Anyone who follows CLF’s work knows about plans being pushed to move oil derived from tar sands in Canada through pipelines that would cut across Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.  The purpose of the these pipelines is simple and clear: to allow this oil to reach the sea and foreign markets that can only be reached by oil tanker.

It is easy to understand why the Canadian oil industry, and the multi-national petroleum companies with big Canadian investments, want to move the oil extracted from the Tar Sands of Western Canada out to the larger world markets: doing so will mean they make A LOT of money.  The Canadian petroleum industry has explained this for us all very helpfully in an ad found on page 2 of the June-July 2013 issue of the Canadian Public Policy and Politics magazine with the zippy name of “Policy” that we reprint here.

The ad confirms the purpose of the wave of pipeline building being pushed by the Canadian petroleum industry (and ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, the owners of leading Canadian companies like Imperial Oil/Esso and Flint Hills Resources): to raise the price of Canadian oil up to the levels found on many global markets.  As the ad shows, using little prices tags, the price of oil in the North American market hovers around $85 a barrel at times when the same barrel of oil sells for $110 elsewhere in the world. If the producers, refiners and sellers of that oil have access to world markets they can demand that North American customers pay them the higher price if they want to buy this oil.  This reality is especially stark when you look at the fact that oil refining companies with operations in the United States just don’t care if these pipelines get built – they are fully occupied with oil extracted right here at home.  It is just Canadian companies (and the multi-national companies like ExxonMobil and Koch who own Canadian operations) who profit from the push for these pipelines.

So we know who wins if new pipelines carry Canadian oil to reach global markets: the petroleum companies who reap the higher prices found beyond the United States and Canada. But who loses?

The answer to that requires us to think both about the short-term in which we all live our day-to-day lives and the longer-term world in which future generations will have to live.

When we think about immediate and short-term concerns for our families and businesses it doesn’t get any more real than gasoline prices.

Supporters of building pipelines to move Canadian oil to market generally and the highest profile project, the Keystone XL pipeline that would move oil through the middle of the United States from Canada to the Gulf Coast, invoke gas prices as a reason for taking that step, at least implying that the new pipelines will drive down gas prices.

However,  it is well documented in a number of reports and studies that Midwestern drivers would see gasoline prices rise on the order of 42 cents a gallon if that pipeline is built. And this is not surprising – if the oil used to make gasoline is being sold (and bought) at higher prices then gasoline prices will rise.

So in the short term – the losers in this equation? Anyone who buys gasoline or relies upon goods or services that rely on gasoline or diesel fuel that are transported by car, truck, ship or airplane – in short all of us.

And that doesn’t even get into the critical longer term issue: that tapping into the tar sands oil, bringing them to market and burning them would be a large step towards the devastating climate disaster that is unfolding around us and that we need to stop.

There are those who disagree with this assessment. Some politicians argue that tar sands oil from Canada is needed to free ourselves from dependence on oil imported from volatile (and often hostile) nations overseas.  They suggest that these pipelines will simply bring it that oil to markets we, here in the U.S., draw upon, oddly ignoring the stated purpose of the pipelines to bring the oil to higher-priced offshore markets.

And there are thoughtful and detailed analyses that disagree with the climate argument about this oil.  This analysis argues that if the tar sands oil is not brought to market that it will simply be replaced by slightly-easier-to-access Venezuelan oil with a very similar carbon footprint.

That climate impact analysis, and the political argument for building pipelines to tap into tar sands oil, however ignore one important, essential and difficult option: use less oil instead. The advent of electric vehicles, smarter urban development and increases in transit use all converge to show us a way forward and off of oil. The increase in fuel economy standards, a process that is well underway, is a step on that path.

Getting off oil will not be easy.  As the social critic, songwriter and bicycle enthusiast David Byrne has noted, “From the age of the Dinosaurs, cars have run on gasoline.”  Changing something so fundamental will be hard but it is what we need to do; that is what in all of our interests, not laying new pipelines to bring ancient oil derived from the cracking and boiling of tar sands to foreign markets where it will be burned and released into the atmosphere.

There are few more important, and more obscure, agencies in Washington D.C. than the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the regulator of the wholesale electricity transmission systems and “bulk” (imagine big quantities, like giant tubs from Costco) U.S. electricity markets.

