|
November 30, 2006
|
|
EDECA, GHG, EMP Alphabet Soup
|
|
Please do not reply to
this e-mail address, as it is only used for sending
e-mails. |
|
Greetings, The Assembly Telecommunications & Utilities Committee will be meeting on Monday. The Committee is holding a hearing on the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act ("EDECA"). Representatives of energy industries have been invited to discuss the results of EDECA from an industry perspective. This hearing is a continuation of the Committee's examination of EDECA's impact on energy policies in this State. They will also be hearing the Marcal legislation. I met earlier this week with Senator Buono on her Green House Gas (GHG) legislation, S-2114. The Senator indicated that she expects to act on it in January. As you may be aware, this legislation takes RGGI a step further to regulate all greenhouse gases determined by the DEP to contribute to global warming and places caps on all significant emitters of GHG, not just power plants. NJBIA is opposed to this legislation. I am hearing that the Energy Master Plan (EMP) committee announcements will be made late this week or early next week. They are looking to limit the number of representatives to one per industry. But if you are feeling left out, you can attend the CEEEP modeling meeting. (See below) Please let me know if you have any questions. Sara
1. EMP Modeling Overview EMP Modeling Overview The process for creating the New Jersey Energy Master Plan (EMP) includes modeling analysis designed to help inform the EMP Committee and stakeholders in determining strong and feasible objectives for the State's energy future. Please join the Rutgers Economic Advisory Service (R/ECON™) and the Center for Energy, Economic & Environmental Policy (CEEEP) to learn about the models and help shape the assumptions, methodology, and scenarios used in the modeling process. When: Monday, December 18, 2006 - 1:00-3:00 p.m. Where: The Center for Energy, Economic & Environmental Policy The Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy 33 Livingston Avenue New Brunswick, NJ 08901 *****An RSVP is required to attend this meeting! Please send all RSVP's to Larisa Canastra at LCanastr@rci.rutgers.edu Company shelves plans for ``clean coal'' power plantNovember 28, 2006, 3:37 p.m. EST Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc. N.J. has big stakes in climate debate The case, brought by New Jersey and 11 other states, seemed to divide justices on whether the federal government should be forced to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles. Some of the court's more conservative justices questioned whether the states had shown they face an imminent threat from the pollution. Meanwhile, one of its more liberal justices criticized the Bush administration for ignoring data showing just that. New Jersey officials said something must be done before warming temperatures lead to rising seas and permanent damage along the Jersey Shore and other vulnerable spots. "Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue that we are facing today and it's going to have a major impact down the line," said Lisa Morelli, a deputy attorney general who attended the hearing in Washington. The case, led by Massachusetts, turns on whether the Environmental Protection Agency is legally required to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from vehicles. It could have a significant ripple effect that could extend to emissions from power plants and other sources. Power plants also emit greenhouse gases and the states say they, too, need to be better regulated. New Jersey and other Northeastern states are particularly concerned about massive power plants in the Midwest that emit not just greenhouse gases but pollutants that drift here and contribute to high rates of asthma and other ills. Justice Department lawyer Greg Garre, arguing for the administration, warned the justices that regulation could have far-reaching economic effects because 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to oil, gas and other sources of greenhouse emissions. The EPA was right not to regulate the gases "given the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding" climate change, he said. Scientists are virtually unanimous in the view that global temperatures are rising mainly because of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Less certain is just how warm it may get, how quickly the changes will occur and how severe the consequences will be. President Bush, while agreeing that climate change is a problem, has refused to adopt any mandatory limits, saying they could hurt the economy. In New Jersey, recent studies -- while acknowledging the uncertainty -- have predicted rising sea levels, increased flooding and more stress on water supplies if temperatures keep rising at their current pace. Last month, two Princeton University scientists predicted North Jersey's climate could feel more like that of South Carolina by the end of the century, with summers 6 to 14 degrees warmer and double the number of short-term droughts. That could put more strain on the state's reservoirs, they warned. Last November, another Princeton team forecast more severe flooding for almost a tenth of the state, including areas in the Meadowlands and towns along the lower Passaic and Hudson rivers. A swelling ocean could claim 1 percent to 3 percent of the state's coastline, they said. One of the authors of that study, Princeton Professor Michael Oppenheimer, said he thought the Supreme Court case could break the political logjam over global warming. But Oppenheimer said he thought action was inevitable either way, given the potential threats. "A victory by the plaintiffs in court will get the ball rolling, and rolling fast, on finally having a federal policy on greenhouse gases," said Oppenheimer, formerly chief scientist for the non-profit group Environmental Defense. "But even a loss will not prevent the U.S. from eventually dealing with the problem. It has to." In court on Wednesday, the lead attorney for the states said time was running out. The federal government was lighting "a fuse on a bomb" by not acting, said James Mikley, an assistant attorney general for Massachusetts. But several justices, led by Antonin Scalia and John Roberts, questioned whether the states have the legal right to challenge EPA's decision not to regulate. Roberts, the chief justice, said the states were "spinning out conjecture on conjecture" to support their argument. Justice Samuel Alito said the reduction in worldwide greenhouse gases from automobiles was likely to be small. But Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the EPA's argument that three scientific reports showed experts are unsure whether greenhouse gases are raising temperatures. "In their selective quotations, they left out the parts that indicated there was far less uncertainty than the agency purported to find," Stevens said. In North Jersey, private businesses said the issue would have an impact, eventually, for them. At PSEG, North Jersey's leading power supplier and a major generator of greenhouse gases, the company supports national regulations to tackle the problem, said spokesman Neil Brown. It fears local or state-by-state rules would put it at a competitive disadvantage to utilities in areas that don't crack down. Reducing emissions may make electricity more expensive, Brown said, but the company feels it can be done at a "reasonable" cost for consumers. In Mahwah, the general manger of the Campgaw Mountain ski area said she worried about the future costs of a warmer world. In relatively mild Bergen County, Campgaw already relies on snow-making machines, Corie Stone noted, and those machines only work at certain temperatures. "It takes a lot of energy to make the snow now, a lot of fuel, a lot of special additives," Stone said. "It is already an expensive sport before doing this and I can't imagine what it would be like" if the climate changes. This article contains material from the Associated Press and Bloomberg News. Copyright © 2006 North Jersey Media Group Inc. |
|
NJBIA - Serving More than 23,000 Member
Companies The following e-mail has been sent to you because you opted to join
an NJBIA issue network or because you are a member of an NJBIA policy
committee. It contains information we believe you will find
useful. If you have questions about your NJBIA membership, contact Lynn
Sabo at 609-393-7707, ext. 238, or via e-mail at lsabo@njbia.org. |