Off-Shore Lake Erie Wind Farm Lease Proposal

jkoncelik@frantzward.com (Joe Koncelik) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:50:33 GMT

Rep. Ross McGregor introduced H.B. 632 to require the Director of Natural Resources to establish a plan to make available for lease areas of the bed of Lake Erie for the purpose of wind energy development and to require Lake Erie wind farms to be certified by the Power Siting Board.

Legislation is necessary to create a mechanism to place wind turbines on Lake Erie.

For those who have not been following this proposal, here are some links of interest:

Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force- This group, lead by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, has been exploring the feasibility of developing off-shore wind in Lake Erie. The feasibility study will recommend whether or not to proceed with the development of the Great Lakes Wind Energy Center – and if so, how to fund and implement its development. The study will provide a conceptual design for the offshore turbines, including the technical function and scope of the site. The feasibility study is expected to be completed by the second quarter of 2009.

Volokh Conspiracy- Blog post regarding design issues faced by locating in the Great Lakes versus Salt Water. Good array of comments that further flush out the issues...

Opposition View from Local Cleveland Blog- Bill Callahan questions whether the Region's first investment "should be a handful of experimental wind plants that can’t go on line in less than five years; must be engineered from the ground up with unpredictable costs, unpredictable construction and operating problems, and unpredictable output economics; and for all these reasons can only be built with millions of dollars in scarce public subsidies that would otherwise support lots of smaller, less risky initiatives?"

Proponent View Green Energy Ohio- On their wind activities page they discuss the progress being made on the project.

My View- In yesterday's post I discussed the prospect of Ohio becoming a leader in developing Clean Tech to boost its economy. In that post I discuss the need for Ohio to find ways to lead the nation in Clean Tech development. Austin (Texas) and Research Triangle (N.C.) and Silicon Valley (Calif.) where the first to identify and lead in promoting technology to develop their economies. For Ohio, and hopefully Cleveland, to beat all the other areas competing for Clean Tech jobs it must be a visible leader. It must do something bold and first. For those reasons, being the first to develop fresh water wind makes sense.

(Photo: Flickr Phault)

Dingell Unseated; Waxman to Head House Energy and Commerce Committee

dmdubson@stoel.com (Dina Dubson) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:48:08 GMT

In a move that could have a significant impact on the energy sector (and create a buzz among political science departments) nationwide, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has dethroned Representative John Dingell (D-MI) in his nearly 28-year post as chairman of the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce. The 137-122 secret vote has shaken up the seniority system that has driven the caucus for decades. It also replaces a long-time friend of the auto industry with someone who has been championed by environmentalists for his positions on clean air and global warming.

Waxman’s ascension to the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship is particularly significant because the committee shepherds legislation on climate change, energy, and health care—all of which are key priorities of the Obama Administration. Waxman (who also has a strong leadership record on health care issues) has pushed for aggressive targets for carbon emissions reductions, more stringent auto emissions standards, and a national cap-and-trade program. Although Dingell recently proposed legislation that would impose gradual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, Waxman has put forth much more ambitious climate change legislation.

Also of note is Obama’s recent appointment of Philip Schiliro, a longtime aide to Waxman, as the new White House director of Congressional relations. This appointment is considered to be significant in that it provides Waxman with a direct channel to the White House. Congressional insiders have also noted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a close ally of Waxman’s. This web of connections underscores the potential for the Obama administration and Congress to work closely together to usher in major changes to U.S. climate change policy.

Dingell Unseated; Waxman to Head House Energy and Commerce Committee

dmdubson@stoel.com (Dina Dubson) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:48:08 GMT

Electric company brings federal lawsuit against Kansas Governor for denial of permit for coal-fired power plant expansion

liuj@howrey.com (Jenifer Liu) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:17:24 GMT

A Kansas electric power company, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (“Sunflower Electric”), has sued the state government in federal court, seeking injunctive relief relating to the denial of an air quality permit for its planned power plant expansion. On Monday, November 17, 2008, Sunflower Electric filed a complaint (Sunflower Electric Power Corporation v. Sebelius) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her administration have violated Sunflower Electric's right to equal protection under the law and are unlawfully prohibiting interstate commerce. Sunflower Electric seeks a Court Order declaring that its rights have been violated and enjoining and vacating the Kansas government’s denial of an air quality permit.

