EPA looking to improve new vehicle fuel labels

If you're in the market for a new car or truck, chances are you're paying close attention to the manufacturer's fuel economy claim that appears on each vehicle's window label.

The number of miles you can expect (or at least hope) to get under normal driving conditions will be an important factor in your purchase decision. But would even more information help you, as environmentally conscious shopper, to decide? 

The federal Environmental Protection Agency thinks so and is working with the Department of Transportation on new label requirements that would provide consumers with simple energy and environmental comparisons across all types of vehicles, including electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and your conventional gas guzzler.

The agencies announced today that they'd also like consumers to receive information on a vehicle's potential air pollutants, such as smog, that impact public health.

And they are asking you to help them decide which way to proceed by providing your comments on two potential label designs.

According to the agencies,

"One label design prominently features a letter grade to communicate the vehicle’s overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions performance. The new design will also provide consumers with an estimate of the expected fuel cost savings over five years compared to an average gasoline-powered vehicle of the same model year.

"The second proposed label retains the current label’s focus on miles per gallon (MPG) and annual fuel costs, while updating the overall design and adding the required new comparison information on fuel economy and emissions.

"Both proposed label designs expand on the content of the current label by including new information on fuel consumption, tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and smog-related emissions. The new labels would provide information on a new web-based interactive tool that can also be accessed by smart phone. This tool would allow consumers to personalize the information about a vehicle’s performance."

You can view the proposed rule and labels at: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ and submit comments as part of the rulemaking process via email to: newlabels@epa.gov.

Related: New York Times editorial: Cleaner cars, A to D

Our most recent posts:
How to get NJ's governor to throw you a green party

NJ budget switch spared forests, chopped trees 
Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future? 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere   
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller's conference? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to get NJ's governor to throw you a green party

Want to win the applause of  New Jersey's
environmental community and get
Governor Chris Christie to throw you
a party at his mansion? 

1.  Read about the Governor's Environmental Excellence Awards 

2.  Decide whether your business, town, or educator qualifies.
      Not sure? Check out the profiles of the 2008 winners    

3.  Download an application form (your choice of pdf or MS Word)

4.  Submit your application by September 16, 2010

5.  Learn in November that you are a winner

6.  Start planning what to wear to the Governor's Mansion.

If you are not declared a winner:

1.  Give yourself an entire day to sulk

2.  Suck it up and start planning a better program for next year.

Our most recent posts: 
NJ budget switch spared forests, chopped trees 
Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future? 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere 
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller's conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

NJ budget switch spared forests, chopped trees

It’s been portrayed in the media as a parochial tiff over trees between three towns in Mercer County and the administration of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  But the mayors say it’s much more than that.

In agreeing to permit the state to widen the New Jersey Turnpike through their municipalities, the mayors say they expected the state to expend certain sums on the planting of trees for a buffer between the superhighway and residential neighborhoods.

Facing an enormous state budget shortfall, however, the Christie Administration pulled a switcheroo and used the funds instead to help keep state parks and forests open this summer, serving, as one spokesperson said, “the greater good.”   

In a scathingly delightful Op-Ed piece in today’s PolitickerNJ, the mayor of one of the Mercer towns says the ensuing fracas (which, not surprisingly, has wound up in court) it’s not just about trees.  It’s about trust.

 
Here’s a bit of what Robbinsville Mayor Dave Fried’s has to say :

As many of you know, last week Robbinsville, Hamilton and East Windsor took the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection to court to block a classic bait-and-switch: Enticing us to turn over land to widen the New Jersey Turnpike with promises of $15 million in reforestation funds, then shipping the money elsewhere after the bulldozing had begun.

We sued not because we wanted to; we sued because we had to. From the start, our willingness to cooperate with the Turnpike widening had everything to do with the trees. No reforestation, no deal. The fact that I now have to explain this to the Department of Environmental Protection is mind-boggling.

Had we not gone to court, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority would have transferred our funds to DEP under the No Net Loss Reforestation Act, but the monies promised to our three towns would have been used to run state parks. While Judge Linda Feinberg technically didn’t grant a request for an injunction, the effect is the same: According to the Turnpike, the money is staying put for 60 days. Absent a deal, we head to court Oct. 1.

DEP officials have tried to defend themselves by saying the Turnpike will replant some trees along the expanded highway, although the amount budgeted for the entire 35 miles appears to be less than would have gone just to our three communities.

Not only is the Turnpike planting clearly inadequate, it’s not even the point. Our lawsuit isn’t just about the trees and the buffer, although our first concern is the quality of life of those living closest to the expansion project. Our action is about ensuring that state government learns once and for all that when it deals with towns, promises must be kept. If we mayors are to represent our residents with any credibility, we must hold the State to its word. After this episode, what mayor in his right mind would ever sign an agreement with the State or the Turnpike?

