As the nation continues to move beyond coal as a fuel for electricity generation, PSNH continues to cling to its obsolete, uneconomic coal plants that need massive subsidies from ratepayers to operate. Conservation Law Foundation recently filed a brief with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission that blows the whistle on PSNH’s failure to meet its obligations under New Hampshire law to engage in responsible – or in some cases any — planning regarding the future operation of these plants.

New Hampshire requires that every electric utility file a biannual “least cost integrated resource plan,” which demonstrates that the utility has assessed its supply options and analyzed both the long and short term environmental, economic, and energy impacts it will have on the State. Instead, PSNH has filed a deficient plan that, by its own admission, has “very limited value” for decision-making purposes (Pg 115-116). CLF’s full brief in PDF format can be downloaded here. An excerpt:

PSNH’s business model is broken. PSNH’s energy supply cost structure is rapidly exceeding the ability and means of its ratepayers to pay, in what is now an intractable death spiral as customers migrate to competitive suppliers. The company over-relies on and has over invested in aging and uneconomic generating facilities at the expense of ratepayers and the environment. PSNH energy service customers are paying 40% or more above prevailing retail rates of other New Hampshire utility providers and the discrepancy is growing. The consequence is that hundreds of millions of dollars in above market payments are being extracted from New Hampshire ratepayers, while PSNH and its shareholders continue to benefit as if they are a low cost supplier, which the company clearly is not. The question before the Commission is whether the excessive costs being imposed by PSNH on its ratepayers and New Hampshire reflect, in some measure, the quality of PSNH’s 2010 least cost integrated resource plan (the “Plan”) and thus inform the adequacy of such planning as required by [New Hampshire law]. The Commission must decide whether lapses in PSNH’s planning materially contributed to adverse and avoidable ratepayer outcomes and the unsustainable rate spiral which will apparently require legislatively mandated cost shifting and/or lead to PSNH’s bankruptcy.

The evidence in this proceeding unequivocally demonstrates that PSNH’s planning failed to consider a multitude of material planning elements that are crucial to least cost planning. Without limitation, these include: 1) the Plan’s failure to include or consider forward price curves for natural gas which would dictate projected economic dispatch and margins; 2) the Plan’s failure to forecast customer migration which substantially informs the need for and cost-effectiveness of PSNH’s owned generation and entitlements; 3) the Plan’s failure to address or consider future environmental costs for PSNH’s generation fleet; and 4) the Plan’s failure to project forward energy service rates during the five year planning period. At the core of these planning lapses lies the question of whether and the extent to which it is in the ratepayers’ interests for PSNH to continue to own or operate its aging fossil fuel generation fleet, including the 1950’s vintage, small uneconomic coal units at Schiller Station. PSNH’s planning completely ignored the market trends which, beginning in 2008, reduced the capacity factors of Merrimack and Schiller Station to the point of being coal-fired peakers, notwithstanding the Plan’s assertion that they will remain baseload generators.

PSNH is continuing to ignore market realities, which is reflected by their failure to adequately plan for the future costs of continuing to operate its fleet of antiquated power plants. As we noted earlier this month, PSNH ratepayers are stuck subsidizing these uneconomic and dirty power plants through above-market energy costs.

Schiller Station, in Portsmouth, NH (photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond)

If you’re looking for the most egregious example of PSNH’s poor planning, look no further than the continued operation of the two coal units at Schiller Station in Portsmouth. These two 1950’s era units operated at a loss of over $40 million between 2009 and 2010. An analysis conducted by the consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics predicted that this grim trend will only continue, and likely worsen, in the foreseeable future. These units are operating less each year, yet the cost to PSNH customers for the limited power they do produce is increasing. The report concluded that the continued operation of these units will result in future net losses and PSNH ratepayers should not be forced to pay for these shortfalls. PSNH needs to engage in a rigorous review of continuing to operate the coal-fired units at Schiller Station, as “given their age, operating costs, low reliability, and high heat rates, there is not likely to be any economic future for these units” (Pg 14).  Similarly, Connecticut’s integrated resource plan has predicted that the Schiller coal units should retire by 2015 for economic reasons (Pg B-21). Furthermore ISO-NE, the regional energy overseer, is also planning for the retirement of antiquated coal power plants, noting that these resources are facing economic challenges (Pg 9-10).