FERC oversees an incredibly complex electricity system.  Our grid meshes together rural systems, where power lines stretch hundreds of miles without interruption, with dense and sophisticated urban networks where millions of people are packed together and drawing power to charge cell phones, watch television, use computers, and make  hospitals, factories, homes and offices all hum.

The age of the elements of these incredibly diverse systems range from “physically touched by Thomas Edison” to “installed hours ago” with all that suggests in terms of technological sophistication.

On top of that physical complexity from a legal and regulatory perspective the American system is a bewildering mix of business and regulatory models with some places served by utilities that own generators and others, like nearly all of New England, served by utilities who are actually generally forbidden from owning power plants. And in contrast to many other parts of the world we mix together privately and publicly owned electricity systems, with many customers served by private “Investor Owned Utilities” but many others served by public entities like “municipal light companies” – and just to make life even more complicated our large generation is mostly owned by private companies with some giant exceptions in the form of hydroelectric dams and other generators owned by States like New York or Federal entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority.

This last bit of complexity is rooted deep in history, notably the declaration by Franklin Roosevelt, when running for President, that he generally favored private ownership of electricity generation and systems but “that where a community — a city or county or a district is not satisfied with the service rendered or the rates charged by the private utility, it has the undeniable basic right, as one of its functions of Government, one of its functions of home rule, to set up, after a fair referendum to its voters has been had, its own governmentally owned and operated service.”  This idea played out in his long run as President when the cornerstones were laid for both gigantic federally owned systems and for the FERC model of regulated private systems.

It is no wonder, given this complex mix of elements that some think the American electricity system is ungovernable.  But a few leaders have succeeded in using the tools available to them to reshape this unwieldy system and steer it in a good direction.  One of those leaders is the current, and soon to be former, FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff.

During Chairman Wellinghoff’s tenure FERC has instituted important reforms – pushing time and again for changes that remove the barriers to the new clean resources, like energy efficiency and renewable energy (like wind and solar) that are the rising stars of our energy system.   Under his leadership FERC has pushed aggressively against entrenched policies that gave a leg up to existing generators and utilities simply because they were already in place.  The idea of “pay for performance” that meant that new technologies could earn revenue from providing services to the electricity might sound simple and obvious but FERC has had to fight to make that idea a central tenet in its decision making, beginning with the critical idea (incubated in New England) that efforts to reduce electricity demand should be compensated in markets just like resources that generate power.  Application of the pay-for-performance principle has meant that new technologies that flourished in a small pilot market here in New England can spread across the nation – opening doors for electricity storage systems that will revolutionize the way we generate and use energy.

The biggest single effort that FERC has undertaken during the Wellinghoff era is almost certainly the Order 1000 initiative. Order 1000 mandated thoughtful regional planning of the electricity system across the nation and consideration of public policies, like state renewable energy standards and greenhouse gas reduction mandates, in electricity system planning and infrastructure decisions, among other systemic reforms.  This mammoth effort to reshape the current national electricity system is still in progress but should pave the way for significant progress in managing the energy system transformation and transition beginning to unfold around us.

The departure of Jon Wellinghoff from FERC does not have to mean the end of progress on all of these fronts.  FERC has maintained a collegial and effective decision making process that cuts across party lines (which is a pretty stunning thing to say in 2013 about any institution with a mix of Commissioners from the two main political parties).  Very often its decisions are unanimous or feature a very focused and specific dissent from one or two Commissioners disagreeing with some specific aspect of the decision but accepting much of what the majority are doing and saying.

This uniquely effective institution will maintain its balance and continue to make progress if Ron Binz, the nominee proposed by President Obama to take over as Commissioner and Chairman of FERC, is confirmed by the Senate.  Mr. Binz is accustomed to working across party lines as he comes from the quintessentially “purple” state of Colorado where he had a solid record as a consumer advocate, chair of the state utility commission and energy expert and innovator.

We are in a time of change and challenge: coal plants are retiring and the United States shows signs of finally getting serious about using energy efficiently while reaping the power of the wind and the sun.  Such times call for steady leadership at the essential Federal energy regulatory body.  That is what Jon Wellinghoff has shown – and it is what Ron Binz can provide going forward.

President Obama nominated Gina McCarthy to head the EPA, which was confirmed by the Senate.

Good policy and good action by government is dependent on having good people in charge.

