New EPA rule will target sanitary sewer overflows

 

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that it is initiating a rulemaking to better protect the environment and public health from the harmful effects of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and basement backups.

In a news release, the agency said it finds that:

"In many cities, SSOs and basement backups occur because of blockages, broken pipes and excessive water flowing into the pipes. SSOs present environmental and health problems because they discharge untreated wastewater that contains bacteria, viruses, suspended solids, toxics, trash and other pollutants into waterways.”

The EPA said that the overflows may also contribute to beach closures, shellfish bed closures, contamination of drinking water supplies and other environmental health concerns.

Infrastructure issues were discussed at the Coming Together for Clean Water Conference held by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on April 15, 2010.

The agency says it plans to address these issues "as part of its efforts to protect public health and revitalize local waterways."

EPA is considering two possible modifications to existing regulations:

(1) establishing standard National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) permits that specifically address sanitary sewer collection systems and SSOs; and

(2) clarifying the regulatory framework for applying NPDES permit conditions to municipal satellite collection systems.

Municipal satellite collection systems are sanitary sewers owned or operated by a municipality that conveys wastewater to a POTW operated by a different municipality.

As a part of this effort, the agency said it also is considering whether to address long-standing questions about peak wet weather flows at municipal wastewater treatment plants “to allow for a holistic, integrated approach to reducing SSOs while at the same time addressing peak flows at POTWs. “

The EPA plans to hold public listening sessions on the proposed rule.  The public also can submit written comments until 60 days after the rule’s publication in the Federal Register.

More information on sanitary sewer overflows, the potential rule and a schedule of the upcoming listening sessions.

Our most recent posts:
'Price's Pit' site in NJ to get $16M treatment plant 
Harrisburg incinerator works best burning money
DEP attorney to watch over gas drilling in PA
Leave Jersey, save money. Right? Maybe not
Where was the BPU while PSEG dodged fees?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

'Price's Pit' site in NJ to get $16M treatment plant

A former landfill near Atlantic City, where millions of gallons of chemicals were dumped in the 1970's, is in line for a groundwater treatment plant to be paid for with federal stimulus funds.

Price's Pit, in Pleasantville, NJ was considered one of the most dangerous sites in the nation when it was added to the national Superfund list in 1983 because of the chemical brew it contained and its proximity to local drinking water supplies.

In the early stages of its cleanup, nearby residents were connected to water lines, and the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority abandoned wells near the site and relocated them about two miles northwest in 1985.

Construction of the plant will begin this summer and is expected to take up to two years to complete. When it is put into service, the plant will treat about 500,000 gallons of polluted water per day.

Water discharged from the plant will be piped to the Atlantic County Utility Authority’s (ACUA) wastewater plant in Atlantic City for final treatment.

The Press of Atlantic City reports that the federal Environmental Protection Agency will reimburse the city for the volume of water discharged into the ACUA treatment system.

Related:
EPA's description of the site

Our most recent posts:
Harrisburg incinerator works best burning money
DEP attorney to watch over gas drilling in PA
Leave Jersey, save money. Right? Maybe not
Where was the BPU while PSEG dodged fees?
What caused the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Harrisburg incinerator works best burning money

Remember years ago when incinerators were sold to the public as the perfect waste-disposal solution?

The big burners would eliminate the need for landfills. They'd burn up all the trash and generate steam in the process that could be sold to heat nearby buildings or generate electricity.

And if your city or county was the first to build one, you could corner the disposal market. Other towns would send their trash to you and, eventually, you'd be making a tidy profit.

It didn't quite work out that way for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

An Incinerator Becomes Harrisburg’s Money Pit is how the New York Times summarizes that city's experience.

Michael Cooper reports that the problems started soon after the incinerator was built in 1972.

"Although its original price tag was less than $15 million, it required so many repairs and refinancings that it was saddled with $94 million in debt by the time the federal government shut it down in 2003 because it was polluting the air with dioxin.

"The city’s decision to borrow another $125 million to rebuild and expand it was essentially a double-down bet. Harrisburg’s gamble was that by expanding the incinerator so it could burn up to 800 tons of trash a day, it would be able to burn more garbage from neighboring counties. The fees it would collect, the city hoped, would pay off the debt.

