SOLAR TERMINATED — POLITICO’s Alex Guillén: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on Thursday announced he will terminate the agency’s $7 billion Solar for All program, calling it a “green slush fund” that has been repealed by Congress.
— New York expected to receive nearly $250 million from the Solar for All federal program — the largest for a single state. Some of the money was earmarked for New York City to support a program for 5,000 households to get solar, along with solar for affordable housing. The anticipated federal money was one justification cited by the Public Service Commission in April when it reduced the ratepayer-funded budget for solar subsidies by about $150 million. The state is on track to hit a 10 gigawatt distributed solar target before 2030. New Jersey was also awarded $156 million, which officials said would support 175 megawatts of solar for 22,000 households.
WIND WOES — POLITICO’s Kelsey Tamborrino: The Trump administration is escalating its onslaught of actions against U.S. offshore wind development — this time launching a full-scale review of its regulations to see if they mesh with President Donald Trump's priorities and existing law.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST FOR CONGRESS — POLITICO’s Matt Friedman: A climate scientist who until recently worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced her candidacy for Congress in the 7th District on Thursday, joining an extremely crowded field of Democrats hoping to take on Republican Rep. Tom Kean next year.
SOIL SCRAMBLE — Commercial real estate developers in New Jersey are scrambling to comply with new soil remediation and redevelopment standards the Department of Environmental Protection released. The new standards, meant to align with previously published groundwater quality standards, took effect immediately, with some exceptions. They are meant to protect water supplies by requiring soil to have fewer chemicals that leach into water. The chemicals include benzene, cyanide and vinyl chloride.
Emily Lamond, a lawyer at Cole Schotz who represents brownfield developers, said DEP was making “drastic, substantive” changes to the soil standard that skirted the administrative procedures process, will drive up costs and could disrupt active deals. Without redevelopment, sites could otherwise remain vacant and contaminated. “DEP is pulling the rug out from underneath developers and frustrating the well-established process in the commercial real estate industry that gets money to clean up contaminated properties that would otherwise be abandoned,” Lamond said.
DEP pointed to the language in its notice that said the soil standards are incorporated by reference in the ground water rule. “Accordingly, the Remediation Standards announced in the listserv were not subject to the formal [Administrative Procedures Act] process in accordance with the Remediation Standards,” the department said. — Ry Rivard
CAP AND INVEST COST CONCERNS: Gov. Kathy Hochul acknowledged the reason she delayed a cap-and-trade program she once championed was about cost. “Cap and invest has been a tool. But I also cannot ignore the fact that the disruptions in our economy that have occurred since the laws went into place, but also even since we even supported this, that need to be examined in terms of what has happened to people’s pocketbooks,” Hochul told reporters on Wednesday. “I believe that is the right way to go, but I also have to moderate and make sure that I’m not doing something that’s going to drive up cost for consumers right now, and the data shows at this time it would.”
In January, she said she wanted to “get it right” and the state needed additional information from polluters — without bringing up affordability at all. Environmental groups are suing over the delay as New York is not on track to meet its climate goals. Although state officials finished drafting the entire package of rules before Hochul punted, her administration has yet to give any updated timeline for full implementation or even when anything will be released except the reporting regulations. The state hasn’t released any public modeling of the potential costs of a cap-and-invest program since January 2024, which showed cost increases for those with fossil fuel heating and gas cars. Studies backed by environmental groups indicated higher carbon prices would reap more benefits for low-income households.
New York’s draft energy plan indicates Hochul’s officials don’t expect to meet the state’s emissions reduction requirements on schedule, instead outlining what they’ve described as a more achievable approach. The elimination of federal support for electric vehicles, heat pumps and renewables is expected to make achieving progress on New York’s emissions reduction goals more challenging and costly. — Marie J. French
— More from Dan Clark in his Capitol Confidential newsletter.
NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES STRETCH ON — POLITICO’s Marie J. French: Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration wants to keep New York’s aging upstate nuclear plants online for decades to come.
The Department of Public Service proposed extending the current subsidy program for Constellation’s four nuclear reactors from the current end date of 2029 through 2049. The payments would come from ratepayers and could cost more than $30 billion, according to one estimate from a group opposed to the program. The state estimates it would cost about half that amount.
“We really need to ask ourselves, as a state, whether this is a good use of our money and if the opportunity costs are worth it,” said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy.
Why it matters: Supporters of keeping the nuclear plants online say it’s a good deal for emissions-free power to meet growing energy demand. New York’s 2019 climate law requires a zero-emissions grid by 2040, although the state doesn’t have a definitive plan to meet that goal.
HOW TO COUNT A SETTLEMENT — Reporters, investors and the public were presented with competing numbers for the size of an inarguably massive PFAS-related settlement New Jersey reached with DuPont and its related companies.
