Staten Island residents force developers to cancel plans for lithium-ion battery storage

Community asks: Are lithium-ion battery storage facilities safe?

New Leaf Energy has withdrawn plans for a lithium-ion battery storage facility that was slated to be built in the parking lot of Our Lady of Pity R.C. Church in Bulls Head. (Staten Island Advance/Jan Somma-Hammel)

By Jessica Jones-Gorman , Staten Island Advance|

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – After community members and local leaders voiced concerns about the location of a proposed lithium-ion battery storage facility, condemning its purported placement in close proximity to a church and six local schools, developers have announced their intention to officially withdraw project plans.

“A rep from New Leaf Energy called my office this morning and told me the company will be rescinding their application,” said Assemblyman Sam Pirozzolo, (R-Mid-Island/North Shore) who represents the 63rd district and has been vocal about community opposition to the project.

“Although these facilities are beneficial to our distribution grid, due to the risk of fire and exposure to toxic chemicals, this has no place in school or residential zones. This project lacked concern for public safety and common sense, and my office will always stand up to protect their children and neighborhoods. I will move forward with introducing legislation at the state level to prevent these situations from occurring in sensitive zones in the future,” he added.

According to information provided by New Leaf, the battery energy storage system (BESS) was intended to include six large-scale rechargeable lithium-ion battery systems manufactured by Tesla, each one capable of storing up to 20 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity. Con Edison would store energy produced during periods of low demand there, and then draw power from the facility during peak hours.

Read the full story here

If you liked this post, you’ll love our daily EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Staten Island residents force developers to cancel plans for lithium-ion battery storage Read More »

NJ legislation would reduce organic waste going to landfills by 75% by 2032. Is it too aggressive?

It’s a target even advocates say will be hard to hit

By TOM JOHNSON, NJ Spotlight News

New Jersey wants to limit the amount of organic waste being dumped in landfills across the state, a goal touted as another step in its fight to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change.

The Senate Environment and Energy Committee voted 3–2 to approve a bill that aims to slash the amount of organic waste going into landfills. The goal is that by 2032 the state would cut 75% of the amount deposited in landfills, as measured against the amount of organic waste dumped in 2016. It’s a target even its advocates concede may be difficult to reach.

The legislation (S-421), sponsored by Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), is part of an ongoing initiative to better manage the disposal of organic waste, mostly involving food waste, which can break down and release methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Collecting landfill methane

So much methane is released by landfills that several counties now collect it and use it to produce energy. But much of it escapes into the atmosphere and ends up being a significant contributor to climate change. Organic waste is the largest component of municipal garbage.

“It (methane) is as much and maybe having more of an impact than carbon dioxide,’’ said Smith, the chairman of the committee. “We really need to get it out of landfills.’’

New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act mandates the state reduce global warming emissions by 80% below 2006 levels by mid-century, an aggressive target that clean-energy advocates say will be difficult to achieve.

Gary Sondermeyer, representing the Association of New Jersey Recyclers, a supporter of the bill, questioned whether the state could attain that target. “We’re not sure we are ready to do 75%,’’ he said, blaming what he described as the “woefully inadequate composting infrastructure in the state.’’

Ray Cantor, an executive with the NJBIA (New Jersey Business & Industry Association), also questioned whether the bill’s ambitious targets are achievable. He also objected to choosing the state Department of Environmental Protection to write regulations aimed at attaining those targets, fearing the rules will be too onerous.

Sen. Edward Durr (R-Gloucester), who voted against the bill, agreed, saying that he is concerned the lawmakers were giving the DEP too much power.

But the bill won backing from several environmental groups. “Food waste is one of our largest sources of greenhouse emissions,’’ said Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey. “Increasing composting and reducing food waste going to landfills needs to be a state priority.’’

If you liked this post, you’ll love our daily EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

NJ legislation would reduce organic waste going to landfills by 75% by 2032. Is it too aggressive? Read More »

Duke Energy wraps up its popular solar rebate program with many customers left waiting

Duke Energy's solar rebates help homeowners, businesses and nonprofits pay for the cost of installation.
Duke Energy has ended its 5-year solar rebate program that helped homeowners, businesses and nonprofits pay for the cost of installation.

By David Boraks, WFAE News

Duke Energy has awarded the final rebates in a five-year, $62 million program to boost rooftop solar installations in North Carolina.

