Posts Tagged ‘environment’

Cash for Clunkers Interview

Written by Mike Pisauro on July 7th, 2009 in Federal, legislation | No Comments »

On June 24th, President Obama signed into law the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. A part of this appropriations act is the “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009″ or Cash for Clunkers as it is better known.

Prior to the passage of the act, I gave brief interview with Fox News on behalf of the New Jersey Environmental Lobby (I am their governmental affairs agent). The piece aired after the passage of bill and can be seen here. In a portion of the interview that did not air, I indicated that the House version of the bill was not an environmental bill and was not going to do much for the environment. The clip of me from the piece was in reference to the Senate version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Feinstein and Collins.

The Cash for Clunkers law defines a clunker as any car that gets 18 mpg and under. This definition is ok and not the problem. The real problem lies in the Act’s definition of fuel efficient vehicles. The act defines a fuel efficient car as almost any car that gets at least 22 mpg. This is 3 miles per gallon less than the actual average mpg of our fleet and 5.5 mpg less than what current regulations require. There are two tiers of vouchers. A person can get a $3,500 voucher is their new fuel efficient car is at least 4 mpg greater than what they trade-in (as long as it is at least 22 mpg.) A person can receive a $4,500 voucher if their new fuel efficient car is at least 10 mpg greater than the trade-in. Therefore, a person can trade in their 18 mpg gallon car for a 22 mpg call and get a $3,500 voucher. Also someone could trade in their 12 mpg car for a 22 mile per gallon car and get a $4,500 voucher. In contrast the Senate bill would provide vouchers for vehicles that got at least 25% than the current CAFE standard required.

I have a very hard time calling a car that gets less than the current fleet wide average and even less than what the law requires fuel efficient. I also have a very hard time justifying paying a voucher for such a program on environmental grounds. It would appear that the sponsors of the Senate version agree. While it may or may not be good for the economy and the auto industry, the Cash for Clunkers will not make any major improvements in the environment. As an environmental law, Cash for Clunkers is a clunker.

0 to 60- Permit Extension Act passes both houses.

Written by Mike Pisauro on June 24th, 2008 in legislation | 1 Comment »

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.

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.

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.

NJ moves closer to ocean protection with the Coastal and Ocean Protection Council

Written by Mike Pisauro on January 8th, 2008 in Ocean | 1 Comment »

Last night the Assembly passed A4332, that creates the New Jersey Coastal and Ocean Protection Council.  The Senate passed a similar bill back on December 10th.  Now the bills are awaiting the signature of the Governor.

In 1973 the New Jersey legislature passed the Coastal Areas Facility Review Act because, “certain portions of the coastal area are now suffering serious adverse environmental effects resulting from existing development activity impacts”  NJSA 13:19-2.   Unfortunately, CAFRA did not meet its promises and in 2003 and 2004 the Pews Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy both determined that our ocean and coasts are in critical condition.  For example the Pews commission found that:

       ·         more than 60 percent of our coastal rivers and bays are moderately to severely degraded by nutrient runoff.      ·         those species that we rely on commercially and recreational were in jeopardy from numerous causes.New Jersey’s coast is in the same boat as the remainder of the country.  Last summer saw garbage wash up on the shore, brown tides and fish kills.

The Coastal and Ocean Protection Council is the first step to making changes recommended by these Commissions and others. The Council will help DEP and other agencies coordinate their activities along the coast and in our oceans; to help formulate solutions to the problems that are facing this fragile, but important resource.  This Council’s work will not only improve our environment, but help enhance the economic viability of our tourism industry as well as the recreational and commercial fishing industry.  It is through the Council that we may begin to truly reach the goals set forth in 1973 with CAFRA, of stemming the, “continuing and ever-accelerating serious adverse economic, social and aesthetic effects . . . on the delicately balanced environment of that area.”  

Welcome to NJ Environmental Blog

Written by Mike Pisauro on January 7th, 2008 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Welecome to my first blog. With this blog I will look at environmental issues affecting New Jersey. In upcoming entries I will be talking about global warming, RGGI, renewable energy, and coastal issues. If there is a topic you would like to read about, please let me know at Mike@fplegal.com

-Mike Pisauro