Rebuilding New Jersey After Sandy - Legislation Would Require Standby Generators for a Variety of Businesses and Facilities

This article is the third in a series that deals with the legal implications of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated many areas of New Jersey on October 29, 2012. The resulting widespread power outages crippled many businesses which serve the public by providing essential services. To prevent that situation from recurring, a number of bills have been introduced in the New Jersey legislature which would require a variety of private businesses and facilities to install standby generators.

The most comprehensive of the bills, called the New Jersey Residents’ Power Protection Act and designated as A-3495, requires that "facilities and businesses...which provide critical and unique services that are vital to public safety and economic recovery during times of widespread power loss due to a natural disaster or other catastrophic event...have secondary sources of power.” These entities include newly constructed grocery stores (including supermarkets and convenience marts); gas stations; nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and subacute rehabilitation facilities; first aid, ambulance, and rescue squads; pharmacies; firehouses; and boarding houses. To offset the cost of implementation, the bill establishes a corporation business tax deduction and gross income tax deduction (maximum of $10,000), and a sales tax exemption, for the purchase of equipment.

A similar bill, designated as A-3064, would require installation and use of generators by specified eligible businesses, defined to encompass retail motor fuel dealers, motor fuel wholesalers, motor fuel terminal facilities, motor fuel refineries, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, subacute rehabilitation facilities, and newly constructed grocery stores. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority would be required to offer low-interest loans to these businesses to facilitate acquisition and installation of generators.

A number of other pending bills apply to only specific facilities and businesses: 

  • Grocery and convenience stores (newly constructed stores only) (A-3486  and S-2357);
  • Gas stations (existing and newly constructed stations) (A-3473 and S-3484, also A-3563 and S-2361);
  • Senior housing and/or disabled housing (newly constructed only) (A-1632 and S-402, also S-2372);
  • Senior residential multiple dwellings (existing and newly constructed) (A-3569);
  • Retirement community (existing and newly constructed) (A-3479 and S-2341);
  • Assisted living residences and certain other licensed residential health care facilities (existing and newly constructed) (A-2860, A-3514).

Although the circumstances which gave rise to this legislation illustrated the need for better emergency preparedness, these bills as written do not address issues concerning zoning compliance and the applicable approvals process for the installation of generators. There is no blanket exemption in any of the proposed legislation from zoning and site plan approval requirements. Therefore, those issues will have to be addressed on a site-specific basis from one municipality to another, unless the legislation is amended to establish a statewide set of uniform requirements. Some of the issues that businesses will need to consider and address are:

  • Is a generator a permitted accessory use in the municipal zoning ordinance, either expressly or through language allowing customary, subordinate and incidental accessory uses and structures?
  • Do setback requirements in the municipal zoning ordinance apply to generators?
  • Will impervious coverage be increased due to installation of a generator?
  • Does the site configuration have to be changed to accommodate siting of a generator by, for example, eliminating parking spaces or landscaped areas (which could result in the site becoming non-compliant), or does the generator's location require modifying access, circulation, loading or trash collection areas?
  • If the generator can be placed on the roof, will it violate height limitations, and is screening required?
  • If the generator can be placed within the building, is that area exempt from floor area ratio limitations and parking requirements?
  • Will the generator, when operational, violate municipal noise ordinances or the Noise Control Act of 1971, N.J.S.A. 13:1G-1 et seq., and its implementing regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:29-1.1 et seq.?
  • For existing facilities, does installation of a generator require site plan approval and the public hearing process which typically accompanies site plan review?
  • If a generator is required for a particular facility by state law, can a municipal planning board or zoning board of adjustment deny it based on aesthetic or other site plan considerations? And in the event of a denial, can the business be penalized for not having installed a generator?

These issues can be addressed more easily for newly constructed facilities, particularly those which have not yet secured site plan approval. But for approved facilities that have not yet obtained a construction permit, amended land use approvals may be required. And for facilities already in operation, particularly those in older buildings, those on properties which already exceed impervious coverage requirements, or those in municipalities with restrictive zoning regulations, compliance may be particularly challenging and may create deviations from local zoning requirements and the resulting need to apply for and obtain variances through costly and time-consuming public hearing proceedings.