The program was required by a 2017 state law and was supposed to end last summer. But about $1.3 million was left over, so Duke held a final lottery this month.

The program has been extremely popular and has not come close to meeting demand.

This year’s rebates went to 356 customers statewide — most of them are residential property owners. Another 2,900 customers are on a waiting list, though most are unlikely to get the rebates, which are worth up to $4,000 for homeowners and $30,000 for businesses.

A spokesman says Duke Energy is currently not planning any additional rebates, but it is studying other ways to promote renewable energy.

“There’s nothing immediate now, although we are looking for ways to have new solar programs to promote renewable energy in North Carolina,” spokesman Randy Wheeless said.

Duke Energy also has proposed major changes in the way rooftop solar owners are compensated for the energy they add to the electric grid. The so-called “net-metering” changes would reduce payments to solar owners and add a monthly fee for any customers who install solar panels.

If you liked this post, you’ll love our daily EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Duke Energy wraps up its popular solar rebate program with many customers left waiting Read More »

Republicans take aim at Biden’s climate agenda

BY ARIANNA SKIBELL, Politico
Presented by Evergreen Collaborative and NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Calif., talks with reporters outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington following his meeting with President Joe Biden, Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy talks with reporters outside the White House.
The rebellion against President Joe Biden’s energy and climate agenda has begun in a House emboldened by its new conservative majority.

GOP lawmakers rebuked Biden’s use of oil reserves, pilloried his climate envoy John Kerry as an unaccountable diplomat, and erased the term “environmental justice” from congressional documents.

Republicans in the House and Senate also introduced resolutions to nix a Labor Department rule that permits asset managers to consider social and environmental factors in making retirement investments for workers, write POLITICO’s E&E News reporters Emma Dumain and Hannah Northey. 

Conservative critics say the practice amounts to “woke capitalism” designed to drive dollars away from fossil fuels.

Investors and companies have also jumped into the fray. The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering softening a planned rule that would require companies to disclose their climate risks after the plan got industry pushback, The Wall Street Journal reported. Dialing back that rule has also been a rallying cry for GOP critics, including Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, now chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

Odds of success: Because Republicans introduced the resolutions through the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to overturn recent rules with a simple majority, they have a fair shot at getting their Labor Department proposal to Biden’s desk — though he would be certain to veto it.

The 1996 law (which Congress used only once before the statute enjoyed a renaissance under the Trump administration) requires Senate Democrats to schedule votes on proposed resolutions. No death by floor inaction. With a slim Democratic majority in the Senate, Republicans would need to peel off just two lawmakers to secure passage. (Joe Manchin, anyone?) A win in the House is more of a given.

Less likely to advance is a provision that a major caucus of Republicans included in its debt limit demands. This one would implement “common-sense guardrails” for future regulations, such as a law that would require Congress to vote up or down on major rules before they take effect. The “REINS Act” has long been on the GOP’s regulation wish list — and would be a major blow to any president trying to cut climate pollution in a divided Congress.

If you liked this post, you’ll love our daily EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.
 

Republicans take aim at Biden’s climate agenda Read More »

Antitrust Risks of ESG: Rhetoric vs. Reality

By Joel Mitnick, Partner, Cadwalader

Recently, there have been rumblings of antitrust enforcement in response to the increasing prominence of corporate policies furthering environmental, social, and governance (‘ESG’) goals.

The ESG moniker has been used as shorthand for a broad range of initiatives by private actors, including collaborative efforts to issue industry-wide “best practices,” adherence to environmentally conscious production processes, and commitments to sustainable investing.

Despite the arguably laudable objectives of the ESG movement, there are indications that multi-firm ESG initiatives have fallen in the crosshairs of antitrust enforcers. Most notably, elected representatives of U.S. oil and gas constituents have threatened antitrust liability against financial institutions that have adopted lending or investing policies aimed at climate change, particularly those favoring net-zero growth for carbon emissions.

This article traces the growing likelihood of antitrust challenges to ESG policies and explains why the threat of enforcement actions does not necessarily equate to an increased risk of liability. We also discuss how firms can mitigate their exposure to potential antitrust liability by refraining from forms of concerted conduct that have been deemed per se unlawful under antitrust law, and identify which types of coordinated activity are typically permitted where reasonable safeguards to competition exist.

Read the full story here

If you liked this post, you’ll love our daily EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Antitrust Risks of ESG: Rhetoric vs. Reality Read More »