Salem News columnist Brian Watson presents a powerful case for moving forward with development of a wind turbine on Winter Island in Salem Harbor.   We can only hope that the good citizens of Salem, who are looking at a major transition as the coal fired power plant in their midst retires, will pay attention to his words and follow the leadership of Mayor Kim Driscoll, who has identified this project as (among other things) an important source of revenue for the City.  As the Mayor notes on Facebook regarding Watson’s column on the subject:

. . . While Brian doesn’t mention this in his piece, revenues from the proposed turbine will also directly help reduce the City’s +$1m annual electric bill, cutting those costs nearly in half and saving taxpayers substantial $.

Why buy when you can save? Power saved through energy efficiency is widely available, clean, and costs approximately one half to one third the cost of buying electricity from a power plant. During a nine-month workshop process with regulators, utilities and businesses, CLF recommended Vermont invest in far greater efficiency to aggressively tackle high-energy bills, curb pollution and climate change, and provide a more secure energy future. While Vermont regulators acknowledged that greater efficiency pays for itself and avoids more expensive power purchases and transmission upgrades, they ultimately approved only a small increase for efficiency efforts.

The Board’s order is disappointing. A limited number of businesses opposed increasing efficiency. This opposition is short-sighted. The most successful businesses are also the most efficient. They represent opportunities for growing our economy and keeping jobs in Vermont and pollution out of Vermont. With more energy efficiency, we can support and grow our economy instead of throwing our energy dollars out the window. Efficiency investments provide savings through financial incentives for equipment, lighting, renovation, and construction that allows buildings and homes to use less energy.

Even with this limited increase, Vermont will remain a strong leader on electrical energy efficiency. Unfortunately, there are still too many savings left on the table. As a result, Vermonters will be paying too much and polluting too much to meet our power needs. We could easily make twice the investment we are making now, and that’s what we should be doing. The Board’s decision is a baby step in the right direction, but we still have a marathon to run.

The Eastmain Powerhouses from space (photo credit: NASA)

Beyond the discredited sales pitch that Northern Pass will lower electric rates in New Hampshire, the developers have repeatedly claimed that the power to be imported through the Northern Pass project will be “low-carbon,” “clean,” and “green,” with “no greenhouse gases,” and “no global warming.” The power will also, we’re told, “improve the quality of the air we breathe.” The developers have said, over and over, that the project “is expected to reduce regional carbon dioxide emissions by up to 5 million tons per year, the equivalent of removing from the road one million cars annually.” In fact, the study on which this claim is based – a report (PDF) commissioned by Northern Pass and authored by Boston-based energy consultant Charles River Associates – began with the assumption that hydro power is “zero-carbon.” Let me repeat that: the developers’ claim that the project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a net 5 million tons is based on their unexamined presupposition that the power to be delivered by the project has no carbon dioxide emissions at all.

There’s no other way to say it: this assumption is false.

You don’t have to take my word for it; read Hydro-Québec’s own research report (4.4 MB PDF) on the net greenhouse gas emissions of the Eastmain 1 Reservoir, flooded in 2005 (aerial shots here). In an Orwellian twist, the developers of Northern Pass have repeatedly cited this very same research.

The Hydro-Québec report found that net carbon emissions from Eastmain-1 were 500,000 tons in 2006 and 165,000 tons in 2009, and are projected to average approximately 158,000 tons per year on a long-term basis.  While certainly less than coal-fired power plants – PSNH’s Merrimack Station emitted more than 2.8 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2010 – 158,000 tons of net carbon emissions per year is far from ”zero-carbon” or even “low-carbon” power.  Based on our own survey of reservoir greenhouse gas research, we have some serious questions about the report, and there is reason to believe that it understates emissions over time and per unit of energy generated. But the report does confirm that Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs will continue to emit more greenhouse gases per year than the natural environment they flooded. These emissions are locked in for decades if not centuries – unlike a power plant that burns fuel, you cannot turn off a reservoir.

When compared with the power plants that Northern Pass’s power could displace, new hydroelectric projects in their early years of operation are no cleaner in terms of carbon emissions.  According to the report, ”it takes about five years for the accumulated CO2 eq. emissions to fall below the [natural gas combined cycle] value” (p.15). So, on a net and cumulative basis since its flooding in 2005, the Eastmain 1 Reservoir has had the same carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions as a modern natural gas power plant that has the same power output and began operating in 2005. 