Back in October of 2007, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) denied Sunflower’s air quality permit required for construction of new coal-fired electricity generating units. Citing that carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed coal-fired power plant presented a “substantial endangerment to the health of persons or to the environment,” KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby explained that KDHE had the authority under KSA 65-3012 to deny such permit “[n]otwithstanding a permit applicant’s compliance with all other existing provisions of the Kansas air quality act.” In announcing his decision, Secretary Bremby stated that, “KDHE will work to engage various industries and stakeholders to establish goals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and strategies to achieve them . . . which is consistent with initiatives underway in states leading the effort to address climate change.”

Sunflower Electric, a consumer-owned, electric distribution cooperative, argues in its action that the KDHE’s purported basis for denying the permit is a “pretext,” and in actuality, KDHE was motivated by the improper purposes of (a) advancing “political aspirations, and (b) prohibiting the exportation of electric energy outside the State of Kansas.” Complaint, p. 2. Several of the allegations point to Secretary Bremby’s testimony at a Kansas legislative hearing where he testified perfunctorily about his analysis that the potential carbon emissions from the power plants constituted a “substantial endangerment.” Complaint, ¶¶ 47-54.

Other allegations mention that in early 2008, the Kansas Legislature passed bills that would require the Secretary to reconsider the denial of the permits and evaluate the permit application without considering in any way the potential carbon dioxide emissions. All three of these bills were vetoed by Governor Sebelius. Complaint, ¶¶ 61-66.

The air permit application is for a power plant expansion at Sunflower Electric’s Holcomb Station in Finney County, Kansas. According to Earl Watkins, president and CEO of Sunflower Electric, the $3.6 billion project would “create 329 jobs earning more than $16 million in annual wages and fully complies with all state and federal requirements while helping to secure our energy independence.”

FERC Order Allows Tying of Capacity at Open Access Terminals to Release of Related Pipeline Capacity

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:06:50 GMT

FERC yesterday issued an order on rehearing regarding its final rule governing the release of firm capacity by shippers using interstate natural gas pipelines and open access LNG terminals. The Commission generally reaffirmed its decision to remove the maximum rate cap on short-term capacity releases and exempt certain releases from bidding. The order also clarified that capacity released at open access LNG terminals can be tied to the release of capacity on downstream pipelines. FERC declined to extend this opportunity to LNG terminals that are not open access, expressing concern that the agency lacks knowledge on how such arrangements would be structured and therefore would not be able to ensure transparency. Platts LNG Daily [subscription required] provides additional coverage. The order, as well as Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher's statement on the decision, is available in FERC's eLibrary under Docket No. RM08-2.

Stark & Stark Attorney Featured on Legally Speaking

rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark & Stark) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:34:00 GMT

Michael J. Fekete, member of Stark & Stark's Business & Corporate group, was a featured guest on the Camden County Bar Foundation's weekly television talk show Legally Speaking on Sunday November 9, 2009. Mr. Fekete discussed the New Jersey Home Improvement Law, the Consumer Fraud Act and the Contractor's Registration Act. You can watch the full episode online here.

New Louisiana Regulation Creates Safe Harbor For Certain Equity-Based Compensatory Plans of Privately-Held Companies

alan.berteau@keanmiller.com (Alan J. Berteau) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:02:51 GMT

by Dean P. Cazenave

Offers and sales of “securities” must be registered unless there is an applicable exemption from the federal and state securities laws. The most commonly known exemption is the private placement exemption set forth in Regulation D promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933 (and corresponding private placement exemptions under applicable state “blue sky” laws).

