For miles around Rhode Island’s Central Landfill, the air often smells like rotten eggs.  In the Landfill, garbage degrades and gives off a gas that is part hydrogen sulfide (which produces the rotten-egg smell), part volatile organic compounds (which can cause cancer), and part methane (a potent greenhouse gas).  At well-run landfills, collection systems capture enough of this gas to avoid creating health and environmental hazards.  Here in Rhode Island, though, something is wrong.

That’s why yesterday CLF’s Rhode Island office notified companies associated with the Landfill that we intend to sue for violations of the federal Clean Air Act.

After a thorough investigation, we figured out that two companies – Broadrock Gas Services and its subsidiary Rhode Island LFG Genco – are not collecting landfill gas like they are supposed to be doing.  Instead, they have allowed part of their gas collection system to become submerged in water.  The gas that is not and cannot be captured by these underwater collectors instead escapes to the air we breathe.  We can tell for sure that gas is escaping because federal regulations don’t allow the air at a landfill’s surface to contain more than 500 parts per million of methane (above background levels in the air), but readings at the Landfill have been as high as 72,900.  By failing to capture harmful landfill gas, the companies have violated the Clean Air Act.

Broadrock and Genco have also been in the news lately for venting landfill gas or some byproduct directly into the atmosphere from a pipe rigged with a broom handle and held together with duct tape.  By venting this gas directly from a pipe to the air, the companies have again violated the Clean Air Act.

As the owner of the Landfill, Rhode Island Resource Recovery is legally responsible for Broadrock and Genco’s violations.  CLF Rhode Island has also learned that Resource Recovery has been operating the Landfill for the last sixteen years without a federally required permit.  By requiring Resource Recovery to get this long-missing permit – which should apply to Broadrock and Genco’s operations too – we hope to bring comprehensive oversight and a clear division of responsibilities to the Landfill.

Now that we’ve notified Broadrock, Genco, and Resource Recovery that we intend to sue – a formal step required by the Clean Air Act before initiating a citizen suit – we have to wait sixty days before filing a complaint in federal court.  But we can start negotiating to fix the problem immediately.  The recent discovery that Broadrock and Genco have been venting raw landfill gas into the air – and the landfill gas explosion that happened a few days ago – let us know that the situation is truly urgent.  And CLF Rhode Island’s notices are a strong first step in getting landfill gas under control here in Rhode Island, stopping the release of harmful pollutants, and making that pervasive rotten-egg smell go away for good.

[Read CLF Rhode Island’s notice of intent to sue here.]

Photo Credit: Aural Asia via Compfight cc

This summer New England took another big step toward regional ocean planning as the newly minted Northeast Regional Planning Body (RPB) held 10 public meetings to get feedback on set of goals they have drafted. See our previous blogs for a discussion of the draft goals and how the planning process in New England is developing.

The public meetings took place from Maine to Connecticut and were attended by RPB representatives and hundreds of fishermen, members of conservation groups, offshore renewable energy developers, and others. Generally, each meeting began with short talk on what regional ocean planning is, then an overview of any ocean planning activities that were already taking place in a given state (for example, the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan and Rhode Island Special Area Management Plan). After that, several maps were presented to introduce the types of data that are being collected and used to inform ocean planning – shipping lanes, fishing data, and offshore energy siting among them. The public was then invited to walk around, look at the maps, and make comments or ask questions about them. This was followed by a guided public comment period on each of the goals.

The goals fall into three broad categories:

1. Effective Decision Making
2. Healthy Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems
3. Compatibility Among Past, Current, and Future Ocean Uses

Several themes emerged throughout the meetings as people commented on each of the goals:

• Cautious support of regional ocean planning. There seems to be broad support for the concept and recognition that better coordination is needed, but people are unsure of how ocean planning will change the way management decisions are currently made.
• Concerns about maps and data. Maps are static and do not represent the dynamic nature of the ocean. Maps need incorporate historical data as well as projected future uses to effectively guide decision making. Data gaps need to be acknowledged, clearly communicated, and factored into decision-making. Robust data must be used, and the local scientific community should be involved.
• Questions about scale and scope.  Regional efforts should include municipalities early in the planning processes – especially communities that are dependent on the ocean. Planning areas need to be clearly defined. Watershed-level planning and acknowledgement of the importance of estuaries to ocean health need to be incorporated. Ecosystem based management and social and economic factors should also be part of the planning.
• Concerns from fishermen. Will regional ocean planning facilitate more new uses of the ocean at the expense of productive fishing grounds? Also, fishing is already highly regulated, will this process lead to more bureaucracy for fishermen to navigate?
• Importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement. Not all industry and stakeholders groups were well represented at the public meetings. In order to ensure that all ocean and coastal user groups are aware of the process and have opportunities for full engagement, the RPB and various agencies need to put their full effort into outreach.
• Compatibility of uses should be expanded to include cumulative impact. The advances in data, user patterns and scientific information give us the benefit of being able to better understand  the effects of ocean uses on ecosystems, habitats, and species, as well as the interplay among uses.

