Are you concerned about the Northern Pass transmission project? Do you want to learn more about what it could mean for New Hampshire and New England’s energy future, for our climate, for energy rates, and for the communities and natural environment of New England and Québec? Do you want to keep up with the latest developments as the project progresses through the permitting process?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you’ll want to sign up for CLF’s new email newsletter – Northern Pass Wire.  In a concise format, Northern Pass Wire will provide the latest news and analysis regarding the Northern Pass project direct from CLF advocates, with links to additional resources from CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center, our latest Northern Pass posts here on CLF Scoop, and CLF’s recent legal filings. Northern Pass Wire will also keep you informed about ways you can get involved and make your voice heard as the permitting process for the Northern Pass project continues. We expect to publish Northern Pass Wire about once a month, and perhaps more frequently when events warrant. The first edition can be previewed here, and you can sign up to get Northern Pass Wire here.

Please sign up and encourage your family, friends, and colleagues to do the same!

Click on the image to preview the first edition of CLF's Northern Pass Wire

photo credit: Hope Abrams/flickr

Here in New Hampshire, the leaves have turned.  What hasn’t changed is that the environmental review of the Northern Pass proposal remains stalled while the project developers – Northeast Utilities (and its subsidiary Public Service Company of New Hampshire) and NSTAR – seek a new route for the northernmost 40 miles of the project.  It’s a disgrace that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has so far refused to use the developers’ significant delay to assess the nature and extent of New England’s need for Canadian hydropower and to develop an appropriate plan to bring that power into the region, as CLF and others have been requesting since April.

While DOE is in a holding pattern, CLF is continuing to fight for a fair and comprehensive environmental review of the Northern Pass project.  Earlier this month, CLF filed new comments with DOE, supplementing the detailed comments we filed in April.  Our new comments address:

• Why CLF has renewed concerns about DOE’s control over its new environmental review contractors.  Based on our review of the Memorandum of Understanding between Northern Pass, DOE, and its new contractors, posted here (PDF), we explain that Northern Pass could still have an unfair and inappropriate influence on the content of the environmental impact statement and the schedule for completing it.
• What the Northeast Energy Link proposal means for the Northern Pass environmental review.  The recently announced Northeast Energy Link proposal, along with the Champlain Hudson Power Express project, makes it clearer than ever that we need a regional assessment of our energy needs.  These other two transmission projects also show that burying transmission lines in transportation rights-of-way is an abundantly reasonable alternative to overhead lines.
• How Northern Pass hasn’t clearly disclosed the source of power for the project.  We bring to DOE’s attention important information, obtained by CLF through its cross-examination of an executive of Northeast Utilities before Massachusetts regulators, that the source of Northern Pass’s power is likely to be new hydroelectric projects that Hydro-Québec is now in the process of designing and building.  CLF is especially troubled by the new information because the impacts of the project are much more significant if it causes the construction of new dams and the associated negative environmental impacts, including well-documented spikes in early greenhouse gas emissions from flooded land.  Northern Pass and its parent companies have consistently failed to acknowledge that these emissions undermine their claims about the reductions in emissions the project will supposedly provide.

A copy of our new comments is available here.  We also filed a Freedom of Information Act request with DOE, seeking to obtain a copy of the “Consulting Services Agreement” between Northern Pass and the environmental review contractor team.  The Memorandum of Understanding suggests that this separate contract includes important information on the budget and schedule for the environmental review, and the public deserves to know these details.

With the permitting process due to continue when Northern Pass announces a new northernmost route, CLF will be launching new ways to keep you informed about the latest Northern Pass news and the best ways for you to get involved and make your voice heard. Please stay tuned!

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

photo credit: l . e . o/flickr

With each passing day, the dire reality of PSNH’s coal-fired business model is becoming clearer in New Hampshire.  The cost of operating PSNH’s obsolete power plants continues to grow, accelerating the Company’s death spiral where fewer captive ratepayers are saddled with unsustainable above-market rates as more PSNH customers choose to buy power from better managed competitive suppliers.  We are also learning that Northern Pass will make the situation worse for ratepayers, not better, and that PSNH and its Northern Pass partners are poised to pull in huge profits.  In just the last few days:

• PSNH revealed that, as it has begun bringing online its $450 million scrubber project at PSNH’s 50 year old coal-fired Merrimack Station, the bill is now coming due. If state regulators at the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approve passing the cost on to ratepayers, the energy rates for PSNH customers – already the highest in New Hampshire by a wide margin – will go up by at least 1.2 cents per kilowatt hour, or almost 15%.  CLF is seeking to intervene in the PUC proceeding on the rate increase.  PSNH, unsurprisingly, wants to keep CLF out, in addition to any other party seeking to intervene on behalf of ratepayers.  There is no better illustration of the folly – for ratepayers and the environment alike – of major new investments in coal-fired power plants than PSNH’s flawed effort to extend the life of Merrimack Station.  These investments are a disaster for ratepayers, and don’t even ensure compliance with the plant’s environmental requirements – a case CLF is making right now in federal court with regard to other modifications to Merrimack Station.
• Large commercial and industrial customers with the buying power to avoid the high rates for PSNH’s fossil power continue to do so in dramatic numbers.  PSNH announced that, in September, about 82% of these customers were buying power elsewhere in the market (accounting for 93% of the power delivered to these customers) – a phemonenon known as “migration.”  Meanwhile, more than 99% of New Hampshire residents in PSNH territory were left behind to pay PSNH’s already exorbitant rates.  The scrubber rate increase is going to make this situation even worse for residents – additional businesses will find other suppliers and PSNH will need to jack up its rates even more.  More cost-effective competitive suppliers are cleaning PSNH’s clock among large customers.  Given the company’s excessive and increasing rates, residential ratepayers are starting to vote with their pocketbooks for more sustainable energy supplies.
• It is becoming increasingly clear that the current Northern Pass proposal is designed around PSNH’s bottom line, not the interests of New Hampshire ratepayers.  As we’ve mentioned before, the large customer “migration” problem and its upward pressure on homeowners’ electric bills are likely to get worse with Northern Pass, which would further depress regional wholesale electric rates and encourage more customers to leave PSNH.   Adding in the cost of the scrubber will only widen the divide between the businesses that can choose other suppliers and potentially benefit from Northern Pass, and the residential customers who are currently  stuck with PSNH. A new wrinkle emerged last week – testimony from PUC staff showing that PSNH’s consultants estimated a year ago that Northern Pass will cannibalize PSNH’s already meager revenues from Newington Station, PSNH’s little-used power plant in Newington, New Hampshire, that can operate with either oil or natural gas.  Northern Pass would mean it would almost never run and that the investments ratepayers have made over the years to keep Newington Station operating will essentially be lost.  This same dynamic will apply to the rest of PSNH’s power plants:  Northern Pass will diminish their market value further exposing New Hampshire businesses and residents to the risk of excessive costs.  Once again, a series of poor decisions and self-interested advocacy by PSNH (at the expense of ratepayers) is forcing the legislature to intervene.

The costs of PSNH’s coal-fired power plants are becoming untenable, and a radically redesigned Northern Pass proposal and other alternatives could help PSNH meet its customers’ power needs more cheaply and with less damage to public health and the environment.  Instead of planning for a cleaner energy future, PSNH is working only to preserve its regulator-approved profits.  CLF will be using every tool at our disposal to force a rethinking of PSNH’s approach.

Credit: A Armstrong

Are you tired of waiting (and waiting and waiting) for the Green Line Extension to be built? Join CLF, the mayor of Somerville,  Joseph A. Curtatone, and other supporters of the Green Line Extension for a mock groundbreaking on Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 6pm in front of Somerville High School.

We are gathering to let the Patrick Administration know that we want them to stop the repeated delays and deliver on their legal commitment to construct the Green Line extension.  The Legislature has already authorized bonds to construct the Green Line Extension from Cambridge to Somerville and Medford and the Somerville Community Path.  The project will serve a community that has been dissected by a major highway (I-93), suffers from disproportionate air pollution, and lacks adequate public transportation. However, this summer, the State announced that it will again delay the construction of the Green Line Extension, by another four to six years, without providing any clear explanation why.

