Northern Pass’s developer has a long track record of public statements attributing the deep New Hampshire opposition to the current proposal to the go-to developer bogeyman – “not in my backyard” obstructionism. Accusing critics of short-sighted “NIMBYism” is even part of Northern Pass’s expensive marketing campaign (which suffers from other deliberately false and misleading claims). Continuing this tradition, the CEO of the developer’s parent company recently derided opponents as “special interests.”

This is loaded, derogatory rhetoric, and exactly the wrong frame for having any constructive dialogue with the New Hampshire communities that face living with the project’s major new infrastructure, as I argued on NHPR last year. And on a personal level, after nearly a year and a half of advocacy on the Northern Pass project, I can say with certainty that the New Hampshire opponents of the current proposal don’t fit the caricature. Those with backyards that would be affected are indeed concerned about their homes, but also about the broader issues of whether the project will benefit their communities, New Hampshire, and the region. Like CLF, they aren’t seeing meaningful public benefits that would make the burdens of the project worth bearing.

Our colleagues at the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests recently produced a pair of videos that help bring to life some of New Hampshire’s very real concerns about the project, many of which are key parts of CLF’s Northern Pass advocacy.

In this video, Appalachian Mountain Club’s Susan Arnold explains our history of protecting the White Mountain National Forest and the problems with Northern Pass’s proposal to build new towers through this nationally treasured landscape:

(If impacts in the White Mountain National Forest are of interest to you, I’d also recommend a recently launched resource with lots of information on the details of Northern Pass’s current proposal and the unique permitting process that applies: ProtectWMNF.org.)

In this video, you’ll meet a Deerfield, NH family that would be directly affected by the project:

(In line with prior non-responses to criticism and strong-arm tactics, Northern Pass’s developer posted an odd rebuttal to this video on its website, attacking as “inaccurate” certain general statements and images showing towers close to the family’s house. Leaving aside that accuracy in communications hasn’t been its own priority, the developer has released no detailed mile-by-mile design of the project to back up its post, nor does it deny that its representatives told the family that towers could be built very close to their home. And if you watch the video, it’s clear that the “rebuttal” is more about trying to discredit the Forest Society than providing a meaningful response to the video’s substance.)

From the families who live along the proposed route, to the small businesspeople in the state’s tourist economy who are concerned about the effect of the project on their livelihoods and communities, to the New Hampshire residents and groups questioning the wisdom of erecting massive new towers through treasured landscapes like the White Mountain National Forest, New Hampshire’s many critical voices are focused on real, legitimate concerns about the impacts of Northern Pass on our state and beyond. We will not be marginalized, bullied, or deterred as we raise these issues in public forums and in the federal and state permitting processes to come.

CLF was not involved in the production or content of the videos above. They are posted here with the permission of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

For more information about Northern Pass, sign-up for our monthly newsletter Northern Pass Wire, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northern-pass), and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Moving to a clean energy future means keeping the dirty stuff out. If you are cleaning house in a dust storm, the first thing you do is close the door. 

photo courtesy of Zak Griefen

Environmental groups gathered to show the need to close the door in New England on tar sands oil – the dirtiest of dirty oil. We are moving in the wrong direction to bring oil in and through New England that increases global warming pollution even more.  

Tar sands are a carbon bomb that will catapult us past several dangerous climate tipping points. It has no part in our region’s clean energy future.

A new report, Going in Reverse: The Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England, outlines an array of threats associated with tar sands.

In late May, a pipeline company announced it would reverse the flow of a 62-year-old pipeline bringing oil from southern Ontario to Montreal. Reversing the pipeline opend the door to another pipeline reversal enabling tar sands to flow through Vermont, and New Hampshire to Portland, Maine. The tar sands industry has been in a desperate search for a port of export since the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway projects have become mired in controversy. CLF and others expressed concern that these proposals are being advanced by the same pipeline company responsible for the largest tar sands spill in U.S. history resulting the devastation of the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Michigan. 

As the placard of one young CLF supporter noted, we need “More Tarzan, Less Tar Sand.” The help of a super-hero would be nice. In the meantime, let’s just shut the door.

Associated Press story:  Alarm Raised About Potential Tar Sands Pipeline

Conservation Law Foundation filed an Amicus (Friend of the Court) brief on behalf of Conservation Law Foundation, New England Coalition, Vermont Natural Resources Council and Vermont Public Interest Research Group in support of the State’s appeal to overturn the decision of Judge Murtha that Vermont has no say regarding Vermont Yankee.

Not so fast. As the Brief notes, the Vermont Legislature has clear authority to determine whether to allow the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. Vermont’s laws do not conflict with federal law and they are part of a decade of energy legislation focused on moving Vermont’s power supply away from older and more polluting power sources, like Vermont Yankee. 

There is a much longer history here. Vermont Yankee is a tired old nuclear plant and its owners are untrustworthy. Our brief shows that Vermont’s actions are authorized and reasonable.

“The Legislature’s track record shows that the Vermont Legislature has been passing energy legislation for years in response to constituents’ strong support for transitioning to renewable energy. Vermont engaged in the legitimate exercise of its traditional authority over power planning, including the future use of nuclear power plants. Vermont’s purposes, including planning, economics and reliability, are not only plausible, but show how the General Assembly has been preparing for the eventual closure of Vermont Yankee, whether in 2012 or thereafter, by enacting legislation, including Act 74 and Act 160, to assure that Vermont will be able to timely transition to an economical and environmentally sustainable energy supply” (pg 19)

Vermont Yankee’s troubled history also shows the validity of the Legislature’s actions. “Since Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (Entergy) purchased the Vermont Yankee facility in 2002, a steady stream of mishaps, misrepresentations and disappointments shattered Vermont’s faith and trust in Vermont Yankee and its owners. From the failure to make any contributions to the decommissioning fund, followed by the collapse of the cooling towers in 2007, the proposed “spin off” of the plant to a highly leveraged subsidiary, the false statements to regulators and the broken promises of a power contract that never materialized, Entergy’s actions have had what an Entergy executive described as a “corrosive effect” on the relationships needed to maintain a major electric generating facility within the State.” (Pg 5). 

“These events evidence the untrustworthiness and lack of credibility in Entergy management that precluded the Vermont Legislature from affirming a continued business relationship with Entergy.” (Pg 23).

The Brief was a joint effort of our organizations. As organizations that have been involved in matters concerning energy legislation and Vermont Yankee for decades, our brief provides the Court with the perspective of how Vermont’s laws are part of Vermont’s broader efforts to responsibly manage energy supply. 

See Brief Here and Brattleboro Reformer story here.

These are dark days on the climate front.  Daily, we get new news about the impacts of global warming like a megabloom of tiny plants under Arctic sea ice, the first news of observations of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere passing the 400 parts per million mark, blowing past the “safe” level of 350 and taking greenhouse gases to levels not seen in 800,000 years.

And the policy front – where solutions are crafted and implemented – is a painful vacuum, especially at the level of the U.S. Federal government.

But there are glimmers of hope in the form of folks who tell the truth and frame a path forward.  One of them is U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who gave a powerful speech on the Senate floor yesterday about the urgent need for action.  The other is author, activist and movement leader Bill McKibben, who was interviewed on stage last night during a live taping of the OnPoint radio show.

. . . and we need all the hope we can get.

photo credit: flickr/brianjmatis

This week, the New England Power Generators Association (the trade group for most of the region’s power plant companies, also known as NEPGA) released a new study analyzing the potential effect of the Northern Pass project on New England’s energy market – the first independent study addressing this issue. More than two years after the deeply flawed energy study that Northern Pass’s developer commissioned and has cited unrelentingly since, NEPGA’s study is an important, credible contribution to the public discussion surrounding the Northern Pass project.

The new study’s conclusion: the supposed energy benefits of the project – that it will lower the region’s energy costs and diversify the region’s power supply – won’t materialize. The study also shows that the economic merits of the current proposal are much weaker today than they were when the proposal was formulated two years ago, due to reductions in the cost of natural gas.

You can read NEPGA’s press release about the study (PDF) here and the full study (PDF) here. You’ll find press coverage of the study in the Union Leader here, in the Concord Monitor here, on WMUR-TV here, and on New Hampshire Public Radio here.

