Salem News columnist Brian Watson presents a powerful case for moving forward with development of a wind turbine on Winter Island in Salem Harbor.   We can only hope that the good citizens of Salem, who are looking at a major transition as the coal fired power plant in their midst retires, will pay attention to his words and follow the leadership of Mayor Kim Driscoll, who has identified this project as (among other things) an important source of revenue for the City.  As the Mayor notes on Facebook regarding Watson’s column on the subject:

. . . While Brian doesn’t mention this in his piece, revenues from the proposed turbine will also directly help reduce the City’s +$1m annual electric bill, cutting those costs nearly in half and saving taxpayers substantial $.

As we have reported here, a dim-witted attempt was made in the U.S. Congress to roll back energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.

A rather silly column in the Boston Globe on this subject inspired a good editorial in response, and raft of letters to the editor, including one from the CEO of major light bulb manufacturer Phillips Lighting North America noting that the law criticized in the column would not ban incandescent light bulbs, limit consumer choice or force people to buy very expensive light bulbs:

. . .  With this law consumers now have more choice than ever before, including new energy-efficient incandescent light bulbs that meet the new requirements.

Already on retail shelves and selling for as little as $1.49, energy-efficient incandescents look and feel the same as the light bulbs consumers have been using for more than 100 years, but they use almost 30 percent less energy. They are no more fragile than their traditional incandescent sibling, and some can last as much as 3,000 hours, or three times longer than Edison’s bulb.

The savings from these new choices are a direct result of government, business, and industry working together to drive innovation and improve energy efficiency. At a time when families are struggling with high energy costs, these new minimum efficiency levels will lower our nation’s electricity bills by over $12 billion per year. That’s about $100 per year for every American family.

Clearly, there is a need for good information about light bulbs – and now some smart folks are looking to shed some light on the subject with the launch of the LUMEN Coalition website, a joint effort by industry and non-profit energy efficiency and consumer advocates. Take a look, it might brighten your day.

Rep. Issa (R-CA) made a fortune building car alarms. For years he was best known as the recorded voice of the Viper alarm that warned people to “Step away from the car!” (Really, this is all true, it says so in Wikipedia).

But now he is  a powerful member of Congress and in that role he is threatening to undermine the deal struck among the White House, the auto manufacturers and his own State of California.

Let’s review for a moment – the agreement would reduce pollution, make cars more efficient and thereby reduce use of imported oil and pain felt by people paying at the gas pump and help move forward progress towards practical and affordable electric cars. The auto manufacturers supported and helped shape it and think it can be implemented at reasonable cost while maintaining a healthy auto industry that will meet the needs and wants of  drivers. So what is wrong with it?  Representative Issa says he is concerned about “transparency” and process here – legitimate concerns to be sure. But they are concerns that will inform the formal process that will follow as the federal agencies propose, present and seek comment on this package of rules in the formal rulemaking process.

Like an overly sensitive car alarm that makes threatening speeches at passers-by who mean no harm to the protected car, or that releases punishing waves of sound late at night when garbage trucks pass by, Rep. Issa is sounding a very false alarm and threatening to steal away the cleaner, cheaper-to-operate car of the future.

Many good people have spent decades working to build a great place place on the waterfront across the Fort Port Channel from Downtown Boston and to make Boston a city that celebrates and embraces all modes of transportation, especially the sort that doesn’t emit greenhouse gas emissions.  That includes many past and present CLF staffers.

All those warriors for a better Boston should note that in the first weekend of operation of the new Hubway bicycle sharing program that the system map for the Hubway has shown the “station” in the Seaport has been in heavy use all day – with very few of the 15 bikes that were placed there at the launch of the program still in residence.

In Washington, D.C., a good deal has been announced bringing together the Federal government, the state of California and auto manufacturers.  As our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists note, these standards will:

• Cut oil consumption by as much as 1.5 million barrels per day — 23 billion gallons of gasoline annually — by 2030. That is equivalent to U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010.
• Cut carbon pollution by as much as 280 million metric tons (MMT) in 2030, which is equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants.
• Lower fuel expenditures at the pump by over $80 billion in 2030 — even after paying for the cost of the necessary technology, consumers will still clear $50 billion in savings that year alone.

The real story behind this settlement is about a fundamental choice between two paths.  One path was the road taken, where the emissions standards for cars and trucks are integrated with mile-per-gallon (MPG) standards and California and the Federal Government both adopt and agree to the standards.