Public transportation projects in Massachusetts are chronically underfunded, despite the evidence that investment in a good transportation system creates jobs, boosts economic growth, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, increases energy independence, and improves quality of life for transit users and drivers alike. Still, funding for public transportation, bike paths, and sidewalks has never been strong enough, and continues to diminish rapidly.  Come stand with your fellow citizens and let our political leadership know that we want a modern, safe, accessible transportation system that works for Massachusetts.

Immediately following the rally, we will take our numbers inside to attend the public hearing regarding the delays on the Green Line Extension to be held at Somerville High School beginning at 6:30pm.

Bring your friends and show your support for the Green Line Extension and for better public transportation in Massachusetts!

For more information about the rally, click here.

The Land Use Regulatory Commission has begun deliberations on the Bowers Mountain Wind project, which CLF supported as an intervener.  Sean Mahoney presented a closing statement in support of the project  (Sean Mahoney Closing Statement 10-5-11) which built upon the testimony of Abigail Krich (Abigail Krich Direct Testimony 6-10-11 and Dr. Cameron Wake (Dr. Cameron Wake Direct Testimony 6-10-11).  As with many wind power projects in Maine today, the biggest issue for LURC to resolve is the project’s impact on scenic resources in the area.  The testimony of Roger Milliken (Roger Milliken Direct Testimony 6-10-11) spoke to the push and pull of that issue eloquently.  A decision from LURC on the project is expected sometime in early November.

After taking the bar exam, I decided the best thing to do was head north for a multi-day wilderness trip on the West Magpie River. The Magpie flows through Québec’s Côte-Nord region a couple drainages away from the Romaine and Petit Mecatina rivers. For the majority of the trip, we remained many (sometimes hundreds) of miles from any semblance of civilization. The only way to get there is by floatplane.

After five days, countless rapids, and many miles of flatwater, I had a new appreciation for the Côte-Nord region and one of the last truly wild places left in the East. The Magpie, Romaine, and Petit Mecatina are all either being dammed or have the potential to be dammed. Some of our friends had run the Romaine a few weeks earlier and described it as “not a wilderness trip.” Hydro-Québec’s Romaine Complex of dams has essentially devastated the river. There is already one dam at the very end of the Magpie, and the river is listed on Hydro-Québec’s 2009-2013 strategic plan as a potential dam site. The Petit Mecatina is listed as well.

The situation in Québec, in general, presents an important set of choices. Hydropower is generally considered “renewable” and a lower-carbon source of electricity than fossil fuels, especially at existing dams that have been in place for many years. There is a reasonable argument for transmitting more hydropower from the far North to southern Québec and New England, instead of getting our energy from sources like coal fired power plants or Vermont Yankee—our aging and polluting nuclear power facility. But there is also a compelling case that Québec should preserve some of the last, best wilderness areas in the world by curtailing its aggressive dam-building campaign, which could limit the power available for export to New England. We also need to decide how to bring the power south and whether there are better options than traditional overhead high-voltage lines through beautiful, now-unfragmented rural areas.

What is essential is that, if we partner with Québec to meet our energy needs, we need to do so responsibly, with as little environmental damage as possible. A good place to start is by taking a close look at the carbon emissions that could result from Québec’s ambitious plans, including how the proposed Northern Pass project through New Hampshire may contribute to those emissions. CLF has also partnered with Canadian environmental groups to look into the impacts of hydropower development within Québec’s new northern boreal forest management plan and advocated for improvements in Vermont’s contract with Hydro-Québec.

If we do it right and limit our reliance on fossil fuels and focus on not building new dams, Québec and Vermont could find a way to move toward a cleaner energy future.  If not, there is a lot to lose.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island took the Senate floor yesterday in defense of science and reason – two topics that seldom seem to influence the decisionmaking of the Senate lawmakers these days when it comes to climate change.  Speaking out against the two big lies permeating the halls of congress: 1) environmental regulations are a burden to the economy; and 2) the jury is still out on climate change, Senator Whitehouse convincingly argued why both claims are false.  “The jury isn’t out,” he said, “the verdict is in!”  “More than 97% of publishing scientists accept that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it,” the Senator said in a twenty-four minute floor speech in which he cautioned his colleagues that the Senate is failing, “earning the scorn and condemnation of history” because while it considers repealing laws designed to prevent pollution, it cannot repeal the laws of nature.  “The dark hand of polluters can tap so many shoulders and there is a lot of power and money behind that dark hand, but nature is also tapping us on the shoulder, and we ignore that tapping at our own grave peril,” said Senator Whitehouse.  I must admit, I don’t have a lot of confidence that nature’s hand will win the contest in Washington, D.C., but my confidence is a bit restored when a Senator has the courage to speak the truth to his colleagues … giving nature’s tap a fighting chance.  Senator Whitehouse (RI) Floor speech on climate change