A few key takeaways:

• The study’s finding that natural gas prices have declined is not news to Hydro-Québec or to Northern Pass’s developer, which is trumpeting new domestic natural gas supplies as a “game-changer.” What this means, in practical terms, is that the project will not put much downward pressure on the already-low regional market price of power. That’s a problem for Northern Pass: reducing regional energy costs is at the heart of the Northern Pass sales pitch. (As we’ve pointed out before, this “benefit” in fact perversely would put upward pressure on – rather than lower – the rates that most New Hampshire consumers pay.)
• With the economics of the project so tenuous, there is a clear risk that the proponents will seek to qualify Northern Pass power for the benefits afforded to new renewable energy sources under state clean energy laws, a legal change that would unfairly undermine the market for renewable energy development in New England. (The risk that hydropower imports will need subsidies to cover new transmission costs has also recently been cited by critics of the Champlain Hudson Power Express project in New York.) If it’s true, as proponents insist, that Northern Pass doesn’t need subsidies, New England should accept nothing less than a binding legal commitment from Hydro-Québec and Northern Pass’s developer not to seek or accept them.
• NEPGA’s study suggests that Northern Pass would shift Québec hydropower exports from New York and Ontario to New England. This effect may completely offset the supposed carbon emissions reductions from Northern Pass (which are inherently dubious for other reasons) because it is extremely likely that New York or Ontario would ramp up natural gas power plants to make up any deficit. In this regard, the study shows yet again that a rigorous big-picture regional analysis – of the kind that could be provided in the comprehensive regional assessment of our energy needs and the role, if any, for more Canadian imports that CLF and others have sought and Northern Pass’s developer has opposed – is essential to making a well-informed decision on a proposal like Northern Pass.
• The developer’s hair-trigger response – to question the credibility of the sponsors of the study and not the study’s actual findings, a classic Bulverism – speaks volumes. At every turn, the developer has refused to acknowledge or address the problems with its current proposal, even in the face of unequivocal facts that debunk the supposed benefits. Sadly, we can expect the potential rollout of the “new route” for a piece of the project later this summer to follow a similar script.

Above all, NEPGA’s new study underscores that that no one should rely on the stale, incomplete, and misleading information that Northern Pass’s developer is using to sell the project to the public and to government agencies. We need a much deeper, clear-eyed understanding of what Northern Pass would mean for the region’s energy consumers, New Hampshire communities, and the environment on both sides of the border.

For more information about Northern Pass, sign-up for our monthly newsletter Northern Pass Wire, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northern-pass), and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Not that long ago I wrote here about Daniel Yergin’s latest book, the long-awaited follow up to his authoritative history of human use of oil. I concluded by noting:

[How] difficult [it would be for] Dr. Yergin to fully confront the dilemma implicit in his work – that the presence of affordable hydrocarbons (oil and/or natural gas) for indefinite future will create a strong pull constantly moving us away from making the reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions that science tells us we need to make in order to save ourselves.

Sadly, this is not a challenge that Dr. Yergin has taken up. The New York published an essay by Dr. Yergin in its widely-read Sunday Opinion section about the changing face of petroleum supply as the United States has dramatically increased its oil and gas production.  As influential commentator Joe Romm notes in a blog post this new Yergin piece completely ignores the issue of climate. Romm argues that, “While Yergin is happy to detail America’s new orgy of fossil production, he is has nothing to say about how we could do this in an environmentally sound way, in part, I suspect, because he knows that we can’t.”

But this head-on collision of climate and increased gas and oil production is not unique to Daniel Yergin.  Over at Foreign Policy, Steve LeVine provocatively asks “Can we survive the new golden age of oil?“  He surveys the opinions of various experts about how oil and gas production around the world will continue to expand in all kinds of places including in North America and in the Eastern Mediterranean noting that:

What these experts have not said, however, is that while this new golden age may indeed shake up the currently rich and powerful and create new regional forces, it could also accelerate the swamping of the planet in melted Arctic ice. So much new oil may flood the market that crude and gasoline prices might moderate and lessen consumer incentives to economize. “In the absence of U.S. leadership, I tend to agree with NASA’s James Hansen that it is ‘game over for the planet,’” Peter Rutland, a professor at Wesleyan University, told me in an email exchange.