Regulation D was primarily designed to facilitate capital raising transactions, as opposed to employee stock option or stock purchase plans. Many people are unaware that when an employer (or controlling Shareholder) sells stock to an employee (even at a discount, or even if to an executive), such a sale is subject to the securities laws and applicable federal and state exemptions from registration must be found.

Federal Rule 701

In 1988, the SEC adopted Rule 701 which exempts from registration securities issued pursuant to a written compensatory employee benefit plan or written contract by a nonreporting (i.e., privately held) company. An employee benefit plan includes any purchase, savings, option, bonus, stock appreciation, profit sharing, thrift, incentive, pension, or similar plan. The participants in the plan (or party to the contract) must be employees, directors, general partners, trustees (if a business trust), officers, consultants, or advisers.

The plan or the contract setting forth the arrangement must be in writing and a copy must be given to the employees. The exemption is available only to the securities offered or sold by the issuer, which means the employee must find another exemption for their resale.

Rule 701 contains a limitation on aggregate sales price or amount sold in any consecutive 12-month period based upon the greatest of $1 million, 15 percent of the company’s assets, and 15 percent of the outstanding securities of the class.

Rule 701 also contains a disclosure requirement. The disclosure requirements apply only if the aggregate sales price or amount of securities sold during any consecutive 12-month period exceed $5 million. Subject to that qualification, an issuer relying upon Rule 701 is required to provide to investors, a reasonable period of time prior to sale, (1) a copy of the plan or contract; (3) a copy of the summary plan description required by ERISA or, if the plan is not subject to ERISA, a summary of the material terms of the plans; (3) information concerning risks associated with the securities sold; and (4) financial statements required by Part F/S of Form 1-A as of a date no more than 180 days prior to sale. Providing financial statements would be difficult for some issuers since, even though the statements do not have to be audited unless the issuer otherwise has audited statements available, they must be prepared in accordance with GAAP. It should err on the side of caution and make the required disclosures if there is a possibility that sales will exceed the $5 million limitation.

State Law

Until recently, Louisiana did not exempt sales of stock by employers to employees unless the sale was effected pursuant to a special type of stock option plan or pursuant to a stock purchase plan qualified under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended), as Louisiana did not automatically exempt all types of transactions exempt under Federal Rule 701. Thus, unless one of the narrow Louisiana exemptions applied, privately held companies which desired to sell stock to Louisiana employees were forced to try to find another exemption, absent which they were forced to either (a) register the transactions with the Louisiana Commissioner of Securities, or (b) as was more likely the case, simply not proceed with the proposed sale to employees. However, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions recently promulgated a rule which provides that any transaction exempt under Federal Rule 701 is now exempt under Louisiana law. Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 10, Part XIII, § 801. A copy of the Rule can be found at www.ofi.louisiana.gov. The promulgation of this new rule has the effect of broadening the exemptions available to privately held companies which desire to sell stock to Louisiana employees.

For example, the sale of stock pursuant to a stock purchase plan (regardless of whether qualified under the Internal Revenue Code) or other written compensatory agreement which meets the requirement of Federal Rule 701 will now be exempt under Louisiana law. In addition, although Louisiana law has long exempted the issuance of stock options (and the exercise of such options) if issued pursuant to a plan which limited participation to employees only, Louisiana law did not exempt stock plans if the plan allowed for the issuance of options to non-employees (e.g., non-employee directors). Federal Rule 701 contains no such limitation with respect to option plans which authorize the issuance of options to non-employees and thus the new Rule seems to provide more flexibility for stock option plans as well.

Privately held companies which desire to sell stock or other equity ownership to one or more Louisiana employees should consider the securities laws implications of doing so before effecting any offers or sales.

