be cruising the hallways of the Statehouse on Monday, buttonholing legislators and pressing their best, final arguments.

The bill’s fate actually will be decided prior to the session in the Democratic and Republican caucuses. All the speechifying on the floor will just be theater.

What will happen? With all the opposition the bill faces, it should go down. But I’m putting my money on PSEG and I don’t own a dime of its stock….yet.

Who’s Reggie and why is he so disliked? Read More »

Environmental odds and ends – Oct 16 07

Interesting recent stories and commentaries on environmental topics in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and beyond:

  • Eminent Domain Writing in Realty Times, real estate author Peter G. Miller discusses how New Jersey Eminent Domain Case Creates New Hurdle for Developers
  • Be careful what you wish for. Conservationists have been so successful in the campaign since the early 1990s to stop logging in the West that today many logging companies are collapsing and selling their land to (gasp) developers. In the New York Times, Kirk Johnson reports: “Many environmentalists say they have come to realize that cutting down trees, if done responsibly, is not the worst thing that can happen to a forest, when the alternative is selling the land to people who want to build houses.”

  • Whitman stumping for nuclear power The former New Jersey governor and EPA Administrator now runs a lobbying/consulting firm and serves as co-chairwoman of the nuclear-industry-funded Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. In a speech at a climate-change conference in New Hampshire last week, she said that, in order to meet a projected 40 percent energy-demand growth, the nation will need 35 to 40 new nuclear plants. In an interview with the Concord Monitor, she noted that renewable sources like wind and solar currently produce 2.5 percent of America’s energy. “So if you double or triple that, which is really putting a strain on that industry, you’re still not going to get to the 40 percent,” she said.
  • Pennsylvania investing $10M in biofuel production and use Governor Ed Rendell today announced the award of $10 million in grants through the Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant program for 24 projects designed to support research into new potential fuel sources–primarily biofuels. He said the grants will leverage another $108 million in private investment to expand the production and use of homegrown biofuels. The largest grant recipient is All American Plazas Inc. which will receive a $1.9 million “production incentive” for 37.5 million gallons of biodiesel. All American Plazas proposes to build three, 44-million-gallon biodiesel production facilities at three truck stops in Pennsylvania. All American Plazas anticipates production of more than 20 million gallons per year at each plant over two years. Other recipients include, Rohm and Haas Company, Sunoco, the Biotechnology Foundation Inc. at Thomas Jefferson University, Green Renewable Energy, Ethanol & Nutrition Holding LLC and numerous school districts and county governments for the incremental cost of purchasing biofuels for their buses and other vehicles. A full list is available here.
  • New York exploring woody biomass as an alternative energy source The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation is using a federal grant to explore the feasibility of converting leftover wood from logging operations on private lands into a fuel source. The $64,000 award will fund a one-year project to evaluate whether there would be enough potential users in and around the Adirondack Park to make woody biomass a go. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies newsletter, Conservation News reports that “currently, about two million tons of wood chips harvested from private Adirondack lands go into the low-grade wood market, as pulp or biofuel. Some of that goes to two cogeneration facilities in the North Country. DEC estimates at least another one million tons gets left behind.” Potential customers would be community colleges, prisons, other state facilities with the capacity to store the wood chips and heating and cooling systems capable of incorporating appropriate emissions controls to protect air quality.
  • Making the case for coal “State law currently requires 18 percent of the state’s power be provided from renewable resources by 2021. That process already has begun, with an increased amount of renewable power phased in each year. However, let’s not forget the critical role coal plays.” So writes Morgan K. O’Brien, president and chief executive officer of Duquesne Light Co, in an op-ed piece in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Give us your comments after reading the entire piece here.


Environmental odds and ends – Oct 16 07 Read More »

Great timing for New Jersey’s global warming law

Supporters will tell you that New Jersey’s new law pushing the
state toward a greater use of non-fossil energy production, like
solar and wind, is just-in-time legislation, considering the heel-
dragging in corporate-owned Washington. But the signing of the
“Global Warming Act” was also a brilliant example of public relations timing.

Governor Jon Corzine’s PR team arranged to have the bill signed at a news conference in the Meadowlands where reporters from across the country were converging on Giant’s Stadium to cover Live Earth, a series of worldwide concerts promoted by former Vice President Al Gore to spread word of “climate crisis.”

Lest anyone fail to link the two events, the Corzine team invited Gore to attend the public signing. The resulting coverage gained New Jersey (and Corzine) international attention.
Here are just a few of the stories the event produced: Forbes, ABC News, Gannett, Reuters, Associated Press, Star-Ledger, The (Bergen) Record .
The new law calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020–a 17 to 20 percent reduction, followed by a further reduction of emissions to 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050. New Jersey is only the third state in the nation make greenhouse gas reduction goals law.

While the state’s environmental-activist community worked hard to get the bill through the Legislataure, one group was issuing a post-enactmenet warning. Bill Wolfe, executive director of the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, noted that state lawmakers last month removed mention of a program that would have required cuts at power plants and jettisoned plans for a fee on industry that would have paid for the state to monitor emissions.

“The goals are well and good, but there is no implementation, there is no regulatory program to meet the goals and there’s no funding in place,” Wolfe said.

Great timing for New Jersey’s global warming law Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights