11.19.08
Posted in Politics at 5:31 am by Mike Pisauro
Gov. Corzine has selected Mark Mauriello to head the DEP. Mr. Mauriello will take over immediately pending his confirmation by the Senate. The announcement is here. This is a period of change not only as to who is heading DEP, but within its programs. DEP has pushing the privatization of site remediation, permit efficiency, disbanding the Division of Science, and attempting, with BPU’s help, to tackle global warming. DEP will need strong leadership that keeps the eye on the ball, protecting the environment. I hope Acting Commissioner Mauriello steers this massive ship in the right direction.
Permalink
11.18.08
Posted in Clean Up, Ocean, Politics, Renewable Energy at 7:55 am by Mike Pisauro
New Jersey, as does many other states, has a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS). This requires utilities to either generate a certain percentage of the energy used in the state from renewable sources or to pay others to generate that electricity from renewable sources. This payment is in the form a renewable energy credits (RECs). People and companies that have wind turbines or solar panels (among other sources) create RECs for each megawatt of electricity that is generated. These RECs are then purchased by the utilities to fulfill their RPS obligations.
Currently NJ requires that 22.5% of electricity comes from renewable sources by May 31, 2021. Because the BPU and the State of New Jersey want to encourage the development of solar energy, the RPS has a carve out for solar energy. By May 31, 2021 2.12% of our electricity must come for solar systems. The remainder of the 20.38% is required to come from Class I and Class II renewables. Wind and solar are examples of Class I. Hydro and resource recovery facilities are examples of Class II systems.
Two things are occurring that will change this landscape. First, the energy master plan seeks to increase the RPS requirements. The RPS will be increasing to 30% once BPU proposes new regulations to implement the EMP. Again, there will be a carve out for solar energy. Under the EMP the state is expecting 2,120 gwh of solar energy which is an increase of gigawatts. The State is also seeking 3000 MW from offshore wind by 2020.
The second new event is that the BPU is considering a carve out for offshore wind. This would make two class I carve outs. BPU is looking to see whether it is feasible or advisable for there to be a carve out to encourage offshore wind farms so that the EMP’s goals of 1,000 MWs can be reached by 2012 and 3,000 by 2020. BPU is setting up a stakeholder process to determine whether if to set up a carve our; how to set up a carve out, what the schedule for the RPS should be and other factors. A copy of the BPU’s order is here.
The solar carve out is probably a major factor in NJ being the second in the nation in energy generated from solar systems. California is number one. The question is can a carve out for offshore wind accomplish the same thing. Also, is a carve out even necessary?
Permalink
11.14.08
Posted in Politics at 2:26 pm by Mike Pisauro
Commissioner Jackson could potentially be the shortest serving chief of staff in NJ history. Effective Dec. 1st, she will no longer be DEP commissioner but will be Governor John Corzine’s chief of staff. She was also named by President-elect Obama’s team to be part of his transition teams for Energy and Natural Resources, i.e. searching of a new EPA administrator. She is also being considered to the position of EPA Administrator along with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Carol Browner, Kathleen McGinity and others. Also, there is still no word on who the new commissioner of DEP will be.
Permalink
11.07.08
Posted in Clean Up at 2:47 pm by Mike Pisauro
There is a general consensus, both in the environmental community as well as the regulated community, that New Jersey’s process to clean up contaminated properties is broken. New Jersey was once a model and pioneer on cleanups. Now contaminated sites linger. For the last several years that has been a string of cases dealing with contaminated sites, Kidde Kollege, W.R. Grace, Ford’s Edison plant, Ringwood and probably others. A Federal government report came out critical of how DEP has handled cleanups. The State has recognized that something has to be done.
