Geof Koss reports for E&E News
Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introducing the “Green New Deal” resolution last week. Markey/FacebookThe decision by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring up the “Green New Deal” for a Senate vote is prompting a rush to define the terms of progressive Democrats’ ambitious proposal to tackle climate change.GOP lawmakers are scrambling to highlight the possible side effects of the deal, outlined last week by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), in some cases relying on a document distributed and later disavowed by the New York Democrat’s office (Climatewire, Feb. 12).Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) took to the Senate floor yesterday to outline a host of ramifications of the plan, which he said would mean the end of ice cream.”Livestock will be banned,” Barrasso said. “Say goodbye to dairy, to beef, to family farms, to ranches.”Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a supporter of renewable energy who faces a tough re-election in his purplish home state in 2020, told E&E News he had no qualms about the upcoming vote, which is expected after the Presidents Day recess next week.”I’ll vote against socialism every time,” Gardner said in a brief interview yesterday echoing Republican talking points against the plan.Asked if he welcomed the underlying debate on climate change, Gardner reiterated the point.”I think a debate on socialism is incredibly important,” he said. “The fact that they’re going to remodel every home and house and building in America, they’re guaranteeing jobs and benefits to every single American, paying the unwilling to work, income redistribution. I hope that we can have a vote on this, I hope that we can vote on it every day.”As he walked away, Gardner made sure the reporter heard him say the plan should be called “the green new steal.”Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri, the top Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, took to Twitter yesterday with his own nickname — the “Green New Disaster.”

Green ‘aspiration’

Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, saw McConnell’s call for a vote as a way to push Democrats to take an early position on the ambitious proposal.”He wants to take an idea or framework that is not fully vetted yet, and even some Democrats think is more expansive than they’d like, and force them to put them down for a vote sooner rather than later,” Zelizer said.The result of the vote could alternately embarrass Democrats who vote no, revealing them to proponents of the plan, or it could make proponents of the plan appear to be too radical.Zelizer said McConnell and other Republicans recognized the proposal had been successful in generating debate about green policies. “It’s his effort to try to kill it,” he said.Read the full storyLike this? Click to receive free updates

New measure would harness private money, expertise to drive energy efficiency at hospitals, wastewater-treatment plants, universities, prisons

Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight

The state is aiming to promote private-sector investment in energy-related projects at government-owned facilities, a step that could lead to lower energy bills and more resilient infrastructure, according to advocates.The scheme addresses the familiar problem of finding a source of funding to undertake a wide range of projects that could replace deficient energy systems with more reliable and less costly alternatives at government facilities like municipal buildings, wastewater-treatment plants, universities, and prisons.A bill (S-2958) to be taken up Thursday by a Senate committee would allow private companies to partner with public entities to upgrade energy-related facilities and even develop new generation systems, including solar, wind, and microgrids. But its primary focus is managing the energy load at these locations more efficiently, cutting use and saving dollars.“The purpose is to leverage the expertise, the knowhow, and the resources of the private sector to allow governments to do these projects,’’ said Steven Goldenberg, an attorney representing the New Jersey Distributed Energy Coalition. Otherwise, these projects “just won’t happen because of budgetary constraints.’’

Putting off the inevitable

New Jersey has deferred maintenance and investment in its energy infrastructure for too long, according to David Turner, regional manager for New Jersey and New York at Siemens. “We’re very much behind. It’s come home to roost,’’ he said.The problems were magnified during Hurricane Sandy when widespread power outages left government facilities dark for days. More than 90 wastewater treatment plants spewed raw sewage into waterways when backup diesel generators ran out of fuel or power failed because of flooding.Like this? Click to receive free updatesSince then, state officials are pressing critical facilities, such as water-treatment plants, hospitals, and government buildings to become more resilient to power outages. Some municipalities are exploring the possibility of developing microgrids, energy facilities capable of providing power when the conventional power grid fails.The legislation is modeled on an approach that originated in the United Kingdom and has been adopted in Canada. It was briefly available under an economic stimulus law in 2009 in New Jersey, which allowed state colleges and universities to enter into partnerships that were financed with energy savings, Goldenberg said.