Many of these issues appear to have been overlooked in the process of introducing legislation quickly in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. If you operate a business or facility which would be required to install a generator if this legislation becomes law, it would be wise to evaluate these considerations, determine how they may impact your business or facility, and consider whether to oppose the legislation or seek amendments to it through the legislative process. For answers to questions regarding your specific situation and the issues it presents, please feel free to contact an attorney in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department or the Gibbons Government Affairs Department.


Howard D. Geneslaw is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

NJ BPU Proposes Amendments to Regulations Affecting Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

On August 6, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) announced proposed amendments to multiple sections of the regulations governing renewable energy and energy efficiency. The amendments will affect New Jersey’s renewable portfolio standards, class II renewable energy certifications (RECs) and net metering. These proposed amendments come a few weeks after Governor Christie signed S-1925 into law on July 24, 2012, increasing the state’s solar requirements, and giving what is expected to be a boost to the solar energy business in the state.

Among the amendments is a provision which will specify the eligibility criteria for electric generation to be used as the basis for class II RECs. It is intended to codify existing practice and clarify what electric generation qualifies for class II RECs.

The changes proposed to the net metering regulations would clarify the terminology for the time period used to size renewable generation facilities. In addition there is a proposed expansion of the net metering to generation facilities located on contiguous properties.

The proposed amendment to the interconnection rules would prohibit payment for excess generation credits until the appropriate application is approved. It is intended to deter unauthorized energizing of generation facilities and to assist in review and approval prior to interconnection to the distribution system.

The BPU has provided a 60 day comment period. Comments to the proposed amendments may be submitted through October 5, 2012, in Word format (or one that can easily be converted to Word) by email to rule.comments@bpu.state.nj.us or on paper to: Kristi Izzo, Secretary, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, ATTN: BPU Docket Number: EX11120885V, 44 S. Clinton Ave., 9th floor, P.O. Box 350, Trenton, NJ 08625-0350

* Photo courtesy of Pixomar / FreeDigitalPhotos.net.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

The Extension of the Permit Extension Act is on the Move, To Be Reviewed Today By Assembly Appropriations Committee

About two months ago, several NJ Legislators, including State Senator Paul Sarlo (Bergen/Passaic) and Assemblyman Ronald Dancer, proposed bills that would amend the 2008 “Permit Extension Act.” Designed to give developers breathing room in the sluggish economy by extending the validity of development approvals, Proposed Bill S743 (the “Bill” or “S743”) is gaining traction and is moving through the necessary legislative committees. On March 5, 2012, S743 passed by a vote of 4-0 by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. The Bill is scheduled to go before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on March 12, 2012.

Under the current version of the Permit Extension Act, the expiration of all “approvals” that were granted during the “extension period” as defined in the statute have been tolled through December 31, 2012. The “extension period” is currently defined as “the period beginning January 1, 2007 and continuing through December 31, 2012.” S743 proposes that the definition of the “extension period” be changed so that it runs through December 31, 2014. Therefore, based on the 6-month tolling provision currently in the Permit Extension Act, approvals received during the extension period could be extended as far out as June 30, 2015. It should be noted that A337 proposed to extend the “extension period” through December 31, 2015. However, A337 has not gained the same head of steam as S743.

S743 as amended includes language to make it clear that as it pertains to Statewide planning areas, the definition of “extension area” shall remain in effect until June 30, 2013, or until such later time as the State Planning Commission revises and readopts New Jersey’s State Strategic Plan and adopts regulations to refine this definition. Further, all underlying municipal, county, and State permits or approvals within the Pinelands Area are extended pursuant to the “Pinelands Protection Act,” N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.

The definition of “approvals” under the Permit Extension Act covers most permits issued by State rule or regulation, including, preliminary and final approvals for development applications under the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law. S743 proposes that the definition of “approvals” be amended to include any “agreement with a municipality, county, municipal authority, sewerage authority, or other governmental authority for the use or reservation of sewerage capacity.”

S743 appears to be the bill that may amend the Permit Extension Act to help developers that need to wait a little longer for the economy to bounce back to save projects for which they have spent significant funds in obtaining approvals for development.


Jason R. Tuvel is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Law Department.

The Permit Extension Act May Keep Extending

Apparently concerned that the economy may not be recovering rapidly enough, the 215th New Jersey Legislature now convened, introduced a new bill (A337) on January 10, 2012, by Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer of District 12, to change the definition of the “extension period” under the Permit Extension Act so that it runs through December 31, 2015. Therefore, based on the 6-month tolling provision currently in the Permit Extension Act, approvals received for development applications during the extension period could be extended as far out as June 30, 2016. Bill A337 has been referred to the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee.

