Carteret’s $7.4M settlement with former smelter operator

U.S. Metals operations in Carteret, NJ more than 30 years ago

Luke Nozicka reports for NJ.com:


CARTERET — The borough has reached a more than $7 million settlement with the owner of an old metals-refining factory to complete its cleanup of contaminated areas at its former smelter site.

The settlement requires U.S. Metals Refining Company to pay $4.25 million to end further litigation and to fund environmental and public health initiatives in the borough, Mayor Daniel Reiman said. The company will also pay an additional $3.15 million during the next 10 years.
U.S. Metals is the former operator of a smelter plant at 300 Middlesex Ave. that shut down more than 30 years ago. It operated in the borough from 1903 to 1986.
The company, a subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan, first entered a consent order to clean the site with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in 1988.
But there was no plan to address potential contamination in hundreds of public and private areas, including the yards of residential homes, that may have migrated off-site, the mayor said. So the borough in 2012 reached an agreement with the company to investigate and clean possible off-site contamination.
In a statement, the mayor said for 20 years the state Department of Environmental Protection had “largely forgot about the borough and its long-gone smelter.”

Read the full story

Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

Carteret’s $7.4M settlement with former smelter operator Read More »

As Christie blows away, wind energy may re-emerge in NJ

Dino Grandoni reports for the Washington Post:
For years, New Jersey’s blustery Republican governor, Chris Christie, has slowed efforts to cultivate wind farms off the state’s coast, wind developers say.
 
In 2010, during his first term, Christie signed a landmark wind energy law designed to encourage development of the renewable resource off the state’s gusty shore. But the public utility board controlled by Christie appointees never fully implemented a plan meant to incentivize that development. In New Jersey, turbines off the seaside horizon remained a mirage that never materialized.
New Jersey residents just elected a Democrat to replace Christie — one with an ambitious alternative energy plan. 
One of the biggest energy-related consequences of the 2017 election is the gust of life breathed into offshore wind development in the densely populated and energy-hungry Garden State.
Gov.-elect Phil Murphy wants New Jersey to get all its energy from “clean” sources by the middle of the century.
To do so, Murphy promised to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, under which nine East Coast states cap and trade carbon dioxide to reduce climate-warming emissions from the power sector. And he set what his campaign calls “the most ambitious offshore wind target in the country” by promising to bring 3,500 megawatts of offshore wind power online by 2030.
Wind companies itching to build off the Jersey Shore are pleased with the prospect.
Murphy’s “got a really good handle on this industry, not only from an economic perspective but from an environmental one as well,” said Paul Rich, director of project development at US Wind. “I think he’s poised to be bold where others have gotten cold feet.”
“We are hopeful that a Murphy administration will continue to move New Jersey forward in the development of a robust offshore wind industry,” said Thomas Brostrom, the North American president of Orsted (formerly DONG Energy).
Although land-based wind energy has taken off in the United States — pushing wind-generating capacity above that of hydropower by the end of 2016, more than any other renewable source — the nation has built only one commercial offshore wind farm, off the coast of Rhode Island’s Block Island, despite the federal government awarding nearly a dozen commercial offshore wind leases for locations off the coasts of Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia.
With Christie leaving office, New Jersey could be next. Orsted, a Danish firm, along with US Wind, a subsidy of the Italian energy company Renexia, each hold federal leases to build off New Jersey. Another firm, Fisherman Energy, has proposed to build a wind farm in state waters near Atlantic City, as well.
While declining worldwide, the upfront costs of offshore wind are still much higher than onshore, and require more subsidization from federal and local governments to make financial sense to investors.
Until it expires in 2019, offshore wind developers can take advantage of an investment tax credit from the federal government. For seven years, New Jersey has had a law requiring the state to grant its own subsidy, too.
“We’re going to work to make New Jersey No. 1 in offshore wind production,” Christie said in 2011, not long after signing that measure.
But the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), whose chairman is chosen by the governor, never finalized rules for that subsidy.
Christie “realized that he needed to jettison anything that looked moderate” in order to win over conservatives nationwide “when people started looking at him as president timber,” said Jim Lanard, chief executive of ‎‎Magellan Wind.
Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

As Christie blows away, wind energy may re-emerge in NJ Read More »

Senate tax bill much kinder to renewables than House’s

Unlike the House bill, the Senate’s proposal keeps renewable tax credits in place.


Emma Foehringer Merch reports for gtm:



After the the House’s version of a tax overhaul bill slashed clean energy credits, the industry expressed widespread anxiety. But the Senate’s draft mostly spares incentives for clean energy projects.
The House bill proposed slashing the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind by over a third. It also eliminates a $7,500 credit for electric-vehicle purchases. The solar industry would see an end to the Investment Tax Credit after 2027 for commercial and utility-scale solar projects, and an end to the 10 percent credit for residential projects (which is already set to expire in 2021). Under current law, commercial projects would still benefit from a 10 percent tax credit after 2021.
The bill does extend a $6 billion nuclear credit to benefit the one nuclear project now underway, Georgia’s Vogtle plant.
The Senate’s bill is decidedly more gentle. It keeps the $7,500 EV credit and the previously established credit step-down for solar and wind agreed to in 2015.
“The Senate bill, if passed as-is, I imagine would have no impact on the Investment Tax Credit or the Production Tax Credit,” said Gerald Feige, counsel in the tax group of Shearman & Sterling LLP.
Under the current agreement, wind projects that begin construction in 2017 receive 80 percent of the original tax credit, 60 percent in 2018 and 40 percent in 2019, before the credit expires. For solar, projects receive a 30 percent investment tax credit through 2019, 26 percent in 2020, and 22 percent in 2021. Past that year, commercial solar projects maintain a tax credit of 10 percent, while residential projects get zero.
Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

Senate tax bill much kinder to renewables than House’s Read More »

Guide to incoming NJ Gov. Murphy’s Transition


New Jersey POLITICOPRO is offering a nifty guide to incoming Gov. Phil Murphy’s transition.



The free download includes:

  • Gubernatorial Transition Timeline
  • 5 Policy Areas to Watch 
  • Inside Team Murphy (profiles of Murphy and Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver)
  • Gubernatorial Transition Checklist 
Sure, it’s an enticement to subscribe to their service.
So what. Smart marketing and something of value.
Check it out.  

Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column — >>

Guide to incoming NJ Gov. Murphy’s Transition Read More »

NJ lawmakers, DEP, bumping heads over Highlands septics

Lawmakers moving to block agency proposal, could use rarely employed tool to rescind rules judged inconsistent with legislative intent

Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight:

The Legislature is moving once again to potentially block a controversial proposed rule that would expand development in the Highlands, a step critics argue would threaten drinking water supplies for six million residents.

A new resolution (SCR-163) has been introduced in the Senate that would prevent the state Department of Environmental Protection from implementing the rule, which is pending adoption by the agency after months of dispute over its impact on the region.

Earlier this summer, final approval was given to an identical resolution stipulating the new rule is inconsistent with legislative intent of the 2004 law creating the Highlands Act, a measure adopted to protect roughly 800,000 acres of forested lakes, hills, and land that supplies drinking water to more than half the state.

But the department refused to amend or withdraw the rule, setting up a confrontation with lawmakers if the resolution wins approval again. Under a rarely used tool, the Legislature can revoke rules that are deemed inconsistent with laws passed by that branch of government.


Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

NJ lawmakers, DEP, bumping heads over Highlands septics Read More »

Investigation into EPA scientist edict sought by 10 senators

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt – Saul Loeb-AFP Getty Images


Georgina Gustin reports for Inside Climate News:


A group of Senate Democrats is calling for an expanded investigation into efforts by the Trump Environmental Protection Agency to effectively push independent scientists off key EPA advisory boards and replace them with scientists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries.
In a letter sent to the Government Accountability Office on Thursday, the 10 senators asked the GAO to investigate a new directive, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Oct. 31, that restricts any scientist who has received EPA funding from serving on the agency’s scientific advisory panels.
Pruitt said the move was intended to clear up conflicts of interest and to rid advisory panel members of financial ties to the agency. But scientific groups, academics and advocacy organizations have all pointed out that it will mean the most experienced scientists—whose qualifications earn them government grants in the first place—will no longer be able to serve in these roles. 
“The double-standard is striking: an academic scientist that receives an EPA grant for any purpose cannot provide independent advice on a completely different subject matter on any of EPA’s science advisory boards,” the senators wrote, “while industry scientists are presumed to have no inherent conflict even if their research is entirely funded by a company with a financial stake in an advisory board’s conclusions.”
Five days after Pruitt issued the directive, The Washington Post reported that he appointed 66 new members to advisory panels, many of them with ties to industries the agency regulates. Several panel members stepped down.
Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

Investigation into EPA scientist edict sought by 10 senators Read More »