The Voluntary Carbon Standard Issued Revised Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Documents

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:25:08 GMT

The Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) issued its revised stanard that addresses forest-based voluntary carbon credits. The standard is known as the Guidance for Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Governor Schwarzenegger and Two Other US Governors Enter into Avoided Deforestation Agreement with Governors from Brazil and Indonesia

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:48:12 GMT

Press release issued regarding governors agreement regarding avoided deforestation and climate change:Continuing his leadership to collaborate with other states to minimize climate change impacts,...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Washington Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Kittitas Wind Project

whholmes@stoel.com (William H. Holmes) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:50:31 GMT

In a decision of great importance to the wind energy industry, the Washington State Supreme Court this morning upheld the approval of Horizon Wind Energy’s Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project. See Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). The wind project will be located to the east and west of Highway 97 approximately 12 miles northwest of Ellensburg in Kittitas County, Washington, and is permitted for up to 65 wind turbines. With a proposed installed capacity of approximately 100 megawatts, the project will be able to generate clean renewable power for approximately 30,000 average homes each year.

The Washington Supreme Court’s unanimous decision sets important precedent on the authority of the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) to offer “one-stop” licensing for large energy projects. Horizon Wind Energy had worked collaboratively to get approval of EFSEC, Gov. Chris Gregoire and many governmental environmental agencies and nonprofit groups. However, some local residents and the Kittitas County Commission opposed the project and argued that EFSEC could not preempt the County’s authority under the Growth Management Act. The Washington Supreme Court rejected their arguments. Developers wishing to site wind and other energy projects in Washington now know what the Washington EFSEC can do, and many of the principles articulated in the decision will be helpful to the wind developers fighting similar battles in other states.

My colleagues Tim McMahan and Erin Anderson, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of Horizon Wind Energy in pursuit of this result, are preparing a summary of the Supreme Court’s sixty-page decision. We'll be sending out the summary and its implications as an Energy Law Alert shortly. If you’d like to sign up to receive Stoel Rives Energy Law Alerts, you can do so by clicking on this link and filling out the form.

In the meantime, for stories covering the Washington Supreme Court’s decision, see:

Renewable Northwest Project Press Release

MarketWatch Report

Seattle Times Report

Washington Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Kittitas Wind Project

whholmes@stoel.com (William H. Holmes) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:50:31 GMT

In the meantime, for stories covering the Washington Supreme Court’s decision, see:

Renewable Northwest Project Press Release

MarketWatch Report

Seattle Times Report

The Shape of Waves to Come: Forecasting the Future of Ocean Power Conference (Portland, OR, February 10-11, 2009)

whholmes@stoel.com (William H. Holmes) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:07:47 GMT

Those who follow the ocean energy industry are confronted with a fascinating array of technologies, ranging from articulated "sea snakes" to anchored buoys that exploit oscillating water columns to underwater turbines and other cutting edge technologies. Ocean energy offers enormous possibilities, with the World Energy Council estimating that waves alone (to say nothing of tides, currents or ocean thermal energy) could provide anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 gigawatts of capacity. The Bay of Fundy in eastern Canada has tides so dramatic that it could in theory generate 17,000 GWh per year; some estimates suggests that tidal energy could produce as much as 1 million GWh per year, about 5 percent of today's worldwide electricity generation. (For an excellent overview of the potential of various renewable energy sources, see NewScientist's October 11-17, 2008 special issue on renewable energy.) The Obama Administration will make renewable energy a high priority, and ocean energy will benefit from that policy emphasis.

Along with the promise, ocean energy faces some unique challenges. For example, wave height and frequency vary significantly depending on geography and weather, and deployed technologies need to be tailored to the environment in which they will operate. Ocean technology must also cope with the power of the sea itself, including storms and freak waves. On top of the technical challenges, ocean energy faces legal hurdles. The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) recently disapproved of a proposed 2MW wave energy power purchase agreement between Finavera and Pacific Gas & Electric, ruling that that the technology involved was not sufficiently reliable and that the cost of energy was too high. (For details of the CPUC's decision and a link to the decision itself, see our Energy Law Alert entitled "California Public Utilities Commission Rejects Finavera-PG&E Wave Energy Contract ." ) The process of permitting and interconnecting an ocean energy facility will require the development of a strategy that threads the needle among stakeholders and conflicting state and federal regulations and claims of jurisdiction.