These thoughts, and related exploration of the same theme by Michael Levi, should provide us all with a real jolt. It is simply not true that declining supplies and rising prices of oil and gas will bring about the fundamental changes that will be needed to avert climate disaster. And if you think the U.S. Federal government or a global agreement will save the day – you just haven’t been paying attention.

Dr. Yergin and others who describe a world with continued high availability (and low prices) of petroleum are presenting us with a gordian knot – and among the only folks holding a sword are the local, state and regional leaders from both government and business who are working to build a new economy around clean, zero emissions technology and practices.

The Boston Globe yesterday reported on the fact that Silver Line buses between the Airport and South Station will be free starting tomorrow for a period of at least ninety days. You are probably wondering how the MBTA can afford giving away rides. Isn’t the T still staring a $161 million operating budget deficit for FY13 in the eye? Isn’t the MBTA planning to raise fares 23% on July 1st, if the Legislature comes through with some additional help? Won’t it have to cut significant service, if the Legislature does not?

The answer is yes to all of these questions but the idea is simple: Massport has agreed to pay for the lost revenue, since the airport benefits from the congestion relief associated with this bus. Free rides equal more riders to the airport, not only because people like to pay nothing, but also because freeing bus drivers of the logistics of collecting fares will speed up the bus line. While this pilot project does not raise any additional revenue for the MBTA, it does give MassDOT and Massport a chance to assess the feasibility of shifting more responsibility to Massport, i.e., to pay for more of the infrastructure that directly benefits Logan Airport. In particular, it will be important to gain a more complete understanding how airport parking fees would be affected.

As former Transportation Secretary Fred Salvucci recently pointed out in a Boston Globe op-ed, Massport is the biggest single beneficiary of the Big Dig. Approximately half of the $15 billion Big Dig cost paid for the Seaport access road and Ted Williams Tunnel (primarily to access Massport facilities). The Logan parking garages are the largest non-airfield revenue streams for Massport, and they function only because of the access provided by MassDOT. The House members of the Joint Transportation Committee have also recently picked up on this idea, and have included Massport payments to the MBTA and purchases of MBTA property in its legislation to help bridge the T’s funding gap for next year.

This spring, clean energy is sprouting up all over Massachusetts. The Commonwealth is now in a terrific position to further solidify its promising trajectory and show the nation how it’s done – so long as we take a few critical actions.

By necessity, CLF and others continue to play serious defense. This includes directly confronting the region’s dirty and uneconomic coal plants, and partnering with local advocates to fend off new power generation facilities that would increase air pollution. This work continues to be an essential part of what we do.

But equally important is our work to advance clean energy solutions. This work is about “keeping the lights on” while reducing the pollution that contributes to climate change and worsens asthma attacks and other health impacts. In the wake of some energizing recent events, let’s take a moment to reflect on the progress we’re making in Massachusetts on the clean energy solutions side of the equation and what we need to do to keep it up.

Governor Patrick Fires Up the Troops

In a rousing and inspired clean energy address before over 200 clean energy leaders last week, Governor Patrick touted Massachusetts’s long list of recent clean energy achievements. It’s an impressive list, including a suite of forward-looking clean energy laws enacted in 2008: the aptly named MA Green Communities Act, Global Warming Solutions Act, and Green Jobs Act. These policies not only are reducing power plant pollution, they also helped spur the clean energy sector to become one of the few bright spots in the recent recession – with more than 60,000 new clean energy jobs in MA alone. At a time when families are struggling, this is indisputably good news.

Particularly inspiring was the Governor’s connecting of clean energy dots: as he noted, we can replace all of Massachusetts’ remaining dirty and uneconomic coal-fired power plants with clean offshore wind. This isn’t pie-in-the-sky futuristic thinking. We already have the tools we need to get the job done. With further contributions from other renewable energy resources, we can redirect the billions of dirty fossil fuel dollars Massachusetts currently sends out of state and instead re-power the Commonwealth with clean alternatives that promote local jobs and improve public health.

Reinforcing that everyone can and should be part of the solution, Boston Bruin Andrew Ference joined the Governor in touting the Massachusetts green revolution. Ference leads by example: he conserves energy by riding a bike, walking or taking the “T” to get around, recycling and composting. All of these simple and healthy alternatives reduce energy waste and associated energy impacts. And the Commonwealth must continue to bring the same dedication and ferocity to the fight for clean energy as Ference does to the rink.

