This Saturday, June 25, thousands of people from all across the world will take part in an event known as “Hands Across the Sand” by taking a trip to their local beach and joining hands with friends, neighbors and total strangers to send a message to our leaders—no to expanded offshore oil drilling and yes to clean energy. Last year more than 100,000 people took part in this event in all 50 states and in 43 countries around the world.

This year’s Hands Across the Sand could not come at a more important time and that is why CLF has joined as a sponsor of the event. With memories of the BP Horizon disaster fading from the public memory, and gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, the oil industry and their allies in Congress are mounting a major effort to dramatically expand oil drilling in US waters. They are even bringing back a proposal that seemed unthinkable a year ago—oil drilling on New England’s Georges Bank, one of the richest fisheries on earth. The truly scary part is that Big Oil is making progress. In Washington DC the House of Representatives recently passed 3 bills that would have required a massive expansion of offshore drilling, and a recent poll shows that public support for drilling is on the rise as gas prices tick up.

The drilling bill was rejected in the US Senate (no thanks to Senator Scott Brown) but the threat of oil rigs in New England’s waters remain a very real possibility, threatening New England’s critical fishing, tourism and outdoor recreation industries which employ tens of thousands and sustainably generate far more revenue than oil drilling ever could.

There is an old saying that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day but if you teach a man to fish he will eat for the rest of his life. Drilling in New England might create a few jobs years down the road for as long as the oil lasts, but we would be risking far more jobs in other ocean industries such as fishing. However by improving the health of our oceans and fisheries, and promoting the responsible development of renewable energy, we will create jobs that last for generations to come.

That is why this Saturday CLF is joining with the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association to sponsor a Hands Across the Sand event at noon this Saturday, June 25^th on Pavilion Beach in Gloucester. Environmentalists, fishermen and beachgoers will all be there to join hands and say no to offshore drilling and yes to a clean, renewable energy future and yes to healthy oceans and the jobs they support. I hope you can join us in Gloucester but if you can’t make it, click here to find an event near you.

P.S. If you need another reason to come, the Gloucester Hands Across the Sand event will coincide with the annual Saint Peter’s Fiesta so you can speak out for our ocean and have a great time in Gloucester too!

A package of three major new renewable energy bills has just passed both houses of the Rhode Island General Assembly unanimously.  Taken together, the bills will give Rhode Island one of the best and one of the most coherent sets of renewable energy laws in the country.  Over the past three months, CLF staff have worked extensively with the leadership of both the RI House and the RI Senate on drafting the actual language of these major bills.

One bill addresses what is called “net metering.”  Net metering occurs when an electric customer’s meter can run not only forward but also backward.  Net metering is important to individuals and companies that have small renewable projects (like solar panels on the roof of a home) because net metering often makes the difference between those projects being economically viable and being non-viable.  Until now, net metering law in Rhode Island was a shambles:  for example, some renewable energy technologies qualified for net metering but (for no apparent reason) other did not qualify; moreover, many portions of the law were so vague (or incoherent) that no one was sure what they meant, and there was even litigation challenging net metering by alleging that Rhode Island net metering law conflicts with federal law.  The newly passed statutes fix all those problems.  The new law makes clear that net metering is available to all renewable technologies, gives a generous price to renewable energy generators, and outlines exactly the boundaries between Rhode Island and federal law.

Another of these bills addresses “distributed generation.”  The DG Bill seeks to fix an unforeseen problem in an earlier renewable energy law, the Long-Term Contracting Statute (LTC Statute) that the General Assembly enacted in 2009.  Long-term contracts are especially important to renewable energy developers because such long-term contracts enable the developers to get financing for their projects.  The LTC Statute turned out to have one unexpected problem.  It worked very well for large companies, like Deepwater Wind, that wanted to develop and build utility-scale projects.  But the LTC Statute was not so good at helping smaller developers that were unable to afford an army of lawyers to negotiate individual contracts with the utility.  The  DG Bill solves this problem.  The DG bill carves out a portion of the long-term contracting obligation created in the 2009 LTC Statute and sets that portion aside just for small, local projects (like a town that wants to put up a single wind mill at its Town Hall).  In order to obviate the need for that (expensive) army of lawyers, the DG Bill creates a very simple, standard contract for developers of small, local renewable energy projects.  Basically, the law says:  If you have a small, local renewable energy project, you do not need to negotiate your own contract with Grid; instead you can automatically get a standard, short, easy-to-understand two-page contract.  The DG Bill also sets a standard price for such small renewable energy projects — the price is set by a board and is designed to be high enough so that such small projects are economically viable, but low enough so that the public is not forced to over-pay for renewable energy.  The big, utility-scale projects can still be built; but the DG bill will now make it easier for smaller projects also to be built.

The third bill in the set makes it easier for renewable energy developers to connect to the electricity grid by setting a timetable and prices for such interconnections.

CLF worked long and hard on this package of renewable energy legislation, and we are very gratified to see its success in the General Assembly.  We were also pleased to see the package of bills highlighted in the lead editorial of the Providence Journal on June 21.

It is appropriate that Maine Public Broadcasting did this solid little story about the Supreme Court decision in AEP v. Connecticut.

The Supreme Court decision makes it clear that Congress, by enacting the Clean Air Act, entrusted the US EPA with the job of tackling air pollution emissions like the greenhouse gases causing global warming – and that if EPA does not use that power to address harm to the environment that the door is opened to private lawsuits against polluters.

This all means that Congress, particularly key “swing votes” like the Senators from Maine, should resist calls to distract EPA from doing its job.   The time for political game playing around this critical issue is long passed and EPA action, meeting its Clean Air Act responsibilities, is long overdue.

Today, the United States Supreme Court returned to the fundamental environmental challenge facing our nation and planet when it decided AEP v. Connecticut, a case in which a group of States, joined by the City of New York and private land trusts, brought a lawsuit against some of the largest emitters of the Greenhouse Gases causing the global warming and climate change that is causing harm to our environment and the public health.

First the biggest of the bad news:  The court said that the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit could not, at this time, use federal “common law” to hold the polluters accountable.  It is always bad when misdeeds and harm are left unaddressed.

But there is a lot of good news:  The Supreme Court emphatically reiterated the obligation of the EPA to take action to deal with Greenhouse Gas emissions reasserting strongly the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (a case brought by States and environmental groups including CLF).  In MA v. EPA the court clearly stated that the plain words of the Clean Air Act require EPA to begin the process of regulating Greenhouse Gas emissions.

In the decision today the Court said:

[The Clean Air] Act itself thus provides a means to seek limits on emissions of carbon dioxide from domestic power plants—the same relief the plaintiffs seek by invoking federal common law. We see no room for a parallel track.

This decision reaffirms the absolute importance of EPA doing its job and following through on the orders it was given by Congress in the Clean Air Act.   The time is long past for that task to be brought to completion.

With the passage of the state budget this week, the Maine legislature put politics ahead of the people in rejecting the Efficiency Maine Trust’s effort to maintain its funding for electrical efficiency programs. The Trust was proposing to increase a charge to electricity ratepayers in order to to sustain its funding levels for electric efficiency over the next three years and replace drained federal stimulus funds.

This was the perfect opportunity for our elected officials to help fulfill their campaign promises to produce growth and economic development in the state. How surprising then, that when presented with a chance to invest in a program that provides at least three dollars of return for every dollar invested, create thousands of jobs in Maine and stimulate commerce, the legislature’s Republican majority and Governor LePage openly rejected it.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the vote was at least in part a product of bias among  conservatives against a program that, because it happens to be good for the environment and was widely supported by Democrats, is perceived to have liberal leanings. In reality, the Trust and its programs are just as much about energy cost savings and economic development, goals to which both parties should aspire. The Trust is the public entity that helps to fund projects that enhance the energy efficiency of Maine’s homes, businesses and industries.

The work of the Trust is important for several reasons.:

• The financing provided by the Trust inspires the replacement of outdated technologies, from machinery to light bulbs, in favor of more energy efficient alternatives that reduce overall energy consumption.
• Less energy consumption means lower electrical bills for the recipient, lower energy prices and less frequent costly upgrades to our electrical transmission infrastructure to accommodate increasing demand, savings that are shared by all Mainers.
• The funding provided by the Trust is only a portion of the overall efficiency investment. The Trust’s “seed money” results in significant private investment, borrowing from banks and other forms of financing. In short, the added push of the Trust’s funding for a project results in a commercial ripple effect that benefits many sectors of our economy, providing jobs and demand for products.
• Greater energy efficiency means less electricity needs to be produced, which translates into reduced consumption of fossil fuels and reduced pollution.

But increasing electricity charges can’t be good for Mainers you might suggest. Therein lies the rub. First, the proposed increase was small, approximately one dollar a month for the average household—the cost of a cup of coffee. Second, the economy is not going to rebound while we stand by idly wishing for a miracle, it takes investment to get a return and the Trust is proven to produce returns. In 2010, the EMT saw its $17 million investment in efficiency projects render a lifetime energy savings valued at $95.7 million and serve as the impetus for an additional $76.9 million in private investment in businesses and homes across Maine. Efficiency spending not only saves money– it is an economic driver. Indeed, the Trust funding that the Legislature just denied was predicted to produce an $840 million benefit to Maine energy consumers.

So why would our governor and the legislature effectively defund a program that could generate such significant financial benefits to the state? The answer appears to be party politics that defy logic and economic policy and theory. Perhaps worst of all, it also happens to deviate from state law which requires that Maine, through the Trust, fund and pursue maximum achievable cost-effective levels of energy efficiency.

Postcard depicting the Great Northern paper mill in East Millinocket (top) and the Mt. Katahdin skyline (bottom).

With the close of this legislative session looming, the LePage administration and proponents in the Legislature are continuing their push for passage of L.D. 1567—“Resolve, To Authorize the State To Acquire a Landfill in the Town of East Millinocket.”  Pursuant to this resolve, the State Planning Office (SPO) would have the authority to acquire ownership (either by purchase or donation) of a leaking landfill that has limited remaining capacity, annual operating costs of $250,000, contamination issues, and closure costs estimated at $17 million and rising.

The administration apparently considers granting the State the ability to acquire the Dolby landfill absolutely essential to finding a buyer for two currently shut down pulp and paper mills in East Millinocket and Millinocket.  Brookfield Asset Management, LLC, through its subsidiary Katahdin Paper Company, owns the mills and the Dolby landfill, which has been accepting waste from those mill operations for over thirty years.  Brookfield claims it cannot find a buyer for the mills because no prospective buyer wants anything to do with the landfill.  Not surprising considering that any new owner would acquire the $17 million liability associated with the Dolby landfill.  Including the state.

Although that liability has effectively deterred private buyers, it has not given the state nearly enough pause, especially considering that, as currently configured, L.D. 1567 works a violation of the state Constitution.  Article 9, section 14 of the Maine Constitution limits the State’s ability to create a debt or liability in excess of $2 million by requiring that two-thirds of the House and Senate and a majority of the electorate approve the bond issuance needed to fund the liability.

Accordingly, my op-ed in the Portland Press Herald highlighted both the amount of the liability attached to the Dolby landfill and the corresponding Constitutional issue.  That op-ed was succeeded by my written request to the Attorney General’s office for an opinion on the constitutionality of L.D. 1567.  Those efforts prompted further discussion in Senate debate and ultimately resulted in Senators Dill and Schneider formally requesting that the Attorney General render an opinion on the constitutionality of L.D. 1567.

While these efforts and continuing press coverage have succeeded in creating additional debate, the bill’s proponents recently amended the text of L.D. 1567 to classify it as emergency legislation in attempt to speed up its prospective implementation.  Such textual changes do not nullify the Constitutional issues presented by L.D. 1567.  Accordingly, we encourage people to contact their Senators to ensure that L.D. 1567 does not take affect until it has undergone the process mandated by the Constitution.  A proposal that enables Brookfield to dump its liability for the Dolby landfill, allows a new owner to purchase the mills for one dollar without acquiring any liability associated with the Dolby Landfill, and authorizes the SPO to accept on behalf of the State of Maine Brookfield’s generous donation of a leaking landfill and all the liability that accompanies its ownership most certainly deserves the additional consideration and process that the Constitution imposes.   Additional process that the LePage administration called for back in February.

It was bad enough when Senator Scott Brown voted to roll back the Clean Air Act and then lashed out against folks who criticized his vote.

