Despite its historic ties to coal, as well as local denialism about climate change, Carbon County, Wyoming is soon to be home to one of the biggest wind farms in the nation.
RAWLINS, Wyo. — The coal layered underground helped bring settlers to this scrubby, wind-whipped part of southern Wyoming, where generations found a steady paycheck in the mines and took pride in powering the nation.
But now, it is energy from the region’s other abundant energy resource — the wind itself — that is creating jobs and much-needed tax revenues in Carbon County.
Despite its historic ties to coal, as well as local denialism about climate change, the county is soon to be home to one of the biggest wind farms in the nation.
The United States gets only 7 percent of its energy from wind, far less than most experts believe will have a significant environmental effect. And resistance remains outspoken: Just last month, the politicization of wind energy was on full display as numerous Republicans and conservative pundits falsely blamed frozen wind turbines as a chief cause of widespread blackouts in Texas. On Sunday, former President Donald J. Trump joined in, disparaging wind power in a speech before a conservative group.
(Left) When mines closed in Hanna, the community was devastated and has yet to fully recover. (Right) The Dunlap Wind Farm.
Carbon County shows how the energy transformation that America needs to make is possible, but may happen reluctantly, driven by pragmatism more than a desire to stop burning the coal and oil that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Here, at least, it comes down to the reality that mines are closing nationwide, and buyers of coal are simply disappearing.
In Wyoming, many residents like Terry Weickum support the coal industry and disapprove of the way the glossy turbines interrupt the emptiness of the sagebrush-spotted landscape. Nevertheless, Mr. Weickum helped bring wind energy to Carbon County, knowing it would help Rawlins — a community of 9,000 with its downtown gym, coffee shop and the Rifleman Club Bar — to avoid becoming yet another ghost town, forgotten as mining passes into history.
If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from NJ, PA, NY, Delaware…and beyond. Try it free for an entire month.
Two solutions, both practical and efficient, if public officials are committed to addressing the problem
Chris Daggett
Editor’s Note: Those of you who take special pleasure in the written word have been schooled at one time or another on the value of the opening paragraph in an essay that seeks to influence your opinion or solve a problem. Former NJDEP Commissioner Chris Dagger serves up one of the best leads we’ve seen in some time below. It grabs your attention, summons your empathy and entices you to read on. Agree? Disagree? Lets hear from you in the Comment section
By Chris Daggett in NJ Spotlight
What if you knew of a statewide health problem that poisons at least 4,500 children each year, likely causing irreversible damage to their brain, kidneys, and nervous system? And, further, while there is no medical treatment, what if you knew how to avoid new cases, the cost of which is far exceeded by reduced expenses for medical treatment, special education and the full realization of earnings over a lifetime? What would you do?
We do know of such a problem. It’s lead exposure — from lead paint in older homes, lead service lines, indoor lead plumbing, and lead in soil. While attention has been given to each of these areas, lead service lines have received the most attention lately due to water crises in Flint, Michigan, and here in Newark, New Jersey.
An estimated 350,000 lead service lines are scattered across New Jersey, the fifth-highest total in the nation, and the projected cost of completely replacing them is $2.3 billion, a daunting cost given tight state and local budgets.
However, there are two solutions that are both practical and efficient if public officials are committed to addressing the problem. The first is found in water rates, the second in county bonding. In both cases, there is a complicating factor of the general prohibition on using public funds to improve private property when lead service lines are jointly owned by both the water utility and the property owner.
To move forward, we need to recognize the replacement of customer-owned lines as a special case: They form an integral part of a functioning water system and many low-income customers lack the financial means to pay for the work.
A water system’s rate charges provide revenue that is stable and sufficient to cover the cost to treat, store, and distribute high quality water to customers, as well as investments that ensure a state of good repair. Typical capital needs, such as upgrades to aging treatment plants, pipes and pumping stations, are financed by ratepayers because they are considered to be part of a unified system. Individual customers are not charged based on the benefit they specifically receive from each improvement.
Negative results from earlier law
Unfortunately, that is not the case for lead service line replacements. New Jersey’s 2018 legislation to address lead service lines (P.L. 2018, c.114), authorized localities to require property owners to pay $1,000 each to offset the cost of replacing customer-owned lines.
In the first two cities to act, Trenton and Newark, the $1,000 cost share triggered three negative results: decreased participation, a slow pace, and inefficiency. Absentee landlords often refused to pay, leaving many low-income tenants in limbo, and contractors skipped around neighborhoods as handfuls of property owners gradually decided to participate, driving up costs considerably — as much as 25% by some estimates.
By including the full cost of lead service line replacement in water rates, the burden is distributed across the entire service area and, if revenue is used to support water utility debt or federal loans, it is also spread over time. Combined with the fact that the planned work is staggered over several years, the typical cost to an individual ratepayer is often low. Since the improvements are one-time in nature, the rate adjustment can be eliminated once the expense is paid.
As highlighted in a joint study by the Environmental Defense Fund and Harvard University, many other states and cities have pursued this approach, including Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Denver, and Lansing.
Besides maximizing efficiency, this approach is clearly the most equitable. Across the country, poor families in low-income areas struggle with lead poisoning long after more affluent residents have paid to address the problem.
County bonding is another solution
A second funding option is county bonding, particularly in those counties with excellent bond ratings. Newark’s line replacement has proved this concept. With money not available through rate increases, Essex County used its bonding strength to enable Newark to mandate lead service line replacements without requiring property owners to pay a cost share.