Down in Washington we now have proof that even in the age of grid-lock and partisan warfare a competent, professional and effective leader can rise to a critical position in our government to lead and manage the crucial energy and climate transition underway.

That proof came last month when Massachusetts native (and resident) Gina McCarthy was sworn in as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after a record-setting delay.

Many members of the CLF staff have years of experience working with Gina during her long career in Massachusetts state government and then her successful run as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

There are a few hallmarks of Gina’s work and method of operation that are particularly notable and important.

First, she brings a deep respect and appreciation for the importance of public participation. Many of us at CLF have seen the “McCarthy Principle” that “In general, the more people who are involved in making a decision and the more information the decision-makers have the better the decision will be” in action.

Second, she is totally (and sometimes brutally) honest.  I can remember Gina cutting to the end of a negotiation by bluntly reviewing a list of items under discussion: “you will get 1, 3, 5 and 9 but I can’t deliver on 2 and 8, although I wish I could, and 4 and 6 are a bad idea.”  Her legendary charm and sense of humor are essential to making this style work.

Third, Gina is not afraid of complicated subject matter.  Her engagement of climate policy, transportation and the electricity systems display a willingness to delve into the details, trust experts and tackle tough and thorny issues.

Gina, in her time in state government in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and during her time in Washington, has not gotten everything right. I can tick off almost as many examples of CLF squaring off in agency proceedings or in court to oppose efforts she has championed as I can list examples when we stood with her and her agency.  But it has always been clear that she has been listening, thinking and doing all she could to move her agency in the right direction to protect the public health, the environment and to build thriving communities and she has done it as honestly and as openly as she could.  And isn’t that what matters?

You just can’t find a more solid, conservative, reliable and grounded group than the American Geophysical Union.  Since 1919 the AGU has been the hub of the physical sciences in the United States providing a gathering place and information exchange for earth, air and space scientists and then communicating carefully reviewed scientific information to the public and decision-makers in government, business and throughout society.

When a group like the AGU speaks through an official statement you know that every word of the statement has been scrutinized and carefully chosen to communicate important ideas and complex climate science as accurately as possible. The process of creating these statements involves hours, days, weeks and years of meetings, reviews, re-reviews and painstaking scrutiny.

This means when that when the AGU issues (as it did in 2003) and then updates (as it did again last week) its official position statement on a subject like global warming, attention should be paid. The latest version of that statement can be downloaded in PDF form from the AGU website and is “pasted” below in its entirety.

The calm and carefully chosen words of the AGU should reinforce a critical realization that immediate and dramatic action is needed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions immediately. By becoming much more efficient in our use of energy and dramatically reducing the amount of fossil fuels that we burn, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Meeting these goals will require developing dense and sustainable cities where most trips can be made on foot and convenient and affordable public transit plays a strong and supporting role as well as technological shifts to highly efficient buildings powered by renewable energy like wind and solar power.  The AGU also reminds us that even if we slash our greenhouse gas emissions very sharply and immediately we must deal with the implications of the emissions of the past and the warming that is already baked into the system, warming that is bringing us rising sea levels and extreme and disrupted weather.

The call to action that the scientists of the AGU is sounding is being heard here in New England – laws like the renewable energy and energy efficiency standards are on the books in part because of this fundamental challenge.  This legislative response to climate science is even more obvious in the case of laws specifically requiring emissions reductions – like the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act.  But passing laws is only one in a series of needed steps forward.

Translating the law into regulations (as the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection just refused to do when pressed by a remarkable group of kids) and then action, actually delivering on the promise of reduced pollution emissions, will not be easy.  But we really don’t have a choice . . .

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.

Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways — some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.”

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

On July 8, 2013 the Governor of Connecticut, Dannel Malloy stepped up to the microphone and made a series of major announcements about the critical topic of energy.

Governor Malloy’s first task at the podium was to present the law he had just signed which set in place and partially implemented a Comprehensive Energy Strategy for the Nutmeg State. As CLF said in our press statement, this new law position Connecticut to take critical steps toward reaping the benefits of energy efficiency, our strongest, best and most widely available renewable resource.  The State can create the much-needed jobs and consumer savings it seeks by ramping up the state’s electricity and natural gas efficiency programs, rather than rushing to build costly and unnecessarynew natural gas infrastructure. Under its energy strategy Connecticut is moving to foster some great infrastructure, like charging stations for electric vehicles, but is also taking some very questionable steps towards building new natural gas pipes that will last for decades – long after we will have had to kick the fossil fuel habit if we are going to avert climate disaster.