Mayor Fried got in some good licks (see his entire piece here),  but we suspect there may be decent arguments to  be made on the flip side of the debate.  

What do you think?  Use the comment box below to let us know.  If you don’t see one, click on the headline at the top of this post and one should appear. 

Our most recent posts: 
Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future? 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere 
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller's conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 
Battling for the Bays--Barnegat and Rehoboth 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future?

In light of continuing drought conditions in northern New Jersey, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will hold a public hearing tomorrow at the Millburn Free Library to review current water supply conditions in the State.

A Drought Watch is in effect for all or parts of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris and Passaic counties. In the event water supply conditions worsen, the DEP could declare a Drought Warning, allowing the Department to exercise non-emergency powers to lessen the impact of a potential water emergency.

Public Hearing 
Wednesday, Aug. 25
10:30 a.m.
Millburn Free Library
200 Glen Avenue
Millburn, NJ

Our most recent posts: 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere 
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller's conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 
Battling for the Bays--Barnegat and Rehoboth 
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why climate-change legislation went nowhere

The years 2009 and 2010 were when Congress would finally do something about climate change and the environment. 

Or so we thought.

If you were among the optimists, you needn’t feel bad that you were so wrong.  After all, the signs were all there. The time for action finally had come.

America had elected a president whose campaign stressed the need to change our national energy policy–to transition from our near total dependence on fossil fuels to a future that took serious steps to encourage energy conservation and to finance scientific breakthroughs in generating power from alternative sources like wind, solar, waves and geothermal.

Voters said they had watched too many billions going to pay for faraway wars that were as much about protecting oil sources and transportation routes as they were about spreading democracy.

The media was full of stories about rising global temperatures due to the burning of oil and coal to make electricity.  Maps showed shrinking ice caps. Photos showed polar bears adrift on melting ice floes.

Then came the worst environmental disaster in modern times –the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

There was no way that Congress could not act.  Right?
Wrong.  

What the heck happened?  Why didn’t they act?

If a new series that began today in OpenSecrets  is accurate, the answer is simple.  Congress got bought.  Again.

The following is a taste from the first installment in the five-part series, Fueling Washington: How Money Drives Politics

Clients in the oil and gas industry unleashed a fury of lobbying expenditures in 2009, spending $175 million -- easily an industry record -- and outpacing the pro-environmental groups by nearly eight-fold, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

Some of the largest petroleum companies in the world together spent hundreds of millions of dollars in various attempts to influence politics during the past 18 months

ExxonMobil, the industry leader in 2009, spent $27.4 million in lobbying expenditures that year -- more than the entire pro-environment lobby.

And in July, congressional debate on global warming stopped cold.

In other words, Goliath whipped David.

*******************************************************

We recommend that you read the entire story. Then, bookmark the link to the series and read the upcoming installments.

It won’t be a fun read.  It’s not encouraging. In fact, it’s downright depressing. But it’s important that intelligent people, like you, get more involved in the discussion about energy and the environment.

Don’t leave it to Congress.  We know what they’ll do.

As always, let us know what you think. Use the comment box below to get the conversation started.

Our most recent posts:
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller's conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 
Battling for the Bays--Barnegat and Rehoboth 
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!
Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller's conference?

Photo: Dick Blume/The Post-Standard


The gas-drilling industry was planning a big conference in Pittsburgh on Oct. 1. to showcase the Marcellus Shale’s "economic and energy production potential."

The Marcellus Coalition promised appearances not only by former governor Tom Ridge (now an industry lobbyist), and energy industry biggies like Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon and Range Resources CEO John Pinkerton, but also Pennsylvania's two primary gubernatorial candidates --Dan Onorato and Tom Corbett.

The conference was designed to win positive attention from the financial community, state political leaders, the media and voters for natural gas drilling in general and particularly for the controversial hydrofracturing technique which has made natural gas so accessible and its extraction so lucrative.

But the announcement of the upcoming event also appeared as a giant blip on the radar screen of environmentalists who oppose gas drilling--and especially the "fracking" technique which they fear will contaminate groundwater and pollute surface streams and other water bodies. (For a summary of  their concerns, see: Gasland)

The activists immediately began organizing protests to be held outside the event at the convention center.

Now, without the fanfare with which it was announced, the conference has been canceled.

Chris Potter wrote yesterday in the Pittsburgh City Paper that:

"for all appearances, it's as if the summit was never scheduled at all. The coalition Web page that once touted the summit now produces a 404 error. (Though a cached version of it can be found here.) No other mention of it appears on the site."

Potter asked what role the planned protests had in the decision to cancel.

"None whatsoever," said Travis Windle, a coalition spokesman, who said the decision was based on "a host of logistical issues" including several competing events."

