Incinerators have gotten nearly $160 million under New Jersey’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) under the guise that they are “clean” energy. They are anything but. New Jersey’s incinerators emit more pollution than any other facility on the state’s grid today. This pollution is concentrated in EJ communities. Incinerators emit lots of pollution even in years with short total permit violation time.
So reducing payments to incinerator by the percentage of permit violation time, as the current version of the Clean Energy Act of 2024 would do, is not the answer. This will barely put a dent in millions of unwarranted “clean” energy money they get. Instead, incinerators should be totally disqualified for any substantive permit violation.
Do you know where your trash goes? Read this new report from NJEJA, Earthjustice, and the Ironbound community corporation to learn more about the injustice of incinerators and trash energy in New Jersey’s frontline communities.
New Jersey is no stranger to the negative impacts of incinerators, many of which are located in the state’s over burdened, environmental justice communities. Residents of these communities are more susceptible to asthma and COVID-19 due to the cumulative impacts from incinerators and other pollution sources. New Jersey’s four currently operating incinerators (Covanta Essex, Covanta Camden, Covanta Union, and Wheelabrator Gloucester) and one recently closed incinerator (Covanta Warren) collectively:
Emitted over 10,000 tons of air pollution and nearly 7 million tons of greenhouse gases from 2015 to 2018;
Placed among the state’s top 5 emitters of a dozen distinct air pollutants;
Violated their air permits over 1,700 times since 2004; and
Collected nearly $30 million in “clean” energy subsidies from utilities and ratepayers since 2004, despite these emissions and violations.
Read this new report from NJEJA, Earthjustice, and the Ironbound community corporation to learn more about the injustice of incinerators and trash energy in New Jersey’s frontline communities.
Across the United States, fossil fuel infrastructure emits toxic air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Environmental justice (EJ) communities bear the brunt of both, living on the front lines of impacts from climate change while also suffering the localized environmental health harms caused by fossil fuel facilities in their vicinity. Despite these disproportionate impacts, climate mitigation policies remain focused on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions without attention to the health-harming co-pollutants from the power sector. A just and equitable climate mitigation policy, however, makes the elimination of the sector’s outsize and inequitable impact on low-income communities and communities of color an explicit goal. From an environmental justice perspective, climate change mitigation measures, whether they use a technology-based standard, a greenhouse gas (GHG) target, or a market-based or other mechanism, should explicitly incorporate mandatory emissions reductions (MER) of health-harming co-pollutants in EJ communities.
This report lays out the justification and framework for an MER policy in the U.S. power sector. The essential steps of our framework are to identify power plants located in EJ communities, decide on the specific type of MER policy to apply, and finally, examine additional factors—such as measures of cumulative burden or vulnerability—that can inform which power plants should be prioritized for MER soonest or to the greatest extent. We offer several variants of an MER policy, with the ideal option being the closure of fossil fuel–fired power plants in EJ communities and a concomitant transition to renewable energy to maintain safe and reliable electricity generation.
To understand how the selection and prioritization of plants for MER might work in practice, we applied our framework to three states, New Jersey, Delaware, and Minnesota. We adopted a definition of “environmental justice community” based on quantitative thresholds for People of Color, those with limited English proficiency, and low-income populations, in line with recommendations of EJ advocates and the classification used in New Jersey’s 2020 landmark environmental justice law (A2212/S232). Once plants in EJ communities were identified, additional factors that reflect environmental burden, such as cancer risk and respiratory hazard related to toxic air pollution, as well as the emissions profiles of the plants, were incorporated as an illustrative, second layer of analysis for prioritizing plants and the most impacted EJ areas.
Throughout the development and application of our framework, the research team relied on the input and collaboration of key stakeholders representing EJ communities in the three case study states. These EJ partners played a crucial role in ground-truthing the set of plants that were identified and prioritized for an MER policy, which was important given the occasional gaps in data and the inherent limitations of relying on strict quantitative thresholds for definitional purposes.
Overall, the New Jersey, Delaware, and Minnesota case studies underscore the disproportionate siting of power plants in environmental justice communities. In all three states, there is an inequitable overrepresentation of People of Color in the fence-line populations residing near power plants, emphasizing the importance of considering race when developing strategies for the sector. As more attention, policy, and investment are directed toward a just energy transition, this work aims to highlight the need for, and to advance a path forward for, mandatory emissions reductions in power sector climate mitigation efforts.
To read the full report, download “Mandatory Emissions Reductions for Climate Mitigation in the Power Sector” below.
NJEJA supports the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule proposed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. However, just as with the previously proposed and enacted Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Rule, NJEJA urges the state to develop and adopt strategies, rules, and laws that will guarantee that air pollution emissions reductions from heavy-duty vehicles occur in New Jersey EJ communities.
NJEJA supports the proposed Omnibus Rule because the organization recognizes that air pollution emitted by heavy-duty vehicles is a significant public health hazard to New Jersey communities, including EJ communities. It appears that a fully adopted Omnibus Rule would result in a general reduction in emissions from heavy-duty trucks and buses. But NJEJA also recognizes that that in a society such as ours, where systemic racism and classism is endemic, laws and public policies intended to help all communities need to contain a specific mechanism that will ensure their benefits are realized in communities Of Color and communities with low-income. These comments will discuss this unfortunate fact in more detail, use an EJ perspective to place the proposed Omnibus Rule in the larger context of climate and environmental policies, and provide recommendations to ensure EJ communities attain the relief from transportation-related air pollution that they desperately need.
NJEJA would also like to incorporate by reference, comments submitted by the Coalition for Healthy Ports on the proposed Omnibus Rule.
Contact information (name, email, phone, address).
Location of Proposed Project (address and block and lot).
Summary description of proposed project (one paragraph only) including proposed dimensions of any buildings and total project cost.
Existing land use at project site and existing land use zoning designation.
Requested variance, if any.
Permits:
List of all permits and approvals needed.
Copy of any permits already obtained from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, or evidence of inclusion in the Essex County Solid Waste Management Plan after advice of the Essex County Solid Waste Advisory Council.
Basic Form – For Covered Applicants with a Commercial or Light Manufacturing Use, including those uses within an MX-1 or MX-2 Zone…
The Clean Power Plan rule is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) regulatory method of reducing the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions and, by doing so, of fighting climate change.1 There was very little in the original Clean Power Plan proposal that addressed environmental justice (“EJ”)2 using section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act3 as authorization; it instead featured averaging carbon dioxide emissions rates4 and facilitated emissions trading.5 The EJ advocacy community responded to the Clean Power Plan’s failure to address equity by propos- ing a number of ways that EJ could be incorporated into the proposed rule.6 The three primary recommendations were: 1) mandated emissions reductions for EJ communities, i.e., communities of color and low-income communities; 2) prioritized use of energy efficiency and renewable energy in EJ communities; and 3) mandatory EJ analyses included in state plans developed pursuant to the Clean Power Plan that demonstrated the implementation of the first two recommendations and determined the distributive impacts of a state plan on EJ communities within the state.7 There were other important EJ recommendations such as the recommendation that states should not be able to use carbon trading to fulfill their obligations under the Clean Power Plan.8 However, the above three suggestions were also usually core recommendations.
The final version of the rule does provide what might best be characterized as an EJ “foothold” by requiring that states interact with EJ communities during development of their state plans9 and the inclu- sion of an optional incentive program for the use of energy efficiency in low-income neighborhoods.10 However, the Clean Power Plan still pro- vides no mandatory substantive protections for EJ communities and does not attempt to incentivize emissions reductions for any particular communities, including EJ neighborhoods…
Dr. Nicky Sheats, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, 609-558-4987
Dr. Ana Baptista, Ironbound Community Corporation, 973-342-6056
Melissa Miles, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, 347-553-3338
STUDY REVEALS IMPORTANCE OF DRIVING DOWN DIRTY DIESEL EMISSIONS IN EJ COMMUNITIES IN NEWARK AREA
Transportation is one of the largest contributors to local air pollution and the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (1).Reducing emissions from this sector will be critical to improve air quality, especially within environmental justice (EJ) communities, i.e. communities Of Color and low-income communities, which frequently experience disproportionately high pollution burdens including elevated levels of air pollutants known to detrimentally impact human health. To better understand the equity implications of air pollution emissions the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) commissioned a study, “Newark Community Impacts of Mobile Source Emissions”, of air pollution emissions from the transportation sector in the Newark area (2).The study examined air pollution emissions such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOx) black carbon (BC) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The study looked at the related emissions exposure from various mobile sources and non road sources including: cars, medium and heavy duty diesel trucks, buses, locomotives, ships, and port related sources such as cargo handling equipment as well as idling from trucks and buses. The study examined emissions impacts on particularly sensitive populations in close proximity to transportation infrastructure such as schools, senior centers, daycares and dialysis centers. Finally, the study explored the potential impacts that electrification would have in the study area. The report confirms some of the concerns that EJ communities express about disproportionate exposure to harmful transportation sector emissions. The findings show that:
Emissions of the most health harming air pollutants such as PM2.5, BC, and NOx from non-roadway sources, particularly locomotives and port operations, have the highest air quality impact in the total study area, followed by medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. These sources far outweigh the emissions exposure from passenger vehicles and together contribute around 95 percent of the total emissions exposure modeled within the study area.
While the contribution of different sources varies within the study area, the highest burden can be found in locations close to high density truck and bus routes and locations close to port facilities and rail yards.
The analysis shows that while electrification of trucks and buses could be one path to reduce emissions of health harming air pollutants, electrification of these vehicles must be accompanied by a focus on emissions reductions from electric generating units co-located within the same community in order to ensure a reduction in overall local air pollution burden. Displacement of air pollution emissions to power plants due to electrification can be a significant factor in impact of local emissions under different electrification scenarios.
Based on the findings of this study, when evaluating roadway transportation emissions sources, medium-and heavy-duty vehicles have an outsized impact on the harmful local pollutants that impact human health and contribute significantly to transportation sector GHG emissions. This analysis further found that reducing emissions from the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector would have meaningful and immediate impacts on air-quality within disproportionately burdened communities. The implications of the report findings are relevant for several ongoing discussions concerning air pollution, climate mitigation and EJ. In New Jersey and regionally (i.e. Transportation and Climate Initiative) much of the focus of transportation sector climate mitigation efforts have been on car electrification. This study highlights the importance of prioritizing dirtier segments of this sector such as the diesel trucks and buses as well as port related emissions that have the greatest detrimental health impact on EJ communities.
The investigation’s findings also indicate that developing climate mitigation policy that targets air pollution reduction and electrification can be complicated from an EJ perspective, at least partly due to the displacement of emissions to the power sector. Since so many of New Jersey’s existing power plants are located in EJ communities, already overburdened with multiple sources of pollution – shifting emissions from the tailpipe to the power sector could have localized impacts. Development of climate mitigation policies for this sector that takes into account EJ and equity considerations must be performed with careful consideration of the potential impacts that include but are not limited to geographic location, displaced emissions and community vulnerabilities.
The study also highlights what NJEJA believes to be some of the key shortcomings of the proposed regional TCI approach with respect to EJ. TCI prioritizes light duty passenger vehicles in both its investment and electrification scenarios. This study shows how critical the dirtier segments of the transportation sector are to reducing the health harming impacts of the transportation sector. Without targeted, ambitious and significant attention to the diesel sector, EJ communities that suffer the greatest impact from transportation related pollution will not benefit sufficiently from TCI related policies. Furthermore, the strong emphasis on the electrification of the light duty vehicles may in fact pose a potential harm to those communities that host power plants where emissions of certain co-pollutants may increase. EJ and racial justice demand that we prioritize climate mitigation policies that affirmatively address those most severely affected by pollution.
When we know better, we must endeavor to do better. This study clearly points the way forward to a more equitable and just approach to transportation sector mitigation policies focused on the communities that are most impacted. This would necessitate moving away from a program like TCI, which does not ensure emissions reductions in EJ communities as its core policy and moving towards targeted emissions reductions policies like Clean Truck Rules.
“The only two children in my family who have asthma both lived along a truck route in the port-adjacent Ironbound neighborhood in Newark”, said Melissa Miles, Executive Director of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, a steering committee member of the Coalition for Healthy Ports. “Every year we counted trucks on our corner as part of a community initiative, only to find out through this report that we were also being exposed to heavy emissions from off-road sources like freight trains. New Jersey needs to address the most serious contributors to transportation emissions like trucks and trains, not just passenger vehicles which are the low hanging fruit.”
Quotations about the report and its implications from members of the Coalition for Healthy Ports
“This report illustrates what EJ communities have long known, that living with dirty diesel in your backyard is dangerous to your health. Any climate mitigation policy focused on the transportation sector must prioritize the elimination of this local pollution as a core strategy.” Ana Baptista, PhD, NJEJA
(1) https://www.nj.gov/dep/aqes/oce-ghgei.html
(2)The study was conducted by MJ Bradley and Associates with funding from the Natural Resources Defense Council. The report was also released and reviewed in consultation with members of the Coalition for Healthy Ports members, specifically, Ironbound Community Corporation, GreenFaith, NJ Clean Water Action and New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance.