But, Cooper says, some counties decided not to take their garbage to the incinerator.

"Dauphin County, of which Harrisburg is a part, does take its trash there, but pays lower fees than the incinerator originally anticipated — and about a third of what Harrisburg itself pays.

"The final insult may well be that Harrisburg now pays some of the highest trash disposal fees in the country — all to prop up the incinerator that it built. The money goes to the public authority that owns the incinerator, but whose inability to pay off its debts has left Harrisburg on the hook.

The resulting debt has forced the city to lay off 32 workers and increase taxes a few years ago. The city's mayor says taxes need to be raised again, but city council is balking.

This month, Moody’s Investors Service warned that Harrisburg's guarantee of the incinerator debt results in "a continuing burden that will stress the city’s finances for the foreseeable future, negatively affect its creditworthiness and jeopardize its future access to the public credit markets.”

Our most recent posts:
DEP attorney to watch over gas drilling in PA
Leave Jersey, save money. Right? Maybe not
Where was the BPU while PSEG dodged fees?
What caused the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?
Chris Christie: You got a problem with that?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

DEP attorney to watch over gas drilling in PA

Nels Taber, an attorney and a 17-year PADEP veteran, has been named to lead the DEP's northcentral regional office in Williamsport, Pa.

The move thrusts Taber into the high profile position of overseeing natural gas drilling operations in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region.

Taber, who has been serving as regional legal counsel since 1993, will direct an office covering a 14-county area.

He replaces Robert Yowell, who retired April 30 after nearly 16 years as regional director.

See Star-Gazette's New Environmental watchdog for region for more.

Our most recent posts:
Leave Jersey, save money. Right? Maybe not
Where was the BPU while PSEG dodged fees?
What caused the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?
Chris Christie: You got a problem with that?
Who’s on NJ-DEP’s Science Advisory Board?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Leave Jersey, save money. Right? Maybe not

The conventional wisdom is that you can't afford to live in New Jersey.

Real estate and other taxes now run the short gamut from punishing to absolutely crushing.

Move to Pennsylvania or Florida and keep more of your hard-earned money in your pocket, not the mayor's or governor's!

Right? Well, maybe but maybe not.

The Star-Ledger's intrepid videoguy, Brian Donohue, questions a tax adviser about the wisdom of getting out of Dodge. The Ledger's editorial cartoonist, Drew Sheneman, joins in with some very clever graphics.

We recommend that you view their report before you call your moving man.

And don't forget to tell us what you think in the comment box below. If one isn't visible, activate it by clicking on the tiny 'comments' line.

Should I Stay or Should I Go: Three case studies of people leaving New Jersey

Our most recent posts:
Where was the BPU while PSEG dodged fees?
What caused the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?
Chris Christie: You got a problem with that?
Who’s on NJ-DEP’s Science Advisory Board?
EPA adopts final greenhouse gas emissions rule

---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Where was the BPU while PSEG dodged fees?

“While New Jersey's gas and electric customers have over the past decade paid more than $4 billion in a special surcharge funding special energy programs, an unregulated affiliate of Public Service Electric & Gas has paid nothing, even though it uses about one-third of the gas sold by the utility.”

That’s the lead to a May 7 story written by former Star-Ledger reporter Tom Johnson in NJ Spotlight, a new online news and public affairs publication.

In PSE&G's Largest Gas Customer Dodges Major Utility Fee,
Johnson writes:

“PSEG Power, a supplier of power and PSE&G's largest gas customer, has avoided paying the fee, known as the societal benefits charge (SBC), even though critics say regulatory rules explicitly state that the charge cannot be bypassed.

“By one industry lawyer’s account, the supplier should have paid $47 million into the SBC fund in 2009 alone. Last year, the fund raised $740 million from other customers to finance half a dozen energy-related programs, including reduction of energy consumption, promotion of solar and wind power, and assistance for the poor in paying their utility bills. “

Critics say that by escaping the SBC, PSEG Power is in effect being subsidized by other rate payers and gaining an unfair advantage over competing energy suppliers—some of which pay as  much as $2 million in SBC charges.

How has PSEG managed to get away with it?

