 |
|
 |
Renewable
Energy Incentives
Renewable energy can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, reduce
harmful pollution from energy production and consumption, and reduce
our emissions of greenhouse gases. However, when compared to traditional
sources of energy, most renewables are still in relatively early
stages of technological development, and have very different cost
structures, with high-up front costs and low operating costs. To
help technologies develop and markets adapt to changes, both federal
and state governments have offered a variety of tax incentives for
the manufacture, installation, and use of renewables. At this time,
a federal energy tax incentive for the wind industry is up for renewal
but is being held back until the energy bill is passed. While the
federal incentive is stalled, states have an opportunity to act.
State tax incentives can be used in many ways to promote new and
cleaner ways of doing business. They have been used successfully
to help new technologies, such as solar energy and wind power, achieve
economies of scale and move toward commercial viability, and have
also been useful in helping to create markets for these products.
These incentives benefit states in two ways. First, they encourage
greater use of these clean energy technologies, thus reducing the
hazardous environmental and human health impacts associated with
traditional energy sources. Second, these incentives encourage the
development of renewable industries in the state as part of economic
development efforts. For more information on how your state can
adopt renewable energy incentives, visit: http://www.serconline.org/RenewableEnergyIncentives/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
New
Jersey & Connecticut Target Air Standards (New Haven
Register 1/9; Star Ledger 1/9)
http://www.newhavenregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10777359&BRD=1281&PAG=461&
dept_id=517515&rfi=6
http://www.nj.com/statehouse/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1073633472155490.xml
Connecticut and New Jersey appear poised to adopt the proposed low-emission
vehicle standards, or "California" standards, that would
require automakers to sell an increasing percentage of clean, advanced-technology
vehicles, such as gas hybrids, and meet stricter standards for all
new cars, starting in 2008. The Connecticut Fund for the Environment
(CFE) and three state legislators -- Senators Anisovich and Looney
and Rep. Widlitz -- teamed up to push for passage of a bill that
would adopt the stricter emissions standards as New York, Massachusetts,
and Vermont have done. A similar bill passed the Assembly Appropriations
Committee in New Jersey last week. The Senate also amended its version
of the bill to mirror the Assembly version, removing a sunset provision
environmentalists had opposed. Both versions will go to the full
legislature on January 12. According to the CFE, which wrote a report
with Environmental Defense, Connecticut's air quality is among the
worst in the nation, with motor vehicles a major cause because they
emit more than 40 percent of the total toxic chemicals in our air.
In New Jersey, a recent study shows that all counties exceed federal
standards for ozone, the asthma-inducing pollutant, to which cars
contribute. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Wisconsin
"Job Creation Act" Would Create Environmental Havoc
(Capital Times 1/8; Wisconsin State Journal 1/8)
http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/64787.php
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/64848.php
Wisconsin AB 655, known as the "Job Creation Act," has
been trumpeted by Republican legislative leaders as a sweeping regulatory
reform bill that would make it easier for businesses to operate,
by accelerating approval of air and water permits. Actually, it
is a bill that compromises the health of Wisconsin's environment.
With little notice to the public and heavy involvement by the state's
various business lobbyists, the bill was originally introduced with
only days remaining in the regular 2003 legislative session. After
protest, from both the public and Democratic legislators, the bill's
authors were asked to scale back some of the provisions that would
weaken Wisconsin's environmental laws. In December, a compromise
was reached in principle, but the new "compromise" bill,
according to an internal analysis prepared by administration officials,
does not contain the compromises agreed upon. According to a memo
from two Department of Natural Resources staffers to the agency's
chief negotiators and the governor's legislative liaison, the bill
"reverts to many of the provisions of the original drafts of
SB 313/AB 655 and will lead to significant habitat destruction and
adverse impacts on public rights in navigable waters." One
provision contained in the new bill, touted as the "final bill,"
sanctions the use of "general" permits, which are much
less regulated, and would be issued for a broad range of activities
that affect lakes and streams. The new version also fails to restore
existing statutory standards that protect water quality, habitat,
or other rights in public waters. Similar to its first introduction,
drafts of the amended version were first made available for review
at 8 a.m. on January 7, and the Assembly Committee on Job Creation
began a hearing on AB 655 at 8 a.m. on January 8, in which the amended
version was adopted. No public hearings were held on the new version.
