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

Recently the Governor of Massachusetts gave a very inspiring speech describing both the affirmative steps that have been taken to address the challenge of building a thriving and clean economy in the Bay State and the challenges that still lie ahead.

The occasion was an event organized by the New England Clean Energy Council and hosted by high-tech startup FastCAP Systems and featured an array of interesting speakers leading up to Governor Patrick including a young woman who is the sole female crew chief at local energy efficiency provider Next Step Living, the Town Administrator of Scituate MA discussing their successful efforts to build a wind turbine and the toughest of environmentalists, Andrew Ference of the Boston Bruins.

The toughest environmentalist around: Boston Bruin Andrew Ference, speaking before Gov. Patrick, May 30, 2012

Governor Patrick, as has been reported, used the occasion to respond to criticism of the energy policy that his administration, and the Federal government, have been pursuing:

Our strategy of fostering a clean tech industry is sometimes derided as “picking winners and losers.” In fact government is doing what it is supposed to do: helping the state make the most of our competitive advantages. Investing in innovation, education and infrastructure. Putting policies in place that encourage private investment to meet our shared needs, creating jobs and leaving the Commonwealth better than we found it. And as I said, it’s what Americans have always done to shape our energy future.

 And by the way, let me tell you that I have heard enough about Evergreen – and for that matter about Solyndra. We are not always going to score. But we are never going to score if we don’t get in the game. One company that comes up short hardly discredits an initiative that has spawned 5,000 thriving companies and nearly 70,000 jobs and counting. Critics would do well to remember that I used to work in the oil industry, an industry that frequently drills dry wells. When the critics are ready to talk about the massive subsidies for Big Oil even when they drill dry wells, then I am ready to have a serious conversation about the tiny subsidies we use to foster a new, American-grown industry in alternative energy.

 Whether we like it or not, there are going to be winners and losers when it comes to clean energy in the 21st century. The winners will be those places that did everything they could to be ready for change, that created an atmosphere for and a culture of innovation.

But his message went beyond recognition of the growth in the clean energy sectors of the Massachusetts economy.  He also recognized “Winners don’t stand still, and if we want Massachusetts to stay a winner in clean energy, there is much more for us to do.”

His specific action items included putting solar panels on more rooftops and closed landfills, extending contracts to large-scale renewable energy developers,redoubling our commitment to squeezing every bit of efficiency out of our energy use and continuing our support of and participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which he accurately described as “the single most successful cap and trade market in the country.”

All laudable goals, which he tied to moving forward a good energy bill in the Massachusetts legislature.

The Governor is right in taking pride in what has been accomplished in Massachusetts, most especially the ramp up in solar energy generation and energy efficiency. He is also correct in seeing these successes as a good starting point for even more action – and CLF as an advocacy organization is intently focused on this question of “what is next”, an attitude that perhaps led to the Governor’s public characterization (in response to a question at the same event) of CLF as an organization that shares his goals but “can be a bit of a pain in the ass . . . although that means you are doing your job.”

The next steps before us are clear, although not easy.  They range from appropriately funding the transit systems that provide clean and affordable transportation, to fostering urban “smart growth” to the essential (but wonky) energy policy details of expanded long term contracts for renewable energy projects across New England that supply energy to Massachusetts and expanded net metering and property tax relief for small renewable energy projects.

The time has come to have the courage of our convictions and the confidence to build on a winning record – recognizing that the struggle to build a thriving new clean energy economy that puts us a trajectory to meet the challenge of global warming will not be easy but that it is a challenge we can’t avoid, and that can bring our best.

A sober, clean and depressing article from Inside Climate News details how scientists who work on climate are  grappling with the science and reality of global warming puts me in mind of a classic science fiction movie paradigm – they know something terrible is unfolding, but no one will listen ! Or in this case, as notes John Reilly co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, most scientists studying climate change today are viewing “the seemingly unstoppable rise in global greenhouse emissions” with “increasing alarm.”
 
 

The Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding met on Friday, June 1, for what may prove to be its last meeting for this legislative session. (I sit on the Study Commission as a full voting member.) At the June 1 meeting, the Study Commission approved four separate recommendations; each separate recommendation was approved by a vote of 9 members in favor, 1 member opposed. All four recommendations were deeply disappointing.

Unfortunately, the gist of all four recommendations is that the Study Commission recommends waiting until after RIPTA completes its anticipated Comprehensive Operations Assessment (COA) before the Study Commission recommends any new, significant, sustainable funding for RIPTA. The fourth recommendation sums up the gist of all four: “Upon completion of the COA and pricing analysis [that is, zone fares], develop a comprehensive, sustainable funding approach for inclusion in the FY 2014 budget.”

In other words: nothing meaningful should happen now; let’s wait until after the COA is done; and then (maybe) recommend something in the future. The inevitable result will be that RIPTA will face major service cuts as early as the end of this calendar year. This will directly hurt Rhode Islanders who depend on RIPTA to get to jobs, school, medical appointments, or recreation. And it will hurt the environment, because expanding public transit is a major way to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution.

I was the sole Study Commission member to oppose the four recommendations. I explained that there is no reason to wait until after the COA is done to recommend new, sustainable funding for RIPTA, because the COA will not provide any relevant, new information. We know why RIPTA experiences perennial budget shortfalls; it is due to two major factors:

• Declining yield on the gas tax, which is RIPTA’s largest single source of revenue; this yield declined 12.9% in just four recent years; and

• Rising diesel prices for RIPTA busses. Diesel fuel is RIPTA’s second largest expense (after personnel); and diesel prices have increased 100% since 2005.

The fact is that the COA will not add any new, relevant information about these critical issues.

We also know the options for new funding; again, the COA will not add any new, relevant information there, either. At the June 1 meeting, I suggested that the Commission endorse the O’Grady Bill, H-7581, as an alternative to the four pre-written recommendations.

Each of the four proposed recommendations was moved separately and voted on separately. All four of the proposed recommendations passed by votes of 9 in favor, one opposed. I was the sole dissenter in each case. After I had lost on all four proposals, I made a proposal for a fifth recommendation.

I proposed that the Study Commission re-convene in September, rather than in March/April, as it has in the past, in order to be ready earlier in the next General Assembly session with new funding recommendations for RIPTA. In effect, my proposal was a challenge to the Study Commission. I was saying: If you insist on waiting until after the COA to recommend more funding for RIPTA (despite my objection to the delay), then, at least, move quickly after the summer and be ready with recommendations early in the next legislative session. My proposal was approved unanimously.

All in all, this was a disappointing end to this year’s meetings of the Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding.

However, CLF will remain engaged on the transportation front. Here in Rhode Island, the transportation sector is both the largest source of carbon emissions and the fastest growing – so we must address transportation if we are to address climate change. When the Study Commission re-convenes after the summer we shall re-double our efforts to have the General Assembly revamp the broken and inadequate ways that RIPTA is funded.