Places in the U.S. Where Disaster Strikes Again and Again

Flooding at the New Jersey Shore after Hurricane Sandy

Sahil Chinoy reports for The New York Times:


In the last 16 years, parts of Louisiana have been struck by six hurricanes. Areas near San Diego were devastated by three particularly vicious wildfire seasons. And a town in eastern Kentucky has been pummeled by at least nine storms severe enough to warrant federal assistance.

These places are part of a small fraction of the United States that has sustained most of the damage from major natural disasters, forming a pattern of destruction concentrated in particular areas.

About 90 percent of the total losses across the United States occurred in ZIP codes that contain less than 20 percent of the population, according to an analysis of data from the Small Business Administration.

The federal government, through disaster relief programs and flood insurance, subsidizes the cost of rebuilding in areas hit repeatedly by storms, floods and fires. Critics say that encourages too much development in those regions, wasting tens of billions of dollars in tax money and endangering lives.

Christina DeConcini, the director of government affairs at the World Resources Institute, said that federal programs do not adequately emphasize adapting to the risks posed by climate change. She said that instead of just being responsive, the government should stress building for resilience against disasters.

Some residents continue living in disaster-stricken areas because they cannot afford to leave. Others rebuff appeals to resettle, citing deep family ties or a sense of fatalism. Rather than move the town, “it’s easier to throw your hands up and say, ‘Forget it,’” said Linda Lowe, the president of a historical society in flood-prone Olive Hill, Ky.

“Abandoning a location and moving a city makes sense from a scientific, risk point of view, but the fact is that to get to a place culturally and psychologically where that conversation can be tolerated is a difficult thing to imagine,” said Dr. Irwin Redlener, the director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. “It’s not all that rational — but I guess a lot of these things are not really rational.”



Places in the U.S. Where Disaster Strikes Again and Again Read More »

Two new bills change the energy map for New Jersey


Governor puts signature to bill calling for half of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030

Murphy signs energy bills May 23 2018Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight:
Gov. Phil Murphy yesterday signed bills to dramatically overhaul New Jersey’s energy policies while ensuring nuclear power will remain a significant part of its energy mix — albeit with a hefty new subsidy from consumers.
In a ceremony at a solar farm in Monmouth Junction, the governor’s action marked a step toward achieving his ambitious clean-energy agenda, by requiring at least half of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy by 2030. The plan also mandates utilities ramp up programs to reduce energy use.
“Today is a big leap forward,’’ Murphy told legislators, cabinet officials, and representatives of key environmental groups who gathered at the solar farm, which is still under construction. The governor also signed an executive order, directing the development of a new Energy Master Plan to have the state achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
Whether the state can deliver on that agenda and at what cost to ratepayers will likely generate as much debate and argument over the next few years as occurred during the bruising fight to get the bills through the Legislature in the past six months.
No issue was more controversial than the measure (S-2313) to direct up to $300 million a year in ratepayer subsidies to keep three nuclear power plants from closing in South Jersey. Public Service Enterprise Group threatened to shutter them, arguing they are no longer economically competitive.


In the money — or not?

Critics, including many business groups, consumer advocates, and environmental groups, countered that PSEG never demonstrated the plants are losing money. By handing out such a huge subsidy, opponents feared it would hinder efforts to reach the aggressive renewable energy targets set by Murphy.
“What we have here in New Jersey is the company admitting they are profitable —they are just not profitable enough,’’ said Ev Liebman, director of advocacy for AARP of New Jersey. If implemented, the bill could cost residents about $41 a year, and large companies, tens of thousand of dollars annually, according to opponents.

Two new bills change the energy map for New Jersey Read More »

$74M American Cyanamid cleanup to remove toxic sludge


Bob Makin reports for My Central Jersey:


A new $74 million cleanup proposal makes the American Cyanamid Superfund site in Bridgewater, NJ more of a federal priority, said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Pete Lopez at a press conference on May 23.


The plan includes the removal and treatment of 55,000 cubic yards of acid tars and such cancer-causing chemicals as benzene from the floodplains of the Raritan River, Lopez said in the parking lot of TD Bank Ball Park, a remediated part of the Superfund site. A chemical and drug manufacturing plant for nearly 100 years, the 435-acre property now is on both the National Priorities List and the EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s list of Superfund sites targeted for immediate and intense attention, Lopez said.