In 2008, as the economy was sliding into recession, the New Jersey Legislature passed the “Permit Extension Act,” which tolled the expiration of all development approvals that were granted during the “extension period” as defined in the statute. The intent was to preserve the benefit of permits until the economy improved. The “extension period” is currently defined as “the period beginning January 1, 2007 and continuing through December 31, 2012.” The definition of “approvals” under the Permit Extension Act covers most permits issued by State rule or regulation, including, preliminary and final approvals for development applications under the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law.

If signed into law, Bill A337 could provide developers with an opportunity to wait a little longer for the economy to turn around in order to build projects that have received approvals and are considered dormant at the present time.


Jason R. Tuvel is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

US EPA Issues National Standards for Mercury Pollution from Power Plants

On December 21, 2011, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it had issued the first ever national standards for mercury emissions and other air pollutants from power plants. The regulations were mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA estimates that the new standards will make a major contribution to public health by preventing 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks annually, as well as 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson stated, "The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance." According to EPA, the standards rely on widely available pollution controls that are already in use at more than half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants.

Sources will have three years to achieve compliance, with a fourth year available from state permitting authorities for technology installation. In developing the final rules, EPA consulted with State, local, and tribal officials in and also worked with industry groups, unions and other stakeholders. It reviewed over 900,000 comments. Critics of the regulations assert that they will result in job loss because older coal fired plants may be required to close. EPA counters that society as a whole will benefit because prevention of asthma, heart attacks, bronchitis and other illnesses attributable to air toxics will save $37 billion to $90 billion in health care costs each year by 2016.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

New Jersey Releases Sensible Lease Process for State Lands

On August 18, 2011, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin and DOT Commissioner James Simpson released a set of guidelines to revamp and apply consistency to New Jersey’s land leasing process for State Lands. A panel of ten State Agencies was convened to analyze the current lease policies and compile a Lease Valuation Report that offers recommendations on leases for Tidelands; Linear Corridor Projects (other than Tidelands); Publicly Bid, Market-Based and Nominal Fee leases; Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Aquaculture, and leases Related to Transportation Corridors. The guidelines will be adopted by all State agencies, with most of the guidelines implemented immediately.

The panel reported an honest and critical view of the current system for valuing certain types of leases labeling it simply as “broken.” The panel noted that some fee schedules are terribly outdated and that certain rules and statutes prevent the maximization of compensation to the State for the use of its land.

The new guidelines serve two public purposes: 1) to ensure that the State and its Citizens receive fair compensation for the use of State land and 2) to reduce the environmental impact of those that require use of State lands for private projects.

One of the changes is the elimination of perpetual term leases or easements for Tideland and Linear projects as well as a switch from a parcel-by-parcel negotiation and appraisal method to a flat square footage-based rate. As a point of perspective, the DEP alone owns 800,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitats and parks often traversed by utility lines. A switch to square footage-based rates both increases the revenue generated from a utility intent on developing on State property while at the same time compels them to use as little of the land as possible.

Leases will also have built-in annual adjustments of at least 2.5% thereby forcing lessees to accommodate for inflation. Another practical shift was to allocate more revenue generated from the leasing system back to the program or agency responsible for managing the leases.

Undoubtedly, the new guidelines will affect developers of offshore wind generation projects particularly in light of the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, a bill that was recently passed to foster development of this type of green energy.

According to Bob Martin “The State’s process for valuing leases was long overdue for a major overhaul. This is our opportunity to bring this system up to date, to provide more predictability for business and to get the best deals and most fair compensation for the people of New Jersey.”


Sandro G. Ocasio is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

NJICLE Holds its Annual Environmental Law Section Forum

On the weekend of June 24-26, 2011, the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education (“NJICLE”) in cooperation with the New Jersey State Bar Association (“NJSBA”), and New Jersey Corporate Counsel Association, held its annual Environmental Law Section Forum Weekend (“the Forum”). Taking place in Avalon, New Jersey, the Forum featured three days of seminars covering various hot-button environmental topics including, Funding for Remediating Sites, Vapor Intrusion, the LSRP Program, Non-Governmental Organizations’ Perspectives on Issues and Resolutions, the well-known NJDEP v. Occidental case also referred to as the Lower Passaic River litigation, Climate Change, and rounded out the weekend with two programs on Ethical Issues including Alternative Fee Arrangements and Multi-Party Settlements.

David Brooks of Gibbons P.C. was the moderator and a panelist for the Vapor Intrusion presentation, an issue that has received increased attention in recent years from both US EPA and New Jersey. Other speakers at the Forum included not only legal practitioners but the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Non-Profit Organizations, and Private Sector Companies. Jeannie Fox, President of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities gave a keynote speech during the Forum focusing on solar issues in New Jersey.

As a testament to the increased interest in environmental topics as well as the historical success of the Forum, program attendance increased over last year. Attendees earned 11.4 Continuing Legal Education credits including several highly sought after ethics/professionalism credits.


Sandro G. Ocasio is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Proposed Legislation Will Require Shopping Center Developments in NJ to Provide Charging Stations for Electric Vehicles

Photo courtesy of Paul Martin Eldridge - freedigitalphotos.netOne 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.

The questions that arise with nearly all new legislation are: (1) when will the law go into effect and (2) who will be required to adhere to the newly promulgated rules and regulations. The Bill as written will contain a four month grace period after its enactment. Therefore, a shopping center constructed prior to the expiration of the grace period will not be obligated to comply with the Bill. The Bill also exempts developers who have filed a site plan application with the applicable municipality prior to the expiration of the grace period. Developers should be aware that the site plan application need only be filed, not approved prior to the expiration of the grace period.

Non-compliance with the Bill will result in penalties to a shopping center owner in an amount of $500 for the first offense and $1000 for all subsequent offenses. The enforcing agency is intended at this time to be the New Jersey Division of Taxation who will have the power to file an action for injunction in the Superior Court to restrain the operations of a shopping center in the event the shopping center owner habitually violates the provisions of the Bill.

The Bill will require developers to evaluate the cost of such “electric vehicle charging stations,” which are defined as an “electric recharging point complete with electric vehicle supply equipment that is capable of providing level 2 charging for plug-in electric motor vehicles,” in connection with their overall budgets for their project. Level 2 equipment which provides charging through a 240 V, AC plug, can take 3 to 8 hours to reach a full charge, adding about 25 miles of range per hour of charging time, depending on the vehicle. Moreover, municipalities, professional planners and land use attorneys may be faced with the issue of whether the Bill impacts municipal parking ordinances and how they are interpreted by local land use boards. For example, if five (5%) of a shopping center’s parking area must be dedicated to EVs, it is conceivable that a municipality may require a developer to provide additional parking spaces for non-electric vehicles to compensate for the lost spaces.

Some other issues that may arise from the Bill are as follows:

  • Developers will need to account for the charging stations in overall square footage of the property in terms of what can be utilized for retail space versus parking and ancillary uses/structures.
  • Traffic experts may have to opine before local land use boards with respect to the impact the charging stations will have on trip generation at the property as vehicles that may not have entered the shopping center in the ordinary course may now enter the site for the purpose of charging their vehicle.
  • The definition of “shopping center development” is fairly vague and simply states that the property be a commercial development with a building or series of buildings with 100 or more parking spaces. Depending on the definition of “commercial development” within a municipality’s zoning ordinance, an argument could be made that the Bill applies to more than just the ordinary retail shopping center, but also to office and/or other commercial developments that normally would not be categorized as a shopping center.

After introduction of the Bill by Senator Linda R. Greenstein (D) of New Jersey Legislative District 14 on March 21, 2011, the Bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Energy Committee. It will be interesting to see if the Bill will move forward as proposed, require amendments, or lack the requisite votes to be passed into law. However, it does seem to be part of a growing “green” trend. Google recently added the location of EV charging stations to its maps and is testing wireless charging stations at its own headquarters in California. The Department of Energy has created a data center on the locations for alternative fuels, including charging stations to serve the plug-in community.

* Photo courtesy of Paul Martin Eldridge - freedigitalphotos.net.


Jason R. Tuvel is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Solar Energy Development in New Jersey: Right Time, Right Place!

All of us are intrigued by the concept of utilizing a clean, renewable energy source to generate abundant and cheap power for our homes and businesses. Some of us have even investigated installing a renewable energy system, but have come away disappointed due to onerous regulatory obstacles and the high cost associated with these installations. That is, unless you are looking into installing a solar energy power facility in New Jersey.