For those interested in learning more about ocean energy and how to make it a reality, Greentech Media will be holding a Forecasting the Future of Ocean Power conference in Portland, Oregon, on February 10-11, 2009. The conference will bring together analysts, investors, technology developers and suppliers, policy makers, and legal experts for a comprehensive look at the emerging ocean power industry. Stoel Rives is a sponsor for the event, which will also draw on research from Greentech Media's leading ocean power market analysis.

The Shape of Waves to Come: Forecasting the Future of Ocean Power Conference (Portland, OR, February 10-11, 2009)

whholmes@stoel.com (William H. Holmes) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:07:47 GMT

What is the National Post saying about us?

admin@envirolaw.com (Dianne Saxe) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:45:05 GMT

Yesterday’s story, for your enjoyment.

Power Generators Offer Differing Views on Gas Interchangeability Issues

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:09:42 GMT

Speaking at the Platts Gas Interchangeability and Quality Conference in Washington, DC, several electric generators offered their views on the impacts of variable supplies, including imported LNG, on their facilities. Kaye Emmons of Energia Azteca X and Michael Gallagher of Sempra Generation, whose facilities receive regasified LNG from Sempra's Costa Azul LNG terminal, told conference attendees that new auto-tuning equipment installed on their facilities operated successfully when regasified LNG flowed through their plants, allowing the facilities to adjust to the receipt of frequently varying compositions. Fernando Serrano of Calpine Corporation, the nation's largest independent merchant generator, offered a differing perspective, expressing his company's concern over the adequacy of current technology to address significant fuel variability.

In addition, FERC's Ed Murrell spoke about the history of interchangeability issues in the United States, focusing on FERC's role, and emphasized the importance of stakeholders in the interchangeability debate reaching settlement on disputed issues as opposed to submitting matters to FERC for a decision.

Are women protected by MOE environmental standards?

admin@envirolaw.com (Dianne Saxe) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:08:03 GMT

The proposed criteria are all based on the assumed life span of a “composite adult” of 76 years. In contrast, female life expectancy in Canada is considerably longer. The "composite" adult therefore does not seem to be sufficiently protective for women. Is this another example of the old tendency to consider only men as normal?

The Ministry of the Environment recently proposed new standards for “how clean is clean” at contaminated sites in Ontario. The justification document is nearly six hundred pages long, but seems admirably transparent and quite well justified by the supporting science.

One thing that concerned me, though, was that the proposed criteria are all based on the assumed life span of a “composite adult” of 76 years. In contrast, female life expectancy in Canada is considerably longer. Even at birth, Canadian women can expect to be 83, and the older we get, the longer we are likely to live. The “composite” adult therefore does not seem to be sufficiently protective for women. Is this another example of the old tendency to consider only men as normal?

The eminent toxicologist, Dr. Ron Brecher, quickly pointed out the error of my ways:

For most RA parameters, a higher value is more protective (e.g., breathing rate, exposure duration, soil ingestion rate, drinking water ingestion rate, amount of skin exposed, etc.). Not so for lifespan.

The length of a lifetime is used only for amortizing cancer risk for less-than-lifetime exposure. The shorter the amortization period, the GREATER the average daily dose. Therefore, using 76 years is MORE conservative than using a higher value for less-than-lifetime exposure. For lifetime exposure, the exposure period is equal to the amortization period, so the choice of lifetime doesn’t matter. You can verify this yourself:

Suppose a person gets a dose of 70 mg/kg/day for 10 years. The lifetime average daily dose for a man who lives 76 years would be 10/76 x 70 mg/kg/day. The lifetime average daily dose for a woman who lives 83 years would be 10/83 x 70 mg/kg/day. 10/76 (about 0.13) is greater than 10/80 (about 0.12)

This shows that the choice of lifespan makes very little difference in the dose calculation (1% in the 76- vs 83-year example), with the SHORTER lifespan leading to a slightly higher estimate of lifetime average daily dose (hence risk). So the shorter lifespan is more conservative.