The second subject of the announcement by Governor Malloy was the official launch of a large-scale purchase of energy from wind and solar power projects.  Thanks to this purchase, Connecticut residents will benefit from cleaner air, more stable energy prices and new, green jobs. This initiative allows Connecticut to join with Massachusetts to purchase energy ‘in bulk’ and have each state recognize the considerable economic benefits of regional collaboration. Connecticut’s purchase seeks to bring under contract wind power capable of producing over 500 Megawatts of electricity – which means that during peak wind conditions those wind farms will be producing more power than the mammoth and obsolete oil and coal power plants that blight the waterfronts of Bridgeport and Norwalk.  However, as we also noted in our statement, the renewable energy law which enables the purchase contains potential pitfalls alongside its promise of new wind and solar development, especially as regarding imports of large hydropower from Canada.  Butif implemented correctly, the renewable energy purchase will ensure that hydropower imports will complement rather than inhibit homegrown wind and solar development.

The Mars Hill Windfarm in Maine.

CLF is proud to have played a role in moving the renewable energy purchase forward and reducing the risk that imported hydropower will be used inappropriately. We look forward to working to ensure that this balance is maintained with imported hydropower playing an important supporting role behind wind and solar power while displacing fossil fuel fired power generation.

President Obama has always talked a good game on climate. But simply stating that “for the sake of our children and our future we must do more to combat climate change” is not a substitute for action. Today, the President proposed a package to step up the actions of the federal government to confront and attack this fundamental threat to our communities, economy, families and environment.

CLF applauds the President’s actions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are changing our climate – emissions that damage the public health as well as our environment; harming our kids and our climate. However, we feel obliged to point out that these are simply overdue steps in the implementation of the Clean Air Act. In the landmark case of Massachusetts v. EPA the Supreme Court clearly laid out the duty of the federal government to address the pollutants causing global warming under that law.  This is not about unilateral action by the Administration:  it is about the executive branch doing its essential job of implementing the law enacted by Congress and interpreted by the Courts.

While the emissions reductions efforts the President is proposing are modest, they are very much a step in the right direction — as long as they aren’t undermined by any approval to move dirty and dangerous tar sands oil through our country.

Addressing, Not Just Feeling, the Impacts of Climate Change

The President’s plans for taking on the practical business of adapting to and managing life in a changing climate is another common sense step in the right direction. Given the real and devastating impacts of blistering summer heat, rising seas, extreme rain and snow storms on our communities and economy, this work is essential.  The focus of the Administration on climate adaptation efforts by U.S. Department of Agriculture is heartening.  It is hard to think of something more fundamental to our families and communities than food; drought and other climate change impacts are wreaking havoc on our food system, and so far, this issue has not received sufficient attention.

Building on a Record of State Leadership

By moving forward with emissions reduction measures, the federal government sets off (at last!) on a path blazed by the states that have been leaders in the effort to reduce dangerous emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gasoline.

New England, along with a few other states and regions, has been a beacon for the nation on climate and energy policy. Over the last decade New England, according to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy, has reduced its emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, the chief cause of global warming, by over 10%: reducing regional emissions by over 20 million tons a year.  Our emissions reductions have been accompanied by a rise in new economic investment in clean energy and technology. In Massachusetts alone, an economic survey showed the Clean Energy economy growing by 11.2% between July 2011 and July 2012 with a business census revealing 71,523 people employed at 4,995 clean energy businesses across the state.

CLF and its allies in the region are continuing to set a high bar for both the states and the feds, pushing for a Coal Free New England where our electricity comes from increasingly clean sources and is used more and more efficiently, as well as reducing emissions from our transportation system by shifting to cleaner cars, increasing transit use and building smarter and healthier communities. We must continue to pursue emissions reductions that meet the mandates of science and science-calibrated laws like the Massachusetts and Connecticut Global Warming Solutions Acts.

CLF is all about environmental solutions – and therefore we cheer the decision to further expand the aggressive development of renewable energy on federal land and federally owned, managed and financed facilities.  From intelligently and carefully sited wind farms to solar panels on housing projects to delivering on the promise of offshore wind, the time has come to go fossil free.