The other path was to return to the state of affairs that prevailed prior to 2009.  At that point, a fleet of states had adopted standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks first developed and adopted by California. This came about because of the unique ability of California under the federal Clean Air Act to adopt its own standards and for other states to follow suit.  With the laudable decision by the Federal government (after legal challenges to the standards were shot down in court in California, Vermont, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C.) to adopt a modified version of those state-based standards and the integration of those emissions standards with the MPG rules, three different regulatory systems were folded together into one positive package.

California, and the states inclined to follow it (there were 13 at the time of that deal back in 2009), had a deserved presence at the table in Washington.  If the new federal standards were strong enough, the states could simply go their own way – but that wasn’t needed, and hopefully will not be necessary going forward as the new rules are fleshed out and implemented.  Having two sets of vehicle standards in the U.S. was not a terrible thing when we lived with it for 25 years – but having one good standard for the nation is better.

A good deal was struck in Washington (a nice thing to be able to say!) and the power of the states to chart their own course did not need to be invoked – but the fact that power exists, along with the other other good elements of the Clean Air Act (a great law being attacked daily in Congress) helps move us towards cleaner air and better cars.

A judge in New Jersey has determined, after an exhaustive legal proceeding, that RGGI, the regional program to regulate emissions of Carbon Dioxide (the primary pollutant causing global warming) from power plants,  can and must keep confidential internal market information. All sophisticated auctions and markets, like the stock and commodities markets have very similar rules because the traders who operate in these markets could potentially manipulate and subvert the market if they had internal information, like exactly what other businesses bought and sold, and the exact prices they paid.

When the ideological opponents of climate action filed a lawsuit in New Jersey to force full disclosure of all information about the RGGI auction they were in effect asking to force disclosure of this information, a release that would have created a real risk of market manipulation.  Even more suspiciously, it appeared that some of those same opponents were financially backed by businesses who were trading in the RGGI market and would have financial interests in the release of that information.

Now that lawsuit has been dismissed by a wise judge in New Jersey.  In a 75 page decision (posted on the website of the organization that brought the lawsuit) the judge determined that “Clearly, the RGGI auction information is often identified as confidential due to the detrimental effect its release would have on the auction process . . . Thus, the court agrees with defendants that the [disclosure] request—including the names of the bidders, individuals bids, and amount and type of allowances requested are proprietary commercial or financial information and should be not be disclosed.”

The bottom line is that RGGI continues to function, acting as a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and a critical source of support for clean energy development, especially the deployment of energy efficiency.  It is a well functioning market and program and should be preserved and enhanced.  The judge’s decision was not unexpected as this kind of internal confidentiality is so needed and common and is a complete vindication for the states in the RGGI program and the folks who administer the program for them.

Former MWRA Executive Director Paul Levy (who has worn a lot of really interesting hats in his career) provides, in CommonWealth Magazine, this really interesting take on the Boston Harbor cleanup and lessons learned from that experience can inform decisions about the slow motion implosion of the transit system of Greater Boston.  Very important reading that nicely complements the good words and insights of Peter Shelley on this blog about the Harbor cleanup.

Big questions that hang in the area include:

• Noting that the cleanup has massively improved the harbor – if we did it all over again, would we employ a “big pipe and big plant” solution to the sewage and stormwater problem in Boston or use more local and distributed methods?
• What lessons learned from these case studies can be applied to the electricity system?
• What role does the existence of the massive highway system that spans the nation (and if you want to read a fascinating description of the creation of that system check out “The Big Roads” by Earl Swift) have on our other infrastructure planning and decision making?

Any thoughts on these questions?  The comments section below awaits.

At the ceremony marking the completion of the Stormwater Storage Tunnel under South Boston Mayor Menino of Boston connected a couple of important dots and made a powerful case for how environmental protection and economic development and prosperity are allied efforts that support each other – not competing values where one must lose for the other to win.

The Mayor noted that the previous day he had been at the groundbreaking for the Vertex Pharmaceuticals headquarters at Fan Pier and stated his firm belief that a cutting edge, growing and successful business like Vertex would not be willing to make a long term commitment to the Boston waterfront if the hard work of cleaning up the harbor had not been undertaken and executed.  The Mayor was recalling the bad old days of raw sewage pouring and how the cleanup has changed Boston’s harbor from a liability into a major economic and social asset.

Obviously, we here at CLF completely agree with Mayor Menino on this essential point.

CLF has long believed that cleaning up Boston Harbor was an essential element in building a great city.  That belief, along with our commitment to addressing the ecological health of the Harbor and the larger marine and coastal environment has fueled our work on our (still pending !) lawsuit filed in 1983 and all the related activities that have swirled around that long running legal saga.