In response to many requests for more time, the comment period for the draft goals has been extended to July 26^th. You can submit comments via standard mail, email, or online.

What’s next for ocean planning in New England?

According to Betsy Nicholson, the RPB Federal Co-Lead, “The RPB will spend the summer reviewing results from the public meetings and other public comments received to help revise and refine the draft goals document, and develop a draft work plan specifying necessary steps to accomplish our work. These two important aspects of this regional ocean planning effort—revised goals and the draft work plan—will be discussed at the next Regional Planning Body meeting to be schedule for this fall, and will be available prior to that meeting.”

The location and date of the next RPB meeting have not yet been announced, but given the progress that has been made by the RPB so far, there is reason to be optimistic that much will be accomplished.

Note: This was originally published on OpenChannels.org on July 8th, 2013. http://bit.ly/150xLCe

The 2013 interns pose for a picture before touring Boston Harbor

CLF welcomes its brand new group of 2013 summer interns. CLF’s summer internship program gives undergraduate and graduate students a unique real-world experience in the world of environmental law, as well as communications, development and other aspects of daily operations here at CLF. Some have already even started posting to the CLF Scoop! Find out who they are below and get to know the interns in your state.

Maine

Liana James, Cavers Legal Intern, University of Maine School of Law
Eric Mortensen-Nemore, Cavers Legal Intern, Vermont Law School

Massachusetts

Keren Bitan, Communications Intern, Cornell University
Janna Cohen-Rosenthal, Ventures Agricultural Program Intern, Brandeis University
Evan Coleman, Healthy Communities and Environmental Justice/Clean Energy and Climate Change Intern, University of Connecticut School of Law
Megan Hopper-Rebegea, Clean Energy and Climate Change Intern, Pace University School of Law
Stefan Kohli, Development Intern, Phillips Exeter Academy
Michael Meneses, Oceans Intern, Brown University
Ellie Milano, Oceans Intern, Tufts University
Cecilia Pontoriero, Transportation and Environmental Justice Intern, Harvard Law School
Abby Spinak, CLF Ventures Intern, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Shanice Wallace, Advocacy Intern, Centre College
Harry Yates, Development Intern, Connecticut College

New Hampshire

Steve Coteus, Clean Energy and Climate Change Intern, Vermont Law School
Alice Ju, Development Intern, Phillips Exeter Academy

Rhode Island

Chloe Davis, Cavers Legal Intern, Roger Williams School of Law

Vermont

Ari Rockland-Miller, Cavers Legal Intern, Vermont Law School
Kevin Webb, Cavers Legal Intern, UCLA

Photo Credit: IronRodArt – Royce Bair (“Star Shooter”)

We are in the throes of a first-in-the-nation regional ocean planning process, and we need you to join those who are already taking part. The Northeast Regional Planning Body (RPB) is holding a series of public meetings throughout New England (find one near you here) to tell people what’s going on in ocean planning and to find out what your questions and comments are about the goals that they have developed, and their potential actions and outcomes. This process is much more effective and meaningful when people who care about the management of our ocean and coasts get involved.

There were two public meetings held last month – one in Portland, ME and one in Narragansett, RI. The meetings were well attended, and many people made comments and asked questions. Among the fishermen, renewable energy developers, and conservationists who spoke, several themes emerged:

• People want a transparent process, where they know what is being planned before it happens, and they want to be involved in meaningful ways.
• There should be careful review of the maps and data decision-makers are using to plan ocean uses.
• People want to know what this planning process will look like, and how will it be used in a practical way.

There is a meeting tonight in Ellsworth and tomorrow night in Rockland, ME, this Thursday afternoon in Boston, and later this month in New Bedford, Gloucester, and Barnstable, MA, in New Haven, CT, and in Portsmouth, NH. See the full schedule and location details here. There are many ways to submit comments to the RPB even if you can’t go to a meeting.

Why should you get involved? There are so many reasons to appreciate New England’s ocean – amazing wildlife, gorgeous scenery, a natural playground to enjoy with our children – but there is also an unprecedented amount of change right now: renewable energy has hit the water, our fisheries are in tremendous flux and some of our most iconic and economically important stocks are in true peril, our waters are rapidly warming and getting more acidic, and we are seeing accelerating coastal erosion in some of our most heavily developed shorelines. The time is now to start making better decisions that will protect our ocean for future generations.

Do you care about the way our oceans are managed? Then come learn more about ocean planning and make your voice heard! Find a meeting near you and get involved.

An offshore wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Image courtesy of Nuon @ flickr

From California to Craigsville Beach on Cape Cod, nearly twelve hundred people joined together over the past week to voice their support for Cape Wind’s clean, renewable energy and to oppose the ongoing delays depriving our country of its first offshore wind project. Their comments were directed at the Department of Energy (DOE), which was seeking the public’s input as the agency considers a federal loan guarantee for Cape Wind. The immediate issue before DOE is whether to accept the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement in its consideration of the loan. The rigorous environmental review has been deemed more than adequate by the country’s leading national, regional and local environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Mass Audubon, Conservation Law Foundation and more.

In a letter sent to DOE on Monday, more than two dozen environmental, clean energy, public health, business and labor stakeholders urged the agency to proceed without delay to consider and grant a loan guarantee for Cape Wind. The letter stated, “Cape Wind will concretely advance the nation’s objectives in addressing the challenge of climate change while promoting energy security and economic development. Following an extremely lengthy and rigorous environmental review, the Cape Wind project should proceed for consideration and grant of a loan guarantee without further delay. Such action will help lay the strongest possible foundation for offshore renewable energy development in the United States.”

Cape Wind Now’s petition to DOE activated Cape Wind supporters across the country who invoked everything from protecting their children’s future to much-needed jobs to national pride in calling on DOE to approve a federal loan guarantee for the project and unleash the potential of offshore wind, one of the country’s most promising, but as yet untapped, sources of clean, renewable energy. Supporters railed against the decade of delay perpetuated by fossil fuel billionaire Bill Koch and his Cape Wind opposition group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. In yet another delay tactic, the Alliance and a couple of House Republicans recently sought to distract DOE and wrap up the loan guarantee process in red tape by questioning the completed, thoroughly researched and vetted environmental review. “No more delays!” was the common refrain from petitioners, including many Cape residents, who pleaded with DOE to do everything in its power to get the wind turbines built now.

DOE announced in November 2012 that it was considering a federal loan guarantee for the project. The DOE loan guarantee is a key component of Cape Wind’s financing, lowering the cost of the project’s debt and ultimately the cost of Cape Wind to Massachusetts ratepayers. DOE will issue its decision in the coming months.

Want to stay current on Cape Wind’s progress? Sign up to receive email updates from Cape Wind Now.

The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) took important steps this week to increase energy efficiency in the state and pass those savings along to Maine’s electric customers. On Tuesday, the PUC issued its final order unanimously approving the Efficiency Maine Trust’s Triennial Plan, the comprehensive document that outlines the strategies, programs, budgets and estimated savings for three years starting July 1, 2013.

Some of the more critical components of the approved Plan are its budgets for the Trust’s largest programs related to electric efficiency. The Trust had proposed and made the case for expanding its budget for these programs by almost three times what would otherwise have been available to the Trust, estimating over $650 million in achievable cost-effective savings. The PUC  took a more conservative approach, but acted meaningfully, doubling the electricity budget and affording ratepayers close to $500 million in savings from these programs.

With their decision, Maine’s energy experts have spoken and they unanimously agree that the Legislature should significantly increase funding for energy efficiency. We hope the Legislature will take the responsible course of action this time and claim a victory for Maine ratepayers and the environment.

But, as I wrote last week, going forward, these efficiency funding decisions should reside with the experts at the PUC. The Maine law implemented last year shifting final say on certain energy efficiency funding from the PUC to the Legislature must be amended to direct that authority back to the PUC where it belongs. The Legislature will have the chance to make that change this session. The Legislature should look to the PUC’s actions this week as a demonstration of its keen understanding of the facts and the value of energy efficiency to the people and the state of Maine, and should follow the lead of our energy regulators.

The press release announcing the PUC’s decision is here.

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.

Just how much financial trouble is Dominion facing at its 50-year old coal and oil-fired power plant? The prospects are bleak and looking worse. For years, people have assumed that the largest coal-fired power plant in New England could weather any storm, but the numbers show that Brayton Point is facing dark days, and the clouds are not likely to lift.

Brayton Point Capacity Factors from 2007-2012

Today, Conservation Law Foundation released an independent analysis of the financial performance of Dominion Resources’ Brayton Point power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts. The report, authored by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, projects a bleak future for the 50-year-old coal-fired facility. Entitled Dark Days Ahead: Financial Factors Cloud Future Profitability at Dominion’s Brayton Point, the report found that the once profitable power plant’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) are plummeting due to a perfect storm of market conditions that are projected to continue at least through the end of the decade.

The report shows that those conditions make it unlikely that Brayton Point will ever recoup its recent $1 billion investment in upgrades to the facility, or return to profitability.

“Brayton Point is looking at losing money for the foreseeable future,” said David Schlissel, who co-authored the report with financial expert Tom Sanzillo. “The market conditions have changed and are continuing to change for old coal plants. There is nothing on the horizon that shows that this power plant will be able to return to financial health; in fact, even the most optimistic scenario shows that Brayton Point cannot produce earnings that would cover its costs and produce a return for equity investors at any time through 2020.”

