Real Property & Environmental Law Alert : New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania & Delaware Lawyers & Attorneys for Real Estate Development & Environmental Law

One of the problems with electric cars (EVs) is - what do you do when the battery runs down? Currently there are 500 charging stations in the United States and 400 of them are in California. In an attempt to address the dead battery problem and encourage purchase of EVs, on March 21, 2011, the New Jersey State Senate introduced Bill S2784 (the “Bill”) which requires owners of shopping center developments to include charging stations. Under the Bill, owners of a “shopping center development” must equip not less than five (5%) percent of the parking spaces for the shopping center development with electric vehicle charging stations. Moreover, such stations must be available for use during the hours of operation of the shopping center development.

The term “shopping center development” is defined by the Bill as “a privately owned and operated commercial development that is or is to be owned and managed as a unit consisting of a building or series of buildings on a common site together with adjacent parking area of no less than 100 parking spaces to which the public is invited.”

The Bill proposes that shopping center owners can recoup “costs of compliance” with the Bill by imposing charges on motorists for EV charging . Therefore, shopping center owners will be required under the Bill to erect signage stating the price per unit of time, unit of voltage, or other measure of usage, as determined by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (the “BPU”) to be charged to the motorist for such service. No shopping center owner would be permitted to sell electricity at a price that exceeds the maximum amount per unit set by the BPU. Under the Bill, the BPU is directed to adopt standards for a schedule of prices. A comment period and public hearing on the schedule of prices is required to be held by the BPU before the per unit price is set.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 18, 2011, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a trial court’s decision that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection had failed to establish sufficient “nexus” or connection between the operator of a dry cleaner and regional groundwater contamination. In New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Dimant, et al., (Docket A-3180-09T2), the Appellate Division soundly rejected New Jersey’s claim that “the Spill Act must be interpreted and applied very broadly to find that any discharge at any time, even a de minimis one, imposes liability on all operators handling that product, and that a direct causal connection between the discharge and the damages need not be established.” This sort of argument which asks the court to overlook critical connections is all too common in environmental cases. Indeed, governmental plaintiffs often invoke policy reasons when asking for relaxed nexus requirements whereas private parties seeking contribution frequently call on the courts to shift the burden to the alleged dischargers.

However, in Dimant the Appellate Division reminded all potential plaintiffs seeking to impose liability for clean-up costs on former owners or operators that they must meet their burden by coming forward with a preponderance of the evidence sufficient to prove a “nexus” between the defendant and the discharge as well as connecting the damages to the contamination. Although plaintiffs may resort to circumstantial evidence and experts, any break in the chain of connections between a defendant and the discharge or the discharge and the alleged contamination (or the contamination and the plaintiff’s damages) should be fatal after Dimant.

Dimant involved the dry cleaning solvent perchloroethylene (PCE) which had impacted over 350 acres of groundwater in and around Bound Brook. Although there were no less than three dry cleaners in the neighborhood (each of which had several owners and operators), as well as two or three other possible sources of PCE, NJDEP’s investigations eventually focused on only one relatively short term operator of one of the dry cleaners. Using a combination of inspection reports that confirmed the presence of discharge pipes in and around dry cleaning operations, and sampling data, NJDEP’s expert concluded that one particular operator was the “primary source” of the groundwater contamination. However, the trial court took a critical look at the alleged connections between this dry cleaner’s operations and the PCE discharge as well as the nexus between any potential discharge and the probability that it caused such extensive contamination. After a non-jury trial, the court found that NJDEP failed to prove its case primarily because its expert failed to address the presence of older, weathered PCE which pre-dated defendant’s activities. NJDEP’s expert was further faulted for the failure to consider other possible sources of the PCE. Indeed, reading between the lines it appears that NJDEP probably cobbled together sufficient evidence to prove that defendant’s operations resulted in minor discharges into a paved parking area. However, it also appears that NJDEP utterly failed to establish that defendant’s discharge was of sufficient volume or duration to have permeated the pavement and entered the groundwater and then caused the contamination. Thus, the chain of connections between the dry cleaning operations and the contaminated groundwater was broken.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The other shoe dropped on February 28 in the closely watched CERCLA case involving PCB contamination of the Fox River in Wisconsin. District Judge William C. Griesbach, who had previously ruled that the paper companies that made and discharged PCBs to the river could not seek contribution from recycling mills that unknowingly bought PCB-laden waste paper, called “broke,” and also discharged PCBs, held that those companies must reimburse those comparatively innocent companies for 100% of the costs they have incurred for most of the polluted river. But he held that it was too early to say whether the paper companies knew, and did, enough, to make them liable for “arranging for” disposal of the PCBs that ended up in the recycling mills’ discharges to an upstream stretch of the river.

In his recent decision, Judge Griesbach considered arguments concerning two separate stretches of the Fox River Superfund Site in Wisconsin, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has divided into five operable units (OUs). The plaintiff paper companies discharged PCBs into OU2, and the PCBs flowed downstream to OUs 3,4, and 5. The recycling mills discharged PCBs to all five OUs, including OU1, which is upstream from all of the others. (Another decision in the Fox River case was the subject of an earlier blog post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) published a proposed rule outlining circumstances in which the department would consider a waiver of environmental regulations that stand in the way of economic development. NJDEP will be holding a hearing on the proposed rule on April 14, 2011, at 3:00 pm.

The rule follows the Governor’s “Common Sense Principles” outlined in Executive Order No. 2 which focused on the need to reduce the high costs and regulatory burdens that are thought to impede growth and opportunity in the State of New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New Jersey case law has consistently held that new or modified development ordinance provisions apply to pending land use applications, even if the proposed zoning was specifically introduced to thwart a pending application. This has historically been known as the "time of decision" rule. On May 5, 2011, the time of decision rule will run out of time.

Recognizing the fundamental chilling impact on developers who commit substantial time and money to a project only to have the rules changed by a municipality after the game has already started, the Legislature amended the Municipal Land Use Law to provide that the development regulations in effect on the date of submission of an application govern the review and decision with respect to that application. This legislation was enacted on May 5, 2010, to become effective one year later in order to give municipalities time to revise and update their ordinances.

Accordingly, for those development applications submitted on or subsequent to May 5, 2011, the time of decision rule will no longer apply. Although municipalities will no longer be able to rezone reactively as a substitute for thorough and comprehensive planning or in reaction to public opposition to the application, the question now will be: Is an application that is deemed "incomplete" sufficiently "submitted" to be protected against changes to a municipality's development ordinance?

Douglas J. Janacek is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 17, 2011, the Assembly unanimously adopted bill A 2722. The bill, which is intended to implement some of the findings of the Red Tape Review Group, would amend the Administrative Procedures Act and provide administrative law judges (“ALJs”) with more tools to streamline contested administrative law cases. Interestingly, however, the bill would also strip the Commissioners of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”), as well as some others, of their power to review, modify, or reject ALJs’ decisions in contested cases.

Currently, once a contested case is forwarded by the department to the Office of Administrative Law, the case is assigned to an ALJ, and a trial-like hearing is held. Upon completion of the hearing, the ALJ issues a report and decision with recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. The department head (i.e. Commissioner of the DEP) then has 45 days to adopt, reject, or modify the recommended report and decision before the decision becomes final.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link