Yesterday, a much amended permit extension act was passed in both houses. It was approved by a vote of 70 -9 – 0 in the Assembly and 33 – 2 in the Senate. It now awaits the Governor’s signature. It took just 33 days from introduction to passage in the legislature.
Archive for June, 2008
0 to 60- Permit Extension Act passes both houses.
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 24th, 2008 in legislation | 1 Comment »A small little miracle
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 19th, 2008 in Endangered Species | No Comments »After a very long day at the statehouse where the Permit Extension Act was being debated, I got a press release emailed to me by DEP. I am linking to it here. When you think about how developed New Jersey is, it is amazing to me that in this day and age that we can find a rare flower never seen in New Jersey before. Just goes to show that we do not know it all and that nature is alway able to amaze.
The bullet train that will not stop
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 18th, 2008 in legislation | 1 Comment »As I have noted in past blogs, the New Jersey Legislature is rapidly pushing through a bill that would toll the running of time on almost any governmental approval, permit, authorization, etc. It is scheduled to be considered in the Senate Economic Growth Committee tomorrow and in the full assembly on Monday. This bill is on the rocket path. It was introduced less than one month ago and will likely both houses by the end of next week. One wishes that good legislation would move so quickly. Bills involving renewable energy have taken months in in some instances over a year to move through committees and get considered by the legislature. Last year, there was a bill that would exempt renewable energy systems from increasing the value of your home for property taxes. That bill could not make it to the finish line last year and had to be reintroduced. It was a bill that not only would have a positive impact on the environment but also on the economy.
Despite the rhetoric the permit extension act will have no economic impact in the very near future. The day after this bill gets passed the economy will still be bad, financing will not be available for projects and the state will still be too expensive for many of us. One wishes that real economy boosting measures received the same effort as this false one.
Permit Extension Act may not be so extended.
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 12th, 2008 in legislation | No Comments »Today, the Assembly version of the Permit Extension Act of 2008 was heard in the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee. It was last heard in the Housing and Local Government Committee where it was passed out of the committee without hesitation. The version that was passed out of the Environment and Solid Waste Committee was vastly different than the one that was introduced.
For example the original bill reached back to January 1, 2006 and revived the permits and extended those permits until 2012 plus two years. The amended bill only goes back as far as the beginning of this year and it only extends permits to December 31, 2010 plus the remaining length of the permit up till one year. For example if you had one day left on your permit your permit is tolled until January 1, 2011. If you had two years left on your permit that permit is good until December 31, 2011 not 2012.
The amended bill excludes environmentally sensitive areas, certain Highlands and Pinelands areas, and several environmental programs. The programs that are excluded are water quality planning act, center designations under the coastal area facility act or the state planning act.
Most telling on how bad this bill was, the EPA issued a letter to the legislative leaders saying the bill was bad. The regional administrator wrote, “I am concerned that if enacted, this law might be inconsistent with a number of federal environmental law . . .” The letter can be seen here EPA letter to NJ. Commissioner Jackson also testified to misgivings on the bill.
The members of the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee especially Chairman McKeon were great. The Senate version of the bill will be heard in the Senate Economic Growth Committee.
State takes another step to promote renewable energy
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 10th, 2008 in Renewable Energy, legislation | No Comments »Yesterday, the Senate Economic Growth committee passed three bills that will have a positive impact on the adoption of renewable energy in this State. While these bills do not put into the place the true policies that we need in order to move us from fossil fuels to renewables, it is better than nothing.
S1299 revises the State’s land use law by providing that solar and wind facilities are permitted use in all industrial zones where there are 20 acres or more. This is a step forward as prior to this bill, a town could zone its jurisdiction in such a way that wind and solar facilities were not permitted. Once these renewable systems are not permitted anyone who wanted to install the systems would have to apply to the township for a variance. Variances can very quickly become expensive, time consuming, and the outcome of the application is somewhat questionable.
S1303 adds a definiation to our land use laws. In order to obtain a “D” variance an applicant would have to show that their project is inherently beneficial, that it does not negatively impact the public good and does not substantially impair the municipality’s zone plan and zoning ordinances. Our current land use law has never defined the term -inherently beneficial. This bill codifies the term and provides that solar and wind systems are considered to be inherently beneficial. Again this is a step forward. It would be much better not to have to go for a variance, but if you do it is nice that part of your proofs are given to you by the State legislature.
S1538 would allow a farmer, who has sold his development rights to the State so that the farm is preserved under the farmland preservation program, to install solar or wind facilities for their own use. The farmer could also enter into an agreement with a third party for that third party to build the renewable energy system on the farmers property and the energy could be sold to the grid. Both scenerios are permitted as long as the renewable energy system does not substantially impact agricultural use of the property. The bill then goes one step further by stating that the right to install renewable energy systems is a agricultural activity; therefore, it is protected under the Right To Farm act.
These three bills again move us one step closer to a true policy that promotes renewable energy without the state. Hopefully we will quickly take the remaining steps.
New Jersey wants to stop time
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 5th, 2008 in legislation | No Comments »I came out of an assembly hearing today at which I testified against a bill. I wanted to provide my quick thoughts about the bill and will try to go into a more in-depth review latter. The Assembly Housing and Local Government committee consider A2867 the Permit Extension Act of 2008. The gist of the bill is that the state is in a bad economy and that environmental regulations are in part a cause of that bad economy. So to rectify the problem the bill will extend almost any and all governmental permits or approvals from 2006 to 2012. This will bring back to life permits or approvals that may have already expired in 2006 or 2007 or up to now. Any permit or approval a person has today that is set to expire between now and 2012 has an automatic extension until 2014. The theory behind this is that we need to give the economy a jolt and by extending the permits up to and past 2012 the housing and construction industry will bring the economy back.
I believe this is a false premise. To be sure New Jersey as well as the rest of the country is in bad economic shape. And to be sure it take time to get the various permits and approvals from local government and state government before you can build an office building or housing development. What I do not believe is that those permits that expired anytime around January 1, 2006 expired because of the economy. I suspect most of those permits expired because the permit holder, for whatever reason, decided not to proceed with the project.
I was wonder how extending permits to 2012 will help the economy today. Those projects that have permits today and that do not expire tomorrow can still be built. They are not being built because of the financial markets are not lending the money. At least with office buildings and factories, these projects are not being built because there is not a demand for these buildings. Industry and business are not expanding they are contracting. The soaring price of energy, of oil, of the State’s property taxes are having a negative impact. I do not see how and no one testified today that the passage of this bill will have any positive impact on our economy today or tomorrow.
The other thing I did not hear from anyone today was, “what was the economic impact of the permit extension act of 1992?” For you see we have done this before. So there should be data to show what a great thing this is. If it was such a great success, I would have supposed that someone would have told the committee that after passage of the bill that building and construction soared in 1993 and 1994 and 1995. There was no such testimony. We did hear that the act had to be extended.
If this is such a great thing, where is the cold hard facts supporting what a great job it did for the economy in 1992, 1993, etc. I would truly be interested in seeing that information, because I do know that the passage of this bill will not have a positive impact on are already polluted waters and air. I do believe that passage of this bill will put into grave jeopardy and chance of reaching the Global Warming Response Act’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020. I believe that passage of this bill will make it almost impossible for the State to meet its goals in the energy master plan to reduce energy consumption through enhanced building codes. It will also undo many positive laws and regulations that have been put into place since January 1, 2006.
Wait a minute environmental laws weren't meant to protect?
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 4th, 2008 in Clean Air, Endangered Species, Global Warming | No Comments »Back in April, President Bush unveiled his climate change plan. I wrote about it here. In his press conference he mentioned his disdain for how our present environmental laws are being used. He said:
“Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate changes. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate climate. . . . If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent . . . .” President Bush’ announcement on April 16, 2008.
Additionally, the Secretary of Interior repeated the Decider’s position with the announcement of the polar bear listing that, “the ESA was never intended to regulate global climate change.” (here)
Well that just got me thinking, were they right? Are the laws that were designed to protect the environment thirty years ago not suitable for protecting the environment today? Are these laws not able to protect against one of the greatest threats we are likely to encounter? Are the Clean Air Act (CAA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or the Endangered Species Act (EPA), being twisted beyond their reach. So I started to review the statutory language of these laws and this is what I found….
