Consumers could pay more if FERC order boosts coal over renewables

The only Democrat on the commission called FERC’s move ‘illegal, illogical and truly bad public policy.’

Coal train in Virginia. Credit: Benjamin Lowy/Getty Images
The Trump administration has taken other high-profile steps to try to boost the coal industry, but many of them are tied up in legal challenges. The new order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission aims to accomplish many of the same goals. Credit: Benjamin Lowy/Getty Images

Dan Gearino reports for Inside Climate News

Federal energy regulators issued an order Thursday that likely will tilt the market to favor coal and natural gas power plants in the nation’s largest power grid region, stretching from New Jersey to Illinois. 

Critics say that it effectively creates a new subsidy to prop up uneconomical fossil fuel plants and that it will hurt renewable energy growth and, ultimately, consumers.

The new rules, approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are designed to counteract state subsidies that support the growth of renewable energy and use of nuclear power. The rules involve what are known as “capacity markets,” where power plants bid to provide electricity to the grid. The change would require higher minimum bids for power plants that receive such subsidies, giving fossil fuel plants an advantage.

The FERC order, passed 2-1, is a response to complaints from operators of coal and natural gas power plants who say that state subsidies have led to unfair competition in the grid region managed by PJM Interconnection.

Richard Glick, the panel’s lone Democrat, cast the dissenting vote and said during the commission meeting that his Republican colleagues were trying to “stunt transition to a clean energy future that states are pursuing and consumers are pursuing.”

In his written dissent, he called the order “illegal, illogical and truly bad public policy.”

Environmental groups and clean energy advocates have long criticized PJM for rules that provide an economic lifeline to old fossil fuel plants, which produce greenhouse gases that drive climate change.

“Today’s order erects a major new barrier to clean energy, undercutting efforts by states to slash pollution and address climate change,” Tom Rutigliano, a senior advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Sustainable FERC Project, said in a statement. “Federal regulators are forcing customers to pay for dirty power they don’t want or need.”

Expect Court Challenges

The Trump administration has taken other high-profile steps to try to boost the coal industry, but many of them are tied up in legal challenges. The new FERC order accomplishes many of the same goals.

But FERC’s action also is likely heading to court, where opponents will argue that the regulator has overstepped its authority and is now dictating state policy.

One issue going forward is that the order has a broad definition of “subsidy,” saying this includes direct or indirect payments, concessions and rebates, among other things. Glick said the definition is so broad that it may end up affecting many more power plants than the other commissioners intended.

In the meantime, PJM has 90 days to say how it will implement the rules, and power plant operators will need to figure out what this means for them.

Map: PJM Interconnection's Power Grid Area

Read the full story

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

Consumers could pay more if FERC order boosts coal over renewables Read More »

EPA Finalizes List of Next 20 Chemicals to Undergo Risk Evaluation under TSCA

OPPT Update Header

USEPA News Release

Today, after reviewing input from stakeholders and the public, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the next 20 chemicals to undergo risk evaluation under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Finalizing this list of high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation represents the final step in the prioritization process outlined in TSCA and marks another major TSCA milestone for EPA in its efforts to ensure the safety of existing chemicals in the marketplace.

“Today we are continuing to deliver on the promise of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to assess and review existing chemicals in the marketplace,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “EPA is committed to transparency and being open with the public as these chemicals move through this TSCA process to evaluate the risks these chemicals may pose to public health and the environment.”

The 20 chemicals that will undergo risk evaluation consist of seven chlorinated solvents, six phthalates, four flame retardants, formaldehyde, a fragrance additive, and a polymer precursor. It is important to note that being designated as a high-priority chemical does not mean that a chemical is high risk.

The next steps for these chemicals are outlined in TSCA’s process for risk evaluation. This first includes taking public comment on scoping documents for each of these 20 chemicals. By June 2020, EPA will finalize these scoping documents which will include the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations EPA expects to consider during each chemical’s risk evaluation. The agency will also take public comments on the draft risk evaluations for these chemicals and will finalize them after considering the public input the agency receives.

