Tag Archives: Department of Environmental Protection

Offshore wind foes in New Jersey flex muscles

From CFACT

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D. 

As dead whales continue to wash up on New Jersey’s beaches, Garden State officials are hoping to issue the final permits in the coming months enabling construction to begin later this year on the state’s first offshore wind facility.

Ocean Wind 1 is a project of a U.S. subsidiary of Danish wind developer Orsted. Upon completion, it would feature 98 giant turbines located 15 miles off the coast of Ocean City and Atlantic City. It is the first of three such projects planned for the Jersey Shore in the near future, with even more on the drawing board in the years to come.

While acknowledging certain environmental challenges associated with the project, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in April issued a key approval for Ocean Wind 1. That decision is now being challenged in court by three groups opposed to the project. Save Long Beach Island, Defend Brigantine Beach, and Protect Our Coast NJ filed an appeal on June 23 in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, saying the DEP’s decision is inconsistent with state coastal management rules.

Threat to Marine Habitat

Bruce Afran, an attorney for the groups, told the Associated Press that the DEP “has acknowledged the wind turbines will destroy marine habitat, compress the sea floor, severely damage maritime communities, cause commercial fishing stocks to decline, and injure the beach economy.”

“Yet the state persists in the bizarre belief that this massive engineering project will not injure our state’s coastal zone, one of the most important marine communities on the East Coast and the core of New Jersey’s $47 billion tourist industry.”

To buttress his plaintiffs’ case, Afran cited numerous sections of the DEP’s April decision on Ocean Wind 1, “acknowledging potential negative impacts on the surf clam industry; changes to the ocean floor from wind turbine foundations and equipment; and the regular use of the area as a migrating channel for five species of whales, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale,” the AP reported.

The appeal follows a decision by the investigative arm of Congress, the Congressional Accountability Office, to study the impact of offshore wind on the environment and other areas – something opponents have long sought, the AP notes.

Orsted, in addition to Ocean Wind 1, has another offshore wind project making its way through New Jersey’s approval process. The Danish renewable energy developer now finds itself potentially benefitting handsomely from a bill under consideration by Garden State lawmakers. Legislation pushed by Sen. Bob Smith, Middlesex County Democrat, would allow Orsted to keep federal tax credits it otherwise would have to return to ratepayers in order to counter what the bill’s proponents say are lingering economic effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and still-high inflation.

Brian Lipman, director of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, warned that what was good for the developer was not necessarily good for the ratepayer.

“There should be no doubt that this bill will increase the amount the developer earns on this project and will result in higher … prices being paid by ratepayers. That is the inevitable result of this bill,” he was quoted by AP as saying.

The final language of the bill is still being hashed out as lawmakers scramble to deal with what is seen as a sweetheart deal for Orsted and potentially a raw deal for ratepayers.

Meanwhile, the number of whale deaths along the East Coast since December has risen to 50. Uncertainty over what’s behind these deaths has led to calls for a pause in offshore wind development until the cause of the spike in mortality can be ascertained.

Author

  • Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.
  • Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT, where he focuses on natural resources, energy, property rights, and geopolitical developments.
  • Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Busines Daily, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Hill, The Epoch Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers around the country.
  • He has been interviewed on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, NBC News, NPR, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, N24 (German-language news network), and scores of radio stations in the U.S. and Canada.
  • He has testified before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Cohen has addressed conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh.
  • He has a B.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph. D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.

NYC Pizzerias versus Climate Change Busybodies

From Watts Up With That?

There is a storm brewing in the New York City food scene, a storm born out of seemingly well-intentioned climate change regulations. Yet, the key question remains, is it a storm we need to weather?

According to a recent article from The Post, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has proposed new rules targeting decades-old baking methods in pizzerias. Specifically, the department is cracking down on coal-and-wood-fired ovens, demanding a 75% reduction in carbon emissions. DEP spokesman Ted Timbers explains,

“All New Yorkers deserve to breathe healthy air and wood and coal-fired stoves are among the largest contributors of harmful pollutants in neighborhoods with poor air quality.”

While the desire for cleaner air is something we can all get behind, the overall impact of these regulations is questionable at best. A city official admitted that less than 100 restaurants would be affected by the mandate, leading us to ask, is it worth it?

https://nypost.com/2023/06/25/nyc-rules-crack-down-on-coal-wood-fired-pizzerias-must-cut-carbon-emissions-up-to-75/

Paul Giannone, owner of Paulie Gee’s in Greenpoint, reportedly spent $20,000 on an air filter system in anticipation of the new rules, a price that many small businesses can ill afford. Giannone summed up the situation, stating,

“Oh yeah, it’s a big expense! It’s not just the expense of having it installed, it’s the maintenance. I got to pay somebody to do it, to go up there every couple of weeks and hose it down and you know do the maintenance.”

https://nypost.com/2023/06/25/nyc-rules-crack-down-on-coal-wood-fired-pizzerias-must-cut-carbon-emissions-up-to-75/

Another anonymous restaurateur, furious at the proposed rules, exclaimed,

“And for what? You really think that you’re changing the environment with these eight or nine pizza ovens?!”

https://nypost.com/2023/06/25/nyc-rules-crack-down-on-coal-wood-fired-pizzerias-must-cut-carbon-emissions-up-to-75/

Adding to the controversy, many patrons argue that the change would alter the taste of the pizzas baked in these traditional ovens. Brooklyn Heights resident Saavi Sharma lamented,

“I’m all for responsible environmental practice but tell Al Gore to take one less private jet or something. Give me a break!”https://nypost.com/2023/06/25/nyc-rules-crack-down-on-coal-wood-fired-pizzerias-must-cut-carbon-emissions-up-to-75/

Dave Portnoy weighs in.

While DEP officials claim they consulted with restaurateurs to develop the rules, the responses suggest the opposite. The truth of the matter is, these regulations not only threaten the authenticity and taste of New York City pizza, but they also place an unnecessary burden on small businesses already hit hard by COVID-19 pandemic.

As the anonymous restaurateur pointed out, if this mandate is about making a significant difference in environmental impact, then it is utterly misdirected.

To echo Sharma’s sentiments, let’s focus on the real culprits of environmental pollution and not meddle with our slice. The flavor of authentic New York City pizza, baked in a coal-and-wood-fired oven, is a legacy we should preserve, not regulate out of existence.