Stefanie Brand, acting state Public Advocate and director of the state’s division of rate counsel, told Johnson she was baffled.
“Look at the statue,” she said. “It says the SBC is non-bypassable.”
 
Which raises the question: Where was the state’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the folks who are supposed to review the financial operations of regulated public utilities and their unregulated subsidiaries, while all this was going on?

The BPU says it became aware of PSEG Power’s nonpayment of surcharges only during a recent rate-hearing case.  It has since submitted a brief asking an administrative law court judge to order PSEG Power to make an accounting of the money that should have been paid into the SBC and other funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
What caused the BP oil disaster in the Gulf? 
Chris Christie: You got a problem with that?
Who’s on NJ-DEP’s Science Advisory Board?
EPA adopts final greenhouse gas emissions rule
NJDEP Commissioner briefs state lawmakers

What caused the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?

Still wondering what caused the BP oil rig to explode on April 20, triggering a seabed rupture that continues to spew more than 200,000 gallons each day into the Gulf of Mexico?

A worker on the Deepwater Horizon who jumped into the sea to escape and an engineer hired by the Obama administration to investigate the disaster combine to paint a picture for 60 Minutes that points the finger of blame squarely at BP.

It looks like the disaster could have been prevented had warnings of equipment problems been heeded and had BP not overruled Transocean on a crucial decision.

To start the video, click on the triangle in the lower left corner of the screen.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

If that didn't make you sick, consider BP chief executive Tony Hayward's recent comment that "the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest."

Related:
Information on BP's oil disaster in the Gulf
In the oil spill disaster, a huge opportunity?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
Chris Christie: You got a problem with that?
Who’s on NJ-DEP’s Science Advisory Board?
EPA adopts final greenhouse gas emissions rule
NJDEP Commissioner briefs state lawmakers
Environmental bills this week in NJ Legislature

Chris Christie: You got a problem with that?

Blunt, direct, confrontational.

Some of the words editorial writers and political pundits use to question how New Jersey's new governor, Chris Christie, is going about business.

Is Christie concerned about his 'tone'?

For the answer, check out this Star-Ledger video:

Hold onto your hats. It's going to be an interesting four years.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
Who’s on NJ-DEP’s Science Advisory Board?
EPA adopts final greenhouse gas emissions rule
NJDEP Commissioner briefs state lawmakers
Environmental bills this week in NJ Legislature
Don't worry, shale gas will rock your world

Who’s on NJDEP’s Science Advisory Board?

Sixteen science experts from the academic and business communities were named yesterday by Commissioner Bob Martin to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s new Science Advisory Board.

They will  provide  independent guidance to the department on key environmental issues.

Martin said that the 16, all of who have volunteered their services, are “some of the top minds in the state, experts who can take a thorough look at specific environmental issues and offer solid advice to guide me and the department.’’

Four new standing scientific committees
Several dozen other persons were named today to four new standing scientific committees that will supplement the work of the Science Advisory Board in the areas of : Ecological Processes, Public Health, Water Quality and Quantity, and Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.
A high percentage of those selected come from the academic community. Included are Rutgers University, Seton Hall University, Clarkson University, Drexel University, Kean University, Montclair State University, Monmouth University, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rider University, Stevens Institute of Technology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and William Paterson University.

Advisors to complement DEP scientists
A DEP news release says the advisory board will complement work already being done by DEP scientists and will provide an “independent voice and peer review on scientific and technical matters.” Issues related to global warming, clean air and water, contaminated soils, wind power and preservation of natural areas, will be among the many topics they will tackle.
A total of 109 applications for the Science Advisory Board were received by an Aug. 7, 2009 deadline. From that group, all of the persons appointed to the board have advanced degrees and extensive training, expertise and experience in scientific and technological fields related to all aspects of environmental protection, according to the department.


Rutgers’ Judith Weis to chair the Advisory Board
Martin named Judith Weis of Rutgers University, Newark, as chairwoman of the board. A professor of biological sciences, with a Ph.D. and Master’s Degree in biology, her research focuses on estuarine ecology and ecotoxicology.