EPA is still carefully reviewing public comments on the 20 low-priority chemicals proposed in August 2019. The agency will finalize the list of low-priority chemicals in early 2020. Additionally, EPA will soon release and take public comments on a draft list of manufacturers and importers of these chemicals to help determine the appropriate division of fees as required under the TSCA fees rule.

List of Next 20 Chemicals

  1. p-Dichlorobenzene
  2. 1,2-Dichloroethane
  3. trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene
  4. o-Dichlorobenzene
  5. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
  6. 1,2-Dichloropropane
  7. 1,1-Dichloroethane
  8. Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester)
  9. Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) – 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester
  10. Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester)
  11. Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester)
  12. Dicyclohexyl phthalate
  13. 4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA)
  14. Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)
  15. Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP)
  16. Ethylene dibromide
  17. 1,3-Butadiene
  18. 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB)
  19. Formaldehyde
  20. Phthalic anhydride

For more information visit https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/chemical-substances-undergoing-prioritization.

Don’t miss info like this Click for free updates

EPA Finalizes List of Next 20 Chemicals to Undergo Risk Evaluation under TSCA Read More »

Grants awarded and available for Hudson River Estuary and Mohawk River Basin

Two women stand in a tidal marsh examining plants.

New York DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos has announced grant awards totaling more than $957,000 for 23 projects to help communities along the Hudson River Estuary design and improve recreational access, enhance education about the river, and advance stewardship of natural resources. The grants are funded by the State’s Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) and administered by DEC’s Hudson River Estuary Program. Read about the grant recipients and projects in the DEC press release.

Commissioner Seggos also announced that $500,000 is now available for municipalities, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, school districts, colleges and universities, and not-for-profit organizations to implement the goals and objectives of the Mohawk River Basin Action Agenda. These grants will help local partners fund projects designed to preserve and protect the Mohawk River watershed.

Round Five of the Mohawk River Watershed Grant Request for Applications (RFA) is available online through the New York State Grants Gateway. You must submit grant applications online through the Grants Gateway no later than 3 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020.

Don’t miss info like this Click for free updates

Grants awarded and available for Hudson River Estuary and Mohawk River Basin Read More »

NJ Assembly passes food-waste recycling mandate without landfill exemption

New Jersey State House Credit: Lowlova

Cole Rosengren reports for WasteDive

The New Jersey General Assembly passed a bill earlier this week – by a vote of 51 to 25 – that would require certain large-scale generators to separate organics if they are within 25 miles of an authorized recycling facility. The bill (A3726) directly followed requests made by Gov. Phil Murphy in a conditional veto of a prior iteration.

Murphy’s veto requested the removal of language that deemed landfills with gas-to-energy systems and incinerators (that used anaerobic digestion within four years) to be authorized destinations. Murphy also requested new language requiring any area recyclers be notified if generators seek disposal waivers.

A corresponding bill (S1206) must now be taken up for a vote by the New Jersey Senate, which only has a handful of scheduled meetings left before its current session ends Jan. 14, 2020. This item has yet to appear on the Senate calendar and its original sponsor, state Sen. Bob Smith, could not be reached for comment.

Read the full story

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

NJ Assembly passes food-waste recycling mandate without landfill exemption Read More »

NJ lawmakers advance plan to reuse unwanted paint, save counties money

The expanded program, paid for by a new fee on paint purchases, would require collection sites within 15 miles of 90% of residents

The bill requires paint producers or their representatives to develop and implement a stewardship plan that promotes reuse and recycling.

JON HURDLE reports for NJ Spotlight

About those half-empty paint cans that have been languishing in your garage for years: Do you put them in the trash, fill them with kitty litter and take them to the local dump, or just empty the contents down the drain?

The answer should be  “none of the above,” according to supporters of a bill that was approved by a large bipartisan majority, 57 to 20, in the Assembly on Monday, is now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and then, backers hope, to the governor’s desk.