Wisconsin's Attorney General voiced concern, saying that it would
be difficult to evaluate the implications of the of 79-page bill
in such a short time. Amidst all of this, no proof has been offered
whether or not the bill would actually create jobs. It seems that
the supporters of the bill are not interested in actually creating
jobs or in having a full and fair hearing of their proposal. Instead,
they are pushing their bill through the legislative process as fast
as they can, without public input or discussion. Perhaps, they are
afraid that such discussion would reveal that, while this bill does
nothing to create jobs, it does plenty to weaken environmental standards. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Maryland
Governor Proposes Sewage Fee to Protect Chesapeake Bay
(Baltimore Sun 1/9)
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-te.md.sewage09jan09,0,2166233.story?coll=bal-local-headlines
Marylanders who flush into municipal sewage systems would
see their water bills increase by $30 a year under a Chesapeake
Bay cleanup plan unveiled last night by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich.
The $2.50 monthly surcharge would raise $66 million a year
to upgrade Maryland's 66 largest sewage treatment plants and
would enable them to cut the amount of harmful nutrients released
into the bay. Owners of multifamily residential buildings
without individual sewage bills would be charged a fee for
each unit, leaving it to them to pass the charges along to
their tenants. Businesses would be charged $2.50 a month for
each 250 gallons of daily sewage they produce. In addition
to the new sewage fee, the governor proposed a nonprofit "Chesapeake
Bay Recovery Fund," which would seek private contributions
to pay for oyster restoration, underwater grass planting,
and similar activities. Discharges from wastewater-treatment
plants account for about 20 percent of pollution in the Bay.
Agriculture accounts for 40 percent, and the rest comes from
sources that include air pollution from power plants and auto
emissions. The jurisdictions of the bay watershed -- Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, West Virginia,
and Washington, D.C. -- have agreed to cut the flow of nutrients
significantly by the end of this decade. |
| back
to top |
| |
Massachusetts
Highway Department Going Green (Boston Globe 1/8)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/01/08/highway_dept_going_green/
The Massachusetts Highway Department recently purchased 150
vehicles that run on compressed natural gas, which will drastically
reduce and, in some cases, eliminate air pollution. The purchase
is the first step toward replacing at least three-quarters
of the state transportation agency's 689-vehicle fleet with
cleaner-burning cars and trucks, which is required by state
law. The clean-burning vehicles cost $3.6 million; $2.9 million
of which will be paid for by the federal government through
a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant. The state also
plans to build five new compressed natural gas fueling stations,
at a cost of up to $1 million each, though federal reimbursement
of 80 percent of that cost is also expected. State Transportation
Secretary Daniel A. Grabauskas said his agency looks at the
environmental impact of every transportation decision that
is made. However, Jeremy Marin, head of the Massachusetts
chapter of the Sierra Club, said more could be done. "Anything
the state does to reduce emissions is a good thing, but how
about spending a few million on improving public transportation
and subway stations that are falling apart?" Marin said.
"They could spend that money more wisely, if their goal
is pollution reduction." Marin also questioned why the
state elected to buy compressed natural gas-powered vehicles,
which require the special filling stations. He said hybrid
gas-electric vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, reduce emissions,
are practical, and use proven and increasingly popular technology. |
| back
to top |
| |
Maryland
Drafts Bill to Spur Toxic Site Renewal (Baltimore
Sun 1/2)
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-te.md.brownfields02jan02,0,4671720.story?coll=bal-local-headlines
To spur cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated industrial
properties, Gov. Ehrlich's administration is drafting legislation
that would enhance Maryland's voluntary brownfields program.