The other members of the advisory board, including their field of expertise and current affiliations, include:

• Clinton Andrews, Ph.D., P.E.: Rutgers University, urban planning.
• Raymond Ferrara, Ph.D.: Omni Environmental, environmental engineering.
• John Gannon, Ph.D.: DuPont, microbiology.
• Paul Lioy, Ph.D.: Environmental and Health Sciences Institute, environmental science.
• Robert Laumbach, M.P.H., M.D.: UMDNJ, medical doctor.
• Michael Gallo, Ph.D.: UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, toxicology, pathology.
• Nancy Rothman, Ph.D.: New Environmental Horizons Inc., physical organic chemistry.
• Peter Lederman, Ph.D. and P.E.: Peter & Associates, chemical engineering and P.E.
• Robert J. Lippencott, Ph.D.: TRC Environmental, environmental science.
• Jonathan Husch, Ph.D.: Rider University, geology.
• John Dyksen, M.S., P.E.: United Water Co., environmental engineering.
• Mark G. Robson, Ph.D., M.P.H.: Rutgers University, environmental and occupational health/agricultural and plant science.
• David A. Vaccari, Ph.D., P.E.: Stevens Institute of Technology, environmental science, chemical engineering.
• Emile D. DeVito, Ph.D.: New Jersey Conservation Foundation, conservation biology.
• Anthony J. Broccoli, Ph.D., M.S.: Rutgers University, atmospheric and environmental science. 

--------------------------------------------------------------- 
  Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
  EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days! 
   -------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
NJDEP Commissioner briefs state lawmakers
Don't worry, shale gas will rock your world
Information on BP's oil disaster in the Gulf
In the gulf oil spill  disaster, an opportunity?

EPA adopts final greenhouse gas emissions rule

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a final rule to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the largest stationary sources, while shielding millions of small sources of GHGs from Clean Air Act permitting requirements.

The agency described the rule as a “phased-in, common-sense approach will address facilities like power plants and oil refineries that are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gases from stationary sources that threaten American’s health and welfare.”

EPA’s phased-in approach will start in January 2011, when Clean Air Act permitting requirements for GHGs will kick in for large facilities that are already obtaining Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants. Those facilities will be required to include GHGs in their permit if they increase these emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year (tpy).

 

In July 2011, Clean Air Act permitting requirements will expand to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at existing facilities that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies to minimize GHG emission increases when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.

 

Under the new emissions thresholds for GHGs that begin in July 2011, EPA estimates approximately 900 additional permitting actions covering new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year. In addition, 550 sources will need to obtain operating permits for the first time because of their GHG emissions. 

In April 2010, EPA set the first national GHG tailpipe standards for passenger cars and light trucks. When GHG emissions limits for these vehicles go into effect in January 2011, EPA is also required to address GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act’s permitting programs, which it is doing in the outlined plan. 

The final rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Related documents:

• Fact Sheet (PDF) (6pp, 33k)
• Final Rule (PDF) (515pp, 688k)
• Timeline Outlining Permitting Steps under the Tailoring Rule (PDF) (1pg, 79k)
• Summary of Clean Air Act Permitting Burdens With and Without the Tailoring Rule (PDF) (2pp, 445k)
• EPA Issues Final 'Tailoring' Rule for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 ---------------------------------------------------------------   
  Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
  EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days! 
   -------------------------------------------------------------  

Our most recent posts:
NJDEP Commissioner briefs state lawmakers  

Environmental bills in the NJ Legislature

Don't worry, shale gas will rock your world 

Information on BP's oil disaster in the Gulf 

In the oil spill disaster, a huge opportunity?

del.icio.us Tags: greenhouse gas,EPA,global warming

NJDEP Commissioner briefs state lawmakers

 

New Jersey’s Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin appeared before the Senate Environment and Energy Committee this morning to report on what the agency is up to and where it’s headed.
Martin reviewed major staff changes at his department  and ticked off  a list of recent activities and accomplishments, including:

• DEP’s assumption of oversight of the cleanup of tritium leaking from the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in Lacey Township
• “Adamant” opposition to offshore drilling
• Continued opposition to offshore LNG facilities
• Formal petition calling on the EPA to investigate and take action to curb air emissions at RRI’s Portland power plant in Pennsylvania  which blow over to New Jersey’s Warren County
• Keeping state parks open this summer and maintaining critical functions at the department despite budget cuts
• Continued opposition to Army Corps of Engineers dredging of the Delaware River.  Martin said that, if Pennsylvania wants the river dredged, it should accept the resulting dredge spoils. Under the current plan, all spoils will be dumped in New Jersey. 
• Working on legislation to help the financing of offshore wind energy projects.  Martin said the only way the economics for such projects makes sense is if New Jersey also gets the manufacturing  (turbines) associated with the project.
• Stakeholder meetings already held or pending on

      -- Coastal access
      -- Water Quality
     -- CAFRA rules
     -- Barnegat Bay and Oyster Creed nuclear generating plant
     -- Highlands

The commissioner listed the department’s three short-term priorities as:

• Retrofitting diesel engines
• Environmental justice issues
• “Dying” Barnegat Bay and Oyster Creek nuclear plant

In response to a question from a member of the committee, Martin said he expects the state will hold a one-week bear hunt in December.  He noted that the number of  bears “harvested” during that week will be closely monitored and the hunt could be stopped if it appeared to be resulting in over-harvesting .
Martin is scheduled to make a  similar presentation this afternoon before the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee.

Related:
Environmental bills this week in NJ Legislature
Exelon forced to clean up tritium leak 
DEP wants EPA to cut pollution at Portland Generating Station


---------------------------------------------------------------
If environmental legislation is important to you, try
our daily newsletter—EnviroPolitics. We track all environmental legislation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania—from introduction to enactment! 
 Try it free for 30 days!
---------------------------------------------------------------


Our most recent posts:
Don't worry, shale gas will rock your world
Information on BP's oil disaster in the Gulf
In the oil spill disaster, a huge opportunity?
Pittsburgh: A good place to live and to lawyer
NJ union pension fund sues to remove coal boss

Environmental bills this week in NJ Legislature

Thursday will be an active day for environmental legislation at the New Jersey Statehouse, as DEP Commissioner Bob Martin appears before two of
three committees that will be considering  more
than a dozen bills affecting the environment and energy.

Here’s the lineup:

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY  (10 AM Room 10)

Honorable Bob Martin, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, has been invited to address the committee and discuss the State's environmental priorities for 2010.

Bills for consideration:

A-917  Chivukula, U.J. (D-17); Lampitt, P.R. (D-6) Requires State to use energy-efficient outdoor lighting fixtures.

S-463  Smith, B. (D-17); Buono, B. (D-18) Concerns net metering and authorizes licensing of local renewable energy collaboratives by the BPU.

S-987  Allen, D.B. (R-7) Exempts residential electric vehicle charging systems from

real property taxation. 

S-1406  Smith, B. (D-17); Bateman, C. (R-16) Establishes "New Jersey Property Assessment Clean Energy (NJ PACE) Municipal Financing Program." 

S-1765  Smith, B. (D-17); Bateman, C. (R-16) Requires EDA to establish a "High Performance Green Building Demonstration Project." 

S-1780  Beach, J. (D-6) Requires State to use energy-efficient outdoor lighting fixtures.
 

ASSEMBLY AGRICULTURE AND NAT. RESOURCES (2 PM Room 8)

Bills for consideration:

A-828  Albano, N.T. (D-1); Milam, M.W. (D-1) Establishes conflict resolution procedures through Department of Agriculture for complaints against commercial fishing docks and fish processing facilities.    

A-2282  DeCroce, A. (R-26); Bramnick, J.M. (R-21) Creates alternate voting

members on county agriculture development boards. 

AR-63  Amodeo, J.F. (R-2); Albano, N.T. (D-1)

Urges FDA and Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference to work collaboratively to improve shellfish safety. 
   

ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT AND SOLID WASTE (2 PM, Room 9)

Honorable Bob Martin, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, has been invited to address the committee and discuss the State's environmental priorities for 2010.

Bills for consideration:

A-624  Moriarty, P.D. (D-4) Provides for State income tax deduction to private well owners for water testing costs. 

