If a tree falls in the forest in order to fuel in an inefficient electric power plant, does it make noise?  You bet it does.  This morning, dozens of advocates rallied at the Massachusetts State House to make a little noise while calling for the strengthening of the Commonwealth’s rules for forest wood-fueled – i.e., “biomass” – energy incentives.

Last year, we cheered as the Patrick Administration commissioned a ground-breaking study, known as the “Manomet Report,” to help understand the climate impacts of biomass energy.  That Report reaffirmed a growing scientific understanding that burning whole trees for energy can be worse than burning coal because of what I refer to as the “double whammy” effect:  (1) the immediate release into the atmosphere of the carbon stored in the tree; and (2) the tree that has been cut no longer is available to absorb new carbon from the atmosphere – or help promote clean water, wildlife habitat, shade or other benefits.

Based on the Manomet Report, the Administration released an encouraging framework for revised biomass regulations that included the key policy pillars of science-based carbon accounting, strong sustainable harvesting requirements, and minimum efficiency standards for capturing the energy stored in biomass fuels.  Unfortunately, the latest version of the regulations and related guidance have been substantially weakened, treating all forms of biomass as “carbon neutral” over a short period of time, promoting the removal of all harvest residues from the forest floor, and encouraging the cutting of whole trees for biomass fuel.  This retreat is disturbing both in terms of likely impacts in Massachusetts and the precedent it would set for other states, the nation, and beyond.

As we spelled out at today’s State House rally, Massachusetts still has an historic opportunity to “get it right”.  To make this happen, CLF and many others are asking for three simple things:

1.       The final biomass regulations must be based on the SCIENCE, consistent with the core lessons of the Manomet Report;

2.       Incentives must be reserved for practices that DO NO HARM to our forests, for example by leaving sufficient tree tops and limbs in forests to replenish soil nutrients and provide habitat;

3.       Benefits should be limited to those practices and facilities that AVOID WASTE by efficiently using biomass fuel, ensuring that the majority of its energy potential is captured and used.

The specific changes to the draft rules that we are seeking are spelled out in greater detail here.

Massachusetts’ forests currently absorb a whopping 10% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we produce each year from electric power generation, transportation, heating, cooling and all other activities combined. This doesn’t mean that we need to leave all forests untouched – there is a role for sustainably harvested forest products of many kinds, just as there is a role for untouched forest reserves.  But we do need to watch out for the “double whammy” and make certain that limited ratepayer-funded clean energy dollars are not steered toward wasteful forest harvesting and combustion practices that would move us away from the clean energy future we seek.

Mount Hope Bay (photo credit: John McDaid)

After nearly a decade, Weaver’s Cove Energy (WCE) finally abandoned its liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminal project that initially had been proposed for Fall River, MA and, more recently, for the middle of Mt. Hope Bay just off the shores of Somerset, MA. This puts to an end a project that would have required massive LNG tankers to pass through dozens of miles of waters adjacent to some of New England’s most densely populated coastlines, and would have included a four-mile-long cryogenically cooled LNG pipeline through critical winter flounder spawning habitat in Mt. Hope Bay and up the mouth of a federally designated Wild & Scenic River.

Despite significant litigation, extensive public opposition, and questionable economics, WCE LNG persisted for years in its ultimately fruitless pursuit of state and federal approvals for the project. For a number of those years, CLF took a leadership role in pressing for comprehensive environmental review, calling for a regional analysis of LNG terminal siting in New England, and insisting that federal authorities take a hard look at clean energy alternatives.

CLF is proud to share this victory with the many stakeholders who worked tirelessly to protect Mount Hope Bay, Narragansett Bay, and the Taunton River –from dedicated local activist Joe Carvalho to the talented attorneys representing the City of Fall River and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, and from tenacious members of Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation to former Fall River Mayor Ed Lambert who vowed “death by a thousand paper cuts” to WCE’s ill-conceived project.  Now, all of the people and natural resources that depend on these important waters no longer need to sing the “LNG Blues”!

Listen to “LNG Blues,” written and performed by local activists in Somerset, MA:

LNG Blues by conservationlawfoundation

The future? That's what MA Rep. John Keenan wants. (Photo credit: Marilyn Humphries)

Protecting dirty old coal plants. Whacking solar and wind. Sounds like the opposite of the clean energy revolution that is underway in Massachusetts, right?  Or perhaps a belated April Fool?  But no, sadly, these deeply troubling initiatives have been introduced by Representative John Keenan, the new House co-chair of the MA Legislature’s Energy Committee, through amendments to the state budget currently under debate on Beacon Hill.  All on the eve of Earth Day, no less.