The Clean Air Act (CAA), in the form we know it, was originally enacted in 1970. The CAA starts of with:
“The Congress finds – (2) that the growth in the amount and complexity of air pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development, and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, including injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground transportation.” 42 U.S.C.A. 7501.
The purpose of the CAA is: “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” Gee, doesn’t it seem like we could very well have been talking about global warming? Isn’t transportation the cause of about 30 to 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the country? Doesn’t global warming threaten to alter where and when agricultural products can grow? Isn’t the threat of rising sea levels, increased storm activity and increased intensity of storms a cause of damage and deterioration of property? Aren’t the increased temperatures and number of days above 100 degrees a cause for concern on a public health basis? All of these things are predicted to occur under most global warming scenarios.
At least in the realm of transportation, the CAA defines air pollutants as “any physical, chemical, . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” 42 U.S.C. 7602. Again, at least when looking at motor vehicles contribution to global warming, it seems clear that a plain reading of the statute would indicate that the CAA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, looking at the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the policies and goals of the statute provide, “The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, . . . the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, . . . to use all practicable means and measures, . . . to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist.” 42 U.S.C.A. 4331(a).
NEPA, which is probably one of the shortest environmental statutes, requires that the government “include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible office on – (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented” 42 U.S.C.A. 4332.
Again, according to a plain reading of NEPA, it looks like the effects of global warming clearly represent an environmental impact that NEPA’s statutory language would encompass.
The ESA, which some consider to the be the strongest of the environmental laws, provides, “various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;” 16 U.S.C.A. 1531(a). The purpose of the act is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.”
The ESA additionally provides that a species should be listed when:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; . . .
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 16 U.S.C.A. 1533(a)(1).
It seems clear from the FWS’s listing, the polar bear is threatened with extinction as the result of the destruction or modification of its habitat. That habitat is being destroyed or modified as a result of global warming. It is also clear that our current regulatory scheme is failing to address global warming and that humanity is causing, or at the very least significantly contributing to, global warming. Three of the five factors for listing a species have been met. It again seems clear that a plain reading of the ESA reveals that it, in fact, is a tool that can be used to combat global warming in that it requires the government to address the causes of the endangerment of a species.
While I will have to probably agree with our Decider in Chief that most legislators in 70′s probably did not think about global warming when they wrote any of these statutes or voted for them, that does not mean the authority and responsibilities within these statutes do not encompass global warming. If we accept that these statutes are not authorized to address global warming that is somewhat like saying that someone who discharges a brand new chemical into a waters does not need a permit because the chemical did not exist when we wrote the clean water act; therefore the clean water act does not cover this new chemical. That is silly and so is the contention that NEPA, ESA and CAA do not and cannot be tools we have at our disposal to help address global warming.
New Federal Global Warming Bill
Written by Mike Pisauro on June 3rd, 2008 in Clean Air, Global Warming | No Comments »Two weeks ago, Sen. Boxer (D) introduced a new bill to address global warming. The Bill S2555 would overturn the EPA decision to deny California’s petition for the ability to enforce enhanced emissions on motor vehicles. I believe this was the first time a California request for a waiver was ever denied.
The Clean Air Act preempts state regulation of motor vehicle emissions. Because California was experiencing some of the worst air pollution in the County, California was granted special rights to request a waiver of this federal preemption. Once California receives a waiver from EPA than other states may adopt the California regulations as their own. New Jersey, and several other states, have already put into place regulations adopting the California regulations pending California’s receipt of a federal waiver. For those of you interested in reading NJ’s proposal it can be found here.
Motor vehicles are responsible for approximately 34% of New Jersey’s emissions. Therefore, for New Jersey to reach the goals under the Global Warming Act, NJ is going to have to address the transportation’s impact on global warming. Sen. Boxer’s bill is one step in addressing motor vehicle’s contribution to the situation and undoes just another roadblock set up by the Bush administration.