Lead service lines have been methodically replaced across entire neighborhoods, maximizing efficiency, and the pace of the program is unprecedented. Since early 2019, the city has replaced 93% of its 18,000 lead service lines. For most communities across the country, the job has taken 15 to 20 years. Newark is likely to complete the work in less than three years, while saving approximately 13% versus past service line projects.
…but this one contains information that could save our readers money and energy. We wish we had known about the fridge/freezer recycling offer last week when we replaced our 30-year-old Frigidaire . We had to pay to have it carted off.
A GREENER HOME HELPS YOU SAVE ENERGY AND MONEY
Tap into PECO’s green energy-saving solutions and rebates. Improve your home’s comfort and keep your energy costs down all year long. No matter what your home needs, PECO can help you get started.
*Limited supply per household and where applicable. Certain restrictions apply. You must be a PECO residential electric customer to participate. One Energy Assessment per year. This program is subject to change, including termination, without prior notice. Appointments are available Monday–Friday. Limited number of appointments available on Saturdays. This offer cannot be combined with other PECO Energy Assessment program offers or discounts.**Rebate amounts on heating and cooling equipment vary based on unit tonnage and efficiency ratings. Speak to your contractor to determine which system is right for you. †See peco.com/recycling for eligibility details.
Have you tried any of the PECO offers above? What was your experience? Let us know in the ‘comments’ section
Chemical manufacturer UCT will pay a $44,880 penalty to settle hazardous waste violations at its Bristol, Pennsylvania, facility, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today.
EPA cited the company for violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the federal law governing the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA is designed to protect public health and the environment and avoid long and extensive cleanups, by requiring the safe, environmentally sound storage and disposal of hazardous waste.
UCT manufactures a variety of chemical products at its facility at 2731 Bartram Road in Bristol. These include solid phase extraction products for hospitals, clinical and toxicology labs, food safety testing labs, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and environmental testing facilities; and silane/silicone products used in the glass and fiber optic industries, medical device, cosmetics, paints and coatings, adhesives and electronics industries.
According to EPA, the company violated RCRA rules including storing hazardous waste for more than 90 days without a permit, failure to properly mark hazardous waste containers, failure to keep hazardous waste containers closed, failure to make waste determinations and failure to provide annual RCRA training.
The settlement reflects the company’s compliance efforts, and its cooperation with EPA in the investigation and resolution of this matter. As part of the settlement, the company has certified its compliance with applicable RCRA requirements.
The Senate Environment and Energy Committee will meet online at 10 a.m. Thursday, March 4
The Committee will take testimony on proposed amendments to S2515 (post-consumer recycled content) that may be considered in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.
Due to the public health emergency, the State House Annex remains closed to visitors.
The public may not attend the Committee meeting in person but may view and participate in the meeting via the New Jersey Legislature home page at https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/. The Committee will take oral testimony on bills, by telephone and video.
If you are interested in registering your position with the Committee, please fill out the Registration Form located on the New Jersey Legislature Home Page under the applicable Committee heading.
For those individuals who wish to testify, please check the box “Do you wish to testify?” on the Registration Form. Instructions for testifying before the Committee will be forwarded to you after you submit your Registration Form.
The form must be submitted by 3:00 PM on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. The public may also submit written testimony electronically in lieu of oral testimony. Written testimony will be included in the Committee record and distributed to all the Committee members. Written testimony should be submitted to OLSAideSEN@njleg.org.
Remember the troubling headlines in 2014 about the corroded lead pipes that threatened residents (especially infants and children) in Flint, MI? And the subsequent water scare in 2018 that lead Newark, NJ to replace a large number of household water lines and provide filters to others?
Despite those costly and well publicized remediations, utilities in New Jersey are still not required to inform their customers about the status of their drinking water.
That could change under new legislation sponsored by Assembly Democrats Bill Moen (D-Camden, Gloucester), Lisa Swain (D-Bergen, Passaic), and Christopher Tully (D-Bergen, Passaic). Their bill, A-2863, was released unanimously on February 22 by the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee.
It would supplement the “Safe Water Drinking Act” by requiring public water systems to provide to their customers, local health agencies, and municipal governments expedited written notice of lead levels that exceed the “lead action level”.
(1) clearly state that the public water system is in exceedance of the lead action level; (2) explain what the lead action level is and the measurement process that the public water system is required to perform to monitor drinking water for lead; (3) provide additional information on the possible sources of lead in drinking water, the health effects of lead in drinking water, and measures a customer can take to reduce or eliminate lead in drinking water; and (4) state the responsibility of a landlord to distribute the notice to all tenants served by the public water system.
Additionally, the bill requires landlords to provide all tenants with any notice or information received from a public water system concerning the presence of lead in drinking water.
Specifically, the bill requires the landlord to: (1) distribute the notice or information to every tenant who has entered into a lease agreement with the landlord and whose dwelling unit is served by the public water system; and (2) post the notice or information in a prominent location at the entrance of each rental premises that is owned by the landlord and served by the public water system.
The bill also requires a public water system to include a statement explaining these requirements in any notice or information provided to its customers concerning the presence of lead in drinking water.
The bill was amended today (updated version) on the Assembly floor, along with an identical measure, S968, and is in position for a final vote before moving the Governor Murphy’s desk.