We explored the business case for solar energy in a recent article published by the Association of Corporate Counsel New Jersey Chapter. In addition, on August 19, 2010, Gibbons sponsored a solar energy conference in Woodbridge, NJ, attended by over 500 business owners, senior executives and industry representatives.


Douglas J. Janacek is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property and Environmental Department. Nancy A. Lottinville, Counsel to the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, assisted in the preparation of this post.

Port Authority of NY and NJ Tries to Catch the Wind - and its Tax Credits

A bill that would add the Port District of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to the definition of “wind energy zones” in the newly adopted Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, was reported out of the Senate Budge and Appropriations Committee on September 13, 2010. The amendment would allow tax credits for qualified wind energy facilities in the Port District.

The Port District encompasses an area within a radius of about 25 miles of the Statue of Liberty. According to the committee statement, the bill would not affect the total amount of tax credits available for wind energy facilities. Of course, the addition of another wind energy zone could reduce the amount of tax credits available for other wind energy facilities.

There are currently three offshore wind projects underway off the coast of New Jersey.

The proponents of this bill and the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act are hoping that the development of wind energy facilities will not only lower dependence on fossil fuel energy sources, but lead to increased economic development activity, including ancillary component manufacturing.

Not everyone is a fan of wind energy. As reported in a previous blog wind projects have been the subject of protest, military concern and worry in the blogosphere.

As the committee statement noted, “it is too early to determine if, and to what degree, the development of wind energy projects will benefit the State’s economy.”


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Green or Not to Green, That is the Question? Whether it is Nobler to Build a Green Building or Suffer the Ignominy of an Ungreen One

With energy costs high and the focus on combating global warming, there is an impetus toward encouraging the development of Green Buildings. Buildings account for 39% of the total energy usage in the U.S., two thirds of the electricity consumption and 1/8 of the water usage. Building codes, setting minimum standards for construction, now include standards for energy efficiency. Green Codes are creeping in.

New Jersey’s Energy Subcode requires that a building permit applicant show compliance as part of the application. This code applies to low-rise residential and commercial buildings Under the Energy Code Compliance and Residential Prescriptive Packages, see N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.15(f)1.vi and N.J.A.C. 5:23-3.18. Compliance must be with the Energy Subcode and the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) plus 20%. These are energy efficient standards for cooling and heating.

New York State has its Energy Conservation Construction Code of 2007 which is based on the 2004 IECC standards. This code becomes effective in December 2010. Pennsylvania has adopted Alternative Residential Energy Provisions 2009 based on 2009 IECC standards.

The traditional way of demonstrating compliance with an applicable energy code is to calculate the “U” (thermal transmittance) value of various building components, such as walls, floors, windows, etc. There are tools that assist a builder to perform these calculations and demonstrate compliance with the applicable energy code.

These tools include:

  1. Guidance on performing calculations in the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) Handbook of Fundamentals,
  2. RESCHECK SOFTWARE (these two apply for compliance for NY, NJ and PA),
  3. NJ Energy Star Homes, which involves registration in the program and inspection by the utility company, and
  4. Prescriptive packages for wooden constructed homes.

The first two tools are acceptable in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The last two relate to New Jersey alone.

In general, building codes have focused on energy efficiency alone, because lower energy usage is seen as the key to controlling carbon emissions as well as reducing costs over time. However, the Green building concept also involves other notions such as green roofs, hydroponics, reuse of water, less use of water, sewage treatment and other sustainable practices. Other trends could impact building codes in the future. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has determined that by 2012 a standard for biodiversity impacts should be adopted. Such new regulations would require companies to publish information concerning the companies’ environmental impacts.

This would require inventorying energy usage, fresh water usage, air emissions, waste practices, habitat destruction, thermal discharges not only for the company but for suppliers to the company. As a result green construction is becoming more than simply getting a handle on energy.

LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is not a building code itself, but a certification process based on building standards set by U.S. Green Building Council. The LEED certifications, which range from Platinum (the highest), to Gold, and Silver, are verified by independent third party verification. LEED points are awarded on a 100 point scale and weighted to reflect potential environmental impacts. The initiative seeks to lower operating costs, reduce waste, conserve water and energy, reduce greenhouse gases in order to qualify for credits, tax rebates and other incentives depending on the certification ranking.