The EPA will conduct a public meeting on June 12 to explain the cleanup proposal and other options considered and to take public comments. An informal public information session will be start at 6 p.m. and the public meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at the township municipal building, 100 Commons Way. Comments will be accepted until June 28.


Lopez also announced that construction of a permanent water treatment facility at 20 Polhemus Lane will be completed by year’s end.


Read the full story


Like this? Click to receive free updates

$74M American Cyanamid cleanup to remove toxic sludge Read More »

Pets and animal bills before NJ Senate committee May 31


The Senate Economic Growth Committee will meet on Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM in Committee Room 1, 1st Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ.

The following bills will be considered:

S381 (Madden / Beach) – Prohibits persons violating animal cruelty law from owning, keeping, or harboring animals; requires DHSS establish and maintain website list of such persons.

S1093 (Cruz-Perez) – “Nosey’s Law”; prohibits use of wild or exotic animals in traveling animal acts.

S1209 (Singleton) – Prohibits surgical declawing of cats and other animals.

S1230 (Singleton / Sweeney) – Establishes an animal abuser registry.

S1429 / A1053 (Van Drew / Houghtaling / Taliaferro / Andrzejczak) – Revises and expands laws on trespass and vandalism on agricultural and horticultural lands.

S1860 (Cruz-Perez) – Provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for rescue of animal from motor vehicle under inhumane conditions.

S1923 (Singleton / Gopal) – Revises criteria for determining whether dog is vicious or potentially dangerous.

S1953 (Oroho / Cruz-Perez) – Directs Dept. of Agriculture to authorize and advise food hubs.

SJR72 (Singer / Weinberg) – Designates second Monday of May each year as “New Jersey Economic Development Day.”


(The public may address comments and questions to Patrick Brennan or Andrew Ward, Committee Aides, or make bill status and scheduling inquiries to Kimberly Johnson, Committee Secretary, at 609-847-3840, fax 609-292-0561, or e-mail: OLSAideSEG@njleg.org. Written and electronic comments, questions and testimony submitted to the committee by the public, as well as recordings and transcripts, if any, of oral testimony, are government records and will be available to the public upon request.)


Like this? Click to receive free updates

Pets and animal bills before NJ Senate committee May 31 Read More »

PSEG wins a big one as Murphy signs subsidy bill into law




By Frank Brill
EnviroPolitics Editor

Ending the will-he-sign or won’t-he-sign speculation, NJ Governor Phil Murphy today showed no hesitation in putting his signature on the controversial bill (S-2313) that gives PSEG Nuclear a public subsidy of up to $300 million a year.


The enactment came at a public ceremony held at a solar farm site in Monmouth Junction.


According to a news release from the Governor’s Office, the new law “establishes a Zero Emissions Certificate (ZEC) program to maintain New Jersey’s nuclear energy supply, which contributes close to 40 percent of the State’s electric capacity and is by far New Jersey’s largest source of carbon free energy. Plants seeking to participate in the program would be required, among other things, to demonstrate that they make a significant contribution to New Jersey air quality and that they are at risk of closure within three years.

“The new law gives the Board of Public Utilities broad latitude to engage outside experts to analyze nuclear power plant financial information and applications, and to adjust ZEC payments as necessary to meet a plant’s actual financial need. A plant seeking to participate in the program would be required to certify that it is not receiving funding from any other federal, regional, or state source that would negate the need for the ZEC. Employees at plants participating in the ZEC program would further be protected from layoffs for reasons other than underperformance or misconduct.” 


While the governor, Senate and Assembly sponsors, South Jersey legislators, PSEG corporate officers, employees and labor officials all appeared to be thrilled by the outcome, many others were not, including business groups like the NJ Business and Industry Association, the Chemistry Council of New Jersey and a number of environmental organizations.


NJTV News Correspondent Brenda Flanagan has details in the video above. See related news coverage at bottom of this post.


At the event, Murphy also signed a far-less controversial energy bill, A3723, that takes several steps to improve and expand New Jersey’s renewable energy programs, including a Renewable Energy Standard that requires 21 percent of the energy sold in the state be from Class I renewable energy sources by 2020; 35 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030.