The operation of uneconomic units, coupled with PSNH’s ongoing attempt to recoup the cost of installing a $422 million scrubber at its half-century-old coal-fired Merrimack Station, boils down to increasing the energy rates for PSNH customers – already the highest in New Hampshire. This cost recovery charge, along with charges for above-market supply contracts, has led PSNH to propose a rate structure that will exceed 10 cents per kWh! As other companies enter New Hampshire to provide lower cost alternatives, the migration away from PSNH’s above-market rates has continued, worsening PSNH’s economic “death spiral.”

Why is PSNH acting this way? It’s pretty clear – like other dinosaur fossil fuel companies that have failed to anticipate the contours of a clean energy future, PSNH wants to preserve its subsidies to boost near-term corporate profits, virtually all of which are the above-market costs of PSNH power plants (including the 10% rate of return that New Hampshire guarantees). The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission is taking note.  On June 27 it ordered PSNH “to undertake a systematic review of operation, materials and capital costs, including personnel costs, associated with the operations of its fossil fuel plants given the low capacity factors of these units.”

CLF is calling for PSNH to conduct a rigorous planning analysis to investigate whether continued operation of its antiquated coal units is in the best interests of New Hampshire. All the evidence suggests that, if credible, any such analysis would show, unequivocally, that it is (long past) time for PSNH to stop asking ratepayers to subsidize uneconomic and dirty coal power.

This Sunday, an Op-ed of mine appeared in The Portsmouth Herald. Below find a copy of the original text. You can find a copy of the original story here.

The nation and New Hampshire are relying less and less on coal — our dirtiest, least efficient fuel — to meet our electric power needs. PSNH recently announced it is not operating its flagship coal plant, Merrimack Station in Bow; the plant will sit completely idle for six months of 2012. The two coal boilers at PSNH’s Schiller Station in Portsmouth will operate even less. Yet, PSNH customers continue to pay a premium to keep PSNH’s coal plants on life support, thanks to a regulatory system that protects PSNH’s interests over those of ratepayers.

Coal-fired power plants — expensive new facilities and decades-old dinosaurs like PSNH’s plants alike — can’t compete in today’s marketplace. Investors and customers are moving toward cleaner, cheaper alternatives, principally natural gas, but also renewables (especially wind) and high-tech ways of reducing energy use. Northeast Utilities — PSNH’s parent company — admits that this reality is not going away anytime soon.

Indeed, the trend is accelerating. In the first quarter of 2012, coal power accounted for only 36 percent of the nation’s total electric output — the smallest role for coal in a generation and down almost 9 percent from the first quarter of 2011. Regionally, a new milestone came in April, when the New England regional electric grid operator announced that, during the previous month, the entire New England coal fleet was uneconomic — meaning there was not a single hour when a coal plant was able to compete with other energy sources. Despite coal’s downward trajectory, PSNH made big bets that the market for coal-fired power will exist for years to come. Exhibit A: PSNH’s investment — over vigorous opposition from the Conservation Law Foundation, ratepayer advocates and others — in a $422 million life extension project for Merrimack Station. If PSNH gets its way, ratepayers will foot the whole bill, plus a 10 percent guaranteed profit for PSNH’s sole shareholder, Northeast Utilities.

Why has PSNH been so richly rewarded for bad economic decisions? Put simply, New Hampshire’s relic of a regulatory system still protects PSNH and its coal plants from the market. Remarkably, ratepayers continue to pay for upkeep and staffing at PSNH power plants, even when they sit idle, and also pay that same 10 percent profit on the book value of all PSNH assets. No other power plant owner in New England gets such special treatment. Yet PSNH continues to sidestep scrutiny.

Earlier this year, following a massive lobbying effort orchestrated by PSNH, the New Hampshire House voted to table a bill that would have forced a hard look at PSNH’s continued ownership of these obsolete power plants.

In the meantime, PSNH remains in an economic “death spiral” with few large business customers to cover its costs and its remaining customers — homeowners and small businesses — now paying as much as 50 percent more for power than customers of other utilities, which get their power from the competitive market. Under the status quo, PSNH will siphon more than a $100 million in above-market costs out of the New Hampshire economy this year.

For the environment, the climate, and the long-term public and fiscal health of the communities surrounding these plants, coal’s demise is encouraging news. The market is providing an unprecedented opportunity to relegate coal power to the history books for good. New Hampshire should seize it.

Protest at Salem Harbor Power Plant. Courtesy of Robert Visser / Greenpeace.

This week the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and HealthLink secured an Order from the US District Court in Massachusetts requiring Salem Harbor power plant owner Dominion to shut down all four units at the 60-year-old coal-fired power plant by 2014. In bringing a clear end to the prolonged decline of Salem Harbor Station, this settlement ushers in a new era of clean air, clean water and clean energy for the community of Salem, MA, and for New England as a whole.

The court’s order is based on a settlement with Dominion to avoid CLF’s 2010 lawsuit alleging violations of the Clean Air Act from going to trial. The terms of the settlement, which can be found here, ensure that:

• Units 1 and 2 at the plant must retire (indeed are retired) by December 31, 2011; Unit 3 by June 2014;
• Dominion may not repower the retired coal-burning units, even if a buyer for the power was to come forward;
• Neither Dominion, nor any successor, may use coal as fuel for generating electricity on that site in the future;
• Dominion must fund projects of at least $275,000 to reduce air pollution in Salem and surrounding municipalities that have been impacted by the plant’s emissions.

The settlement, and the legal actions which led to it, provide a template to force plant shutdowns as changing market conditions, public health concerns and cleaner energy alternatives push the nation’s fleet of old, polluting dinosaurs to the brink. What makes this outcome unique is that, as part of its advocacy strategy, CLF filed a successful protest at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington DC which effectively prevented Dominion from collecting above market costs for operating this aging and inefficient power plant. This first-ever ruling by FERC is in stark contrast to coal power plant retirements in other areas of the country which were brought about by agreements to pay (i.e., compensate) plant owners for shutting down their plants. In the case of Salem Harbor Station, retirement resulted from legal action to deny the plant’s owner compensation and cost-recovery by ratepayers.

A little background: Most of the nation’s coal-burning fleet, were designed, constructed and began operation in the 1950’s and 60’s. More than 60% of them have been operating for 40 years or more, meaning that they are now beyond their useful design lives. This is the case for all of New England’s remaining plants, which generally were built more than 50 years ago. In addition to the excess pollution and inordinate adverse impact these plants impose to public health and the environment, they are finding it difficult to compete with newer, cleaner and more efficient power producing technology. In the market, the day of reckoning has arrived. New England’s coal-fired power plants are losing their shirts. They are rarely asked to run by ISO-New England, the operator of our regional electricity system, because their power is more costly (i.e., out-of-market) than the region’s cleaner and more efficient power generating fleet.

So why don’t they all retire? Unfortunately, there are several factors that can, in many instances, complicate matters. For Salem Harbor Station: system reliability (i.e., keeping the lights on). Because these plants were built so long ago, and unfortunately in close proximity to population centers where demand for power is greatest, the system was designed assuming that electricity is being generated at these locations. Thus, removing electricity generation from these sites can create reliability risks at times of peak electricity consumption. This was the case for Salem Harbor. Try as we might (including NStar’s recent $400 million transmission upgrade in the North Shore), when ISO-NE modeled worst case conditions, it still found that Salem Harbor was needed for reliability and consequently required ratepayers to pay to maintain Salem Harbor, even though its power was far more expensive to produce than more modern plants. To break this logjam, CLF filed a protest at FERC claiming that ratepayers were getting bilked (in legalese: paying rates that were unjust and unreasonable) and that a small investment to develop a reliability alternative for the plant would save the ratepayers money and would safeguard public health.