The Moral Duty to Act – Retreat or Surrender Are Not Options

There is no going back – the plans for emissions regulation, adaptation planning and renewable energy development unveiled today are  long-overdue steps that require aggressive action to bring to fruition. The duty to act might be invested by law in the Administration but the moral duty to protect future generations rests with all of us and we must hear the call and push our elected representatives, from the President on down, to take action.

On a sloppy March 19, while our changing climate threw a late winter storm of ice, snow, hail, sleet and rain at New England, a legislative hearing room in Hartford Connecticut was the focus of regional energy policy attention. The  Energy and Technology Committee of the Connecticut Legislature was holding a hearing on a bill to revise the Renewable Energy Portfolio standard of Connecticut – the Nutmeg State’s piece of the regional effort that has inspired a rising tide of wind and solar energy development across New England.

The bill before the committee that day, which bears the spine tingling and exciting name of “SB 1138 – An Act Concerning Connecticut’s Clean Energy Goals” was a complex piece of legislation making a whole series of changes to the important law that is Connecticut’s part of a successful regional effort to build new clean energy facilities.

An odd and disturbing subtext was this: at the very same moment that the hearing was going on the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEEP) announced and released online a study of the very program being revised by the proposed law.  This meant that as DEEP Commissioner Dan Esty was introducing and explaining a law to change a critical energy and environmental program his Department was releasing a draft study, which would go through two months of public process, to decide whether to make the very kind of changes that the bill he was introducing would make. This is very similar to a group of kids playing baseball in front of plate glass window while promising to have a really focused conversation about where (and where not) was a safe place to play ball, vowing to do so right after their game ended.

To be fair, there is a real urgency to one part of the bill: the provision that would enable Connecticut to move quickly, perhaps in cooperation with other states, to enter into long-term contracts with windfarms and take advantage of the limited extension of the federal renewable energy incentives that (unless Congress changes its mind yet again) only apply to projects that are in construction by the end of 2013 – a deadline that seems like a long ways away, unless you are trying to build a large facility like a windfarm, in which case you understand that getting contracts in place as soon as possible is needed to have shovels in the ground and construction underway by the end of the year.

But another topic was the main focus of the hearing: the proposal to allow large Canadian hydroelectricity to participate in the program, a change long sought by Canadian provinces who seek to import money in exchange for power – and a change long opposed by those who wanted to keep the program focused on building new wind and solar resources for New England.

The hearing brought forth a flood of testimony. While there were over 100 pieces of written and in-person testimony presented to the committee it appears that only the state-owned Hydro Quebec utility, who would likely handsomely benefit if the bill became law, and Northeast Utilities, who are trying to build the infamous Northern Pass transmission line to bring that power to market, testified in favor of the very controversial change in eligibility benefiting large Canadian hydropower.

CLF’s testimony on Bill 1138 criticized that change in the law as disrupting a very successful renewable energy program, as did the testimony of business leaders and labor unions and many, many others. Our testimony graphically illustrated the ever-rising progress of wind power in New England as RPS-inspired projects came on line and fed clean power into the regional grid.

Some members of the committee, including Rep. Brian Becker, actively raised the question of whether the urgent portion of the bill that would allow Connecticut to move forward with procurement of wind and solar this year, in tandem with other states, could be severed from the other controversial portions of the bill that could be reviewed and discussed separately. No real response was ever given to this very legitimate concern.

In the aftermath of the hearing some of the environmental and business groups who testified delivered a letter to the legislative leadership summarizing the situation and, extraordinarily, officials in Massachusetts state government expressed concern about the bill – telling reporters that:

Massachusetts has taken the lead, working very closely with other New England states, in putting together a regional procurement plan for renewable energy. While we embrace a wide range of clean energy initiatives, we have serious concerns about how Connecticut’s proposed changes to its renewable portfolio standard will affect the region’s renewable market

Undeterred by this criticism and controversy and ignoring the clear issues of good government and process, as well as the need to foster business development through clear and consistent rules adopted after careful process, the Committee met and considered a very slightly revised version of the bill on March 20 in a meeting recorded in an online video.  Eight members of the Committee expressed real concern about the deep and systematic changes being made to a critical clean energy program. They, once again, aired the idea of severing the one small provision that needed to be moved rapidly, considering the rest of the bill after the study, already underway, was completed. Again, they did not get a public response.  The final vote of 16-8 shows who on the Committee stood where.  It is indeed striking not one of the 16 who voted “yea” was willing to defend their vote.