The report also highlights what appears to be a clear difference between the net emissions of a newly impounded reservoir and the emissions of a reservoir that was impounded decades ago: a new reservoir emits more greenhouse gases, as the vegetation and organic material in the newly inundated area decompose.

This distinction is especially important when considering the contradictory stories we have heard about where Northern Pass will get its power. On the one hand, Northern Pass’s website claims (click on “Hydro-Québec” on this page) that “Hydro-Québec does not need to build any new generation to support this project.” On the other hand, it is clear that Québec is developing and planning vast new hydroelectric projects, many of which will require new inundation and reservoirs, as part of a concerted strategy to maintain and increase exports to New England and the northeast United States. See Erin’s blog post from yesterday for more on Vermont’s new long-term contract with Hydro-Québec. 

In fact, Charles River Associates’ fundamentally flawed estimate of carbon emissions reductions depends on the development of new hydro projects in Canada. And just ten days ago, in testimony to Massachusetts regulators, Northeast Utilities’ CFO David McHale stated under oath: “We already know for a fact that the utility Hydro-Quebec has initiated the construction of dams, and we’ve already entered into the record a discussion about the Eastmain Water Reservoir that will provide the water source. So this is not speculative. They’re building the dams and they will go into service; and that will be the primary source, if not the exclusive source, of energy that will flow over [the Northern Pass] line. . . . [T]hat is the full expectation.” What McHale was referring to is Hydro-Québec’s major new project in the vicinity of Eastmain-1 – the Rupert River project (project website here and explanatory animation here). Since 2009, this 918-MW project – now in the final stages of development – has newly flooded 346 square kilometers  - an area about the size of two Lake Winnipesaukees. That Northern Pass power will be coming from new projects means that Northern Pass will enable and contribute to the substantial carbon emissions associated with new reservoirs.  There has been no accounting of the potential emissions from the Rupert project and other future projects that Northern Pass may make possible, and how they would cut into the potential emissions reductions Northern Pass and Charles River Associates have claimed.

These inaccuracies and contradictions are being disseminated with hundreds of thousands of dollars in media buys, money which could have been invested in engaging in a collaborative process to rework the current proposal.  This situation makes CLF’s fight for a world-class, independent, and comprehensive permitting process all the more important.

CLF has been adamant that the Department of Energy must consider the environmental impacts – including greenhouse gas emissions – of the hydropower generation projects and any other power plants in Canada that will supply the Northern Pass project.  Given the developers’ recent announcement of new delays in their schedule, there’s still time for the Department of Energy to change course and answer our call for a regional, holistic analysis of the right approach to importing power from Canada, taking into account the truth about that power’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The Vermont Public Service Board recently approved a contract for Vermont utilities to buy power from Hydro-Québec for 20 years.  The new contract will supply about 20% of Vermont’s power needs, bringing 225 MW of power into Vermont to replace an expiring contract for 310 MW.  The starting price for the power is about $58.07 per MWh and will be adjusted annually based on regional electricity prices.  Vermont regulators found the agreement provides Vermont financial benefits by locking in a stable price that is lower than many other sources of electricity.  Contracts such as this represent only the tip of the iceberg for power imports from Québec, as Hydro-Québec partners to build transmission lines through New York and New Hampshire.

Hydro-Québec is a government-owned utility with some nuclear and fossil fuel plants, 60 hydroelectric generating stations, including seven new dams built since 2000, and significant new expansions on the horizon, including 3,000 MW of new hydropower projects in Québec’s far north as part of the province’s $80 billion “Plan Nord.”  Because Hydro-Québec supplies more than enough power for its own region, the expansion represents Hydro-Québec’s commitment to selling more power to other areas, including New England.

Regulators quickly approved the contract, citing its purported value as a relatively low-carbon and low-cost power source.   However, importing vast amounts of power from Québec is no “green” silver bullet.  Last October, CLF highlighted troubling aspects of the power deal between Hydro-Québec and Vermont utilities. CLF showed that the power deal falls short by failing to honestly represent its environmental impacts.  A few of the problems with the deal:

• Without adequate verification, the environmental claims aren’t necessarily accurate.  A portion of the claimed “clean power” could really be coming from coal or other fossil fuels.  Under the contract, the energy sold must be 90% hydropower, but without any independent verification, it is impossible to ensure that Vermont gets what it bargained for.
• The contract fails to address impacts of new dams that would flood vast areas of northern Québec. Nothing in the contract limits Hydro-Québec’s ability to build new dams as demand for energy grows; this means the contract with Vermont tacitly supports new dams and the resulting damage.
• The contract allows Vermont utilities to sell the renewable claims elsewhere when Vermont itself has no firm obligation to keep its energy supply low-carbon.  Unlike other New England states, Vermont has no requirement now to purchase renewable power. This means that Vermont utilities benefit financially from a system it is not truly a part of, and would allow other states to continue to rely on dirty power sources such as coal.

As a region, we must ensure any new commitments to import power from Canada clearly advance our clean power goals.  Any new imports of hydropower should replace the power we are currently getting from coal and other dirty, inefficient power plants.  Only then can we actually lower our carbon emissions from electricity.   The challenge for New England is to make sure any level of imports meets our needs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and avoids exporting environmental problems to the north.  Indeed, that challenge is why CLF is calling for a comprehensive, regional analysis of imports from Canada within the Northern Pass permitting process.  CLF continues to push for greater reliance on cleaner energy resources and to demand honest evaluations and representations of environmental benefits and impacts.

Another radioactive fish was found near the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in southern Vermont.

This is the at least the third time a fish contaminated with Strontium-90 was found in the Connecticut River.

Vermont Yankee officials defy common sense.  They continue to claim there is no connection between the contaminated fish and the nuclear reactor on the banks of the river, choosing to blame nuclear bomb testing that took place decades ago and the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

An news articles point out, Vermont Yankee reported Strontium-90 releases to the NRC in annual reports from 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. So, what is more likely? That these releases caused radioactive isotopes to show up in fish a few miles downstream, or that events taking place over 25 years ago are to blame? During Public Service Board hearings last year, CLF’s expert showed that radioactive isotopes likely migrated through the site along with the release of tritium.  Hydrogeologist Stratton French testified:

“A more likely explanation for their occurence at these distant locations is that these radioisotopes migrated beyond the release point along groundwater flow pathways.  This conclusion is supported by Entergy VY’s own sampling data.”

This continues to show that Entergy is an untrustworthy partner to supply Vermont with energy.

As we have reported here, a dim-witted attempt was made in the U.S. Congress to roll back energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.

A rather silly column in the Boston Globe on this subject inspired a good editorial in response, and raft of letters to the editor, including one from the CEO of major light bulb manufacturer Phillips Lighting North America noting that the law criticized in the column would not ban incandescent light bulbs, limit consumer choice or force people to buy very expensive light bulbs:

. . .  With this law consumers now have more choice than ever before, including new energy-efficient incandescent light bulbs that meet the new requirements.

Already on retail shelves and selling for as little as $1.49, energy-efficient incandescents look and feel the same as the light bulbs consumers have been using for more than 100 years, but they use almost 30 percent less energy. They are no more fragile than their traditional incandescent sibling, and some can last as much as 3,000 hours, or three times longer than Edison’s bulb.

The savings from these new choices are a direct result of government, business, and industry working together to drive innovation and improve energy efficiency. At a time when families are struggling with high energy costs, these new minimum efficiency levels will lower our nation’s electricity bills by over $12 billion per year. That’s about $100 per year for every American family.

Clearly, there is a need for good information about light bulbs – and now some smart folks are looking to shed some light on the subject with the launch of the LUMEN Coalition website, a joint effort by industry and non-profit energy efficiency and consumer advocates. Take a look, it might brighten your day.

Rep. Issa (R-CA) made a fortune building car alarms. For years he was best known as the recorded voice of the Viper alarm that warned people to “Step away from the car!” (Really, this is all true, it says so in Wikipedia).

But now he is  a powerful member of Congress and in that role he is threatening to undermine the deal struck among the White House, the auto manufacturers and his own State of California.

Let’s review for a moment – the agreement would reduce pollution, make cars more efficient and thereby reduce use of imported oil and pain felt by people paying at the gas pump and help move forward progress towards practical and affordable electric cars. The auto manufacturers supported and helped shape it and think it can be implemented at reasonable cost while maintaining a healthy auto industry that will meet the needs and wants of  drivers. So what is wrong with it?  Representative Issa says he is concerned about “transparency” and process here – legitimate concerns to be sure. But they are concerns that will inform the formal process that will follow as the federal agencies propose, present and seek comment on this package of rules in the formal rulemaking process.