These amendments are alarming, and would undo much of the enormous progress that has been made over the past few years with respect to reducing Massachusetts’ reliance on dirty and costly fossil fuels, most of which are imported from faraway lands and offer Massachusetts no economic development benefits.  And the use of the budget process, rather than stand-alone legislation with public hearings, adds insult to injury.   We strongly encourage everyone who cares about clean air and a clean energy economy to ask your Massachusetts state legislators to oppose the Keenan Amendments (# 594, 623 and 640).  For more detail:

Keenan Amendment # 594 would prioritize existing (and even mothballed) coal and oil plants over transmission alternatives – in other words, it would severely discourage upgrades to improve efficiency or capacity of existing power lines or new transmission that would connect to cleaner resources.  This amendment seeks to protect the dirty, obsolete energy generating sources of the past while standing in the way of cleaner alternatives.  Who would benefit?  Dominion Energy, the owner of the Salem Harbor Station coal and oil plant in Chairman Keenan’s District, would benefit more than anyone.  The rest of us would have to continue to pay the price in terms of dirty air.

Keenan Amendment # 623: This amendment would require Massachusetts to prioritize renewable energy that is the cheapest when viewed over a very short three year time period.  As such, it would promote facilities that can be cheaper to build, like biomass, at the expense of solar and wind, which have higher up-front costs but are powered by fuels that are free (unlike biomass).  The amendment would turn on its head the thoughtful balance struck by the legislature less than three years ago when the Green Communities Act was passed, requiring renewables to be “cost-effective” and “reasonable” to qualify for benefits such as long-term contracts.  If this system were scrapped in favor of prioritizing the “cheapest” resource, we probably would wind up with only one type of renewable energy – most likely biomass, possibly hydropower too – rather than the diverse array of clean energy solutions that we need.

Keenan Amendment # 640: The aim of this amendment is to take the MA Renewable Energy Trust’s limit of $3 million per year to support hydropower and convert that limit to a floor, or minimum, for annual investment of MA ratepayers’ dollars in hydropower.  The amendment has a fundamental technical flaw — it tries to adjust the language of a statute that was repealed last year — but otherwise it would guarantee investment in hydropower even if there are far more deserving solar, wind or other renewable energy projects available.

We hope that cooler heads will prevail and these amendments all will be rejected.  Otherwise, coal lobbyists and their clients will be dancing all the way to the bank (ka-ching!) while we face a major setback for Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy programs and the enormous environmental, public health and economic development benefits they bring.

CLF has intervened in proceedings regarding the proposed merger of Northeast Utilities (NU) and NSTAR, which combined would create the third largest utility in the country and the largest in New England. CLF has intervened in the proceedings before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to ensure that the merger will only be allowed to go forward if it is “consistent with the public interest.”  This will require a thoughtful analysis of the merged utility’s long-term strategies for delivering energy while fully meeting the greenhouse gas emission reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements of the MA Global Warming Solutions Act and Green Communities Act.  It also will require a close look at the economic and environmental risks posed by the energy generation assets that would be owned by the merged utility.

One of CLF’s concerns is that NU subsidiary Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) owns and depends upon outdated, inefficient coal- and oil-fired power plants. These plants – which are obsolete and increasingly more expensive and less economic to operate – present risks and liabilities that would be spread to NSTAR’s ratepayers if the merger goes forward.  Another concern is that the merged utility might seek to weaken Massachusetts’ renewable energy standards, as suggested in some of the utilities’ public statements, allowing large hydropower to “flood” the market (pun intended!) and chill development of other renewable energy sources such as small wind and solar facilities.

Currently, the procedural schedule for the merger proceeding pending before the Massachusetts DPU has been suspended while the DPU considers whether to modernize the legal standard it will apply.  CLF and other parties have asked that the legal standard be adapted to account for changes in relevant laws, including the Global Warming Solutions Act and Green Communities Act.

Stay tuned as we await the DPU’s ruling and further action in the merger proceeding!

NSTAR Green 100 customers got a rude shock last week when a notice from the utility informed them, without any explanation, that their green power premiums would be going up by more than 300 percent in March. What’s up with that?