A-1052  Quijano, A. (D-20); Cryan, J. (D-20); Chivukula, U.J. (D-17) Requires State entities to purchase biofuels in place of fossil fuels when it is reasonable, prudent and cost effective to do so.  

A-1851  Gusciora, R. (D-15); Jasey, M.M. (D-27); Greenstein, L.R.

"Historic Property Reinvestment Act"; provides credits against certain taxes for certain costs of rehabilitating historic properties. 

A-2217  McKeon, J.F. (D-27); Chiusano, G.R. (R-24); McHose, A.L. (R-24);

Extends expiration date of special appraisal process for Green Acres and farmland preservation programs from 2009 to 2014 for lands in Highlands Region.

A-2501  Chivukula, U.J. (D-17) Requires post-construction restoration of optimal soil conditions under the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act."

---------------------------------------------------------------
If environmental legislation is important to you, try
our daily newsletter—EnviroPolitics. We track all environmental legislation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania—from introduction to enactment! 
 Try it free for 30 days!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
Don't worry, shale gas will rock your world
Information on BP's oil disaster in the Gulf
In the oil spill disaster, a huge opportunity?
Pittsburgh: A good place to live and to lawyer
NJ union pension fund sues to remove coal boss

Don't worry, shale gas will rock your world

By some estimates, there's 1,000 trillion cubic feet recoverable in North America alone—enough to supply the nation's natural-gas needs for the next 45 years.

The new techniques of horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing--to literally blast the gas out out of rocks thousands of feet below ground--makes the extraction of shale gas suddenly economical.

This newly accessible energy supply will be a game changer. Shale gas will revolutionize the energy industry—and change the world. It will prevent the rise of any new cartels. It will alter geopolitics.

It will lessen world dependence on the output of dangerous countries. It will bring the U.S. and China closer together.

And it will slow the transition to renewable energy.

These are the conclusions of Amy Myers Jaffe, the Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

Her ebullient prognosis, How Shale Gas Is Going to Rock the World, appears, not surprisingly, in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal. The drill-baby-drill editorial department there must be in terrible state of anxiety over the political damage to offshore drilling caused by the disastrous eruption of the BP rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

With thousands of new gallons of crude adding daily to the widening pollution damage--and no remedy currently in sight--Ms Jaffe provides what must be for the WSJ a welcome opportunity to divert attention to the next great reason not to invest in non-polluting energy sources like wind and solar.

We love the blog format that many online newspapers have adopted, since it allows for a variety of responses from readers. The writer gets to have his/her say but readers no longer have to silently accept it. And we all benefit from the exchange.

While Ms. Jaffe quickly dismisses potential environmental harm from hydrofracturing, reader Jeffrey LaMarca responds with this:

The problem is that fracking not only carries risks of contamination in the event of accidents (which are inevitable) but that we have little clue as to the long-term consequences of injecting millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground at high pressure and creating underground explosions and fractures. Pointing out that the fracking is taking place 1000+ feet underground is like saying that it's fine to dump all our garbage and waste into the ocean so long as it's 1000+ miles offshore.

The feeling of euphoria at having found a cost-free solution to a problem is invariably followed years later by the realization that the costs are huge and often irreversible. Shale gas has potential but how about a sober look as opposed to the unabashed cheerleading of this article written by a Houston oil guy.

What do you think? Use the comments block below to share your views. If one isn't visible, activate it by clicking on the tiny 'comments' line.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter--
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
Information on BP's oil disaster in the Gulf
In the oil spill disaster, a huge opportunity?
Pittsburgh: A good place to live and to lawyer
NJ union pension fund sues to remove coal boss
NJDEP Commissioner Martin shuffles his deck

Information on BP's oil disaster in the Gulf

If you're like us, you're both horrified and fascinated by the ongoing story of the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico unleashed by the massive oil leak and fire at a BP drilling platform.

A single-source of great information on the spill can be found at Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the Wikipedia site. It offers a summary, lots of background information, and a continuously updated list of news stories and commentary in the References section at the bottom of the page.

We find it to be an extremely convenient way to learn about the spill and keep up to date on developments without looking all over the net for information.

An interesting view of what engineers face as they try to stem the flow is offered by Al Jazeera in the video below.