FERC agreed — at least with the money part (as FERC is a financial, not environmental regulatory agency). Its December 2010 order granting CLF’s protest compelled ISO-NE and the region’s electricity market participants to expedite the process for developing reliability alternatives for Salem Harbor’s expensive power (in utility parlance, to replace its “reliability function”). Shortly thereafter, ISO-NE crafted a new plan that will keep the lights on at reasonable cost to customers, while also creating a more flexible, reliable grid.

The new plan calls for simple and relatively inexpensive electric transmission line upgrades that will meet the area’s reliability needs without Salem Harbor Station and allow for the deployment of newer and cleaner energy resources like energy efficiency, conservation and renewables such as wind and solar. As soon as the plan was approved in May of 2011, the die was cast and Salem Harbor’s retirement became imminent. To its credit, the very next day Dominion announced that the plant would be shut down. As we all know, corporation’s make decisions based primarily on economics; once FERC denied them the above-market rates they had been collecting for years to maintain the plant, Dominion was compelled to retire the plant. Couple that with the prospect of major expenditures for pollution upgrades that would result from CLF and Healthlink’s lawsuit, there was only one rational outcome. Good-bye Salem Harbor station. Next up (or should I say, down): Mt. Tom, Brayton Point, both of which are uneconomic and facing the end of the road.

As I said in a joint press statement with Healthlink (found here), “This outcome sends a signal to coal plant operators everywhere that they cannot avoid costs through noncompliance with the Clean Air Act. These obsolete plants that either have decided not to invest in technology upgrades or are retrofitting at ratepayers’ expense are doomed: they are staring down the barrel of cheaper and cleaner alternatives to their dirty power and public and regulatory pressure to safeguard human health. When these plants can no longer get away with breaking the law as a way to stave off economic collapse, I predict we will see a wave of shutdowns across the country.”

The history of Salem Harbor Station is both long and tortured (recall then-Governor Romney standing at the gates of the plant in 2003 and saying that the plant was killing people). Despite its bleak financials and unjustifiable damage to public health and the environment, Salem Harbor Station continued to operate and pollute for a decade or more beyond when it should have succumbed to age and obsolescence.

Shanna Cleveland, staff attorney at CLF said, “The Court’s Order coupled with our successful FERC protest have finally put an end to a half century of toxic and lethal air pollution from Salem Harbor Station. The very factors that have been propping the power plant up for years beyond its useful life – cheap coal, lax environmental oversight, and overdue reliability planning – have been pulled out from under it.”

For more, including quotations from said Jane Bright of HealthLink and Massachusetts State Representative Lori A. Ehrlich, as well as more background on CLF’s Salem Harbor Station Advocacy, read the press release here.

From left: Barbara Kates-Garnick, Carl Horstmann, Tommy Beaudreau, and Sue Reid. Credit: Meg Colclough.

Earlier today my colleague Sue Reid, VP & Director of CLF Massachusetts, joined state and federal officials to announce the latest milestone for obtaining plentiful and clean renewable wind energy from the Outer Continental Shelf offshore of Massachusetts. Specifically, they initiated the process for developers to begin leasing and site assessment, and for data gathering and public input, to facilitate off shore wind deployment in an area approximately 12 nautical miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and 13 nautical miles southwest of Nantucket. (The federal press release can be found here.) The “Call Area” as it is termed, was identified following consultation with ocean users, such as fishermen and other stakeholders, through an intergovernmental renewable energy task force led by Massachusetts officials.

