Should Vermont have a say in the future of Vermont Yankee, an aging nuclear plant on the banks of the Connecticut River?  A trial to answer that question begins next week.  Vermont Yankee’s owner sued the State of Vermont in April.  Yankee’s owners want to avoid State oversight, and filed suit as a last ditch effort to keep the plant operating.     

The State has a strong case.  For years, Vermont has responsibly overseen the economic, power supply and land use impacts of Vermont Yankee – matters within traditional state authority.  Vermont Yankee’s owners ignore this long history and want the Court to find all actions by Vermont are an attempt to regulate radioactive safety – something within exclusive federal authority. 

Conservation Law Foundation provided a “friend of the court” brief explaining the history, legal background and context of the State’s actions focusing on the owner’s untrustworthiness, poor economics of continued operation, and Vermont’s interests in advancing renewable power.   

Beginning Monday, experts on power supply and regulation will explain their views.  The trial will last three days.  A decision is expected later this fall.

Boston, MA – September 8, 2011- Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) issued the following statement in defense of the Cape Wind power purchase agreement, currently being disputed by opponents of the project. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the case today.

Seth Kaplan, Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy at Conservation Law Foundation, said, “The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) left no stone unturned when it reviewed and approved the contract between National Grid and Cape Wind. The DPU’s conclusion, based on extensive testimony and other evidence presented by both Cape Wind supporters and opponents, was that Cape Wind’s long-term power purchase agreement is ‘cost-effective’ and reasonable, and will deliver net economic benefits for electric ratepayers and the Commonwealth. Opponents have thrown up every possible obstacle to Cape Wind’s progress and this obstruction has had delayed the day when residents of the Commonwealth can reap considerable economic and environmental benefits of the project. The public’s patience is, appropriately, wearing thin. These stall tactics are draining public resources while keeping Massachusetts from benefiting from the clean energy and green jobs that Cape Wind will provide.”

Conservation Law Foundation, represented by CLF Massachusetts Director Susan Reid, intervened with the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Clean Power Now in the case of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound vs. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, filing a full brief in the case in July.

To read the full statement, click here.

It is difficult to describe the depths of disappointment inspired by  the decision of the President to order the withdrawal of the draft standards for “ground level ozone” – a pollutant that causes massive harm to the public health, causing special harm to the elderly and children.

The public health medical and advocacy communities have slammed this move – with good reason given the very real price in human health of this decision.

It is especially a regrettable decision for New Englanders. Up here in the tailpipe of America we deal with bad air created not just by local pollution but also real harm created by air pollution coming from power plants, factories and cars across the continent, particularly the Midwest.

And while this decision is bad enough the even more chilling possibility is that it might signal the beginning of a general retreat from the Obama Administration’s good efforts on air pollution – a record that, unsurprisingly, was on display the same day as this decision.

This decision marks out a need to continue to maintain pressure on the administration, Congress and to continue to work on the local, state and regional levels to reduce air pollution.  Our health, our environment and our economy will thank us for it.

Hurricane Irene did not do as much damage as had been feared in New York City, but it brought much more human and environmental trauma two hundred miles or so to the north in Vermont.

The state is dealing with a second – and more damaging – round of historic flooding only a few months after Lake Champlain reached record levels in the spring. Three people were killed in the state due to the storm’s effects, and at least one more is missing.

Vermont’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure were battered as well. Several of the state’s covered bridges were damaged or washed away despite having stood for a century or more. At one point it seemed likely that water would have to be released from the Marshfield reservoir in order to save it, even at the risk of adding to flooding downstream. Although hundreds of households downstream from the dam were evacuated, the release of water did not prove necessary as floods crested.

“The scope of this disaster is unprecedented in modern Vermont history,” Vermont Transportation Secretary Brian Searles said.

On its own, the flooding of the last few days would have been a dire warning about how ill prepared the infrastructure in the state – and the region – is for sudden and violent rainfall, the kind we can expect to come along with climate change. But the devastation of tropical storm Irene was the second time this year that Vermonters have seen their wastewater treatment, stream banks, roads and bridges tested to the limits.

But despite these and other clear indications that our public infrastructure is not ready for weather that is likely to be wetter and more extreme we don’t seem to be able to cut spending on building and improving that infrastructure fast enough to satisfy national leaders.

And set aside for a moment the kind of innovative approaches we need so badly now such as green development techniques to handle polluted runoff from parking lots and roofs, better sewer projects with the capacity and technology to deal with higher water volumes and modern water management on farms. Our public spending on infrastructure projects of a more traditional kind has declined since the 1960s until now we invest half as much (as a function of GDP) as the Europeans, according to The Economist.

That historical decline in infrastructure spending has left those public projects we own in common at the weakest they have been in more than a generation, just when their strength will be needed to protect our homes, businesses and our lives. And that has happened just when we should instead be gaining the jobs and economic benefits of building the kind of modern projects needed to prevent personal, financial and environmental destruction from an increasingly violent climate we have brought on ourselves.

National Public Radio offers an excellent in depth piece about how the long running and devastating drought is permanently changing Texas.

The climate science is absolutely clear that such droughts are part of the effects of a warming globe (if you are a real wonk take a look at the academic papers on the changing climate, drought and forest health).

Of course, reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases causing global warming is not a targeted attack on that drought – but it is the only way to slow (and possibly reverse) the trend towards a world where such horrific and wrenching events are commonplace.   A thought that should resonate here in already soggy New England as we brace for the impact of a hurricane and consider the climate science that tells us that a warming world will give us more extreme precipitation events.

The situation starts to veer towards the absurd when you consider that some leaders of Texas are denying the very existence of the phenomena playing out in their own state.  Could it be that the people getting arrested in front of the White House trying to stop a tar sands oil pipeline are serving the people of Texas (and the future people who will have to endure similar biblical plagues like droughts and floods) better than the elected officials doing all they can to hobble efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

(photo credit: USGS)

With summer drawing to a close, it’s now clear that over the next 15 months until the 2012 elections many public figures are going to be existing in a fact-free zone.   Thus, we are beginning to hear again the denials of the fact that our earth is getting warmer as a result primarily of human activity and that the results of that warming will be wide-ranging. We can expect more severe weather events (droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes), rising water temperatures, declining Arctic sea ice, and disappearing glaciers, as well as impacts to a broad range of human and natural systems, including famine, displacement from flooding and desertification, and shrinking supplies of basic commodities.  It’s surprising that some would deny this, because we have been seeing all of these changes for some years now.

Our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists have compiled a helpful and thoughtful document that brings together the assessment of the National Academy of Sciences and statement of 18 other scientific organizations regarding climate science.  Hopefully these sober and clear analyses from the best scientists in the world can help keep the conversation about climate change based on facts and evidence, not hyperboles and anecdotes.  Climate change is occurring, and we need our leaders to focus on what to do about it, not how to ignore it. In these days of 24/7 exposure, where “fair and balanced” means giving equal weight to opinions that represent less than 1% as to ones that represent 99%, and where it seems that if one shouts something loud enough and often enough it’s eventually accepted as credible, we need to remember not only that there is no substitute for good science but also that there is no excuse for giving a free pass to those in the fact-free zone.

The earthquake yesterday had us all wondering about our friends who were closer to it.  After the earthquake, a  colleague from Virginia noted:  “We all abandoned our building, which is probably not what you are supposed to do, but it seemed safer to be on the street than the third floor of a violently shaking building.  What’s even more scary is that the epicenter was essentially under Dominion’s North Anna nuclear plant.  When the NRC came out with a report last March ranking North Anna 7th in the country in terms of risk of damage from an earthquake, the Dominion spokesman noted that the plant was designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9-6.1 earthquake.”

Well that’s about what yesterday’s earthquake was.  And similar to the events in Japan, only three of four back-up generators were operating.  As CLF’s president, John Kassel said after the Fukushima tragedy:  “Several of New England’s remaining nuclear power plants are on their last legs and continuing to prop them up at the taxpayers’ expense is not a viable long-term strategy.”    These margins are too tight.  As these events show, Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight for safety is too lax in the face of Fukushima and the inevitability of earthquakes and other disasters.

A new report released today indicates that a proposed Clean Fuels Standard could significantly strengthen the economy and boost energy self-sufficiency in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic by saving Americans billions in personal disposable income, bringing in billions more for participating states, and creating up to 50,000 jobs per year.

The analysis, conducted by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) on behalf of 11 northeast and mid-Atlantic states, shows that creating a Clean Fuels Standard would help strengthen the region’s economy while reducing America’s reliance on oil and our exposure to volatile oil prices by supporting a clean energy economy here at home.

It enumerates multiple economic and environmental benefits the standard could deliver in the next 10 years, including:

• Creating up to 50,000 jobs annually
• Increasing personal disposable income in the region by up to $3.2 billion
• Growing our state economies by up to nearly $30 billion dollars
• Reducing our region’s dependence on oil by as much as 29 percent
• Reducing harmful air pollution that causes climate change up to 9 percent

Under a Clean Fuels Standard being considered, oil companies would make their fuels 10 percent cleaner on average when it comes to carbon pollution, allowing them to do this any way they choose (such as boosting sales of electricity for electric vehicles, advanced biofuels or natural gas). This means billions of dollars would be reinvested in the states to develop clean, local alternatives to gasoline and diesel – rather than sending them overseas.

CLF is encouraged by the report’s positive findings. Sue Reid, director of CLF Massachusetts, said, “The status quo of continuing to burn billions of gallons of gasoline and diesel fuels year after year is unsustainable on every level. With gas prices a dollar higher than this time last year, our region should seize on this good news that cleaner alternatives present real economic opportunity for the region. A Clean Fuels Standard provides a viable path to meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets, and a way off of the fossil fuel roller coaster.”

Read reaction from other leading environmental and science organizations who support the Clean Fuels Standard here.

Water sampling confirms that pollution from the Vermont Yankee  plant is fouling the Connecticut River.  For the first time, water samples of the Connecticut River reveal that tritium, a radioactive substance from the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility, is in the river.   Previous sampling ignored Conservation Law Foundation recommendations and failed to investigate areas along the shoreline where the tritium from the plant would be expected to be found.

This finding confirms that the Vermont Yankee facility is too old to keep operating.  Beyond any legal violations, this shows the abject failure of Entergy to responsibly manage Vermont Yankee.  Entergy is first failing to avoid pollution problems and then failing to clean up the messes it makes.

The continued lackluster oversight by regulators must stop.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not allow Vermont Yankee to pollute with impunity.  Last week another radioactive fish with stontium-90 was found in the river.  This week tritium is confirmed in the Connecticut River.

Vermont Yankee should stop polluting our waters and Entergy should stop saying the plant is responsibly managed.