Like an overly sensitive car alarm that makes threatening speeches at passers-by who mean no harm to the protected car, or that releases punishing waves of sound late at night when garbage trucks pass by, Rep. Issa is sounding a very false alarm and threatening to steal away the cleaner, cheaper-to-operate car of the future.

Many good people have spent decades working to build a great place place on the waterfront across the Fort Port Channel from Downtown Boston and to make Boston a city that celebrates and embraces all modes of transportation, especially the sort that doesn’t emit greenhouse gas emissions.  That includes many past and present CLF staffers.

All those warriors for a better Boston should note that in the first weekend of operation of the new Hubway bicycle sharing program that the system map for the Hubway has shown the “station” in the Seaport has been in heavy use all day – with very few of the 15 bikes that were placed there at the launch of the program still in residence.

PSNH: In a death spiral? (photo credit: CC/Nick Seibert)

In every possible way – on television, in mailings, and on the web – New Hampshire has heard again and again that the proposed Northern Pass transmission project will reduce electric rates for New Hampshire customers. The claim is at the core of PSNH’s case that the project is a good deal for New Hampshire. If only it were true…

As I mentioned in a post last month, the very design of the project as it stands is for reduced electric rates to benefit only those ratepayers that get their power from the regional electric markets. In New Hampshire, homes and small businesses in PSNH territory would see very little benefit because their energy rates are overwhelmingly tied to propping up PSNH’s old, inefficient fleet of coal-fired and oil-fired power plants.  These plants would not be able to compete with other cleaner power sources if forced to compete in the marketplace, something New Hampshire law does not currently allow and PSNH has fought to avoid. (Supposedly, an agreement between PSNH and Hydro-Québec for some power for PSNH customers is in the works, but, if it ever materializes, Northern Pass has said it would only be for a small amount of power, which would not do much to change PSNH’s overall portfolio. Northeast Utilities admitted as much in testimony before the Massachusetts DPU this week and also noted that there is “really little activity” around securing any such agreement.)

As explained in a piece on NHPR featuring our own Jonathan Peress, the above-market costs of PSNH’s aging fleet are causing large customers to buy power from (or “migrate” to) cheaper suppliers. Regulators this week turned back PSNH’s attempt to saddle those customers with its fleet’s escalating costs. But this situation is creating a so-called “death spiral,” because PSNH is forced to raise its rates again and again on a shrinking group of customers – homeowners and small businesses who do not have the purchasing power to contract with another supplier.

What does this all have to do with Northern Pass? The truth is that Northern Pass will – indeed, is intended to – make the “death spiral” worse.  If Northern Pass lowers the regional price of power as all those ads proclaim, it will make PSNH power even less competitive, causing even more customers with choices to leave PSNH behind.  PSNH spokesman Martin Murray so much as promises that result when he says in the NHPR piece that Northern Pass power will not displace PSNH generation. As Jonathan explained on NHPR, that means that the same homeowners and small businesses that will have to deal with 180 miles of new transmission lines will have higher, not lower, electric rates. This is not the Northern Pass story PSNH has been telling.

None of this makes sense. PSNH’s coal- and oil-fired power plants are bad for ratepayers and disasters for public health and the environment. As our lawsuit filed last week makes clear, PSNH’s efforts to prop up its largest plant failed to comply with even basic emissions permitting requirements and have increased that plant’s emissions. Any plan to import Canadian power with PSNH’s name on it should provide real benefits to its own customers and focus on responsibly freeing New Hampshire (and the lungs of millions of New Englanders) from PSNH’s dirty, uncompetitive dinosaurs.

ADDED: I should also point out, in the same Massachusetts DPU proceeding mentioned above, that counsel for NSTAR (the junior partner in Northern Pass) asserted that “[i]t’s entirely speculative as to what the impact of Northern Pass will be on rates in New Hampshire, and then [migration].”  Quite a statement given Northern Pass’s public relations campaign asserting that rates will go down. And we disagree with NSTAR’s counsel wholeheartedly. It is reasonable – not speculative – to expect the current proposal will lead to higher rates for PSNH ratepayers.