In 2003, Champlin’s Marina filed its request with the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to expand its marina in Block Island’s Great Salt Pond. At 10 years (and still running), this is probably CLF’s longest-running active litigation. This post is written to apprise you of the latest developments in this continuing saga.

Background

You may recall that in January 2011, the full CRMC voted unanimously to deny Champlin’s a permit to expand its marina in the Great Salt Pond. Champlin’s appealed to the Superior Court, as it had a legal right to do. In the Superior Court, Champlin’s filed a brief raising a rather curious issue: Champlin’s claimed that it had suffered a violation of its Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights – because CRMC had granted a permit for Payne’s Dock to expand, but had denied Champlin’s application to expand. The Superior Court decided that Champlin’s civil rights claim should be heard first in the CRMC (and then be heard again in the Superior Court). As a result, the Champlin’s case is now simultaneously in two different venues: Superior Court and CRMC!

February 12 Hearing

The most recent hearing before the CRMC was earlier this week , Tuesday, February 12. As usual for these Champlin’s hearings, there were quite a few island residents present to watch the proceedings.

At the start of the meeting, CRMC Chairwoman Anne M. Livingston addressed a motion by Champlin’s that she recuse herself from the case because she had spoken about the case to a former CRMC member last December at a social gathering. Livingston acknowledged that her comments had been “indiscreet” (her word). She said that she was confident that she could act impartially in the matter; but she said she would recuse herself “in an abundance of caution.” Livingston then left the hearing for the rest of the evening.

The main witness on February 12 was Kenneth W. Anderson, chief engineer for the CRMC. Anderson testified that he has worked on every marina application that has come before the CRMC over the last two decades, including both the Champlin’s and Payne’s Dock applications.

Anderson testified that the procedure that CRMC used for handling these two applications were exactly identical. In both cases CRMC analyzed the application in light of the controlling CRMC regulation in order to determine whether the (respective) application comported with the regulation. Anderson testified that there was a very simple reason that the Champlin’s application was rejected while the Payne’s application was approved: Champlin’s application violated the applicable regulation; Payne’s application did not. That is, the reason the two applications had different legal outcomes was because the law required different outcomes – not because of disparate treatment or prejudice.

More specifically, Anderson testified about four major differences between the two different applications:

• CRMC regulations require all marinas in the state to make efficient use of existing facilities. Anderson testified that Payne’s makes efficient use of its existing space, but that Champlin’s is grossly inefficient. Thus, the regulation requires Champlin’s to make more efficient use of its present space before expansion can be allowed.

• Payne’s proposed expansion did not impinge on existing mooring fields, but Champlin’s proposed expansion did impinge on existing mooring fields.

• Payne’s proposed expansion would not have an adverse impact on safety of navigation though the Great Salt Pond, but Champlin’s proposed expansion would have an adverse impact on navigation safety.

• Finally, the size and scope of the proposed expansions were vastly different: Champlin’s proposal was, in fact, ten times the size of the proposed expansion. In a small area like the Great Salt Pond, Anderson testified, this factor is of major importance.

What’s Ahead

The CRMC had hoped to finish the hearing on February 12, but it came nowhere close to that goal. Champlin’s lawyer, Bob Goldberg, did not even finish his cross-examination of Kenneth Anderson; there are also more witnesses on both sides yet to be heard. The next hearing date was scheduled for Tuesday, February 26, at 5:15 PM. (If you plan to attend, check the CRMC website for confirmation of meeting time and for details on meeting location.) After the hearing is over, the parties will be given time (probably six to eight weeks) to brief the equal-protection issue.

I remain very confident that the CRMC will advise the Superior Court that there was no violation of equal protection in the cases of Champlin’s Marina and Payne’s Dock. Simply put, the different CRMC decisions in the two different cases was a result of different facts in the two cases, not a result of prejudice or civil rights violations. That is, the reason that Champlin’s will not be able to prove that the differing CRMC decisions were a result of a civil rights violation is that there are no facts to support that argument.

When the case returns to Superior Court, Judge Kristin Rodgers will also have to rule on Champlin’s equal-protection claim. Based on the facts in the record, I am confident that she too will rule against Champlin’s.

After Superior Court, Champlin’s may attempt to appeal (yet again!) to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Unfortunately, CLF’s longest-running active case shows no signs of ending any time soon.

Expensive Litigation

Champlin’s has shown just how lucrative it expects its proposed marina expansion into the Great Salt Pond to be. Champlin’s has no fewer than three lawyers on its side, and the case has already gone to the Rhode Island Supreme Court more than once. Litigating this case is, of course, expensive for CLF as well. We have been deeply grateful for your past financial support, because that support has enabled us to stay in this long fight. Please continue to support CLF’s Champlin’s litigation. You can do so here, on our website.

Today, nearly 70% of all Rhode Island bus riders are going to and from work or school. That’s why having good public transit is so important to growing Rhode Island’s economy.

Gas is nearly $4 a gallon and, as a result, more Rhode Islanders than ever are taking the RIPTA bus. Meanwhile, many of Rhode Island’s bridges (maintained by DOT) are unsafe, and we all know what the pot-holes in our local streets are like.

In 2011, the Rhode Island General Assembly had a chance to address both sides of the transportation issue – RIPTA and DOT – with the “Transportation Investment and Debt Reduction Act.” The General Assembly did a good job back then with the first half of the problem, the DOT part. Now it’s time for the legislature to help RIPTA. The right way to do that is to pass H-5073, also known as the O’Grady Bill, for one of its chief sponsors, Rep. Jay O’Grady.

The Transportation Investment and Debt Reduction Act, passed two years ago, provides a stable and secure source of funding for the DOT without burdening Rhode Island taxpayers with huge debt-service obligations. In the past, Rhode Island floated a bond issue of $80 million every two years to raise the local matching funds needed to bring hundreds of millions of dollars of federal highway funds into the state. This constant borrowing was unsustainable, and was saddling our children with huge debt-service costs. According to the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s Voter Guide, Rhode Island tax payers are now obligated to repay $59.85 million in debt service alone (over and above principal repayment of $80 million) on just the 2010 bond. The Transportation Investment and Debt Reduction Act ensured that DOT would be able to get its matching funds without bonding and without more debt service.

That law is now saving Rhode Island tax-payers tens of millions of dollars over the life of those bonds. That’s a lot of money, especially when the economy is in tough shape.

But transportation is more than just roads and bridges. With gas at almost $4 a gallon, RIPTA ridership is at an all-time high. The O’Grady Bill provides much-needed sustainable funding to RIPTA. With those funds, RIPTA will be able to maintain existing service, put more busses on the busiest routes, increase the number of commuter Park-and-Rides, build more bus shelters at stops, and create new hubs for faster transfers and connections.

Today, nearly 70% of all Rhode Island bus riders are going to and from work or school. That’s why having good public transit is so important to growing Rhode Island’s economy – and why the business community supports the O’Grady Bill.

Other people use to bus to get to medical appointments and doctor’s visits. Having good public transit is linked to cleaner air. That’s why Rhode Island health organizations, including the American Lung Association in Rhode Island (and others), are supporting the O’Grady Bill.

The O’Grady Bill also provides additional funds for DOT’s construction projects. That’s why the unions are supporting the O’Grady Bill.

By providing additional funds for public transit, the O’Grady Bill will help reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector. That’s why environmental organizations like CLF are supporting the O’Grady Bill.

In fact, when the O’Grady Bill was heard last year in the House Finance Committee, dozens of people spoke in favor of it – from business and labor, from community groups and environmental groups. There are not many bills that have such widespread support. Not one person spoke against the bill.

The General Assembly did not pass the O’Grady Bill last year. It should pass it this year. The O’Grady Bill will help us grow the economy, and will help all Rhode Islanders. That’s why it has garnered such wide support.

On June 26, 2011, Governor Chafee signed into law the “Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act.”  The bill had passed both houses of the General Assembly unanimously. The “distributed generation” in the title of the law refers to small, local renewable energy projects.

The new law was designed to do three things: (1) increase the number of small renewable energy projects that are built in Rhode Island; by (2) making it easier, quicker, and cheaper for developers of these projects to get contracts to sell their electricity to Rhode Island’s dominant utility, National Grid; and (3) get those renewable energy projects distributed into more of Rhode Island’s cities and towns.

Not every law passed by the General Assembly works out the way it was meant to, but the Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act has been phenomenally successful in accomplishing each of its three goals.

Previous renewable energy laws in Rhode Island have worked the way they were intended: to get National Grid to buy more and more of its electricity each year from clean, renewable energy sources. But Rhode Island’s previous renewable energy laws also had a significant flaw: they worked very well for big projects, like Deepwater Wind’s proposed offshore wind farm, but they worked less well for small projects (like a town that wants to set up a single wind turbine at its town hall, as Portsmouth did). That is because under the prior laws, developers would have to hire a small army of lawyers to negotiate an excruciatingly long, detailed contract with Grid, setting forth everything from the price of the electricity to delivery schedule. (For example, the contract that Deepwater filed with the Public Utilities Commission on December 10, 2009 ran 62 pages in length!)  Hiring lawyers to negotiate a 62-page contract was just too time-consuming and expensive for a developer who had a small project.

The new law fixed that problem. As the name of the law suggests, it provided for a “standard contract” for developers of small projects. The standard contract was short, written in plain English, and easy to understand. In addition, the law provided for a standard price to be paid, and established a mechanism for setting a fair price for each different type of project – wind, solar, and so forth. These prices were designed to be high enough to get projects actually built, but low enough to protect electricity rate-payers.

And that is exactly how the new law has worked. In the 15 months since the bill was signed into law, National Grid has held three separate sign-up periods. To date, 18 separate projects have been signed up.  Each of these 18 separate projects will be built right here in Rhode Island. Thus, Rhode Islanders will directly enjoy the environmental and economic-development benefits of these projects. The main purpose of the new law, to get more local renewable energy projects built, has been accomplished – in spades.

The developer of each of these 18 projects got a simple, standard contract to sign, and will receive a set price for the electricity produced.  Thus, another one of the law’s purposes has been accomplished.

The projects themselves are located in Providence, East Providence, Portsmouth, Lincoln, Westerly, Bristol, West Greenwich, East Greenwich, Hopkinton, Middletown, Cumberland, North Kingstown, North Smithfield, and West Warwick.  This geographical distribution of new renewable energy projects was a third purpose of the law.

Rhode Island’s new Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act has been so successful that it is becoming a model for the rest of the country. Renewable energy advocates in New York and Iowa are hoping to replicate the Rhode Island law in their states. The California Public Utilities Commission has circulated the Rhode Island law to its in-house legal staff. A group of Oregon legislators is poised to introduce a bill in the coming legislative session modeled after the successful Rhode Island law.

The Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act is a classic win-win. It addresses the problem of climate change by reducing the carbon emissions that cause climate change. And it helps the Rhode Island economy by facilitating local development of renewable energy projects.

This is a law that Rhode Islanders can be proud of. Its enactment reflects well on our legislators (who passed it unanimously) and on Governor Chafee (who signed it into law). The law has been administered carefully and diligently by our Office of Energy Resources. And National Grid, which receives an economic incentive when projects start producing power, has worked conscientiously with developers to help developers succeed.

Champlin’s Marina may be CLF’s oldest active case. Originally filed in 2003, the case has been to the Supreme Court (more than once), Superior Court (more than once), and the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) (more than once).

The most recent hearing before CRMC was Tuesday evening, July 31, 2012. Here is how this came about.

In January 2011, the full CRMC voted unanimously to deny Champlin’s a permit to expand its marina in Block Island’s Great Salt Pond. Champlin’s appealed to the Superior Court, as it had a legal right to do. In the Superior Court, Champlin’s filed a brief raising a curious issue: Champlin’s claimed that it had suffered a violation of its equal protection rights because CRMC had granted a permit for Payne’s Dock to expand, but had denied Champlin’s application to expand.

In the Superior Court, CLF argued that, for two different reasons, Champlin’s should not be permitted to make this argument:

• As a strictly procedural matter, Champlin’s had not included this argument in its Complaint; and court rules usually prohibit arguing issues not presented in the Complaint.

• As a substantive matter Champlin’s had already presented its equal protection argument in court and had had the argument dismissed; raising the same losing argument again was frivolous and abusive.

You can see CLF’s Superior Court brief on this subject here.

The Superior Court Judge ruled that Champlin’s could at least try to present its equal-protection argument, but that Champlin’s had to do so first in the CRMC. So the Judge sent the case back to the CRMC. That is how we got to the CRMC on July 31.

The hearing was long and contentious. Champlin’s lawyer tried repeatedly to put improper matters into the record. Objections to Champlin’s improper actions were made by lawyers on our side, and those objections were sustained by the CRMC. Evidently deeply frustrated, Champlin’s lawyer lost his temper and became insulting toward members of the CRMC.

At the close of the hearing, it was clear that Champlin’s would not be successful in its efforts to have the CRMC rule that Champlin’s had suffered unequal treatment at the hands of the CRMC.  This is true for at least two different reasons:

• As a matter of fact and of law, Champlin’s did not suffer any equal protection violation.  While it is true that CRMC approved Payne’s permit to expand its marina and denied Champlin’s application, the two situations were entirely different.  Payne’s marina is at a different location than Champlin’s; Payne’s is a different size; Payne’s presents different environmental impacts and different navigational challenges than Champlin’s; and Payne’s expansion does not impinge on other mooring fields as Champlin’s did. That is, the CRMC treated the Payne’s application differently than it treated the Champlin’s application because it was different – not because of improper bias.

• As a practical matter, Champlin’s lawyer only alienated and offended CRMC members with his rudeness. Shouting at CRMC members and interrupting them when they speak is not conduct likely to persuade skeptics of your position.

The next step in the process is that the parties will file written briefs. Champlin’s will try to persuade the CRMC that it (Champlin’s) was a victim of bias. This will be difficult for Champlin’s to do, because there is not a shred or scintilla of evidence of bias in the record. Objectors will argue that there is no evidence of bias. Briefing will take until mid-autumn. After the CRMC opines on whether or not Champlin’s was a victim of bias, the case will return to Superior Court, probably early in 2013.

CLF is pushing the ISO-NE to fully and properly account for all of the valuable energy-efficiency programs that the six New England states are already operating.

Energy efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest way for New England to meet its energy needs. We can save money and create jobs while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. To learn more about what CLF is doing to promote energy efficiency, click here.

“ISO-NE” stands for Independent System Operator-New England; this is the organization of engineers and technical experts that runs New England’s electricity grid. To learn more about CLF’s work with ISO-NE, click here.

Together, the six New England states are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on energy efficiency programs. In 2011, the ISO created an “Energy Efficiency Forecast Working Group” to forecast how much energy efficiency was actually going to get bought for all that money. CLF has been participating in this ISO-NE Working Group since its inception.

The first report of this Working Group, published in April 2012, was very exciting, because it predicted that more than 100% of projected electricity load increases for New England over the next three years could and would be achieved  through energy efficiency, not from new generating plants. This is good news for the environment because it means lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, CLF thought that there were some mistakes in the forecast, mainly from under-counting the energy efficiency expenditures of those states (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) that had made the most enthusiastic commitments to energy efficiency.

On July 11, 2012, CLF sent a letter to the ISO-NE’s Energy Efficiency Forecast Working Group, urging it not to repeat those same under-counting mistakes in its work on the 2013 energy efficiency forecast. You can see the full text of CLF’s letter, here.

Ultimately, energy efficiency is paid for by electricity customers. In order for ratepayers to get all they efficiency they are paying for, the ISO-NE needs to count all the money that is being spent.

If CLF’s recommendations are adopted by the Working Group, it will benefit ratepayers by reducing electricity bills; and it will benefit the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a classic win-win!

The Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding met on Friday, June 1, for what may prove to be its last meeting for this legislative session. (I sit on the Study Commission as a full voting member.) At the June 1 meeting, the Study Commission approved four separate recommendations; each separate recommendation was approved by a vote of 9 members in favor, 1 member opposed. All four recommendations were deeply disappointing.

Unfortunately, the gist of all four recommendations is that the Study Commission recommends waiting until after RIPTA completes its anticipated Comprehensive Operations Assessment (COA) before the Study Commission recommends any new, significant, sustainable funding for RIPTA. The fourth recommendation sums up the gist of all four: “Upon completion of the COA and pricing analysis [that is, zone fares], develop a comprehensive, sustainable funding approach for inclusion in the FY 2014 budget.”

In other words: nothing meaningful should happen now; let’s wait until after the COA is done; and then (maybe) recommend something in the future. The inevitable result will be that RIPTA will face major service cuts as early as the end of this calendar year. This will directly hurt Rhode Islanders who depend on RIPTA to get to jobs, school, medical appointments, or recreation. And it will hurt the environment, because expanding public transit is a major way to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution.

I was the sole Study Commission member to oppose the four recommendations. I explained that there is no reason to wait until after the COA is done to recommend new, sustainable funding for RIPTA, because the COA will not provide any relevant, new information. We know why RIPTA experiences perennial budget shortfalls; it is due to two major factors:

• Declining yield on the gas tax, which is RIPTA’s largest single source of revenue; this yield declined 12.9% in just four recent years; and

• Rising diesel prices for RIPTA busses. Diesel fuel is RIPTA’s second largest expense (after personnel); and diesel prices have increased 100% since 2005.

The fact is that the COA will not add any new, relevant information about these critical issues.

We also know the options for new funding; again, the COA will not add any new, relevant information there, either. At the June 1 meeting, I suggested that the Commission endorse the O’Grady Bill, H-7581, as an alternative to the four pre-written recommendations.

Each of the four proposed recommendations was moved separately and voted on separately. All four of the proposed recommendations passed by votes of 9 in favor, one opposed. I was the sole dissenter in each case. After I had lost on all four proposals, I made a proposal for a fifth recommendation.

I proposed that the Study Commission re-convene in September, rather than in March/April, as it has in the past, in order to be ready earlier in the next General Assembly session with new funding recommendations for RIPTA. In effect, my proposal was a challenge to the Study Commission. I was saying: If you insist on waiting until after the COA to recommend more funding for RIPTA (despite my objection to the delay), then, at least, move quickly after the summer and be ready with recommendations early in the next legislative session. My proposal was approved unanimously.

All in all, this was a disappointing end to this year’s meetings of the Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding.

However, CLF will remain engaged on the transportation front. Here in Rhode Island, the transportation sector is both the largest source of carbon emissions and the fastest growing – so we must address transportation if we are to address climate change. When the Study Commission re-convenes after the summer we shall re-double our efforts to have the General Assembly revamp the broken and inadequate ways that RIPTA is funded.

This week Rhode Island’s dominant utility, National Grid, made its first-ever filing with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) under Rhode Island’s newly enacted “revenue decoupling” statute. Grid’s filing resolves once and for all a debate that has been swirling around the environmental community in Rhode Island (and the rest of New England) for years – an argument over whether decoupling is a rip-off of utility rate-payers. CLF (and other environmental advocates) have argued for years that there are important environmental benefits to be reaped from decoupling. Opponents, including some ratepayer advocates, argued that decoupling would be bad for rate-payers because it would inevitably lead to unjustified rate hikes.

In response to Grid’s filing with the PUC, the PUC opened a new docket (case) to consider decoupling.  CLF has filed papers to intervene in (participate in) this new PUC docket as a full party; you can see CLF’s Motion To Intervene here.

Grid’s highly technical, 51-page filing with the PUC this week is dense reading, with pages upon pages of complicated charts, but at the end of the day the filing resolves the controversy. Decoupling is good for ratepayers. And in just this first year of operation, Rhode Island electricity ratepayers will receive a collective refund from National Grid of over a million dollars.

Some explanation of what decoupling is and how this controversy has developed is in order.

Traditional utility regulation provides little incentive for utilities to promote energy efficiency. This is because reduction in sales equals a reduction in profits for the utility.

Decoupling is a way to address this problem and to align the utility’s pecuniary interest with the public interest in efficiency and conservation. Decoupling separates (that is, “decouples”) a utility’s income from the amount of commodity the utility sells. This effectively removes a major disincentive to utility enthusiasm for and participation in energy efficiency measures.

Decoupling is not all that is needed to achieve carbon-emission reductions through energy efficiency; but decoupling is one important and necessary ingredient. Many states have decoupled, and there is a high correlation between states that reduce carbon emissions the most (thereby lowering ratepayer bills the most) and states that have decoupled.

Work on “decoupling” is one aspect of CLF’s wider work on reducing carbon emissions in order to address the climate change emergency. More specifically, decoupling is closely linked to our work on energy efficiency. One of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions in the short- and medium-term is to work on energy efficiency.

In 2008, CLF participated in a litigation in the PUC in which we tried to get the PUC to decouple gas prices. The litigation, PUC Docket 3943, took weeks, and CLF presented an expert witness, crossed examined witnesses of other parties, submitted briefs. But CLF lost the case; the PUC ruled that it would not decouple gas prices in Rhode Island.

In 2009, CLF tried again, this time trying to get the PUC to decouple electricity prices. This litigation, PUC Docket 4065, also took weeks – again, we presented an expert witness, cross-examined other parties’ witnesses, briefed the issue. Again we lost; the PUC ruled that it would not decouple electricity prices.

The main argument against decoupling was that it would hurt ratepayers. The Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (this is the statutory ratepayer advocate in Rhode Island, and is different than the PUC) opposed decoupling for this reason, as did others. One expert witness against decoupling put it this way: “[T]he plan would allow a broad range of automatic rate adjustments that would result in rate increases . . . .There is no down side to the Company. The only down side is to the ratepayers.”

In response, CLF introduced evidence that actually came from 28 natural gas utilities and 12 electric utilities in 17 states across the country that have operative decoupling mechanisms. This broad range of utilities showed two important results from decoupling. First, decoupling adjustments tend to be small, even miniscule. Compared to total residential retail rates, decoupling adjustments have been most often under two percent, positive or negative, with the majority under 1 percent. Second, decoupling adjustments go both ways, sometimes providing small refunds to customers, sometimes providing small surcharges.

Nevertheless, despite the evidence we introduced, we lost both cases. The PUC was persuaded that decoupling was just a trick whereby the utility could always ratchet rates upward.

In 2010, CLF, working with other environmental organizations supported a bill in the Rhode Island General Assembly that would require decoupling of both electricity and gas prices. On May 20, 2010, Governor Donald Carcieri signed the bill into law.

On October 18, 2010, the PUC opened a new docket in order to implement the new law that mandated decoupling. This time, the question wasn’t whether Rhode Island would decouple, but how. CLF participated as a full party in the docket in order to ensure that the decoupling mechanisms adopted would be designed to reap all the environmental benefits without unduly hurting or harming ratepayers. Nine months later, on July 26, 2011, the PUC approved an excellent set of decoupling rules for both electricity and gas.

And this week, Grid filed its first report under the new Rhode Island decoupling statute and under the PUC rules. It shows that, on the electricity side, Grid is going to rebate to Rhode Island ratepayers just over a million dollars for the year just ending.

Remember the two points that CLF’s expert witnesses made in the decoupling dockets that we lost in 2008 and 2009.

• First, decoupling adjustments tend to be very small, even miniscule.

• Second, decoupling adjustments go both ways. Sometimes ratepayers pay a little extra; sometimes ratepayers get a rebate.

Grid’s filing this week in the PUC shows that CLF was correct on both points. This time, ratepayers are getting a rebate. And, yes, the amount is small. For the average (500 kilowatt-hour per month) electricity customer, the rebate will be 7¢ per month, or 84¢ per year. (And, yes, the adjustments can go both ways, and next year there might be a miniscule surcharge.) Meanwhile, everyone in Rhode Island enjoys the savings and efficiency benefits that decoupling enables – and the environment enjoys lower carbon emissions.

I think there may be two lessons that can be learned from this – one about CLF and one about the broader environmental movement.

About CLF: One of the things I love about working for CLF is the stick-to-itiveness that the organization (and my fellow and sister staff members) have. In 2008, we litigated decoupling, and we lost. So we tried again. When we lost again, we turned to a different forum, the General Assembly. When the law we supported passed, we were pleased – but we didn’t rest. We still had another litigation in the PUC to make sure that the law was properly implemented.

CLF is nothing if not persistent!

And about the broader environmental movement: So often our opponents argue that environmental protections are too costly to implement. Too often, the arguments made by environmentalists about the benefits and savings from environmental protections are just not believed by decision-makers and by ordinary citizens. With decoupling, everyone (including the PUC and so many others) just “knew” that decoupling would be an expensive rip-off. When evidence like this comes to light about the financial and pecuniary benefits of environmental laws, we should make sure that the public knows.

On Wednesday, May 9, House Bill 7581 (the O’Grady Bill) will be heard in the House Finance Committee of the Rhode Island General Assembly. The O’Grady Bill is a key legislative priority of Rhode Island’s environmental movement. The hearing is at 1:00 PM in Room 35 of the State House (Room 35 is in the basement). The O’Grady Bill would provide vitally needed funding for public transit in Rhode Island.

CLF members and friends are invited to attend the May 9 hearing on the O’Grady bill in order to show support for it.

Here in Rhode Island, as in the rest of New England, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – and the fastest growing. The simple fact is that the climate change emergency cannot (and will not) be addressed until and unless we address transportation emissions. By funding public transit in Rhode Island, the O’Grady Bill would provide an effective means of reducing vehicle miles traveled in private automobiles and an effective means of reducing overall carbon emissions.

That is why the Environment Council of Rhode Island, the coalition of over 80 Rhode Island environmental organizations has made the O’Grady Bill one of its top legislative priorities for 2012.

Another broad coalition, the Coalition for Transportation Choices (CTC) is also supporting the O’Grady Bill. CLF was instrumental in creating the CTC, and, in my capacity as a CLF Staff Attorney, I serve as CTC’s Co-Chair. At the May 9 hearing, I will be presenting to the House Finance Committee letters of support for the O’Grady Bill from a wide range of community organizations, ranging from the Providence Chamber of Commerce to the Transit Workers Union. We are hoping that this broad range of support will translate to legislative support.

Environmentalists in Rhode Island can take a concrete step to address carbon emissions in Rhode Island by coming to the May 9 House Finance Committee hearing (1:00 PM, Room 35) to testify in favor of the O’Grady Bill.

I’ll be there, and I’d be delighted to see you there, too.

CFL light bulb. Courtesy of AZAadam @ flickr. Creative Commons lisence.

Last Thursday evening, March 29th, the R.I. House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources held a hearing on a product-stewardship bill, H-7443. I was present, and I testified on behalf of CLF in favor of the bill (see below for a summary of my testimony). Also present were paid lobbyists for the National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA), who testified against the bill.

The product-stewardship bill, introduced by Representatives Walsh, Ruggiero, Tanzi, Handy, and Naughton, would provide a safe, easy way to recycle new, energy-efficient light bulbs known as compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFLs. CFLs are generally good for the environment, because they use much less electricity than conventional bulbs, and therefore they lead to lower carbon emissions (since electricity is a major source of carbon). But CFLs also contain mercury, a potent neurotoxin that can get into ground water and the environment if the bulbs are not disposed of properly.

This product-stewardship bill would do two things.

• First, it would establish a mechanism for DEM to create a statewide system for responsible disposal of old, used mercury-containing CFLs, at the expense of the manufacturers.
• Second, it would provide a mechanism for manufacturers of other products to develop voluntary product stewardship or recycling programs for their own products within the state. In fact, here in Rhode Island, paint manufacturers – working with DEM and the environmental community – have already developed such a voluntary stewardship program for paint, and were presenting the fruits of their labors to the House Environment Committee last week also!

Unfortunately, H-7443 brought industry out in force to oppose the bill. NEMA sent an out-of-state paid lobbyist; Phillips sent their General Counsel; and Sylvania sent an executive – all to testify against the stewardship bill. The argument of these lobbyists was very simple: the light-bulb industry has taken voluntary steps in recent years to reduce the mercury content of CFLs by almost 90%; therefore, they claimed, this law is unnecessary.

I got to testify right after the industry lobbyists. Basically, I told the Committee that there were two compelling reasons why H-7443 should be passed – despite the fact that what the industry representatives had said was completely true.

First, there are millions of CFLs in use right now; all of them contain dangerous mercury; all will need to be disposed of eventually. The fact that these CFLs contain less mercury than they might does not address the main benefit and purpose of this bill: to safely address the disposal of lots of toxic mercury that is out there and in use. I was delighted to see that, during the course of the hearing, both Representative Walsh and Representative Tanzi spoke to this exact point.

Second, the bill provides for a voluntary framework for manufacturers of products other than CFLs to take responsible actions for the stewardship and recycling of products that they put into the stream of commerce. Representative Walsh did a superb job last night explaining this part of the bill, and – based on what I saw at the Committee hearing – I believe that it has wide support.

The short of it is this: NEMA argued vigorously at last week’s committee hearing against sensible product stewardship. While NEMA’s argument was factually correct (less mercury goes into CFLs today than a decade ago), it was also completely irrelevant. Mercury is mercury; toxin is toxin.

I am pleased to say that last week it seemed that the members of the House Environment Committee understood these points.