What’s up is that prices for natural gas, the dominant fuel used to create electricity in our region, are way down.  Meanwhile, the price of the clean, renewable wind power that NSTAR Green customers are buying to reduce our dependence on such polluting fossil fuels as gas and coal, is stable. So, because the NSTAR Green premiums are pegged to the price of power from those fossil fuels – i.e., the price of its “Basic Service ” – when the differential between its Basic Service and the cost of wind power increases, the premiums go up.

What NSTAR failed to explain to its Green customers is that, even with the  hike in premiums, customers will still pay the same or less  for their total energy bill (basic electric supply, transmission and distribution charges, plus the green premium) than they paid when the program first started. Other than the obvious environmental and public health benefits of consuming less fossil fuels, NSTAR Green customers also get the benefit of more stable and ultimately lower total energy prices over time. The drop in traditional electricity prices is temporary, and it is inevitable that they will soon rise again, given the finite nature of fossil fuels and the environmental, public health and national security costs of burning them. When the price of traditional electricity increases in the future, NSTAR Green premiums will go back down.

We wish that NSTAR had taken this opportunity to tell its customers who have chosen to buy clean power that their investment continues to be a sound one, one that will ultimately save them money by getting off of the fossil fuel roller coaster.

Yesterday’s decision by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to approve a 15-year contract for the sale of half of Cape Wind’s power to National Grid removed yet another major hurdle for the nation’s first offshore wind farm and confirmed what CLF and other project supporters have long known to be true: Cape Wind is a good deal for ratepayers.

In finding the contract “cost-effective” and “in the public interest,” the DPU overrode opponents’ most recent objections that the project supposedly is too expensive and will lead to huge profits for the developer.  In fact, the decision pointed out again – for those who chose to overlook the terms spelled out in black and white in the Cape Wind contract – that the developer will not reap windfall profits because the profits are capped and cost savings will flow back to the ratepayers.  And, the contract price is fixed and predictable over the entire 15-year term of the contract.

CLF is thrilled, if not entirely surprised, that the DPU found the project to be good for ratepayers.  As noted in the DPU’s decision, the estimated price impacts are very small and are significantly outweighed by the benefits. Customers will get some relief from the volatile fossil fuel price rollercoaster while Cape Wind takes a major bite out of global warming pollution and forces some of the most expensive and dirty fossil fuel-fired power plants to reduce their operation.  This is a major win for the environment and the emerging clean energy economy.

As an intervening party in the DPU proceeding, CLF took the lead working with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), NRDC and Clean Power Now to introduce extensive expert testimony, cross-examine one of the opponents’ principal witnesses (an avowed climate skeptic), and draft detailed legal briefs to make the case for approval of the Cape Wind contract.

John Rogers, senior energy analyst at UCS said, “With this decision, Massachusetts has taken a real step forward on behalf of the commonwealth and the country as a whole. We know that offshore wind represents a real opportunity for economic development and environmental progress.  This move means we’re ready to say yes to that opportunity.”

Over the past decade, Cape Wind has withstood exhaustive environmental and permitting reviews, demonstrating over and over that its benefits will far exceed its impacts.  Since the contract was so thoroughly vetted, we are confident that today’s decision paves the way for a much more streamlined review and approval of a contract for the second half of Cape Wind’s power, renewable energy credits and other output. With federal, state and local approvals, a lease and a long-term contract, Cape Wind is looking more and more like a sure thing.

Patrick Administration offshore wind expert Greg Watson with an artist's rendering of the future wind blade/turbine port facility. (Photo credit: Sue Reid)

At an event Wednesday afternoon in New Bedford, Governor Patrick, Congressman Frank, Mayor Lang, Secretary Bowles, Senator Montigny, DOER Commissioner Phil Giudice and a host of other local, state and federal officials together announced that New Bedford’s South Terminal will be developed as a deepwater port to serve the Cape Wind project and other offshore wind projects to follow.

Congressman Frank at the podium. (Photo credit: Sue Reid)

It was a rare chance to celebrate the progress that has been made in bringing the nation’s first offshore wind project to fruition after so many years.  And it was striking to see longshoremen side-by-side with electrical workers, environmental advocates, renewable energy industry stakeholders, politicians and former politicians, such as former New Bedford Mayor John Bullard who long has championed the benefits of wind power — on land and offshore alike. The key message of the day was hammered home by speakers who highlighted the New Bedford wind port as a compelling example of the sort of convergence between economic and environmental objectives that we all seek.  Exactly.

Read more about CLF’s work on Cape Wind and other renewable energy initiatives at clf.org>>