Toughest environmentalist around Andrew Ference May 30, 2012

Cape Wind Hearings Reflect Major Shift

Further evidence of the clean energy revolution in Massachusetts came through a series of Department of Public Utilities (DPU) public hearings in May. The hearings provided opportunities for the public to comment on a 15-year contract for the sale of some of the Cape Wind offshore wind energy project’s output to NSTAR electric. Even at the hearing on Cape Cod, where some opposition long has simmered, Cape Wind supporters vastly outnumbered opponents. The shift more strongly in favor of clean energy was palpable. Dozens of people lined up, often waiting for hours to say that they are willing to pay a modest premium for clean energy from Cape Wind.

One notable dynamic that was not reflected in media reports: an overwhelming number of young people and parents spoke in support of purchasing Cape Wind’s clean power. It’s about choosing a thriving future.

Massachusetts is on a roll. But we cannot afford to stall out just as we’re on the crest of the clean energy wave. Here’s what we need to do now:

• Enact MA Green Communities Act Part II. The 2008 MA Green Communities Act has been a resounding success, propelling Massachusetts to the head of the nation with respect to reducing energy waste, saving Massachusetts hundreds of millions of dollars (and counting), and giving a much-needed boost to the deployment of clean, locally available renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. But some of the Act’s modest programs soon will be maxed out. Fortunately, the MA Senate recently took action through Senate Bill 2214 to build upon the 2008 Act’s key renewable energy programs. Now, we look to the MA House of Representatives to take action to advance these key clean energy measures to the Governor’s desk by July 31.

• Fully implement the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act, including the adoption of regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act requires Massachusetts DEP to adopt regulations to keep Massachusetts on track to meet its clean energy and climate objectives. Among other advantages, such regulations will provide clear signals to the burgeoning market for clean energy alternatives, and will ensure that global warming pollution is reduced gradually over time. Despite the law’s clear mandate, DEP blew the January 1, 2012 deadline for adopting these critically important regulations. To ensure MA stays on track to meet its 2020 target, it’s essential that DEP take action to adopt smart, effective regulations without further delay.

• Get Cape Wind over the finish wire. More than a decade in the permitting and environmental review process, this project is primed to go forward and begin delivering huge amounts of clean power. CLF will continue to advocate before the Massachusetts DPU for approval of a 15-year contract for Cape Wind to deliver 27.5% of its output to NSTAR Electric customers.

There’s no question that Massachusetts has made tremendous progress on clean energy in the past few years. But as the Governor wisely noted in his clean energy address last week, “winners don’t stand still.” So, Massachusetts, let’s keep moving!

Image courtesy of Statoil.

This January, my colleague Sean Mahoney and I met with representatives of Statoil – one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world – to discuss the company’s plan to develop a floating wind turbine project, known as Hywind, off the Maine Coast. Statoil was also considering a location off the coast of Scotland. Recently, the company decided to move ahead with the initial stages of evaluating the potential for the project in the Gulf of Maine. Specifically, Statoil will evaluate the economic and environmental feasibility of a4 turbine array roughly 12 nautical miles from Boothbay in 460 to 520 feet of water.

As an initial step forward on Hywind, Statoil will hold a series of public open houses regarding the project later this month.  (For a calendar of these meetings, click here.) The company told CLF it intends to determine whether the Hywind Maine project is feasible by year end 2012, make a final investment decision in 2014, and potentially be installing the floating turbines in 2016.

The schedule of Statoil’s public introductory meetings is:

June 25, 2012:
Boothbay – Boothbay Firehouse (4 – 7pm)
911 Wiscasset Road, Boothbay, Maine

June 26, 2012:
Rockland – Rockland Public Library (5:30-8pm)
80 Union Street, Rockland, Maine

June 27, 2012:
Portland – Gulf of Maine Research Institute (4 – 7pm)
350 Commercial Street, Portland, Maine 

All sessions will be in Open House format so individuals can speak to Statoil team members.

For more information, please contact:

Ivy Frignoca, CLF Maine
Sean Mahoney, VP & Director CLF ME