That could be the case.  But we suspect that coalition leaders had at least three larger concerns in mind, namely, that:

     -   A planned public hearing on 'fracking' was canceled last week in New York by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after rumors of thousands of protestors arriving by bus scared the pants off officials of a university where the event was to be held.

    -  Environmental activists in Pennsylvania made no secret of the fact that the convention center event provided a big, juicy, symbolic target of what they see as corporate interests all too willing to overlook public and environemtnal health for large profits.

   -  With public concern over fracking on the rise, Pennsylvania legislators (who until now have generally played the role of industry cheerleaders) are being asked to consider bills that would impose a moratorium on gas drilling until the EPA completes a study whether it needs to be regulated.

Logistical issues aside, we imagine that coalition leaders did a quick PR risk assessment and concluded that this was neither the time or the place for a feel good conference on drilling for dollars.

Our most recent posts:  

EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh

Battling for the Bays--Barnegat and Rehoboth 
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!
Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came
Coal residue from NJ could help reclaim old PA mine site 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click ------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh

Photo: Scientific American

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will host a hearing on September 21 at the Omni Hotel, 530 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh, Pa., to get public comment on its proposal to regulate the disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. 

The agency describes its proposed regulations as the “first-ever national effort to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants.”  

The action was prompted by the December 2008 spill of coal ash from a surface impoundment near Kingston, Tennessee.

Pittsburgh is one of seven national locations for the hearings.

Coal-Ash Hearing Schedule
August 30:        Hyatt Regency, Arlington, Virginia
September 2:    Grand Hyatt, Denver, Colorado
September 8:    Hyatt Regency Dallas, Dallas, Texas  
September 14:  Holiday Inn(Airport), Charlotte, North Carolina    
September 16:  Hilton Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 
September 21:  Omni Hotel, Pittsburgh, Pa.
September 28:  Seelbach Hilton, Louisville, Kentucky

Each hearing will begin at 10 a.m. and continue until 9 p.m. with a break at noon and 5 p.m. local time. The hearings will continue past
9 p.m. if necessary.  People who wish for a guaranteed slot to speak must register no later than three business days before each hearing.  Additionally, walk-ins and written comments will be accepted at each hearing. The agency will consider the public’s comments in its final decision.

The EPA is weighing two possible approaches. The first would phase out surface impoundments and moves all coal ash to landfills. The second allows coal ash to be disposed in surface impoundments, but with stricter safety criteria. (Chart comparing the two approaches)  Click here for more information about the proposed regulation

Our most recent posts:
Battling for the Bays--Barnegat and Rehoboth 
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!
Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came
Coal residue from NJ could help reclaim old PA mine site 
Shale gas industry adds Tom Ridge to its lobbying stable 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Battling for the Bays--Barnegat and Rehoboth

Two environmental committees are meeting jointly today in New Jersey to consider bills aimed at saving the slowly dying Barnegat Bay, while, in Delaware, the focus is on a proposed new sewage treatment plant that critics say would spur resort-area sprawl and impair the health of Delaware's Inland Bays and groundwater.

The legislation to be handled today by members of the NJ Senate Environment and Energy Committee and the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee would:

 * Restrict the content of fertilizer flowing into waterways like the Barnegat Bay - S1411
 * Creates soil restoration standards - S1410
 * Establishes a stormwater management system pilot project in Ocean County - S1815
 * Allow Ocean County to charge a fee to be used to study storm water issues - S1856

For more, check out the Asbury Park Press's five-day series: Barnegat Bay Under Stress

Today's News Journal story on Delaware's sprawl/pollution controversy: Sewage disposal battle shapes up

Our most recent posts:
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!
Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came
Coal residue from NJ could help reclaim old PA mine site 
Shale gas industry adds Tom Ridge to its lobbying stable
PADEP Secretary and 'Gasland' filmmaker trade jabs

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!

Earlier today, we reported on the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to change the location of Thursday's public hearing on the controversial gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracturing, or just plain fracking.

Call it what you will, it's off.  The hearing, that is, scratched until sometime next month.  
The day-long public meeting (the last in a series of four) originally was scheduled to be held at Binghamton University. The EPA expected it to attract a crowd of up to 1200 persons. 

 
                                           Jeff Swensen for The New York Times
Crowd attending fracking hearing in Canonsburg, Pa in July

When university officials began hearing reports that up to 8,000 impassioned supporters and opponents of the controversial drilling method might descend upon their tranquil campus, they hiked EPA's bill more than five times over the original agreed amount.

They said it was to pay for the added security.

Maybe it was. Or maybe it was to get the EPA to take their hearing and all those impassioned folks somewhere else.

Whatever their motives, it worked. EPA quickly negotiated a new venue--the OnCenter Complex in Syracuse.  It was 65 miles north of Binghamton,  but it was available on the original hearing date, Thursday, August 12.  