There has been litigation over LEED. In Southern Builders, Inc. v. Shaw, No. 19-c_07-11405 (Md. Somerset Co., filed February 7, 2007) a tax credit for a silver LEED certification which the developer claimed was worth $650,000 was at issue. The contractor was alleged to have built a substandard building which did not qualify for the tax credit. The case recently settled. However, it does point to the fact that owners, contractors and others have a lot at stake with such certifications.

Eventually, green codes will be adopted by states and code officials. Although LEED is one of the preeminent building certification systems, it is not officially adopted in the above states. Thus, it behooves the developer to choose a qualified Green Project Manager to insure that all interested parties understand what has to be achieved for the appropriate certification and environmental goals of the project. It is not enough to contract the risk to the contractor or subcontractor. Someone who is qualified should be hired to coordinate all levels of construction to insure that the appropriate tax credit, incentive or certification is achieved.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

An Ill Wind....Opposition to Wind as an Alternative Energy Source in N.J.

On September 2, 2010, Americans for Prosperity staged a rally in front of the Atlantic County Utilities Authority windmills to protest against offshore wind turbines as a waste of taxpayer money. Ironically, according to the ACUA, its five wind turbines save it $600,000 a year in electricity bills.

The protest comes less than one month after Governor Christie signed the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act into law. The Offshore Wind Economic Development Act establishes an offshore wind renewable energy certificate program that will require a percentage of electricity sold in NJ to come from offshore wind energy. New Jersey hopes that the new law will spur economic development and job growth in the state. 

There are currently three offshore wind projects underway off the coast of New Jersey.

Of more concern to wind projects in other states is the military’s opposition to wind turbines because of feared interference with radar. The New York Times reported that a number of major wind projects have been stalled by Pentagon concerns. Part of the problem is radar systems that date back to the 1950s and cannot differentiate between a moving airplane and a wind turbine.

In his September 7 blog, Paul Mulshine, a columnist for the Star Ledger, worries that the proposed off-shore wind turbines will not be able to withstand the forces of a hurricane such as Earl.

Wind, as an energy source, although cleaner than oil, apparently brings its own problems and opponents.


 

Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.  

Here Comes the Sun: New Jersey Exempts Solar Panels from Impervious Coverage Limits

A recently enacted New Jersey law encourages the use of solar energy by allowing solar panels to be excluded from the computation of impervious coverage when determining whether a development project complies with impervious coverage limitations. The new law, P.L.2010, c.4 , amends the Pinelands Protection Act, Coastal Area Facility Review Act, Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, County Planning Act, Waterfront Development Law, and Municipal Land Use Law, as well as laws pertaining to the conversion of age-restricted community developments.

In each of these laws, the amendment defines a solar panel as “an elevated panel or plate, or a canopy or array thereof, that captures and converts solar radiation to produce power, and includes flat plate, focusing solar collectors, or photovoltaic solar cells and excludes the base or foundation of the panel, plate, canopy, or array.” Any solar panel meeting that definition can be excluded when computing impervious coverage.

The new solar panel law is just one of the initiatives which encourages the use of solar and other green energy sources. As recently reported on this blog in a post titled New Jersey Proposes Addition of Solar Power Facilities to its Green Initiative, identical bills, Senate S2126 and Assembly A3139, are pending before their respective house of the New Jersey’s legislature and would amend the MLUL to provide that Solar and Wind Energy Generation Facilities, when installed on the sites of former landfills, quarries and other extractive industries, are permitted uses. If the proposal is enacted, this status would be equally applicable to both public and private sites where landfills, quarries or other extractive industries are closed or closing.

Clearly, New Jersey is serious about alternative energy and is working legislatively to make it a reality.


Howard D. Geneslaw is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

This Rule will K(NOx)ck Your SOx Off - EPA Proposes New Clean Air Rule

On July 6, 2010, the USEPA proposed a new interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate rule for power plants. The goal of the rule is to achieve by 2014 a 72% reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and a 54% reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from 2005 levels.

The tri state area, like most of the states east of the Mississippi, is covered by this rule for both fine particulates and ozone. The sulfur and nitrogen oxides are fine particulates in the air.

EPA estimates an annual savings of between 120 and 290 billion dollars as well as saving between 14,000 and 36,000 premature deaths. The annual estimated compliance cost is 2.8 billion dollars.

Compliance will undoubtedly require more burning of natural gas instead of or in addition to coal and oil, a fact that makes the Marcellus Shale, with its estimated 168 trillion to 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a more valuable commodity.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.