All signs point to the bill continuing to move ahead at a very rapid clip – in fact it may come to the floor of the legislature for a vote as soon as March 27 – when new gun laws being considered in the wake of the Newtown tragedy will be absorbing public interest.

If you live in Connecticut, or know someone who does, please use our action alert to urge the legislative leadership to stop the rush towards changing this important energy and environmental program.  Instead, very specific and timely action to join with other states to enter into long term contracts with new windfarms is needed and the rest of the changes to the renewable energy program should be carefully studied and considered.

In 1998 and 1999 CLF played a key role in a coalition that stopped a proposed development that would have placed a large tower on top of the Massachusetts Turnpike.  That proposal was not coordinated at all with larger plans for building on “air rights” over the MassPike (as it is known) and threatened to inflict major cost on the state transportation agencies due to the cost of building a deck over the highway large and strong enough to support a tower – and concerns about the stress this major new development would place on the transit facilities (the buses and subway) serving the area.

The project inspired significant opposition from residents of the Back Bay and Fenway neighborhoods for a wide variety of reasons.

One result of the controversy around that, and other air rights project and development in those neighborhoods was a massive stakeholder process to develop a “Civic Vision” for development over the MassPike that literally bridged a chasm between neighborhoods in a way that strengthened and improved existing neighborhoods.

CLF was deeply engaged in that stakeholder process, and the closely related environmental review that created that “Civic Vision” and now, years later, that effort seems to be bearing fruit.  A proposal for that same area has been preliminarily accepted by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation as detailed in this short Boston.com blog post and a presentation by the developers.  The proposal would place the actual tower on solid ground away from the Turnpike and put a low-rise commercial building over the MassPike itself.  Still to be dealt with is the crucial question of how the development will enhance the subway and bus infrastructure on and serving the site.  Nearby, the “Fenway Center” air rights proposal that will be built adjacent to Fenway Park is addressing this issue by rebuilding the Yawkey Station commuter rail facility.  Will the Boylston Street entrance to the Hynes station (which is only open for special events as shown in this video) be renovated and opened?  Will the development help pay for signal improvements that improve the Green Line that serves that station? The fact that the designated developers have a good track record of working with the local community suggests that dialogue around such ideas is very possible.  And the fact that the project earns a cautious positive comment from Marty Walz, who led the citizen opposition to the prior project, in the Boston Globe is encouraging.

Building a thriving future with sharply reduced greenhouse gas emissions and strong communities will require investments in real urban development, like the project that has been proposed for this critical Boston crossroads – and we owe it to our future and all the people (even the occasional Yankee fan who finds themselves in enemy territory) who visit, live in and work in Boston to get this one right.

We are delighted by the news that Gina McCarthy has been nominated as Administrator the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over the course of the last two decades the staff of Conservation Law Foundation has worked productively with Gina in her various roles in Massachusetts state government, during her tenure as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and, most recently, as Deputy EPA Administrator for Air and Radiation.

Gina is a fierce advocate for the health and welfare of our children and families. She was instrumental in the creation of the landmark nation and world-leading efforts to rein in mercury and toxics use and pollution in Massachusetts and across New England.

Gina is both a hard-nosed negotiator and a sympathetic ear always willing to listen to criticism and learn from just about anyone. Indeed, the “McCarthy Principle” of crafting regulations can best be summarized in her own words: “In nearly all cases the more people are involved in making a decision, the better the decision will be.”

Her engagement, over the years, on nearly every conceivable environmental issue, ranging from the transportation system of Greater Boston, holding her own state transportation agencies to account for their obligation to help clean up our air, to the clean-up of contaminated groundwater at the Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod to her powerful leadership in crafting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, has prepared her well for the breathtaking scope of issues that land on the EPA Administrator’s desk.

Her sincerity, humor, willingness to admit error, flashes of caustic (and often self-deprecating) wit are all qualities that disarm those who approach her, and help explain the deep loyalty of those who have worked with her directly.

At the end of the day, Gina is at heart still the same person who once served as a municipal public health agent, worrying about the families of one town in Massachusetts. But that person now has deep and essential knowledge about the complex worlds of energy, environmental and climate policy and a broad set of tools essential to meeting the powerful challenges that EPA faces in the 21st Century.”

. . . And she is wicked smart and a wicked big Red Sox fan.