CLF also put a tremendous amount of time, particularly during the critical 1995 – 2003 period, into fighting to ensure that the development of Fan Pier and the larger area in which it sits (previously known as the South Boston Waterfront, the South Boston Seaport, the Seaport District and most recently the Innovation District) is developed in a smart way. We fought to ensure that development of this “new urban frontier” created access to all the citizens of the region by transit and foot, placing greenspace and great destinations on the waterfront and mixing together the public spaces mandated by law with housing and commercial development.  The development finally unfolding on the waterfront is guided by the infrastructure we fought to have in place and must follow the contours and mandates of the permits and rules that were negotiated.

The imperative of global warming pushes us all to live and work in efficient places where buildings consume as little energy as possible and it is easy and practical to walk to most destinations and there are affordable and available public transit options to many other places we need to go.  Nothing minimizes automobile travel, and the fuel consumption and emissions that come from car usage, like urban living and development.

Cleaning up the harbor and developing the Boston waterfront in a smart, human-scale but dense manner that creates great urban places  does indeed fire up the economic engine of Boston. As both Mayor Menino and EPA Regional Administrator Curt Spalding noted the other day in South Boston that urban economic engine of Boston powers so much of our region, so when we improve the environment and economy of Boston we are generating value, jobs and prosperity for New England.

The new storage tunnel will result in significantly cleaner water for beachgoers at Carson Beach in South Boston. Photo credit: bostonharborwalk.com

It’s been a busy day for South Boston on several fronts – but the dawning of a new era for a transformed Boston Harbor and the environmentalists, legislators and other officials who have been fighting for a clean harbor for nearly three decades. Today marks the opening of a massive sewage holding tank – called a CSO (combined sewer overflow) storage tunnel -  under South Boston that will store gallons of stormwater that would normally overwhelm the city’s sewer system and cause untreated sewage to be released into Boston Harbor. The change will make the beach “one of the cleanest in America” and bring the rate of beach closures down from eight per summer to one roughly every five years, according to this front page article in today’s Boston Globe.

It’s the gratifying ending to a story in which CLF has played a lead role since the beginning. Twenty-eight years ago, CLF filed one of the key lawsuits ordering that the harbor be cleaned up. Today, CLF’s Peter Shelley is one of the only original lawyers involved in the massive and long-running court case who has seen it through to fruition.  Key participants in this morning’s ribbon cutting ceremony for the new storage tunnel came on to the scene decades after the filing, in 1983, of the still-pending case that still bears the label Conservation Law Foundation vs. Metropolitan District Commission (the now-disbanded state agency that used to oversee the water and sewerage systems of Greater Boston).

The ceremony today reflected back on the long struggle to clean the harbor but, appropriately, also looked to the future.  Frederick Laskey, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), the state authority created to execute on the massive harbor cleanup, spoke eloquently about the collaboration between governments, business the advocacy community and the neighborhoods that was needed to execute on a vision of a cleaner harbor and beaches. Laskey especially noted the courage of the representatives of the many municipalities in the Greater Boston region in accepting the regional nature of the project and the need to spread the cost of creating swimmable beaches and a clean harbor across the whole metropolitan area.

State Senator Jack Hart, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Richard Sullivan (who also serves as Chairman of the MWRA Board) and  Department of Conservation and Recreation Commissioner Edward Lambert echoed Laskey’s remarks, emphasizing the importance of community collaboration and the value of clean beaches.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns, who today presides over CLF v. MDC and the continuing harbor cleanup, discussed the hard work needed to get to this day and offered a tribute to the vision of Judge David Mazzone, who had previously handled the case. In 2004, during his final illness in 2004, Mazzone handed the case over to Judge Stearns, conveying his belief that a CSO tunnel was needed and “could be completed by May 2011” for the cost of less than $250 million (in this morning’s speech, Stearns noted that the project came in right on that schedule and in fact under the initial cost estimate).

EPA Regional Administrator Curt Spalding spoke about the difficulty of executing on a project of this magnitude and the importance of core environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, which he proudly noted was championed by another Rhode Islander, Senator John Chafee, that provided clear direction regarding our national policy and the need to create clean and swimmable waters.

Thanks to the tenacity of CLF and others, today’s parents don’t have to worry that a day at the beach could make their children sick, and a new generation of kids won’t have beach closings put a damper on their summer days. But our work is nowhere near complete.  Yes, we need to continue to ensure that the right infrastructure, like this CSO structure in South Boston, is in place to treat our stormwater appropriately. But even more importantly we need to build and manage our buildings, our land and our roads in a way that recaptures as much rain water as possible.  We need to treat rain and snow as the precious resources that they are, moving away from a view that these gifts from above are a waste product that needs to be treated and shunted off into the sea. With those notions in mind, Massachusetts will continue to set an example for the region and the nation of the right way to restore a precious community resource and iconic piece of New England’s history.