State officials said the settlement was “valued at over $2 billion” and was “the largest environmental settlement ever achieved by a single state.”
By contrast, the DuPont companies (Chemours Company, DuPont de Nemours, Inc. and Corteva, Inc.) said “settlement payments will total $875 million.”
Both sides were obviously counting differently. They were also talking to a different audience: the company needs to keep investors happy, the state wants to assure people it’s dealing with widespread contamination from “forever chemicals” that pose a threat to public health.
The two sides’ public statements partly align: They both talked about the $875 million to resolve PFAS claims across the state. They also both described a $475 million fund the DuPont companies created (a “backstop,” in the state’s parlance; a “reserve fund” in the companies’ telling) to be extra sure there is money around to clean up four current and former DuPont sites in the state.
But the biggest ticket item in the state’s telling is the creation of the main fund to clean up those four sites, “a remediation funding source of up to $1.2 billion.”
In a press release by DuPont, no such figure was given. DuPont companies instead talked about the settlement’s establishment of “a process for determining the amount of the Remediation Funding Source (‘RFS’) at the four current and former operating sites and the initial range for each, as well as other mechanisms to secure future remediation at the sites.”
The money and the process where the statements didn’t align relates to the companies’ commitment to fund cleanup at four specific current or former DuPont sites. Two of them — Chambers Works in Salem County and Parlin in Middlesex County — are PFAS-related sites. Two are not: Pompton Lakes in Passaic County and a site in Gloucester County known as Repauno.
In the 108-page proposed settlement, the two sides create an elaborate process to determine how much those sites will cost to clean up and provide assurances to the state that the companies are good for the money. The initial high end of that range is about $1.2 billion, while the low end is about $232 million. To the state, the point is to make clear there’s enough money around for the cleanup. Part of the reason for that caution is the very existence of Chemours, a company that the state and others allege was created by DuPont in an attempt to avoid liabilities.
Like all settlements, there’s something for everyone in these figures and in the telling.
For the state, an eye-popping upper end recovery is a trophy for the state after years of litigation by Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration, particularly Attorney General Matthew Platkin and Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Shawn LaTourette.
The biggest slice of the $875 million is $525 million that can be spent across the state to support water quality infrastructure. Of the rest, $225 million will be spent in the region around the four industrial sites and $125 million is for things like attorneys' fees and for punitive damages and penalties.
The value the state officials could announce is big — bigger than any other environmental deal of its kind. (Of course, there is a caveat: Louisiana received more than $8 billion after the Deepwater Horizon explosion. But that was the result of various legal settlements and fines, including litigation involving the federal government and other states. New Jersey’s deal with the DuPont companies comes from multiple lawsuits and administrative actions and resolves even future claims, but all of them state’s own.)
For the companies, there is now certainty about their liability in New Jersey, which has been suing DuPont and its related companies for years over pollution in the state. In a Tuesday earnings call, executives from DuPont de Nemours told investors and analysts that their share of the $875 million isn’t material to the company since it can be paid over the next quarter century.
The executives also focused on the amount of the settlement specifically related to PFAS-laden firefighting foam — $4.125 million. The company still faces a volume of litigation from the foam, which was used at airports and other non-DuPont sites across the country. Being able to talk about the foam-related costs as being only a few percent of the overall settlement with New Jersey was a win for the company. — Ry Rivard
RA, PJM, PSEG — PSEG CEO Ralph LaRossa said the company is advocating for “some decisions to be made by the state” about how the state supplies itself with power. He wants to drive that decision by talking with the Murphy administration and “having conversations with the potential gubernatorial candidates.”
“Within the confines of PJM, it's hard to see the path to new generation through existing market signals, which may require the consideration of a new approach to procuring capacity and resource planning,” LaRossa said during a Tuesday earnings call.
Elsewhere in the state, the Board of Public Utilities was holding a day-long resource adequacy technical conference on some of those same issues, including one where PSEG senior vice president Joseph Accardo Jr. was making some of the LaRossa’s same points. The company wants to know the forecast, reliability, affordability and environmental targets the state wants.
During the earnings call, LaRossa flagged the bill that would allow regulated utilities to compete for in-state generation projects.
But the idea of giving regulated utilities back the same authority they once had to build power plants got a chilly reception from some of the panelists at the BPU event. Glen Thomas, the head of the PJM Power Providers Group, which advocates for competitive power players, called vertically integrated utilities clunky, inefficient and costly. Former BPU general counsel Abraham Silverman, now a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, talked up the advantages of competitive bidding for generation projects and warned of rushing into “self-build” projects.
LaRossa also publicly repeated that the company expects rates to be “near flat” following the PJM capacity auction last month. That’s because while the price for having power plants on standby jumped, the power to produce the power has fallen. — Ry Rivard
|