The EPA's Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck sounded a little peeved in a press release announcing the need to change the location. Little did she know that, hours later, she'd be issuing a meeting cancellation notice.

What happened in between the news releases? 

After EPA received initial agreement on switching the hearing to Syracuse, Onondaga County officials had time to think things over.  They decided they didn’t have sufficient time to arrange for the security that might be necessary to handle protests and rallies outside the meeting itself.

So, the EPA’s meeting planners are back to the drawing board.

A bit embarrassed by all the fuss, perhaps, the agency remains undaunted. Its latest statement notes that residents of Fort Worth, Texas, Denver, Colorado and Canonsburg, Pennsylvania were all afforded a chance to express their views.

Should the EPA adopt new environmental regulations to insure the safety of  shale gas drilling?  

It’s Upstate New Yorkers turn to weigh in on the fracking issue. 
Some day. Some place.  Next month. 

Related:
8,000 People? E.P.A. Defers Hearing on Fracking

Our most recent posts: 
Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came
Coal residue from NJ could help reclaim old PA mine site 
Shale gas industry adds Tom Ridge to its lobbying stable
PADEP Secretary and 'Gasland' filmmaker trade jabs
EPA proposes new coliform rule for public water systems

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came

The possibility that far more people than originally expected might attend a hearing on natural gas drilling on Thursday has forced the Environmental Protection Agency to re-locate the day-long event from Binghamton University to a Syracuse convention center 65 miles north.

It’s the controversial nature of the meeting topic—the hydraulic fracturing method of extracting natural gas wells—that forced the relocation.

The EPA is undertaking a study to determine whether new environmental rules are necessary to insure that the technique (also known as hydrofracturing or fracking)
does not cause harm to groundwater or surface streams. 

The technique involves the injection of  chemical-laden water, under high pressure, to extract natural gas held in underground formations of shale rock.

Critics say the technology could poison water supplies. The industry says it's been used safely for decades in mining operations in the west.

New crowd-size estimates force relocation

The EPA said 300 people had signed up to speak at Thursday's sessions and 1,200 were expected to attend.

But a Binghamton University official said information from law enforcement and various interest groups suggested that an estimated 8,000 people could descend on the campus.  That prompted the university to raise its cost estimate to cover increased security and a larger meeting area.

EPA’s Region 2 Administrator, Judith Enck, said the revised cost estimate was five times what had been agreed upon previously and that forced the agency to find a more affordable  location.

Thursday's hearing, to be held at the Oncenter Complex in Syracuse, will consist of three, four-hour sessions.

Click here for more information on the relocated hearing. 

Are you concerned about  hydrofracturing?  Are new rules a good or bad idea?
Do you plan to attend the hearing? Use the comment box below to share your thoughts.  

Related stories:
Fracking meeting moved to Syracuse
EPA swaps drilling hearing to Syracuse from Binghamton 
Speakers at EPA hearing spar over effect of gas drilling on air quality
1,000 attend EPA hearing on safety of fracturing

Our most recent posts: 
Coal residue from NJ could help reclaim old PA mine site 
Shale gas industry adds Tom Ridge to its lobbying stable
PADEP Secretary and 'Gasland' filmmaker trade jabs
EPA proposes new coliform rule for public water systems
EPA's updated Toxics Release Inventory available online

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

Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coal residue from NJ could help reclaim old PA mine site

Old coal mine in Scranton, Pennsylvania

For decades, Pennsylvania mined the coal that powered New Jersey industries.  Now a New Jersey utility wants to send a byproduct of coal burning back to Pennsylvania to help reclaim an old mine property in Hazleton.

There's a sense of symmetry to the idea. But like any proposal that involves shipping one state's waste to another state for disposal--especially waste that could contain harmful materials--this one is already stirring opposition.

Here's the quick version.

Hazleton Creek Properties wants to reclaim 53 acres of former mine property for the construction of an amphitheater to attract concerts to the city. New Jersey's largest energy company, PSEG, wants to dispose of waste material that is produced in its coal-burning power plants when limestone is injected into exhaust gases to minimize sulfur emissions.

The Pennsylvania DEP scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for Aug. 3.

Proponents are assembling their scientific studies to show the material will cause no environmental harm.  Critics are gearing up, too, and will be questioning the levels of potentially hazardous elements in the residue and their potential impacts on groundwater.

For a more detailed discussion, check out the story in today's Standard-Speaker:
Developer looks to fill reclaimed mine land with N.J. plant residue

Our most recent posts:
Shale gas industry adds Tom Ridge to its lobbying stable
PADEP Secretary and 'Gasland' filmmaker trade jabs
EPA proposes new coliform rule for public water systems
EPA's updated Toxics Release Inventory available online
Canadians challenge Deepwater Wind in Rhode Island

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics - Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
--------------------------------------------------------------------------