Wolfenotes.com gas dryer vs electric dryer safety


The Smith bill will be heard on Monday December 3, 2018 in Trenton, at 10 am in the State House Annex, Room 6, first floor. I strongly urge folks to contact Smith and Committee members to ask for these kind of amendments and, if possible, show up and testify at the Committee hearing. Please feel free to use my analysis and recommendations.

While I would support new legislation to accelerate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to meet the goals of the GWRA and avoid climate catastrophe, unfortunately I can not support the bill as drafted due to fatal flaws that repeat many of the same flaws of the original GWRA and for failure to include enforceable statutory and regulatory standards, timetables, and resources necessary to actually achieve those goals.

1. gas x side effects liver Authorize and mandate that DEP regulate major GHG emission sources, in consideration of lifecycle and cumulative emissions and attainment of an annual statewide GHG emissions reduction standard. Authorize DEP to deny permits on the basis of GHG emissions. There are many ways to do this that I’d be willing to discuss with you in greater detail.

DEP’s most recent GHG emissions inventory estimates that in state GHG emissions exceed 100 million tons. Re-entry into RGGI would address less than 20 million tons, while RGGI allowances currently sell for about $3 per ton. However, if current DEP air pollution emission fees were applied only to RGGI sources, that would generate over $2 billion/year to invest in the transition to renewables.

6. Establish an aggressive mandatory timetable for the phase out of in-state fossil infrastructure and purchase of out of state generated fossil power. electricity quiz 4th grade California law includes a phase out by 2045, but that law is not mandatory, lacks enforceable standards, and the 2045 timetable is far too long. A 10-15 period is the maximum timeframe to reflect but available science and avoid climate catastrophe and limit warming to 1.5 degrees C per the Paris accords.

Legislation is not needed for DEP to regulate GHG emissions. As my posted noted yesterday and the letter to Smith repeats, back in 2005, DEP adopted regulations that defined greenhouse gas emissions as air pollutants. However, that rule EXEMPTED GHG from almost all DEP air pollution control regulatory requirements, including permits, emissions limits, and emission fees.

Additionally, Senator Smith’s bill lets DEP off the hook for this failure and runs a risk of supporting a legal argument that DEP lacks statutory authorization by the legislature to regulate GHG emissions. Industry made these arguments during the 2005 rule making and would obviously use Smith’s bill in any future litigation, should DEP decide you use their current authority.

The annual emission fee, paid by each major facility subject to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22, is calculated each year according to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(b), which applies the CPI percentage increase to a base amount per ton of emissions. For FY 2019, the Department calculated the CPI percentage increase as 2.42 percent, resulting in an annual emission fee of $122.45 per ton of regulated emissions.

A facility subject to this fee must multiply $122.45 times the quantity of regulated air contaminant emissions (VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, highest TPY of TSP, PM10, or PM 2.5) emitted in tons during calendar year 2017 (January 1 through December 31, 2017). gas tax rates by state The result is the fee the facility must submit to the Department by January 31, 2019. Invoices are being mailed to major facilities based on emissions reported in the Emission Statement submitted for calendar year 2017.

If just the RGGI regulated emissions – which are about 20 million tons/year – were subject to the current DEP air pollution emissions fees ($122.45/ton), that would represent over $2 BILLION per year in revenue that could be reinvested in the transition to 100% renewable energy, construction of a smart grid for distributed local energy, and a phase out of fossil.

Importantly, the campaign also notes – but fails to quantify – the fact that if the Murphy DEP approves all the pending fossil infrastructure projects, that would wipe out any climate benefits of Gov. Murphy’s highly touted energy and climate policy: 3,500 MW of off shore wind, expansion of solar, and rejoining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Thankfully, departing from the NJ media’s virtual blackout of NY Gov. Cuomo’s actions to kill proposed pipelines, there was some press coverage, but it tended to focus on the tactic (the fast) and lacked focus on the strategy: i.e. the campaign’s policy demand and strong climate justification for a moratorium. NJTV news covered it, while the Star Ledger (NJ.com) ran two brief stories that focused on the fast tactic, while downplaying the climate and fossil infrastructure policy issues (initially at the kickoff and followed up at the conclusion).

Now some very bad news: the campaign did not garner the support of NJ’s largest mainstream “green” groups that are purportedly working on climate change and opposing individual fossil pipelines and power plants, including Rethink NJ; NJ Conservation Foundation, Pinelands Preservation Alliance; NJ League of Conservation Voters; Environment NJ; Clean Water Action; ALS, COA, Sustainable NJ, NJ Future, Surfrider, and Sierra Club.

Those groups pretend to be climate advocates, but they hide under their desks and give Gov. pass gas in spanish Murphy a pass. That’s because they put their own selfish organizational pet projects, priorities, and financial interests ahead of the public interest and real solutions to climate chaos – solutions that are feasible, realistic, and match the scale, scope, timing, and magnitude of the climate crisis.

[NOTE: Curiously, former Gov. Florio is identified on the Rethink NJ website as a “supporter” of their campaign and given a quote. Rethink NJ failed to support the moratorium campaign. 76 gas station jobs That would seem to invite questions from media about Florio’s leadership in integrating energy and environment policy and issuing the Executive Order #8 moratorium on garbage incineration as a model for phasing out fossil infrastructure. Remarkably, Florio has never been asked to respond to that kind of tough question.]

That Spotlight failure to cover certain issues is consistent with a disturbing pattern I’ve recently written about,whereby elite Foundations fund media in a way that shapes news coverage, while at the same time funding environmental groups to influence the issues, strategies and tactics those groups pursue (work that is then reported by Spotlight as “news”).