• What You Should Know About Pesticides on Your Lawn

    This month I’m pleased to share an article by my colleague Lilia Factor that recently appeared in the Suffolk Lawyer addressing considerations regarding pesticide use.  —Fred Eisenbud E-mail Lilia Published in Suffolk Lawyer, April 2016 Spring is here and with it, our thoughts turn to battling weeds.  To wage our battles, we often hire landscapers and, after signing the contract, put our trust in these people to ensure that our lawns stay lush green and dandelion-free.  However, what many homeowners do not realize is that the use and application of pesticides by commercial providers is highly regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ...

    cmandm

    Monday, May 23rd, 2016

    (0)

    Read More >
  • Court of Appeals Restricts the Ability to Challenge a SEQRA Positive Declaration Requiring Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. E-mail Fred April 25, 2016 If an agency such as a Town Board, Planning Board, or a Board of Zoning Appeals finds that an application before it may cause a substantial adverse impact on the environment, it is required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) to adopt a positive declaration, and require preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) before it may determine the merits of the application.  The immediate impact of such a determination on an applicant is that a final ruling on an application will be substantially delayed, and a great deal of money ...

    cmandm

    Friday, April 22nd, 2016

    (0)

    Read More >
  • Court of Appeals Expands Environmental Standing to Challenge SEQRA Determinations

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. November 23, 2015 On November 19, 2015, in Sierra Cub v. Village of Painted Post, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, reversed a decision by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which had found that an individual petitioner lacked standing to challenge actions of the Village of Painted Post on State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) grounds.  In so doing, the Court continued a trend towards loosening restrictions on people to gain relief from the courts based on claims of environmental harm.  The question of standing when it comes to SEQRA challenges asks whether the petitioner has ...

    cmandm

    Monday, November 23rd, 2015

    (0)

    Read More >
  • SAPA and Timely and Sufficient DEC Permit Renewal Applications

    By Fred Eisenbud, Esq. September 25, 2015 As published in the September issue of the Suffolk Lawyer On August 27, 2015, Newsday reported that Baykeeper, an environmental group, intends to commence a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) and National Grid because the effluent from the Northport power plant is killing millions of fish each year.  The article notes that the DEC’s permit for the power plant expired in 2011, “but under state rules it can operate while its application is reviewed.” The referenced “state rules” are the subject of this article, but the focus is on clients you ...

    cmandm

    Friday, September 25th, 2015

    (0)

    Read More >
  • The Towns Must Step Up Environmental Review of Commercial Solar Projects in Suffolk County Because They Can’t Rely on LIPA to Do It [and LIPA Must Stop Approving Power Purchase Agreements for Commercial Solar In Violation of SEQRA]

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. June 22, 2015 LIPA apparently believes, contrary to all evidence, that it need not comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)  If so, LIPA is wrong. The Power New York Law of 2011 amended and reenacted Chapter 10 of the Public Service Law, which addresses the siting of major electrical generating facilities.  The former version ...

    cmandm

    Monday, June 22nd, 2015

    (0)

    Read More >
  • Tiger Salamanders and Industrial Scale Solar Facilities in Suffolk County

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. May 20,  2015 I have previously written blogs that have questioned LIPA’s focus on industrial scale solar projects in Suffolk County.  Dyed-in-the-wool environmentalists find this blasphemous, and feel particularly betrayed by the author, who has focused his practice on environmental law and litigation for more than thirty years.  The rationale for their unquestioned fealty to solar regardless of how it is obtained appears to be the need to immediately address the impacts from global warming, particularly rising tides, regardless of cost or other impacts, because there is an urgent need to reduce our carbon footprint. Let me be absolutely ...

    cmandm

    Wednesday, May 20th, 2015

    (0)

    Read More >
  • The Emperor Has No Clothes (Why the push for Commercial Solar Makes No Sense)

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. February 26, 2015 SPower, the entity seeking to construct a 9.5 MW solar electrical generating facility on a 60 acre portion of the Delalio sod farm in Shoreham, along Route 25A, recently sent a brochure to the community touting the environmental benefits of the project, its ability to eliminate fluctuating prices for electricity during peak usage, its benefits for the environment, and why a buffer of trees around the facility will “protect the local viewshed and maintain the rural character of the area.” How can anyone be against this project and doesn’t opposing it make you “anti-environment”? Opposition ...

    cmandm

    Thursday, February 26th, 2015

    (0)

    Read More >
  • All Solar Power is Not Created Equal (So slow down PSEG-LI and LIPA and get it right)

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. January 7, 2015 I am a firm advocate for more solar power. The benefits are indisputable and can be read about elsewhere. New York has the potential to produce 11 times as much electricity from solar power as the state consumes each year. (“Star Power: The Growing Role of Solar Energy in New York”, Environment New York Research & Policy Center at 4 ). In little more than five years, improvements in battery storage may well enable the excess electricity from solar to be stored for use when electricity is not being generated by solar systems, at ...

    cmandm

    Wednesday, January 07th, 2015

    (0)

    Read More >
  • LIPA Must Come Clean About It’s Time-of-Use Residential Billing Rates So Consumers Can Make an Informed Decision Whether to Return to Standard Rates

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. October 8, 2013 In an earlier blog, published on September 26, 2013 (“LIPA Residential Time-of-Use Customers Beware – Your Efforts to Shift Usage to Off – Peak Hours Is Probably Costing You Money Compared to Regular Residential Rate Payers Who Are Billed the Same Rate Regardless of Time-of-Use”), we urged LIPA residential rate payers who switched from standard 180 rates to one of two principal LIPA time-of-use billing programs to take a hard look at their bills because they likely were spending more, not less, for electricity.  The 184 time-of-use billing program is for consumers who expect to ...

    cmandm

    Tuesday, October 08th, 2013

    (0)

    Read More >
  • LIPA Residential Time-of-Use Rates Are Unfair

    By Frederick Eisenbud, Esq. September 26, 2013 LIPA Residential Time-of-Use Customers Beware – Your Efforts to Shift Usage to Off – Peak Hours Is Probably Costing You Money Compared to Regular Residential Rate Payers Who Are Billed the Same Rate Regardless of Time-of-Use. Have you switched your residential LIPA billing rates from the standard 180 rates to 184 or 188 rates (the “Time of Use” rates, designed to encourage residential consumers to shift as much electrical usage from peak hours to off-peak)? Did you do so because you believed that doing so would save you money? If so, chances are, you are mistaken, ...

    cmandm

    Thursday, September 26th, 2013

    (0)

    Read More >
Fred Eisenbud