Sanzillo added, “The forecast for Brayton Point is indicative of what’s happening all over the country. We are seeing the owners of these 50-year-old coal-burning facilities facing do or die decisions about their futures, with hundreds having already announced their plans to retire in the next few years and more going that route every month. Brayton Point’s current experience – bleeding money and owner Dominion Resources having already written off $700 million of its $1 billion investment in upgrading the plant – and its bleak outlook clearly show that continuing to operate this plant doesn’t make economic sense.”

A Perfect Storm of Changing Conditions Sends Earnings Plummeting

The report points to a set of changed conditions that together are putting severe downward pressure on Brayton Point’s earnings, which dropped from $345 million in 2009 to an anemic $24 million in 2012, a decrease of some 93 percent:

• Natural gas prices have declined significantly since 2008 and are expected to remain low for at least the remainder of this decade.
• Wholesale energy market prices have decreased In response to the declining natural gas prices, , meaning reduced revenue for coal plant owners and reduced generation at coal plants like Brayton Point.
• Meanwhile, prices for capacity have been also been declining with a 35% decrease in the price obtained in the Forward Capacity Auction in 2012 as compared to the price for 2010.
• Additionally, energy usage in ISO-NE decreased by 2-3 percent between 2008 and 2012 as a result of the economic downturn and increasing energy efficiency efforts.

Future Profitability is Unlikely

The report provides two extremely conservative scenarios of future performance: an “optimistic scenario,” in which generation from Brayton Point coal Units 1-3 is projected to rise to a 60% capacity factor through the years 2013-2020, and a “less optimistic” scenario, which assumes that the units’ generation will not exceed 40% for any year in the period. In 2012, Brayton Points Units 1-3 operated at an average 16% capacity factor. Thus, the report says, earnings from those units could be much lower than projected in the two scenarios modeled. “In no way have we looked at a ‘worst case’ scenario,” noted Mr. Sanzillo.

In both scenarios, based on forward-looking conditions, the report shows that it is unlikely that future energy market prices, ISO-NE capacity market prices, plant generation and coal prices will lead to earnings high enough to provide its owner with adequate recovery of capital or return on investment. The report’s conclusions are based on projections that show that it is reasonable to expect that for the remainder of this decade, at least:

• Energy market prices in New England will remain low, reflecting continuing low natural gas prices.
• Energy consumption in New England will remain flat while consumption in Massachusetts may decline.
• Bituminous coal prices will increase over time.
• As a result, the generation at Brayton Point Units 1-3 is not likely to reach the high levels of performance achieved by the units through 2009.
• Future New England capacity prices are not likely to increase significantly.

On the longer horizon, from 2020 on, the report points to increasing pressure to place a significant price on carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, and the plant’s age, as additional factors that will likely weigh on the plant’s earnings.

N. Jonathan Peress, VP and director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program, commented, “Brayton Point, like many other old coal plants in New England and around the country, is at a tipping point. Dominion has already made a losing investment in trying to make this plant viable beyond its useful life. Now, Dominion and its shareholders need to decide whether to keep pumping money into Brayton Point with little chance of a return, as this analysis clearly shows, or to let it go. This report provides compelling evidence for the Town of Somerset, which has been seeing its tax revenue from the plant decline in recent years, to begin planning for Brayton Point’s retirement, and a healthier future for that community in all respects.”

Photo courtesy of Wiertz Sébastien @ flickr.

It’s been a great year for CLF — and a great year on CLF Scoop. We’ve had lots of great posts by our advocates, staff and volunteers. See below for the most read 10 blog posts published in 2012.

Counting Down to Shark Week 2012
Nov 11, 2011 by Robin Just

The Promise of Urban Agriculture: New Growing Green Report
Jul 12, 2012 by Jo Anne Shatkin and Melissa Hoffer

Latest Research: Northern Pass Worse for the Climate than Advertised
Feb 14, 2012 by Christophe Courchesne

The “New Route” for Northern Pass Won’t Cure Its Failings
May 24, 2012 by Christophe Courchesne

Salem Harbor Enforced Shutdown: The Beginning of the End for Old Coal in New England
Feb 10, 2012 by N. Jonathan Peress

Risky Business: Leaking Natural Gas Infrastructure and How to Fix It
Nov 28, 2012 by Shanna Cleveland

Everything You Know Is Wrong: Growing the Economy Without Growing Electricity (and Energy) Demand
Oct 1, 2012 by Seth Kaplan

It’s Time to Stop Subsidizing PSNH’s Dirty Power
Feb 1, 2012 by Christophe Courchesne

Save the Beach or Save Your House: Which Would You Choose?
Apr 25, 2012 by Tricia K. Jedele