The broader underlying concern in your email seems to be about how gender differences might come into play, and whether these criteria protect men and women equally (or perhaps smaller and larger adults equally). Given that, I thought I should also talk about the selection of body weight:

Body weight is like lifespan in that a LOWER body weight is more conservative than a higher one, since dose is expressed on a body weight basis. So a 65 kg woman would have a HIGHER dose per unit body weight than a 75 kg man (I don’t know where the 75 kg men all are; my weight is around 90 kg and I’m reasonably fit and, I think, pretty average in terms of physique). Usually, RAs would employ the average body weight of males and females (I think it’s around 72 kg, but didn’t have time to verify this).

You may have already noticed that the MOE does consider an adult female in developing new standards (body weight of 63.1 kg; p. 30 of new rationale document).

Thank you, Ron! One less thing to worry about….

LNG Cargo Diverted from Lake Charles LNG Terminal to European Destination

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:04:33 GMT

Reuters (carried via LexisNexis [subscription required]) reports that of the two cargos reportedly destined for the Lake Charles LNG terminal, only one cargo was delivered. The second LNG ship, the Golar Freeze, is now in the Atlantic Ocean heading for southern Europe.

Gaz Metro CEO: Negotiations Continuing with Gazprom on Rabaska LNG Terminal

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:01:30 GMT

Sylvie Brochu, chief executive of Gaz Metro, told The Gazette (Montreal) that "financial uncertainties" have delayed finalizing the agreement between Gazprom and the developers backing the Rabaska LNG terminal. Brochu specifically noted uncertainties in the financial, commodity, and construction markets, along with the complexity of the agreement.

Almighty Tax Lien Loses Battle to Environmental Escrow in Condemnation Action

tduggan@stark-stark.com (Timothy P. Duggan) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:05:42 GMT

Recently, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey was required to determine whether the holders of tax sale certificates for unpaid real estate taxes were entitled to be paid from the proceeds of a condemnation award when the estimated environmental clean-up costs exceed the fair market value of the property. After a thorough review of the law, the court held that the tax liens could not be paid until the amount of the environmental liability was determined, even if it meant that the tax liens may never get paid.

In Township of Haddon v. Morgan Brothers, et al., Haddon Township sought to acquire a parcel of real estate by the exercise of its power of eminent domain. After the complaint was filed, Haddon Township deposited $280,000 with the court which was the Township’s estimate of the fair market value of the property “as if remediated”. The Township also admitted into evidence an expert report alleging that the amount necessary to remediate the environmental contamination was estimated to exceed $1.3 million.

The holder of several tax sale certificates sought to withdraw $125,000 from the $280,000 deposit which was the amount due on the tax sale certificates. The tax certificate holders argued that as first priority liens under New Jersey law, they were entitled to be paid before any other party in the case. However, the estimated clean-up costs were approximately $1.3 million and greatly exceeded the value of the property. The court was asked to determine whether the tax certificate holders were allowed to be paid from the $280,000 being held in escrow, or whether the certificate holders were required to wait to see if there was any money available after the clean-up was completed.

Under New Jersey law, when a condemning authority deposits the estimated value of the property into court and files a declaration of taking, title to the property transfers to the condemning authority. Liens against the property attach to the deposit in priority order. Parties with an interest in the funds are entitled to file a motion with the court to withdraw funds in the order of their priority. For example, a mortgage holder is entitled to withdraw the balance due on its mortgage before the property owner receives any funds. The same holds true for a tax certificate holder who is entitled to be paid before all mortgages, judgments liens and the owner. This is the case when there are no environmental problems.

When there are environmental problems, the process for withdrawing funds is changed. The condemning authority is entitled to introduce into evidence an environmental report disclosing the estimated clean-up cost for the property and request that the estimated clean-up costs be withheld from the amount on deposit until the clean-up is completed. For example, if the “as remediated” value of the property is $300,000 and the estimated clean-up costs are $100,000, the property owner and lienholders are only entitled to withdraw $200,000 from the $300,000 on deposit, with the balance of $100,000 to remain in escrow pending the completion of the environmental clean-up. The term “as remediated” means the value of the property assuming all environmental remediation has been completed.