What sources of news and commentary on the spill have you found helpful? Use the comment block below to share your recommendations. If the block isn't visible, activate it by clicking on the tiny 'comments' line.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter--
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
In the oil spill disaster, a huge opportunity?
Pittsburgh: A good place to live and to lawyer
NJ union pension fund sues to remove coal boss
NJDEP Commissioner Martin shuffles his deck
Feds give green light to first offshore wind farm

In the oil spill disaster, a huge opportunity?

 

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman writes:

“The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil.”

Friedman says that the oil  spill is to the environment “what the subprime mortgage mess was to the markets — both a wake-up call and an opportunity to galvanize a constituency for radical change that overcomes the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.”

Whether or not the nation capitalizes on the opportunity depends, Friedman believes, on the guy behind the desk where the buck inevitably stops.

“ If President Obama wants to seize this moment, it is there for the taking. We have one of the worst environmental disasters in American history on our hands. We have a public deeply troubled by what they’ve seen already — and they’ve probably seen only the first reel of this gulf horror show. And we have a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill ready to be introduced in the Senate — produced by Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham — that would set a price on carbon and begin to shift us to a system of cleaner fuels, greater energy efficiency and unlock an avalanche of private capital to the clean energy market.

“American industry is ready to act and is basically saying to Washington: “Every major country in the world, starting with China, is putting in clear, long-term market rules to stimulate clean energy — except America. Just give us some clear rules, and we’ll do the rest.”

 

What do you think?  Is America missing the boat?  What is our national energy policy?  Do we even have one?  Is a national carbon tax preferable to ‘cap-and-trade’ ? And will it get us moving in the direction we need to go?  Click on the tiny ”comments’ line below and tell us what you think.  

           ---------------------------------------------------------------  

             Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter--
             EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days! 
           ---------------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
Pittsburgh: A good place to live and to lawyer
NJ union pension fund sues to remove coal boss
NJDEP Commissioner Martin shuffles his deck
Feds give green light to first offshore wind farm
NRDC keeps chromium lawsuit alive in NJ

del.icio.us Tags: oil energy.policy carbon.tax

Pittsburgh: A good place to live and to lawyer

Forbes Magazine has once again named Pittsburgh its "Most Livable City" in its annual report that looks at cost of living, unemployment rate, income growth and crime rates, among other factors.

"Indeed, Pittsburgh's art scene, job prospects, safety and affordability make it the most livable city in the country, according to measures studied," according to the magazine.

The magazine cites Pittsburgh's "strong university presence" as a major factor in its ranking, as well as its income growth potential and low cost of living.

Pittsburgh ranked No. 10 on Forbes' 2009 Most Livable list. The magazine has been a big fan of the Steel City in recent years, naming Pittsburgh the Best Housing Market in February, and calling Pittsburgh one of its "Best Bang" metros in December 2009.

Pittsburgh's ratings:
Low Unemployment Rank: 73
Low Crime Rank: 15
Income Growth Rank: 20
Low Cost of Living Rank: 52
Arts & Leisure Rank: 26

One segment of Pittsburgh’s population that must  find the city “most profitable” as well as “most livable” is its attorneys.

K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh’s largest law firm, ranked 12th among The American Lawyer’s annual list of the nation’s 100 largest firms as ranked by gross revenue.

K&L Gates, which had been 19th the previous year, had 2009 revenue of $1.03 billion, up 7.8 percent from 2008. It was the biggest percentage increase among the top 20 firms.

 
Reed Smith LLP, also based in Downtown Pittsburgh, ranked 17th. Reed Smith, which had been 16th a year ago, had revenue of $942 million, down 3.8 percent from 2008.

Related:
America's Most Livable Cities
Forbes once again names Pittsburgh 'Most Livable City'
Pittsburgh-based K&L Gates jumps to 12th on AmLaw 100 list

--------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter--
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days
--------------------------------------------------------

Our most recent posts:
NJ union pension fund sues to remove coal boss
NJDEP Commissioner Martin shuffles his deck
Feds give green light to first offshore wind farm
NRDC keeps chromium lawsuit alive in NJ

del.icio.us Tags: Pittsburgh,K&L Gates,Reed Smith