The legislation also makes changes to the state’s energy programs by codifying New Jersey’s goal of 3,500 MW of offshore wind by 2030; requiring each utility to implement energy efficiency measures to reduce electricity usage by 2 percent and natural gas usage by 0.75 percent; setting up a community solar energy program to allow all state residents to benefit from solar energy, and codifying the state’s goal of achieving 600 MW of energy storage by 2021 and 2,000 MW by 2030.


Murphy also signed Executive Order 28 directing state agencies to develop an updated Energy Master Plan (EMP) that provides a path to 100 percent clean energy by 2050.



Related News Stories:
Clean Sweep for PSEG: gas pipelines, nuclear subsidies, renewable energy
New Jersey OKs $300M Annually to Rescue Nuclear Industry
Sierra Club: Murphy Sells Out: Signs PSEG Nuclear Subsidy 
Just what the PSEG ‘subsidy’ bill needs, more controversy 
Donald Trump wants the PSEG Nuclear subsidy bill vetoed 
Opinion: Why should NJ families subsidize nukes in PA?
Jersey electric customers may help pay Pennsy’s bills 
PSEG to pay $39M to PJM grid for bidding violations

Like this? Click to receive free updates

PSEG wins a big one as Murphy signs subsidy bill into law Read More »

Just what the PSEG ‘subsidy’ bill needs, more controversy

By Frank Brill
EnviroPolitics Editor


By May 31, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy will decide whether to sign, veto, or recommend changes to landmark-but highly controversial-legislation that would provide PSEG with public funding to keep its nuclear facilities operating and competitive against lower-cost natural gas energy.


The issue is complicated and will affect taxpayers, energy competitors, large-businesss energy users and public accountability (since  as the Public Advocate who represents the average Joe and Jane in energy rates issues, has been sidelined by the bill sponsors and has no effective role to play in this matter). The Board of Public Utilities, which some would argue has been a bit too chummy with the energy industry historically, will oversee the funding.  


The environmental component of the controversy is equally sticky. The Sierra Club and Environment New Jersey argue that, in propping up nuclear with public funds, the state will discouage the growth of clean-energy alterntives like wind and solar.  Bill supporters counter-argue that the legislation will keep alive an energy producer that is kinder to the environment, as it does not emit the harmful gases that come along with fracking and its end product.     


National environmental writer David Roberts now weighs in on the issue and, sidestepping the economic and oversight debate, concludes that the legislation is good and necessary for the environment. He writes:

New Jersey’s 2007 Global Warming Response Act set a goal of reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. That simply won’t be possible without almost completely decarbonizing the power sector.
But here’s the problem. The state’s nuclear plants are having trouble competing in energy markets (in part because they are not compensated for their climate-friendly attributes). Their owners — PSEG, which runs the 2.3-GW Salem and 1.2-GW Hope Creek plants, and Exelon Generation, which runs the 636-MW Oyster Creek plant — say that they will be forced to shut the plants down soon absent intervention. 
So New Jersey faces a choice. If its nuclear plants remain open and running, then new renewable energy will replace natural gas. If its nuclear plants close, then new renewable energy will replace nuclear. The former would reduce carbon emissions. The latter would not. (In fact, since renewable energy is unlikely to completely replace the giant gap left by a closed nuclear plant — recent nuclear retirements have mostly prompted more natural gas — it increases them.)  
The only way to reduce power-sector emissions in New Jersey is to have nuclear and renewable energy work together — to keep nuclear plants open as long as possible so that growth in renewables builds on top of them and replaces natural gas.
And that, miracle of miracles, is exactly the course New Jersey has chosen.

Uh oh, just what we need, more controversy, right?


Nonetheless, we found Roberts’ essay in Vox to be quite interesting and recommend that you give it a close reading. If you feel strongly one way or the other, we’d love to hear your arguments and hope that Gov. Murphy will, too.


You can contribute them by clicking the tiny ‘comments’ link at the bottom of this post or you can sound off on our Facebook page. 


Like this? Click to receive free updates



   

Just what the PSEG ‘subsidy’ bill needs, more controversy Read More »