Bill A-4382 would boost the reuse and recycling of unwanted architectural paint by starting a collection program funded by a fee charged on every can of paint. It aims to boost the current rate of collection by towns and counties, which currently pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to dispose of the material.

And it would require producers, distributors and retailers of paint to participate in an “architectural paint stewardship program” as approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. The bill defines architectural paint as any interior coating that’s sold in cans of five gallons or less; the definition excludes industrial or specialty coatings.

“Paint recycling is a huge problem,” said Dennis Hart, executive director of the Chemistry Council of New Jersey, a trade group that represents paint manufacturers. “Everybody in this state and across the country has cans of paint in their basement or garage. They don’t know what to do with it; they either leave it there or try and pawn it off on the next homeowner, or they throw it in the trash and it ends up in the environment.”

The bill requires every paint producer or its representatives to develop and implement a stewardship plan that promotes reuse and recycling by arranging for collection, transportation, burning for energy recovery, and disposal using environmentally sound practices.

“We think it’s a good step forward,” said Hart. “It’s an industry-supported program that says: ‘We want to be proactive in managing the product cradle to grave.’”

A per-gallon fee

Hart said 10 other states plus the District of Columbia have already begun similar programs and have so far collected some 40 million gallons of paint, 85% of which has been reused. The fee that would pay for the program is expected to be 75-85 cents a gallon in the first year, when the volume of paint collected is likely to be greatest, he said. (The purchaser of the paint pays the fee.) After an initial rush of paint collections, DEP will review the fee to see if it’s the correct amount, Hart said.

The money would be used to pay the costs of private haulers or — if they choose to participate — local government agencies, who would be relieved of the current expense that’s borne by taxpayers, Hart said. The bill requires that the charge would not exceed the cost of running the stewardship program. DEP would also be paid for its oversight from the fee revenue.

Any producer, distributor or retailer who fails to comply would first get a written warning and then be fined $500 to $1,000 for each subsequent offense, according to the bill.

Hart said that in Ocean County where he lives, he can take unwanted latex paint to a municipal hazardous waste collection point where it is picked up by the county at an annual cost of some $200,000.

Under the proposed reform, there would be collection sites within 15 miles of 90% of all New Jersey residents; a site will be established for every 30,000 people. Collection sites would include hardware stores that would be incentivized to participate by attracting can donors who may then become customers, Hart said.

Read the full story

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

NJ lawmakers advance plan to reuse unwanted paint, save counties money Read More »

Congress stiffs solar, wind wins modest tax-deal victory

Despite months of intense lobbying, the solar industry comes up empty-handed in end-of-year spending legislation.

Lawmakers agreed on funding, but not clean energy tax credits.
Lawmakers agreed on funding, but not clean energy tax credits.

EMMA FOEHRINGER MERCHANT reports for gtm

After months of lobbying, the clean energy industry secured minimal tax credit extensions in the $1.37 trillion end-of-year deal U.S. lawmakers eked out this week to fund the government in 2020.

Of the possible extensions that may have been stuffed into the spending bill, wind was the only winner, and the industry secured just one extra year of incentives. 

If the full deal wins congressional passage, as is expected, wind developers can now qualify for the production tax credit through 2020 — a year longer than anticipated. Developers qualifying projects in 2020 will receive 60 percent of the PTC if they bring those projects online by the end of 2024. Projects qualified in 2019 will still receive only 40 percent of the incentive.

That will benefit onshore wind developers at a time when their market would otherwise be under pressure. However, offshore wind developers, who typically opt for the Investment Tax Credit, would not get the same boost.

Meanwhile, lawmakers left solar— the industry that most aggressively fought for an extension of its ITC — and electric vehicles out of the deal. Storage, which lawmakers had sought incentives for in legislation like the November GREEN Act, will continue without credits. 

Read the full story

Don’t miss stories like this Click for free updates

Congress stiffs solar, wind wins modest tax-deal victory Read More »