After a lengthy and long process that began over a year ago we have reached another milestone. Back in June the legislature released a bill to revamp our site clean up process, S1897/A2962. Now, DEP has released their own bill on how they would like to see this revamping occur. From what DEP said last week their bill has been crafted after many consultations with the Chairmen of the Senate and Assembly environment committees. This major revamping will get a public airing on November 13th, when the legislature holds a joint Senate Environment and Assembly Environment and Solid Waste hearing to discuss DEP’s bill. It will then be scheduled for another hearing(s) where the bill will be voted on by the committees.
DEP’s bill (here) is 130 pages long and I have not had a chance to read it as of yet, but based upon a meeting last week, this is what I understand to be in the bill. Many things may have changed from that meeting till the release of the bill on Wed as DEP was still working on the draft. I will have another post once I have had a chance to review and digest the bill. Also, here is a link to DEP’s stakeholder site where there is more information regarding the stakeholder process and prior testimony on the state of site remediation.
First, DEP will start a licensed site professional program (LSP). These LSP will be the ones responsible for determining how to clean up (with some exceptions), the review of the cleanup and then the final review and determination that the site has been cleanup in accordance with New Jersey law. The LSP is responsible for certifying to the DEP that all documents submitted to the DEP is accurate and in accordance with the law.
The LSPs will be selected and paid directly by the responsible party. A proposal from the environmental community that the LSPs be selected by the DEP for each particular site and that the DEP pay the LSPs from an escrow fund funded by the responsible parties has been rejected. This LSP program has been modeled after the Massachusetts program.
LSPs will be subject to random audits and a “strict” code of ethics. These audits could be of multiple cites that are being handled or had been handled by the LSP. DEP’s position is that the threat of audits, the code of ethics is enough to make sure there is no undue influence on the LSPs.
There will remain a class of contaminated sites that DEP has more oversight responsibility for. These may be active sites whose owners or responsible parties have difficult and slow to clean up their properties. These “Tier 1” sites may also be those that pose the greatest risk to natural resources because of the nature of the contamination or its location to natural resources.
Second, the DEP will no longer issue No Further Action letters. These NFAs would be issued once a site was clean-up and were relied on by the regulated community and financial institutions to buy and sell formerly contaminated sites. Now the LSP will certify the site is clean and DEP will not require further clean up as long as what was done was protective of the environment and human health; that it was actually done or that contamination was not missed in the original site investigation. I can’t see how this one would be acceptable to the regulated community, but we will see.
Third, DEP is asking that the statutes of limitations (SOL) affecting contaminated sites be consistent with each other. For example the statute of limitations for natural resource damages is longer than that for cost recovery. DEP is proposing that all SOL’s been the same.
Fourth, DEP is going to (maybe) receive more authority to pick or require certain remedies at educational facilities, child daycares, and residential developments. This may in fact be an illusionary increase in authority.
Fifth, during the stakeholder process DEP found a large percentage (I think the number is like 30+% but I don’t remember) of applications that come into the Department were deficient. DEP will institute strict timelines and procedures on how to return a deficient application and for the LSP to provide the revised or corrected application.
Once I have had a chance to look at the bill I will post further comments and correct those things that may have changed from the meeting last week to Wed’s release.
Permalink
11.03.08
Posted in Uncategorized at 2:32 pm by Mike Pisauro
Over the last several weeks major changes have been announced at New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. First, Commissioner Lisa Jackson will be leaving DEP to become Governor Corzine’s chief of staff on Dec. 1st. Commissioner Jackson’s replacement has not been announced as of yet. Several names have been floating as possible replacements. How is this transfer going to affect DEP?
The second change is that DEP has announced they are going to disband the Division of Science, Research and Technology. In its stead will be an Office of Science and an advisory board. I believe that it is vitally important that there be a robust science component within DEP that is actively engaged in scientific research and review of others research. Without this component than DEP is at the mercy of outside organizations for their information. Information that forms the basis of regulations, permits, etc. This has the potential of allowing bad science to become generally accepted and used for the basis of protecting our environment. Industry funded research should not be the basis DEP uses to write regulations, technical guidance or issue permits.
Permalink
« Previous entries