Today’s announcement follows President Obama’s State of the Union address, in which he expressed the compelling need to develop alternative sources of energy. CLF agrees: the environmental imperative and ongoing energy transformation replacing obsolete uneconomic fossil fuel power plants requires deployment of the full range of available renewable energy resources. Because offshore wind is strong and persistent, it is among our most robust emissions-free renewable energy sources. We also support the laudable efforts of the Commonwealth and federal government, who share jurisdiction over marine resources, to join initiatives to expand our clean energy resources with efforts to engage in thoughtful ocean planning, both of which have been major themes in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has been a leader in both coastal marine spatial planning and in offshore wind deployment. Those experiences are now being replicated by other states and the federal government – something CLF welcomes.

In speaking alongside Tommy P. Beaudreau, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director, and Barbara Kates-Garnick, Massachusetts Under Secretary of Energy, on the steps of the Wind Technology Testing Center, Sue said:

“One might think it’s unusual for environmental advocates to be championing efforts to develop energy resources; after all, CLF led the charge successfully fighting off all oil and gas drilling in New England waters. That’s because we recognize that, while we need to pursue a portfolio of clean energy alternatives, there is NO other resource that has the sheer magnitude of clean energy potential as offshore wind. Offshore wind holds promise for displacing many gigawatts of fossil fuel-fired generation, keeping the lights on and homes and businesses thriving while we shut down old, dirty, inefficient coal and oil-fired plants.”

She also underscored how important this work is. She said:

“While most local eyes are trained on a different Tommy, out in Indianapolis for a certain small-stakes football game, we’re thrilled that this Tommy, the new quarterback of the Obama Administration’s offshore renewable energy team, is in Massachusetts, focused on moving the clean energy ball rapidly down the field here, in concert with the Patrick Administration and a host of other stakeholders. This is a battle that we must win. Success is our only option.”

Sue is right – milestones like this help us to realize the potential for a new clean energy future—one that is being fostered in Massachusetts through some of the strongest state renewable energy policies in the nation. Our challenge is to advance from salutary policies to new renewable energy deployment that benefits Massachusetts with jobs, economic activity, cleaner air and a healthier environment. Today’s development was one step on a path just begun.

Photo courtesy of kriswho @ flickr. Creative Commons.

If you listen to the word on street, or read the headlines, you’ll have heard that our times are hard times. Joblessness remains stubbornly high, markets remain volatile and credit is tight. Most people agree that what we need is a program to creates jobs, generates money, and reinvests each of those in our communities to make them stable, healthier and happier.

According to a study by The Analysis Group, it turns out that’s exactly what the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – the country’s first market-based program to reduce power plant carbon emissions – has done. In its first three years, it has reduced greenhouse gas emissions, created jobs and fostered increased economic activity proving that addressing climate change is boosting the region’s economy. Simply put, efforts that increase efficiency and reduce fuel use benefit consumers, manufacturers and employers.

As the first regional program in the country, how well it is functioning is being observed by many: how much money will be generated, if any? Who does that money benefit? And, are customers bearing the brunt of this program in already hard times? The Analysis group answers these questions in full. In case you want them in short: $1.6 billion, customers and definitely not.

Outpacing now stalled negotiations on a national greenhouse gas trading program, ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states formed RGGI in 1999, setting a national precedent. The importance of the program is a combined function of its timing and its location: in addition to gaining first mover position, RGGI states are both populous and productive as they account for one-sixth of the population in the US and one-fifth of the nation’s gross domestic product.

These consumers, and this regional economy, now reflects a price on CO2 emissions. And after three years, the results are in. There are a few points to highlight.

First, the program is economically and environmentally effective. As power plant owners have spent roughly $912 million to buy CO2 allowances, emissions have gone down, as a consequence of both RGGI and larger economic trends. At the highest level, then, RGGI has proven to be economically productive while meeting its emission objectives.

Given the way RGGI dollars interact with local economies – through energy efficiency measures, assistance to low income customers to help pay their electricity bills, education and job training programs, and more – the dollars have multiplier effects. Once amplified by these local and regional programs, RGGI’s $912 million in allowance expenditures “produced to $1.6 billion in net present value (NPV) economic value added to the ten-state region.”