Now the MBTA is blocking climate activists from running ads in the subway that call out Senator Brown about that same vote.

The MBTA has made this mistake before – forgetting that as government agency they can not reject ads because they feel it is controversial.  They should take the ad money the activists are offering – run the ads and concentrate on providing transit service, not acting as a censor that is reviving the bad old days of “Banned in Boston.”

Photo credit: christiannealmcneil, flickr

The City of Portland just launched a new website to make it easier for developers to comply with new planning requirements that incentivize alternative commuting strategies through transportation demand management plans, or “TDMs.”  The TDM requirement evolved out of a recognition that a city full of parking garages was not the best use of prime real estate – it isn’t attractive and it only encourages continued reliance on single occupancy vehicle use.  In Maine, 80 percent of employees still drive to work alone every day.  In an effort to shift commuters over to alternatives, such as METRO bus, GoMaine car and van-pooling service, biking and walking, the City of Portland passed a mandatory TDM plan for site plan approval for new developments over 50,000 square feet and for institutions serving more than 100 employees or students. There is also a voluntary TDM plan that companies may want to utilize to help their employees save money at the pump or reduce their overall carbon footprint.

In an effort to navigate the TDM requirements, the City launched a new website, found here at: http://www.tdm2go.info/.  The site is an easy, practical guide that provides a glossary of terms and high-lights case studies.  Four businesses featured on the site include Oak Street Lofts, the Portland International Jetport, St Lawrence Arts Center and Maine Medical Center (MMC).  In the case of MMC, the busy and ever-expanding hospital saw a 15 percent reduction in single occupancy vehicle use in the one year that its “Get On Board” program was implemented.  That impressive result was reached by installing numerous bike racks throughout the MMC campus, offering 50 percent off METRO tickets and providing free parking in the Gilbert St. garage to car-poolers that also had the extra amenity of enjoying the perks of first floor parking, so no stairs, no waiting for elevators, and instant access to the first floor cafe.  Plus, bike lockers and a group tool shed were installed.  These may seem like small perks, but the results speak for themselves – employees like perks!  The efforts by MMC successfully changed the culture of commuting at this major employer and in the process of doing so, they enrolled 734 employees in the program, 221 of those don’t use any carbon emitting vehicle at all – they are biking or walking to work.

What can other employers throughout the state learn from these successes?  First, brainstorming with employees on how to maximize the best alternative transportation mode is critical.  Second, a full educational campaign that informs employees on what their options are is instrumental in making the switch to alternative modes stick.  Resources on both of these are available on the City’s new site and the GoMaine website: http://gomaine.org/.  The benefits to employee’s pocketbooks and overall morale is worth the investment of some bike racks and educational information on our region’s transit services.

Mount Hope Bay (photo credit: John McDaid)

After nearly a decade, Weaver’s Cove Energy (WCE) finally abandoned its liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminal project that initially had been proposed for Fall River, MA and, more recently, for the middle of Mt. Hope Bay just off the shores of Somerset, MA. This puts to an end a project that would have required massive LNG tankers to pass through dozens of miles of waters adjacent to some of New England’s most densely populated coastlines, and would have included a four-mile-long cryogenically cooled LNG pipeline through critical winter flounder spawning habitat in Mt. Hope Bay and up the mouth of a federally designated Wild & Scenic River.

Despite significant litigation, extensive public opposition, and questionable economics, WCE LNG persisted for years in its ultimately fruitless pursuit of state and federal approvals for the project. For a number of those years, CLF took a leadership role in pressing for comprehensive environmental review, calling for a regional analysis of LNG terminal siting in New England, and insisting that federal authorities take a hard look at clean energy alternatives.

CLF is proud to share this victory with the many stakeholders who worked tirelessly to protect Mount Hope Bay, Narragansett Bay, and the Taunton River –from dedicated local activist Joe Carvalho to the talented attorneys representing the City of Fall River and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, and from tenacious members of Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation to former Fall River Mayor Ed Lambert who vowed “death by a thousand paper cuts” to WCE’s ill-conceived project.  Now, all of the people and natural resources that depend on these important waters no longer need to sing the “LNG Blues”!

Listen to “LNG Blues,” written and performed by local activists in Somerset, MA:

LNG Blues by conservationlawfoundation