New England’s cod populations are at their lowest levels in history, thanks to decades of chronic overfishing and habitat destruction. Fisheries scientists agree that protecting vital fish habitat is key to restoring these once-plentiful fish species. How does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) respond? Yesterday NOAA proposed to allow new bottom trawling and other forms of commercial fishing in areas of New England’s ocean that have been protected for almost twenty years. NOAA’s assessment, which did not include a full analysis of the impacts and benefits of removing this protection as required by federal law, actually concludes that, for three of the four areas, opening them to trawling and other forms of fishing is “likely to yield only small increases in net benefit.”  NOAA’s assessment also finds that, in one of the areas, the opening will result in a reduction in net benefits to offshore lobstering, which will not be allowed at times when groundfishing is permitted.

The trade-offs exchanged for this “small increase in net benefit” are many, and they include the value of almost two decades of ecological restoration. Protecting habitat promotes the recovery of Georges Bank haddock and has rejuvenated the valuable scallop stocks. If NOAA’s own environmental assessment concludes that these protected areas harbor larger, more productive fish, why is NOAA allowing access to kill fish that could help overfished stocks to rebound or healthy stocks to remain healthy?

Also at risk is any role that these areas might play in the long-term protection of fish habitat. For more than eight years, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) has been “developing” a grand plan, known as the Omnibus Habitat Amendment, designed to meet federal law requirements to protect fish habitat against the damaging impacts of fishing gear. A final decision on the Amendment is expected in ten months. Bizarrely, NOAA is proposing to open areas now that are under consideration for future protection. What will be the remaining value of this habitat after trawls have been allowed to ply them for months? Let’s face it, NOAA, any trawling will diminish this area’s habitat value and trawling for two months will eliminate it. The fact is that if NOAA’s proposal is completed it will effectively preempt the NEFMC’s assessment of these areas and remove them from inclusion in any future habitat protection plan without the fully required analysis.

If the benefit that these areas play in rebuilding and maintaining fish stocks and the fact that they are under consideration in a federally-mandated habitat protection plan was not enough to convince NOAA that opening these areas was a bad idea, the agency should have at least been convinced by the role that they play in buffering against climate change impacts. This is especially so given that NOAA’s strategy for helping fish adapt to climate change is to “conserve habitat to support healthy fish,” and one its means for achieving that is “to reduce negative impacts of capture practices and gear on important habitats for fish.” Sadly, this action could not be more diametrically opposed to these strategies.

NOAA’s proposal appropriately retains protection from trawling for places in the Gulf of Maine like Cashes Ledge, an underwater mountain range 80 miles off the coasts of Massachusetts that harbors the largest and deepest kelp forest on the eastern seaboard and shelters some of the most diverse habitat and wildlife in the region. The agency should extend its rational thinking beyond the Gulf of Maine and retain all existing protected areas until a full consideration of the functions, values and merits of new and existing protected areas has been completed as part of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment process.

The public has until July 26 to comment on NOAA’s proposal to open nearly 3,000 square miles of protected habitat to commercial trawling. Please take action here.

The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) took important steps this week to increase energy efficiency in the state and pass those savings along to Maine’s electric customers. On Tuesday, the PUC issued its final order unanimously approving the Efficiency Maine Trust’s Triennial Plan, the comprehensive document that outlines the strategies, programs, budgets and estimated savings for three years starting July 1, 2013.

Some of the more critical components of the approved Plan are its budgets for the Trust’s largest programs related to electric efficiency. The Trust had proposed and made the case for expanding its budget for these programs by almost three times what would otherwise have been available to the Trust, estimating over $650 million in achievable cost-effective savings. The PUC  took a more conservative approach, but acted meaningfully, doubling the electricity budget and affording ratepayers close to $500 million in savings from these programs.

With their decision, Maine’s energy experts have spoken and they unanimously agree that the Legislature should significantly increase funding for energy efficiency. We hope the Legislature will take the responsible course of action this time and claim a victory for Maine ratepayers and the environment.