The state's brownfields program is designed to clean up properties
contaminated by industrial waste or pollution, making them
safe for new users. The proposal would significantly increase
application fees charged to developers, require public meetings
about all new projects, and enable the state to impose harsher
penalties on property owners who fail to follow through on
cleanup orders. To win developers' support, state officials
want to speed the process of review and approval by the Maryland
Department of the Environment, enabling projects to move forward
more quickly. The proposal also expands the types of brownfields
eligible for the program, allowing businesses to redevelop
parts of polluted properties, but not complete sites, if the
contaminated areas do not pose a risk to human health -- a
provision environmentalists particularly object to. Neither
environmental advocates nor industry lobbyists are satisfied
with everything expected to be in the bill. Representatives
of both groups say they are waiting to see the exact wording
of the proposal. For more information on how your state can
address its brownfields, visit: http://www.serconline.org/brownfields/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
New
Jersey to Implement Stronger Clean Water Rules (Asbury
Park Press 1/3)
http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,880862,00.html
As early as next Monday, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) is expected to adopt clean water rules that
restrict development and ban construction within 300 feet
of streams and other waterways. The new regulations will prohibit
builders from allowing storm water runoff to flow into waterways,
requiring them instead to funnel the runoff back onto their
own properties. Towns will also be required to place screens
on storm sewer inlets to reduce waterway pollution. The new
rules go beyond what federal regulations require. Although
the DEP is still calculating exactly how much land the new
regulations will affect, the buffer could restrict development
on up to 300,000 acres statewide. That possibility has excited
environmentalist groups but worries developers. |
| back
to top |
| |
Michigan
Decision on Water Withdrawal Could Have Repercussions
(FightingBob.com 1/1)
http://fightingbob.com/article.cfm?articleID=157
November's decision in the Mecosta County Circuit Court of
Michigan, ordering Perrier/Nestle to close its Sanctuary Springs
pumping operation, could help environmentalists and water
activists far and wide. The suit was brought by riparian property
owners who argued that Perrier's pumping of spring water was
interfering with their rights to use their land and adjacent
water for aesthetics (one's view of a surface water body),
boating, fishing, hunting, gathering, and swimming, among
other uses. Judge Lawrence C. Root issued a decision ordering
Perrier to close its pumping operation, finding that, in cases
where groundwater use and surface water conflict, groundwater
use has inferior legal standing relative to the "riparian
rights" associated with the surface waters. The decision
also shifts the burden of proof to the party seeking to remove
or alter a natural resource, rather than requiring environmentalists
to defend the status quo under laws intended to protect the
environment. Instead of requiring the plaintiffs to show harm
to the environment, the court held that, once a party seeking
to protect the environment shows that there is insufficient
data to establish a baseline from which to judge environmental
damage or that the system is so complex that computer models
cannot accurately predict impacts, the burden shifts so that
the proposed exploiter must show that its activities will
not illegally harm the environment. For more information on
how to protect groundwater in your state, visit: http://www.serconline.org/groundwaterWithPermit/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
New
Jersey "Transfer of Development Rights" Bill Stalled
in Legislature (Star Ledger 1/8)
http://www.nj.com/statehouse/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-1/107354517890620.xml
The New Jersey Legislature is divided over a "Transfer
of Development Rights" bill, which would allow towns
to designate growth and preservation areas. Builders would
buy the right to build densely in the growth area by paying
landowners in preservation areas not to develop their property.
The bill, introduced ten months ago by New Jersey Gov. James
E. McGreevey, has received support from an unlikely coalition
of farmers, municipal officials, and environmentalists, but
is currently stalled in the Legislature. Anti-sprawl advocates
allege that special interests, particularly builders who are
key campaign contributors, are the reason that the bill is
being so heavily debated. Others blame Gov. McGreevey for
taking too long to decide which version of the bill to support,
or anti-sprawl advocates for adding too many controversial
measures into the bill. All involved report a 50-50 chance
of passing the bill. For more information on how your state
can encourage healthy communities and prevent sprawl, visit
http://www.serconline.org/sprawl/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
Vermont's
Mercury Labeling Law to Have Effects Nationwide (Barre-Montpelier
Times Argus 1/3)
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/76835.html
Vermont's Mercury Labeling law, 10 VSA § 6621(d), enacted
in 1998, requires manufacturers to label products that contain
mercury, such as light bulbs and thermometers, in order to
inform consumers of mercury content and proper disposal. The
law is expected to require labeling nationwide because manufacturers
cannot separate Vermont-bound products containing mercury
from those bound for other states. The law was designed to
protect Vermont residents from the harmful effects of mercury
and to encourage recycling of mercury-containing products,
which are banned from state landfills. Mercury-containing
products will be labeled with "Hg," the chemical
symbol for mercury. Manufacturers say that complying with
the law, which requires labeling on all lamps manufactured
after Nov. 30, 2003, is costing them millions of dollars.
For more information on how your state can protect its air
and water from mercury contamination, visit: http://www.serconline.org/mercury/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
|
|