This money has created jobs and, in turn, kept money local. By generating a market, and a need for labor, RGGI created approximately 16,000 new job-years, or about 20% of the 73,000 civilian jobs lost from September 2010 to September 2011. Moreover, due to reduced demand and investment in energy efficiency, RGGI reduced the 10 states’ payments to out-of-region providers of fossil fuels “by just over $765 million.” New England in particular benefited greatly from this program.7,200 new job-years were created in New England alone, while the region reduced its payments to out-of-region fossil fuel providers by $210 million.

So too are the benefits to energy consumers. As a consequence of energy efficiency programs implemented by RGGI funds and focused on reducing consumption of oil and natural gas heat in homes, energy consumers across the region have saved nearly $174 million through RGGI programs. Furthermore, energy consumers came out ahead of power generators. “Of the three regions, only in New England do the savings to electricity consumers outweigh the reduction in revenues by power generators,” says the Analysis Group.

This benefit is most notably due to New England’s much-higher “level of investment in energy efficiency with RGGI allowance proceeds than the other regions.”At a time when jobs are scarce and the cost of heating a home is an ever rising burden, this is undoubtedly a good thing for New England.

As our country, and New England, faces tough times our politicians and people are calling for programs that create jobs, save money, and protect our environment. RGGI does all three.

Today, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services provided an annual report to the New Hampshire legislature detailing the results of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Carbon Dioxide Emissions Budget Trading Program.  The report notes that the program has supported approximately $20 million in job creating energy efficiency investment in New Hampshire and that each dollar of invested RGGI revenue resulted in $3.42 in direct energy savings (See this study by the University of New Hampshire). The report concludes that the effect of the RGGI program on rates has been negligible, amounting to .06 cents per kWh, or approximately 30 cents per month per household.

At the same time, electricity bills for customers of New Hampshire electric utilities have decreased dramatically since RGGI went into effect, with the exception of PSNH customers.  According to the report, the average PSNH residential customer is currently paying approximately $27 per month more than a New Hampshire customer in National Grid’s service territory for the same amount of power ($89 per month for PSNH versus $62 per month for National Grid).

Given the magnitude of the excessive energy costs paid by PSNH residential customers (comprising the overwhelming majority of New Hampshire homes), one might assume that the legislature would use the report as a basis for reviewing and revising the state’s policy that forces New Hampshire residents to subsidize PSNH’s above market costs to the tune of $324  per ratepayer per year.

Instead, House Speaker William O’Brien and Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt issued a statement today criticizing RGGI for laying an extra “$5.50 per year on the backs of our ratepayers.”  They appear to have missed the forest for the trees (and bungled their math).  New Hampshire ratepayers pay among the highest rates in the country because PSNH imposes on them the above-market cost of its dirty and expensive power.  In fact, the report shows that National Grid ratepayers in New Hampshire, having been spared the legislative mandates that inflict exorbitant costs on PSNH ratepayers, pay the lowest electric rates in New England. National Grid and other New Hampshire utilities purchase power from newer, more efficient power plants selling into the wholesale market.

Improving New Hampshire’s economic future requires a thoughtful review of the statutory policies that extend the lives of PSNH’s uneconomic power plants and foist the exorbitant costs of these plants, and the pollution they emit, on New Hampshire residents. Portraying a successful and economically beneficial program such as RGGI as a burden to ratepayers lays blame in the wrong place and amounts to a game of political charades—a disservice to New Hampshire voters and job creators.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR”), released today by EPA, is designed to reduce ozone and particulate (e.gt., soot) emissions from power plants in the upwind states to our west that cause death and sickness in the states receiving those emissions, like the New England states (known to some as the “tailpipe of the nation”).  The actions leading to the rule began in the late 90s, when Massachusetts and its fellow Northeast states petitioned EPA under the Clean Air Act “good neighbor rule,” which prevents emissions in an upwind state from harming air quality as prevailing winds transported the pollution.

