Author: Journal Editor Page 6 of 11

General Iron Faces Challenges as Southside Community Demands Environmental Justice

General Iron has been making headlines for more than a year because of its pollution issues and recent attempt to relocate. RMG, General Iron’s parent company, has closed its long time North Branch-located metal shredding and recycling operation.[1] For many North Side neighbors, the facility’s closure was a win after a years-long battle to close the facility over environmental health and safety concerns from the facility’s operations, such as two explosions over the past five years.[2]

But there has been significant public outcry against General Iron’s plans to relocate to the Southeast side of Chicago at 116th and Burnham Street. Coalitions of Southeast side residents have been protesting for months, advocating for better air quality and preventing the relocation of General Iron to their neighborhood. The Natural Resource Defense Council has drawn national attention to the facility’s explosions, contribution to air pollution, and desire to move to a predominantly Latinx neighborhood.[3]

Read More

Did Joliet Make the Right Choice for its Drinking Water Supply?

The city of Joliet (“City”), the fourth largest city in Illinois, has decided to secure its drinking water from Chicago instead of Hammond, Indiana.[i] Joliet has historically been dependent on groundwater, pumping from the Ironton Galesville aquifer at an unsustainable rate.[ii] The City has known since the 1960s that the pumping rate exceeds the rate of recharge into the aquifer.[iii] Estimates show the aquifer will likely run dry by the year 2030, forcing the City to seek out alternatives.[iv]

Joliet examined fourteen alternative water sources in Phase I of its exploration.[v] During Phase II, five sources were studied in more detail to replace the existing water source in Joliet, including several municipal Lake Michigan intake systems and the Kankakee and Illinois Rivers.

Read More

Oil and Gas Royalty Rates on Public Lands Under Review by Biden Administration

President Biden’s climate plans include a review of federal and state royalty rates paid by private companies for access to fossil fuel reserves underneath public lands.[i] On January 27, Biden issued Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” urging aggressive domestic policy directives.[ii]

The Order directed the Secretary of the Interior to pause the issuance of new oil and gas leases for drilling rights on federal lands until the Secretary completes a “comprehensive review” of oil and gas permitting requirements.[iii] The Secretary subsequently issued Order No. 3395 (“the Order”), which directed the pause on approving new leases for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and ordered the comprehensive review of federal royalty rates.[iv]

Read More

Biden’s Moratorium on Public Lands Drilling Leases will have a Muted Impact–at Least in the Short-term

One week after his inauguration, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” (the Order), a move consistent with the progressive environmental platform he championed during his campaign.[i] The Order lays out aggressive domestic policy mandates and reaffirms the Biden Administration’s commitment to leading the global effort to combat the climate crisis.[ii]

As part of the sweeping domestic policies set forth in the Order, President Biden directed the Secretary of Interior (the Secretary) to pause new oil and gas leases on public lands and offshore waters.[iii] The Order does not specify the length of the moratorium, but does prohibit the issuance of any new leases until the Secretary conducts a “comprehensive review” of the current oil and gas permitting requirements under law.[iv]

Read More

When Utility Bills Go Unpaid: Lowering Bills by Lowering Consumption (Part III)

By Andrea Jakubas

This post is the final part of a three-part series discussing three avenues for reducing the “uncollectible burden”–the inability of people to pay their utility bills during the COVID-19 pandemic. Part one examined government grants and policy; part two looked at incentivizing and changing consumer bill-paying behavior. Part three, below, discusses clean energy initiatives that promote efficiency, reduce consumption and use cleaner forms of energy.

In pre-pandemic times, if utility customers did not or could not pay their bills, the company could generally disconnect their service. But in response to the COVID-19 emergency, many states have issued moratoria against such utility shutoffs for nonpayment,[1] recognizing both that utilities are vital to human health and well-being and that customers are facing daunting levels of unemployment and decreased ability to pay their bills.

These shutoff moratoria are necessary but raise an additional problem: how bills will ultimately be paid. Generally, uncollectible accounts are “socialized” across utilities customers. The rate paid covers not only the customer’s direct consumption but also administrative costs, including other customers’ nonpayment. As the pandemic—and orders against utility shutoffs—drag on, the mountain of “uncollectible” debt will continue to grow, and there are no clear answers on how (and by whom) bills will ultimately be paid.

Programs that reduce consumption, or that use non-carbon fuel sources are doubly advantageous: they can make bills more affordable for customers and increase the likelihood the bills will be paid, and can reduce carbon emissions.

Distributed solar

Energy generated in a dispersed manner or by customers, rather than at a central location (like a nuclear power plant), is “distributed generation.”[2] The most common distributed generation method is home solar panels. But many customers, especially those who are already struggling to pay their bills, will have trouble investing in panels—though some companies offer the option to lease panels.[3]

Read More

When Utility Bills Go Unpaid: Changing Customer Bill-Paying Behavior (Part II)

By Andrea Jakubas

This post is part two of a three-part series discussing three avenues for  reducing the “uncollectible burden”–the inability of people to pay their utility bills during the COVID-19 pandemic. Part one examined government grants and policy; part three will discuss clean energy initiatives that promote efficiency and reduce consumption. This post discusses how incentivizing and changing consumer bill-paying behavior could help address the uncollectibles problem.