But, as I wrote last week, going forward, these efficiency funding decisions should reside with the experts at the PUC. The Maine law implemented last year shifting final say on certain energy efficiency funding from the PUC to the Legislature must be amended to direct that authority back to the PUC where it belongs. The Legislature will have the chance to make that change this session. The Legislature should look to the PUC’s actions this week as a demonstration of its keen understanding of the facts and the value of energy efficiency to the people and the state of Maine, and should follow the lead of our energy regulators.

The press release announcing the PUC’s decision is here.

Image courtesy of shoothead @ flickr

In the past two weeks, Maine’s energy efficiency programs received two significant votes of confidence – votes that will save customers money, will reduce energy use, and help Maine businesses.

The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) recently recommended approval of a $10 million electricity energy efficiency long term contract to fund a program of the Efficiency Maine Trust’s serving industries such as Maine’s paper mills and other large electric energy consumers. Last week, the PUC unanimously approved the Trust’s Triennial Plan and supported funding for the Trust’s electric efficiency programs that could more than double it from current levels.

Both of these approvals are important steps in the right direction: they reflect the PUC’s recognition of the value of Maine’s energy efficiency programs and the need for more funding to maximize their benefit to ratepayers. Unfortunately, the ultimate decision of how much funding the programs approved by these decisions will receive has been left to the Legislature. This politicization of energy policy results from a combination of flaws in Maine law and our PUC’s willingness to defer to politicians in Augusta.

The long term contract could provide up to $10 million in funding to help some of Maine’s largest electricity consumers to purchase technology and equipment that would reduce their energy consumption, such as more efficient motors and lighting. Historically, this successful program has saved more than three dollars for every dollar invested. In 2012 alone, $4.5 million in grants leveraged over $8.6 million of private investment in these largely industrial facilities, creating jobs associated with the individual efficiency projects but also helping to retain employment at the facilities where the projects were installed through the bottom line benefit of savings on energy costs. See the Efficiency Maine Trust’s 2012 Annual Report here.

The approval of the Trust’s three-year efficiency program plan will allow the Trust to maintain its most effective programs and possibly enhance its biggest programs related to electric efficiency, by increasing funding in this area from current levels of approximately $39 million over the next three years to over $96 million. These programs will decrease the amount of energy used in Maine, saving Maine ratepayers millions of dollars by suppressing the price of electricity, limiting the amount of energy that needs to be purchased and helping avoid the construction of new transmission projects. Equally important, the Trust will be less reliant upon the uncertain and limited federal monies that have funded a large chunk its programs over the past three years. The increased certainty of available funds means efficiency contractors and grant recipients will be more likely to invest in their businesses by hiring new employees and stimulating Maine’s economy.

While we generally applaud these decisions, any successful outcome from them is entirely dependent upon funding approvals from the Legislature. This reliance on our political process to assess the value of programs for Maine ratepayers must change. Our PUC must be more bold and must lead on matters of energy policy. Maine law designates the PUC as the sole authority on energy efficiency long term contracts of the sort requested by the Trust. Consequently, the PUC could and should have not only recommended, but approved, the long term contract without the need for subsequent legislative approval. Similarly, though the PUC is legally required to recommend to the Legislature how much funding is needed to maximize energy efficiency in the state, certain Commissioners appear hesitant exert this authority, as reflected in the Commission’s recent Triennial Plan deliberations. As the state’s energy experts, the PUC must use the full extent of its administrative powers to guide on energy policy, not leave such questions to partisan politics.

Indeed, politics should be removed from energy efficiency funding altogether. To achieve this, the Maine law implemented last year shifting final say on certain energy efficiency funding from the PUC to the Legislature must be amended to direct that authority back to the PUC where it belongs. A bill proposing just such a change will be before the Legislature this session. We encourage our legislators to recognize their limitations in this highly complex regulatory area and to restore this efficiency funding decision-making authority to our energy experts at the PUC. That kind of leadership will help steer Maine on a path to better energy policy.

This blog was originally published on TalkingFish.org.

It’s been widely reported that at its February meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to take emergency action on Gulf of Maine cod for the 2012 fishing year. The measures proposed, including a mere 3-13% reduction in the catch limit, were notable largely for their failure to address the condition of the depleted cod stock. But there is an aspect of the proposed package that has received little attention, which is troubling, because it would have NMFS open up five of the six existing areas currently closed to groundfishing. The areas at issue serve a myriad of functions for managed commercial species including protection of their habitat and spawning areas and providing a buffer against excessive fishing effort on certain species. Several of these areas have been in place for over fifteen years and have taken on important and positive functions and values that are currently being studied but are not yet entirely understood.

A map of the Gulf of Maine showing the groundfish closed areas (Photo credit: NOAA).

That’s one of the many reasons why the Council’s action is so incomprehensible. It came one day after the Council announced that it was only one year away from completing an eight-year process of collecting data and developing a highly scientific model by which it believes it can identify the best and most vulnerable habitat to protect. So, just when a lengthy scientific process is about to render answers as to what areas should be open and which closed, the Council urged action to open areas and did so without any scientific support. What’s more, many of these closures were imposed in order to comply with a court order to protect habitat from fishing gear, and several of these areas were chosen precisely because they are habitat for Gulf of Maine cod. Giving fishermen access to these areas will increase the likelihood that catch limits on cod will be exceeded and that catch will be discarded, increasing the mortality of this stock and undermining the very purpose of the emergency measure.

There is also the question of the legalities of opening these areas with this action. Many of the areas that the Council has put on the chopping block were originally designated in order to comply with a requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that essential fish habitat must be protected from fishing to the extent practicable. Any elimination of these closed areas risks undoing the Council’s means of complying with this requirement of federal fisheries law. The Service’s action will also be limited by the need to analyze the environmental impacts of reopening closures in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Just such an analysis is currently ongoing with the Council’s groundfish technical team. This analysis can, and with the Service’s help would, be completed in time for the 2013 fishing year, but is not ready as part of this emergency action.

The Service should take this opportunity to invest resources in the essential fish habitat process and the analysis of the groundfish closed areas already underway in order to ensure that it will be completed in time for what will inevitably be an even more restrictive 2013 fishing year. If the Service instead chooses to randomly reopen closed areas through the Council’s requested emergency action, it risks leaving Gulf of Maine cod and other fish stocks more vulnerable to overfishing than before, a blow to the fishery and exactly the opposite of the emergency action’s intended effect.

Earlier this week the Maine Department of Environmental Protection made a formal determination that Maine would benefit from an expansion of the state-owned Juniper Ridge Landfill located in Old Town. In doing so, it cut in half what the State and Juniper’s private manager Casella Waste Systems Inc.’s subsidiary NEWSME had asked for, authorizing an expansion that would increase capacity of the landfill by up to 9.35 million cubic yards, thereby adding ten-plus years of capacity. By cutting the proposal down to size, the DEP sent the clear message that it doesn’t want Maine to continue to be the dumping ground for New England’s waste. That relatively conservative approach is a good start but more work needs to be done to define the role of Juniper and other landfills and to fully address other flaws in Maine’s waste management system.

CLF opposed the Juniper expansion largely because an approval of the 20 years of landfill capacity proposed would have amounted to a surrender to the forces that are keeping Maine’s recycling rate down, limiting our reuse of waste as compost or for other beneficial purposes and driving (literally) Maine and out-of state waste to be disposed of in Juniper and other landfills in the state. So did this decision have the State only half capitulating to Casella and its waste partners?

The answer to that question is complicated and it is still too early to know for certain, but some things are clear at this point. There is no doubt that this decision indicates that the Maine DEP is willing to continue to make landfills a centerpiece of its waste management regime. However, that does not necessarily mean that it intends for Juniper and other landfills to be the option of first resort for our trash. Indeed, the DEP decision justifies its reduction in the expansion size by citing to the potential negative impacts that a fully expanded Juniper Ridge would have had on initiatives to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling. To its credit, DEP also implies that it will seek to eliminate disincentives in the tipping fees charged by Juniper that have the effect of making landfill disposal less costly than processing or composting waste as well as to limit the practice of disposing of massive quantities of construction and demolition debris processing residues at Juniper. DEP should be encouraged to aggressively pursue these efforts.

There are also positive indications in the DEP decision that it would like to change the 10-year solid waste status quo in Maine. The Department’s findings seem to encourage statutory changes that would limit the landfilling of waste from other states by redefining what is considered out-of-state waste. It also gives implied support for a statutory waste fee structure that would serve as an incentive to limit imported waste and to increase our beneficial reuse and recycling of garbage. Finally, DEP uses its authority in this decision to place some specific limitations on the manner in which Juniper in managed, by limiting the amount of both unprocessed waste and construction and demolition debris that can be disposed of each year at Juniper and by requiring audits designed to keep Casella honest and operating more for the benefit of Mainers than its own bottom line. These are needed improvements.

So despite the DEP’s decision to allow NEWSME to pursue an expansion of Juniper Ridge, there is some reason for hope in addressing the many remaining issues on the solid waste to-do list of the DEP, the Legislature and the Governor. At a minimum, the list contained in the DEP’s decision should be expanded to include: a meaningful increase in fees charged by the state for waste disposal at any landfill to fund recycling programs and disincent land disposal; re-establish and invigorate municipal recycling programs that create jobs, save towns money and reduce our waste; and, establish caps on the amount of solid waste that can be disposed of annually in Maine landfills to limit disposal and avoid the importation of waste by our waste to energy facilities, the residues of which fill our landfills. These actions would sufficiently counterbalance an expansion of Juniper Ridge to ensure that it is only one piece of a larger and more forward thinking strategy.

                Wouldn’t it be great if Maine law required that our power companies must save their customers money by investing in the cheapest form of energy, known as energy efficiency, while simultaneously ensuring that the sources of power sold in Maine increasingly come from clean, renewable energy sources?  If you agree, you are not alone. A coalition of Maine businesses, workers, health professionals, citizens and public interest groups, including CLF, feels the same way and we have initiated a referendum for next year’s election that will make it happen—with your help.

                To do so, our coalition will have to gather more than 70,000 signatures from Mainers seeking to place this issue on a ballot for state-wide vote in November 2012. This Election Day (tomorrow- November 8—VOTE!) keep an eye out at your polling place for folks collecting signatures on our petition and join our cause.

                What exactly are we proposing? To make changes to existing law that would require that a portion of our electricity bills fund cost-effective energy efficiency efforts throughout the state. Cost-effective energy efficiency means reducing the amount of electricity that we use, by investing in improvements to our industries, businesses and homes in a manner that saves more money than was spent on the improvements. On average, these kinds of investments save three times as much as they cost. If left untouched, Maine’s currently planned investment in energy efficiency will capture only 25% or so of the potential available savings. These are savings that will reduce everyone’s electricity bill, avoid the need for new expensive electricity lines and limit the amount of electricity that needs to be generated—let’s not squander them.

                We are also proposing that a requirement in Maine law, providing that at least 10% of electricity sold in the state must come from new renewable energy sources, should be increased so that 20% of our electricity comes from clean renewables. The effect of this requirement would be to increase the development of home-grown renewable energy projects that generate jobs in Maine while reducing our energy-related pollution. In combination, energy efficiency and increased renewables will mean Mainers pay less to the power company while doing more to preserve their quality of air and place.

                Why are we undertaking this? Governor LePage and the current leadership in the Legislature have made clear that, not only do they not support money-saving energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, but they are attempting to scale back both from their current levels. We don’t think that approach is good for Maine and we believe a majority of Maine people agree with us. This ballot initiative allows the people to decide this issue of critical importance for our economy and our environment.   

                If you are interested in helping us in this campaign, please contact the CLF Maine office.

With the passage of the state budget this week, the Maine legislature put politics ahead of the people in rejecting the Efficiency Maine Trust’s effort to maintain its funding for electrical efficiency programs. The Trust was proposing to increase a charge to electricity ratepayers in order to to sustain its funding levels for electric efficiency over the next three years and replace drained federal stimulus funds.

This was the perfect opportunity for our elected officials to help fulfill their campaign promises to produce growth and economic development in the state. How surprising then, that when presented with a chance to invest in a program that provides at least three dollars of return for every dollar invested, create thousands of jobs in Maine and stimulate commerce, the legislature’s Republican majority and Governor LePage openly rejected it.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the vote was at least in part a product of bias among  conservatives against a program that, because it happens to be good for the environment and was widely supported by Democrats, is perceived to have liberal leanings. In reality, the Trust and its programs are just as much about energy cost savings and economic development, goals to which both parties should aspire. The Trust is the public entity that helps to fund projects that enhance the energy efficiency of Maine’s homes, businesses and industries.

The work of the Trust is important for several reasons.:

• The financing provided by the Trust inspires the replacement of outdated technologies, from machinery to light bulbs, in favor of more energy efficient alternatives that reduce overall energy consumption.
• Less energy consumption means lower electrical bills for the recipient, lower energy prices and less frequent costly upgrades to our electrical transmission infrastructure to accommodate increasing demand, savings that are shared by all Mainers.
• The funding provided by the Trust is only a portion of the overall efficiency investment. The Trust’s “seed money” results in significant private investment, borrowing from banks and other forms of financing. In short, the added push of the Trust’s funding for a project results in a commercial ripple effect that benefits many sectors of our economy, providing jobs and demand for products.
• Greater energy efficiency means less electricity needs to be produced, which translates into reduced consumption of fossil fuels and reduced pollution.

But increasing electricity charges can’t be good for Mainers you might suggest. Therein lies the rub. First, the proposed increase was small, approximately one dollar a month for the average household—the cost of a cup of coffee. Second, the economy is not going to rebound while we stand by idly wishing for a miracle, it takes investment to get a return and the Trust is proven to produce returns. In 2010, the EMT saw its $17 million investment in efficiency projects render a lifetime energy savings valued at $95.7 million and serve as the impetus for an additional $76.9 million in private investment in businesses and homes across Maine. Efficiency spending not only saves money– it is an economic driver. Indeed, the Trust funding that the Legislature just denied was predicted to produce an $840 million benefit to Maine energy consumers.

So why would our governor and the legislature effectively defund a program that could generate such significant financial benefits to the state? The answer appears to be party politics that defy logic and economic policy and theory. Perhaps worst of all, it also happens to deviate from state law which requires that Maine, through the Trust, fund and pursue maximum achievable cost-effective levels of energy efficiency.

In an ongoing battle between the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the Administration of Governor Paul LePage over the release of public documents related to his regulatory reform proposals and “red tape audits,” the LePage Administration Thursday relented and agreed with CLF’s legal conclusion that Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requires the Governor’s office to disclose documents related to the development of his regulatory agenda and staffing that were generated during his post-election transition.

Naturally, I am pleased that the Governor’s office has agreed to comply with the law that allows citizens access to their government’s records; however, I remain concerned that the Administration’s first reaction was to fight disclosure, and that even this agreement to adhere to the law comes with strings attached.

The Governor’s Office takes the position that “the Transition Team was under no obligation to preserve such documents” and says that it will not turn over documents in the possession of Transition Team members. So what shade of transparency is this? Well, I construe this statement to mean that documents that formed the basis for the Governor’s sweeping regulatory reform proposal were either destroyed or are in the possession of the Transition Team, and though those documents are accessible to the Governor’s Office, they will be withheld from the public.

That’s right, it seems that when Governor LePage declared the “most transparent transition in Maine history,”  he forgot to mention that he wasn’t beyond secreting policy documents using legal technicalities. So why doesn’t the Governor want the people of Maine to know who was really behind this effort to reverse Maine’s progress in protecting natural resources that are vital to our economy and our way of life? Is it possible that we might learn that it was lobbyists, out-of-state corporations and some of those special interests by which the Governor claims he cannot be taken hostage?

To borrow your words, Governor–“the Maine people deserve to know.”