CSAPR builds on rules the Bush Administration issued, which are resulting in billions of dollars in emissions control investment and air pollution reductions, but which courts struck down as illegally weak.  In finalizing these strengthened  rules which seek to hit the standard set by the Clean Air Act, EPA balanced concerns of industry and health advocates with a new methodology using cost effective controls and providing flexibility by allowing emissions trading – an approach favored by the electric utility industry.

The result will be massive reductions in pollution and over $120 billion per year in benefits from decreased mortality, hospitalizations and sick days.  Because of the actions our states have taken to reduce emissions, the rule does not impose any new requirements in on any New England state but is predicted to result in Massachusetts attaining the air quality standards required by the Clean Air Act.

The rule validates the air pollution control policies adopted by Massachusetts and the Northeast states by leveling the playing  field so that obsolete and high-polluting power plants in the Midwest and Southeast can no longer export their air pollution to states that have already reduced their emissions.

Recent industry legal action to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is an eye-opener suggesting a slash and burn strategy that threatens to undo years of successful regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.  Various industry trade groups including the American Chemistry Council, National Association of Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute are waging a full scale war to prevent regulation of GHG emissions and recently initiated a coordinated, broad and covert legal attack (with no press or public outreach) on EPA’s permitting authority.

On July 6, the coalition of industry groups filed 12 similar legal petitions challenging not only EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, but also the fundamental underpinnings of EPA’s 30 year old permitting program for large emitting facilities.  These appeals present a clear and unequivocal message to EPA and the public: try to impose reductions in GHG emissions and we will attack the core of the greenhouse gas regulations adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in MA v. EPA and EPA’s ability to regulate large emitters through its preconstruction (PSD) permitting program in the first instance.   With a key message like that—tone deaf to public awareness and concern about climate change—no wonder the industry trade group petitioners did not seek publicity.

Recent statements from Senator Murkowski suggest that she and her allied colleagues have been briefed and support this strategy.  According to Politico.com,

Key coal-state Democrats and nearly all Republicans are also unified in their bid to slow down the EPA via legislation – and they’re determined to force a series of votes on the issue before the next big suite of rules start kicking in next January.

“You attack it at all fronts,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a leading advocate for stopping the EPA, told POLITICO. “You go the judicial route. You go the legislative route. I think this is important to make sure we are looking at all avenues.”

CLF is intervening (co-represented by attorneys from the Clean Air Task Force) along with other environmental groups in these recent challenges as well as several prior challenges to EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs. The vehemence of these positions, and the obvious coordination among a broad cross section of industries to prevent regulation of GHGs, unfortunately suggest that US policy on climate change will not be advanced through bottom up, traditional legislative initiatives in Congress.

As Bill McKibben asserted in Tomdispatch.com,

If we’re going to get any of this done, we’re going to need a movement, the one thing we haven’t had. For 20 years environmentalists have operated on the notion that we’d get action if we simply had scientists explain to politicians and CEOs that our current ways were ending the Holocene, the current geological epoch. That turns out, quite conclusively, not to work. We need to be able to explain that their current ways will end something they actually care about, i.e. their careers. And since we’ll never have the cash to compete with Exxon, we better work in the currencies we can muster: bodies, spirit, passion.

The time has come to knock the halo off of the heads of the obstacles to progress and quality of life.  While the old way of making power, combusting decomposed carbon–based life forms (i.e., fossil fuels) contributed to prosperity and improvement to quality of life through 20^th century industrialization; we are facing a much different earth and atmosphere.  Unchecked burning of fossil fuels and emissions of GHGs are detracting from our quality of life and will continue to do so for decades after they are emitted.   The coal-fired power plant near you is not your friend; its day to day activities are undercutting your health, environment, economy and well-being for no good reason except for its tenacity in resisting beneficial change.