In pre-pandemic times, if utility customers did not or could not pay their bills, the company could generally disconnect their service. But in response to the COVID-19 emergency, many states have issued moratoria against such utility shutoffs for nonpayment,[1] recognizing both that utilities are vital to human health and well-being and that customers are facing daunting levels of unemployment and decreased ability to pay their bills.

These shutoff moratoria are necessary but raise an additional problem: how bills will ultimately be paid. Generally, uncollectible accounts are “socialized” across utilities customers. The rate paid covers not only the customer’s direct consumption but also administrative costs, including other customers’ nonpayment.

As the pandemic—and orders against utility shutoffs—drag on, the mountain of “uncollectible” debt will continue to grow, and there are no clear answers on how (and by whom) bills will ultimately be paid.

Changing bill-paying behavior requires first that customers have at least some ability to pay their bills, but there are several options to help bills become more manageable.

Deferred Payment Arrangements

A deferred payment arrangement (DPA), for example, allows the customer to pay later for services used now. It does not waive the customer’s obligation to pay; rather, it allows them more time to pay their bills, often with at least part of the past due amount due each billing cycle.

Read More

SEC Commissioner Calls for More Robust Climate Reporting

While the devastating effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic take center stage, another worldwide crisis “looms even larger than the pandemic and could have even more grave human and economic costs than those we have witnessed these last eight months.”[1]

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Allison Herren Lee addressed the threat of climate change on financial markets during her keynote remarks at the Practising Law Institute’s 52nd Annual Institute on Securities Regulation earlier this month.[2] Commissioner Lee—a Trump appointee—implored attendees to take climate change seriously, even while the crisis may appear to be an abstract threat to some.[3]

Read More

Feds Pull Back Construction Permit After Environmental Justice Groups Sue

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) made a last-minute recall of a permit given to Formosa Plastics for the construction of a new petrochemical plant along the Mississippi River in St. James Parish, Louisiana.[1] The Corps explained in a recent court filing that “[d]urging its review of the permit, it has now come to the Corps’ attention that an element of the permit warrants additional evaluation.”[2] The motion came just a day before the court’s deadline for the agency to file its cross-motion for summary judgment.

Environmental advocacy groups and local residents had been pressing the Corps to deny Formosa the permit, arguing construction of the petrochemical plant would exasperate the public health concerns in St. James Parish.[3] The area is predominantly black and low-income; the per capita income is about 40% lower than the national average.[4]

Read More

When Utility Bills Go Unpaid: A Growing Problem of COVID-19 (Part I)

By Andrea Jakubas

This post is part one of a three-part series discussing three avenues for reducing the “uncollectible burden”–the inability of people to pay their utility bills during the COVID-19 pandemic. Part one examines government grants and policy; part two will examine incentivizing and changing consumer bill-paying behavior, while part three will discuss clean energy initiatives that promote efficiency and reduce consumption.

In pre-pandemic times, if utility customers did not or could not pay their bills, the company could generally disconnect their service. But in response to the COVID-19 emergency, many states have issued moratoria against such utility shutoffs for nonpayment,[1] recognizing both that utilities are vital to human health and well-being and that customers are facing daunting levels of unemployment and decreased ability to pay their bills.

These shutoff moratoria are necessary but raise an additional problem: how bills will ultimately be paid. Generally, uncollectible accounts are “socialized” across utilities customers. The rate paid covers not only the customer’s direct consumption but also administrative costs, including other customers’ nonpayment. As the pandemic—and orders against utility shutoffs—drag on, the mountain of “uncollectible” debt will continue to grow, and there are no clear answers on how (and by whom) bills will ultimately be paid.

Pre-Pandemic Government Funding and Programs to Address the Uncollectables Problem

State and federal programs established before and during the pandemic have helped some customers reduce their debt.

Utility bill affordability was an issue long before the current pandemic, especially in lower-income homes. Now, during the pandemic, low-income individuals are more likely to have lost their jobs and are more concerned about being able to pay their bills, with only 23 percent of lower-income families reporting that they have enough emergency funds to last three months.[2]

Read More

How the Biden Administration Can Use Executive Action to Advance its Energy and Environmental Policies

President-elect Joseph R. Biden faces a challenging road to inauguration day. But that road may be nothing compared to the to-do list waiting for him on January 21. The global pandemic and a struggling national economy are first-order priorities, but in addition to these emergent issues, energy and environmental policies were important topics for many voters during the election.[i]

Biden campaigned on a platform championing clean energy and environmental justice.[ii] Depending on the outcome of two senate runoff elections in Georgia, however, the president-elect may have to realize much of his administration’s climate and clean energy policies through executive action.[iii]

Read More

Page 6 of 11

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén