A keystone to CLF’s work to secure a clean energy future for the region is completing the transition to a coal-free New England. It is a time of historic progress: cleaner, cheaper alternatives are driving coal out of the market, and old coal plants are closing their doors. But Massachusetts remains a critical battleground for CLF’s work, with two costly old coal-fired power plants continuing to jeopardize public health and stoke climate change.

That’s why we’re delighted to tell you about an event hosted by Cambridge City Councilor Marjorie Decker entitled “The True Cost of Energy: Coal.” Councilor Decker has invited the public to a panel discussing the true costs of coal and a free screening of the critically acclaimed documentary The Last Mountain in Cambridge, MA, on Wednesday, May 9. With stunning footage of the practice of mountaintop removal mining, the film bears dramatic witness to the social, public health, and environmental damage wrought by coal and power companies, and chronicles the grassroots fight against coal in Appalachia and around the country. The New York Times called The Last Mountain a “persuasive indictment” of coal; I think you’ll agree.

The Last Mountain producer Eric Grunebaum will be on hand for a panel discussion to discuss the film and the future of coal-fired power in Massachusetts and New England. I will be available before and after the event to answer any questions you may have about CLF’s work to secure a coal-free Massachusetts.

Please attend:
When: Wednesday, May 9, 2012. 5-8:30 pm.
Where: Cambridge Public Library, 449 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02138 (map).

Bring your friends and family, and email me at scleveland@clf.org with any questions. I hope to see you there!

You can watch the trailer here:

In a world where messages are sent instantaneously, it is hard to believe the time to consider (again) whether the continued operation of Vermont Yankee is good for Vermont would take more than a year.

Entergy, Vermont Yankee’s owners, proposed a schedule to Vermont regulators that would have the case completed in just over eighteen months.  

CLF argued for a shorter schedule noting that Entergy’s schedule was “roughly equivalent to the gestation period for elephants.”  This is simply too long.

Most cases, including the previous Vermont Yankee proceeding at the Public Service Board and the recent federal trial for Vermont Yankee were completed in far less time. 

In its ruling on May 4, the Vermont Public Service Board accepted the longer time-frame Entergy requested. It also provides for two separate rounds of hearings – one in February and a second in June. The Board also scheduled two public hearings where anyone interested can weigh in and provide input to the Board on whether Vermont Yankee should retire.

Entergy’s foot dragging means Vermonters will wait an extra eighteen months before seeing this tired, old and polluting nuclear plant closed. That’s too bad. Especially since the plant was supposed to close on March 21, 2012.

photo credit: stuck in customs, flickr

The two sets of hearings suggest the there will be a very thorough review and the Board, which likely will take a very active role in the hearings.

The thoroughness is good. It just shouldn’t have to take this long.

photo credit: riekhavoc, flickr

Another false claim by Entergy – the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility in Vermont – is laid to rest. On Monday, the ISO-New England came out with an important determination that Vermont Yankee is not needed for reliability of the electrical grid.

This has been brewing for awhile and is quite significant since Entergy keeps claiming its tired old and polluting plant on the banks of the Connecticut River is needed for reliability. That claim is simply false.

In a filing made with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the ISO New England stated:

“[T]he ISO determined that Vermont Yankee is not needed for reliability for the 2015-2016 Capacity Commitment Period. This determination is based on the expectation that certain transmission upgrades will be in place prior to the 2015-2016 Capacity Commitment Period as well as new resources which have been procured through the Forward Capacity Market.”  [see page 8-9 of this filing]

This is a very important determination and is good news for New England’s clean energy future. It shows the transformation of our power grid to cleaner sources and away from older and polluting coal and nuclear plants.

By way of explanation, the ISO New England operates the region’s electricity grid to ensure the lights stay on. It holds auctions to determine which resources will supply capacity to meet power needs in future years. This is the forward capacity auction referred to above.

What this means is that Entergy will not collect capacity payments for Vermont Yankee during 2015 to 2016.  That means that ratepayers will not be forced to prop up this tired, old, expensive and polluting nuclear plant, or its untrustworthy owners. Ratepayers will not be paying for Vermont Yankee to be available to operate.

This determination recognizes that grid improvements and new resources will keep the lights on without Vermont Yankee. Another false claim by Entergy is laid to rest. Our region moves one step closer to a cleaner energy future.

Amid new scrutiny, it’s time for Massachusetts to reckon with the elephant in its climate plan (photo credit: flickr/David Blackwell)

The 5 million ton elephant in Massachusetts’s nation-leading climate action plan – the oversold and overstated greenhouse gas emissions reductions from new imports of Canadian hydropower comprising more than 20% of the state’s goal – is too big to ignore. That’s why it’s encouraging that the plan’s misplaced reliance on the Northern Pass transmission project is receiving new scrutiny.

Last December, CLF identified a significant problem with Massachusetts’s “Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020”: it adopted and relied on Northern Pass’s sales pitch that the project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 5 million tons annually and then claimed all those emissions reductions for Massachusetts. After examining the basis for the 5 million ton figure, we concluded that – no way around it – the figure was just wrong; it was calculated on the false assumption – belied by Hydro-Québec’s own data – that imported hydropower has no greenhouse gas emissions.  The way Massachusetts was relying on Northern Pass was dubious for other reasons, including the unfairness of Massachusetts claiming all the benefits of a project that will not be located in the state and the fact that there is no concrete commitment regarding how much Northern Pass power Massachusetts electric customers will actually receive.

In February, the problem was confirmed in a technical report (PDF) commissioned by CLF and authored by Synapse Energy Economics, which found that hydropower facilities, especially new projects being built in Québec to supply new imports into New England, have substantial greenhouse emissions – emissions that for several years after construction can be comparable to the natural gas power that Northern Pass would replace.

Last month, Massachusetts think-tank MassINC released an independent analysis (PDF) of Massachusetts’s progress in meeting its ambitious emissions reduction goal – 25% below 1990 levels by the year 2020. The conclusion: Massachusetts is making great strides in some areas, but needs to redouble its efforts if it intends to achieve the goal. One of the biggest uncertainties: the Massachusetts climate plan’s reliance on new imports of Canadian hydropower through Northern Pass.

MassINC’s new report signals, as CLF has argued, that Massachusetts must look elsewhere to secure sufficient emissions reductions by 2020. The MassINC report makes the critical point that it is not up to Massachusetts whether the Northern Pass project is built – and there are many reasons to doubt that it ever will be – not the least of which are the extensive permitting processes and the committed and well-founded community opposition that the project must overcome. Citing Synapse’s findings on the greenhouse gas emissions of hydropower and the higher emissions associated with new hydropower facilities, the MassINC report suggests that any reliance on new imports as an emissions reduction strategy requires a credible, scientifically sound accounting of the targeted reductions, including whether and to what extent the power will come from new hydropower projects. Massachusetts needs to temper its enthusiasm for additional hydropower imports with the same scientific rigor and attention to detail reflected in the Patrick administration’s proposed regulations for biomass power.

The MassINC report is making waves, earning the lead, front page story recently in the Boston Sunday Globe and media coverage throughout the state. Consistent with the MassINC report, CLF does not rule out the possibility that new hydropower imports – if they have minimal environmental and community impacts on both sides of the border, avoid undermining local renewable and energy efficiency, displace our dirtiest power, and provide verifiable emissions reductions – could play a constructive role in a cleaner energy future for the region, particularly when considered over the long term.

But it’s time for the Patrick administration to reconsider its unfounded confidence that Northern Pass is some kind of clean energy panacea that will deliver a fifth of all needed emissions reductions by 2020. The science is clear: it’s not.

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.

I received that message this week. It came in two parts. The first part was delivered by a polite and efficient Somerville, MA police officer, in the form of the below ticket. I had blown right through a red light.

The second part was the irony that hit me as his blue lights were flashing: Just last week I posted this blog post, about how far we’ve come in Boston toward a safe and respectful bike commuting environment, in part because cyclists tend to follow the rules far more regularly than they did in the past.

I am guilty. No question about it. It doesn’t matter that the move I made was safe – to me and others – and likely promoted efficiency because I got out of the way of traffic before the waiting cars started moving through the intersection. I violated the rules that we have developed to govern our competing demands on a shared resource: our roadways.

I am blowing the whistle on myself for a few reasons, but principally to make a simple argument: the rule of law is not only necessary, but immensely helpful. We should respect it. Now, to those reasons.

First, the experience gave me the opportunity to reflect on how subjective we all get when using the roads. I bike, and I drive. When biking, I am often amazed at how quickly I fall into the mindset that all drivers are the problem, and when driving how quick I am to note the bad moves of the cyclists on the road.  You may know what I mean.

Test yourself: are you, or is any one, really capable of innately respecting the rights of all users of a shared resource when we are users ourselves?

Which leads to the second point: this is why we have laws. They govern situations that humans are not entirely capable of governing in the absence of law. The rule of law is, in my view, one of the greatest human inventions yet. It is the fundamental underpinning of so much of a civil society, including the rational sharing of scarce, common resources subject to multiple demands, for the greater good of all.

Resources like clean water. Like marine fisheries. Like clean air for all who breathe. Like a healthy economy for the welfare of all. Like justice. And like safe streets and other public investments in transportation.

If we don’t like the rules we should not flaunt them, we should work to change them. Some innovations worth watching are now in the works.  France, for example, appears to be experimenting with new rules that would allow cyclists to go through red lights in some situations, where clearing the intersection of cyclists before cars start up might actually make for safer conditions.

I don’t know if that’s right or wrong. But I do know it was wrong for me to adopt that rule for myself. Civil society, operating under the rule of law, can’t work that way. Open respectful debate, and thoughtful engagement in our democracy and participation in the governing process – that’s how we develop the rules we use to promote the general good of the body politic.

We at CLF are engaged in that sort of work in every one of our states, to promote what we and our members (and many more) believe is the general good of society, and we’re proud to do it. Especially in the election season that is now upon us, we invite all to join in the process on whatever issue excites you. It’s good for all of us, and necessary if we’re going to address the challenges we face effectively, and together. And that’s how it has to be done.

On Wednesday, May 9, House Bill 7581 (the O’Grady Bill) will be heard in the House Finance Committee of the Rhode Island General Assembly. The O’Grady Bill is a key legislative priority of Rhode Island’s environmental movement. The hearing is at 1:00 PM in Room 35 of the State House (Room 35 is in the basement). The O’Grady Bill would provide vitally needed funding for public transit in Rhode Island.

CLF members and friends are invited to attend the May 9 hearing on the O’Grady bill in order to show support for it.

Here in Rhode Island, as in the rest of New England, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – and the fastest growing. The simple fact is that the climate change emergency cannot (and will not) be addressed until and unless we address transportation emissions. By funding public transit in Rhode Island, the O’Grady Bill would provide an effective means of reducing vehicle miles traveled in private automobiles and an effective means of reducing overall carbon emissions.

That is why the Environment Council of Rhode Island, the coalition of over 80 Rhode Island environmental organizations has made the O’Grady Bill one of its top legislative priorities for 2012.

Another broad coalition, the Coalition for Transportation Choices (CTC) is also supporting the O’Grady Bill. CLF was instrumental in creating the CTC, and, in my capacity as a CLF Staff Attorney, I serve as CTC’s Co-Chair. At the May 9 hearing, I will be presenting to the House Finance Committee letters of support for the O’Grady Bill from a wide range of community organizations, ranging from the Providence Chamber of Commerce to the Transit Workers Union. We are hoping that this broad range of support will translate to legislative support.

Environmentalists in Rhode Island can take a concrete step to address carbon emissions in Rhode Island by coming to the May 9 House Finance Committee hearing (1:00 PM, Room 35) to testify in favor of the O’Grady Bill.

I’ll be there, and I’d be delighted to see you there, too.

Passamaquoddy Bay. Courtesy of Jay Woodworth @ flickr. Creative Commons.

For some reason, the folks behind the last remaining proposed LNG import facility on the East Coast, Downeast LNG, are still pursuing their license from FERC to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay here in Maine. And even more perplexing, FERC is still willing to spend time and resources on a project that the energy market is clearly saying makes no sense, or cents for that matter.

As our friends at Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3 Nation Alliance point out, Downeast LNG has “just become the sole remaining LNG import terminal on the entire continent.” In light of the already overbuilt capacity for importing LNG, the significant amount of domestic natural gas now flooding the market and bringing prices to an all-time low, and the number of import facilities that are now reversing course to become export facilities, the logic for continuing this quixotic adventure eludes us. For that very reason, FERC dismissed the application of the Calais LNG project, also slated for Passamaquoddy Bay and opposed by CLF in 2010. (Find CLF blog posts on Calais LNG here.) If anything, Maine should focus on more infrastructure to deliver gas to businesses and residents but new sources of natural gas supply are not needed now nor for the next foreseeable 50 years.

Perhaps it is time for FERC and Downeast Energy to face the music and realize that while a decade ago, LNG terminals  may have been a bridge to a better energy future that used less polluting energy sources, they are now a bridge to nowhere and should meet the same fate as that famous Alaskan boondoggle.

The Patrick Administration recently released new rules on biomass energy that will do more to protect critical forest resources. Photo credit: Lizard10979 @ flickr.

Last week, the Patrick Administration released new proposed final rules and guidance on the state’s incentives for biomass energy. It is a big win for our forests, for the role of science in policy making, for efficiency, and for environmental advocates across Massachusetts. I’m proud of the Patrick administration for their tireless work on this issue.

So, what exactly IS biomass? Generally speaking, in the energy context, “biomass” refers to a class of fuels derived from trees and plants. Other types of biomass fuel are organic wastes such as livestock manure, spoiled food, and even sewage. These fuels are, in turn, converted into various forms of useful energy (electricity, heat, transportation fuels) by a very broad spectrum of established and emerging technologies.

When we hear about biomass energy, most often the focus is on large electric power plants. There are many such biomass power plant proposals pending throughout New England, including several in Massachusetts. We hear about them in the news, but rarely is there much talk about why so many biomass power plants are in the permitting pipeline right now. Although not often noted, the reality is that these projects are responding to state and federal economic incentives.

One might assume that state and federal biomass incentives are specifically designed to promote projects consistent with our clean energy and climate objectives, right? Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

Understanding of the substantial potential climate and environmental impacts of biomass power plants has lagged behind the incentive programs. When the incentive programs were created, no one was focused on the potential climate impacts of building power plants that burn whole trees to produce electricity, for example. The thinking was that if a tree were used as fuel, it simply needed to be replaced with a newly planted tree and – voila! – some of our energy needs would be met with a “renewable” fuel.

To the contrary, as we now understand, burning whole trees as fuel results in a climate “double whammy”:

1. Instantaneously releasing all the carbon stored in each tree into the atmosphere; while also
2. Taking whole trees out of commission as carbon “sinks,” no longer capturing and storing new carbon emissions.

Thankfully, the last few years have provided a huge wake-up call. We’ve seen an increasing body of peer-reviewed science about the potential climate impacts of irresponsible use of biomass energy. The forward-looking Patrick Administration itself commissioned a groundbreaking study, culminating in the 2010 “Manomet Report,” to bring that science home to Massachusetts in the context of a hard look at better-designed state incentives for biomass. And now, just last week, the Patrick Administration released new proposed final rules and guidance that infuse this science into the state’s biomass incentives. You can read a copy of CLF’s official statement here.

From a preliminary review, we are delighted to see that the newly proposed Massachusetts rules embrace the three key pillars of responsible policy governing biomass incentives:

1. Adopting science-based standards to seriously account for the climate impacts of eligible biomass facilities and the fuels they use, and ensuring that incentives no longer will be directed toward projects that can seriously undermine our climate objectives;
2. Curbing wasteful use of limited biomass resources by requiring most eligible facilities to meet a minimum efficiency standard of 50-60% (as compared to many existing facilities that are in the range of only 25% efficient);
3. Protecting forests against over harvesting of biomass fuels, for example by prohibiting the harvest of fuels from old growth forests or steep slopes that are vulnerable to erosion, requiring minimum amounts of tree tops and limbs to be retained on the forest floor to replenish nutrients and provide habitat, etc.

Hats off to the Patrick Administration and the team of policymakers who worked tirelessly to infuse the science into such an important policy! They appear to have done a remarkable job balancing many competing interests and considerations, setting a standard that we hope other states and the nation will follow.

Image courtesy of epSos.de @ flickr.

New Englanders are driving and emitting more pollution every day. Emissions from New England’s transportation sector – the fastest growing emissions sector — produce about 40% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the region, more than half of which comes from passenger cars. This is a problem for New England’s people, environment and economy.

That is why CLF has been working hard with a coalition of environmental advocacy organizations to support the creation of a Clean Fuels Standard (CFS) in eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. A successful CFS would achieve several mutually reinforcing goals:

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector through the promotion of alternative fuels (such as electricity, advanced biofuels, and natural gas);
• Drive regional economic growth; and
• Ensure energy security and insulate residents of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states from rising oil prices.

This week, the CFS advocacy coalition – comprised of CLF, PennFuture, Environment Northeast, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environment America, and Ceres – welcomed good news regarding litigation in California over the CA Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to stay sought by the State of California and its co-appellants (including CLF, who is a party to the CA litigation). This decision blocked the injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, which prevented CA from enforcing its LCFS regulations while the appeal was pending.

In real terms, as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the LCFS will be alive and well in CA while the Appeals Court considers the merits of the case – a significant victory for California, CLF, and the other appellants, and a positive step toward combating climate change in the transportation sector.

CLF and its partners also made important strides this week toward promoting a regional CFS by standing up against threats from the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a trade association comprised of fossil fuel interests and affiliated with organizations like the American Petroleum Institute. CEA (along with the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, and the Center for North American Energy Security), is an opposing party in the California litigation described above.

Earlier this month, the CEA contacted Attorneys General in all of the states participating in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic CFS program, spreading misinformation about the California litigation and threatening to lodge a similar battle against a CFS program in our region. CLF and its allies responded strongly with a response letter to the Attorneys General, making clear that CEA severely mischaracterized the direction of the CA litigation and its implications for the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region. In fact, the CA litigation is not a predictor of the legality of fuel standards still under development in other locations, and resource-specific regional differences between the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region and California undercut CEA’s claims. The Massachusetts version of the letter to the Attorneys General is available here.

CLF believes that a regional CFS is a crucial means of significantly reducing the region’s dependence on oil, transportation costs, and greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time providing consumers more choices. CLF will continue to work with allies to ensure that the CFS program progresses in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.