Private sector’s interest piqued

With a huge backlog of projects, there is a lot of interest from the private sector in pursuing such partnerships again, according to Michael Bakas, executive vice president at Ameresco, an energy services company.“As far as private investment, there is great interest to invest in governmental agencies because they generally have good credit,’’ Bakas said. A lot of these agencies don’t have the capital to fund the type of work that needs to be done, he added. “We are talking about a couple of billion dollars in capital investments.’’The legislation would allow private entities to be responsible for designing, building, financing, operating, and maintaining the energy projects. The bill provides a lot of flexibility on financing, letting private entities take advantage of tax abatements, long-term bonding, and other funding mechanisms.“It has the potential to fund billions of dollars of projects that otherwise would not be done,’’ Goldenberg said. In some cases, the projects could include renewable energy — like solar or wind or geothermal — as well as more conventional power systems, like combined heat and power.Dubbed the Public Private Partnership Act, the legislation would establish a unit in the state Economic Development Authority. This so-called P3 unit would be responsible for developing and implementing polices to promote energy upgrades at government-owned facilities. The bill also sets up a contracting process involving private companies that are pre-qualified to pursue such projects.The legislation would allow government entities to partner with others in the community, such as hospitals, colleges, and other large energy users, to make the economics of the partnerships more feasible. The bill also expands the geographic reach of microgrids, a limitation that stymied such projects in the past.The bill, sponsored by Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), is up for consideration in the Senate Environment and Energy Committee on Thursday in Trenton.

Amazon Prime packages on a conveyor belt inside an Amazon fulfillment center in Koblenz, Germany. (Alex Kraus/Bloomberg News)

Kristen Millares Young reports for the Washington Post

Over the past year, Amazon has reduced the portion of shipments it packs in its cardboard boxes in favor of lightweight plastic mailers, which enable the retailing giant to squeeze more packages in delivery trucks and planes.But environmental activists and waste experts say the new plastic sacks, which aren’t recyclable in curbside recycling bins, are having a negative effect.“That Amazon packaging suffers from the same problems as plastic bags, which are not sortable in our recycling system and get caught in the machinery,” said Lisa Sepanski, project manager for King County Solid Waste Division, which oversees recycling in King County, Wash., where Amazon is based. “It takes labor to cut them out. They have to stop the machinery.”The recent holiday season, the busiest for e-commerce, meant ever more shipments — creating a massive hangover of packaging waste. As the platform behind half of all e-commerce transactions in 2018, according to eMarketer, Amazon is by far the biggest shipper and producer of that waste — and a trendsetter, meaning that their switch to plastic mailers could signal a shift across the industry. Other retailers that use similar plastic mailers include Target, which declined to comment.The problem with the plastic mailers is twofold: They need to be recycled separately, and if they end up in the usual stream, they gum up recycling systems and prevent larger bundles of materials from being recycled. Environmental advocates say Amazon, as the industry giant, needs to do a much better job of encouraging consumers to recycle the plastic mailers by providing more education and alternative places to bring that plastic for recycling.“We are continually working to improve our packaging and recycling options, and have reduced packaging waste by more than 20 percent globally in 2018,” Amazon spokeswoman Melanie Janin said. She added that Amazon provides recycling information on its website. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)Amazon’s goal to reduce bulkier cardboard is the right move, a number of waste experts said. And plastic mailers have some positives for the environment. They take up less space in containers and trucks than boxes, making shipping more efficient. Fewer greenhouse gases are emitted — and less petroleum consumed — by the production, use and disposal of plastic film, compared with recycled cardboard, said David Allaway, senior policy analyst for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s Materials Management Program.Plastic is so cheap and enduring that many companies use it for packaging. But consumers are prone to put plastic sacks into recycling bins. Plastic mailers escape the notice of sorting machines and get into bales of paper bound for recycling, contaminating entire bundles, outweighing the positive effect of reducing bulky cardboard shipments, experts say. Paper bundles used to fetch a high price on international markets and had long sustained profits in the recycling industry. But mixed bales are so hard to sell — because of stricter laws in China, where many are sent for recycling — that many West Coast recycling companies must trash them instead. (Packaging is just one source of plastics contamination of paper bales bound for recycling.)“As packaging gets more complex and lighter, we have to process more material at slower speeds to produce the same output. Are the margins enough? The answer today is no,” said Pete Keller, vice president of recycling for Republic Services, one of the largest U.S. waste haulers. “It’s labor- and maintenance-intensive and frankly expensive to deal with on a daily basis.”For the past 10 years, Amazon has whittled away at unnecessary packaging, sending the product in its original box when possible or in the lightest packaging possible. Amazon’s Janin said that the company shifted to lightweight plastic mailers in the past year as part of a larger effort to reduce packaging waste and operational costs. Janin wrote that Amazon is “scaling capacity of a fully recyclable cushioned mailer that is recyclable in paper recycling streams.”Read the full storyLike this? Click to receive free updates

Economist also disputes PSEG’s contention that South Jersey plants will have to close within three years unless given subsidies