The Appellate Division ultimately held that the tax liens may only be paid from funds remaining after Haddon Township is reimbursed for the remediation costs. Under the facts in the case, it was unlikely there will be any remaining funds remaining due to the high cost of remediation.

The case is based upon sound reasoning. Looking at the Haddon Township case, if a property is worth $280,000 “as remediated”, but it costs $1.3 million to remediate it, it has negative value. After the remediation is completed, the property is only worth $280,000. It would be unfair to allow the property owner (or lienholders) to keep the $280,000 which is a direct result of the $1.3 million spent to clean up the property.

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW GOVERNMENT DOESN'T KNOW ANY MORE THAN WE DO

SteveH1031@aol.com (Stephen Holzer) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:34:50 GMT

I'm constantly amused by those who think transferring a function to government will somehow convert the function into being "better". For example, many think that health care should be nationalized, or that the oil companies should be nationalized--as if putting health care or oil production into the hands of a person wearing a "government" hat rather than a "private enterprise" hat will somehow make delivery of services "better".

Truth be told, the folks who work in government enterprises are just like the rest of us and screw up just as much. Except that, when a government employee screws up, this affects everybody because the screw-up affects all the taxpayers. Here's a prime example, as reported in the Sacramento Bee:

State fined for fuel tank lapses

County inspectors say leak-detection system wasn't properly checked.

The state department that looks after the Capitol's emergency underground fuel tank was ordered to pay $93,350 in penalties Wednesday after Sacramento County inspectors cited it for ignoring environmental and hazardous materials regulations.

The court-approved penalty marks the second time in four years that the county's Environmental Management Department cited the state Department of General Services for violating regulations governing the safe operation of underground fuel storage tanks.

***

...when ...inspectors checked the Capitol's underground fuel tank last fall, they found General Services had failed to test its containment systems at least once in three years.

State workers also failed to certify at least once a year that the 1,000-gallon tank's leak-detection system was working. Lastly, they failed to remove water from a secondary containment system, rendering the entire emergency tank's leak-detection system inoperable, the county's violation summary shows.

Now, all State taxpayers get to help pay the fines assessed.

Yet, big-government types want to transfer more and more functions to government-- as if people putting on a "government" worker's hat somehow magically transforms them into being competent. Incredible.

Recent Articles in Environmental Law from LexMonitor

Off-Shore Lake Erie Wind Farm Lease Proposal

Dingell Unseated; Waxman to Head House Energy and Commerce Committee

Dingell Unseated; Waxman to Head House Energy and Commerce Committee

Electric company brings federal lawsuit against Kansas Governor for denial of permit for coal-fired power plant expansion

FERC Order Allows Tying of Capacity at Open Access Terminals to Release of Related Pipeline Capacity

Stark & Stark Attorney Featured on Legally Speaking

New Louisiana Regulation Creates Safe Harbor For Certain Equity-Based Compensatory Plans of Privately-Held Companies

The Voluntary Carbon Standard Issued Revised Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Documents

Governor Schwarzenegger and Two Other US Governors Enter into Avoided Deforestation Agreement with Governors from Brazil and Indonesia

Washington Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Kittitas Wind Project

Washington Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Kittitas Wind Project

The Shape of Waves to Come: Forecasting the Future of Ocean Power Conference (Portland, OR, February 10-11, 2009)

The Shape of Waves to Come: Forecasting the Future of Ocean Power Conference (Portland, OR, February 10-11, 2009)

What is the National Post saying about us?

Power Generators Offer Differing Views on Gas Interchangeability Issues

Are women protected by MOE environmental standards?

LNG Cargo Diverted from Lake Charles LNG Terminal to European Destination

Gaz Metro CEO: Negotiations Continuing with Gazprom on Rabaska LNG Terminal

Almighty Tax Lien Loses Battle to Environmental Escrow in Condemnation Action

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW GOVERNMENT DOESN'T KNOW ANY MORE THAN WE DO

State fined for fuel tank lapses

County inspectors say leak-detection system wasn't properly checked.