No one knows better than the US military that our dependence on fossil fuels comes with enormous hidden costs.  In this Op-Ed in the Tampa Tribune three retired generals and one retired admiral discuss the hundreds of soldiers who have died and the thousands of their brother-in-arms who have been seriously wounded guarding fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our military has long known about the overarching threat to our security from unchecked global warming.

Reducing our dependence on oil and building a clean energy future will require work on a wide variety of fronts – and that is why CLF is working not only to foster renewable generation like wind and solar power but also working “on the demand side” to ensure that energy efficiency prosper as well.

This is a challenge that stretches far beyond the realm of electricity use or heating or cooling buildings and homes.  We use enormous amounts of energy in our transportation sector.   We can be more efficient and reduce our fossil fuel use by driving cleaner cars that get more miles per gallon.  We also can build and operate transit systems that move masses of people in a far more efficient manner.  Even just building sidewalks and more “walkable” communities reduces driving, fuel consumption and emissions.

Pushing for better transit, more sidewalks, more efficient buildings, the retirement of old coal plants and wind and solar power might seem very far removed from the effort to protect the nation, but it really isn’t such a stretch and it is part of what drives forward the work of organizations like CLF and our many friends, allies and partners.

Back in 2004 a group of researchers and analysts at Princeton led by Robert Socolow published the “wedge analysis” that captured the problem of greenhouse gas emissions reductions in a pithy way that presented solutions in a manner that a lot of folks found very appealing – they presented their own scenarios but did it in a way that was flexible and allowed readers to dial technologies up and down to reflect their own beliefs and preferences.

Socolow has revisited that work and done some meditating on why in the intervening seven years we have not only failed to start to solve the problem but in fact have been making the hole we are in deeper.

Andrew Revkin (in his continuing capacity as a New York Times blogger, even though he has left the reporting business as a day job at the Times in favor of generally nurturing and studying environmental journalism at Pace University) summarizes and presents that work and reactions to it in a way that really makes for truly required reading.

Employing one of the best things about the blog form Revkin collects in a new post email exchanges he had with Socolow and various academics and experts about the essay and conversations springing from it.

In the course of that conversation Socolow presents a bit of a searing critique of himself and all others who have been trying to provoke action on global warming:

Worldwide, policymakers are scuttling away from commitments to regulations and market mechanisms that are tough enough to produce the necessary streams of investments. Given that delay brings the potential for much additional damage, what is standing in the way of action?

Familiar answers include the recent recession, the political influence of the fossil fuel industries, and economic development imperatives in countries undergoing industrialization. But, I submit, advocates for prompt action, of whom I am one, also bear responsibility for the poor quality of the discussion and the lack of momentum. Over the past seven years, I wish we had been more forthcoming with three messages: We should have conceded, prominently, that the news about climate change is unwelcome, that today’s climate science is incomplete, and that every “solution” carries risk. I don’t know for sure that such candor would have produced a less polarized public discourse. But I bet it would have.

And one of the responding voices, (David Victor, author of “Global Warming Gridlock” and a professor at the University of California, San Diego) agrees with Socolow on substance but disagrees  with Socolow on specific strategy and tactics arguing that the policy advocacy community has actually been doing a pretty good job of broadcasting the messages that Socolow is saying need to be heard but that the problem is much deeper and broader:

Outside of a few hyper green countries—like the EU15—climate change is just one of many issues. Like most environmental issues it comes and goes. You can’t sustain action in these countries without either finding ways to make action costless (or at least invisible) or linking action to other things people care about. The costless/invisibility strategy is a big part of the reason why the world (notably the US) did so well in cutting ozone depleting substances.

But it won’t work on climate—or at least not yet—which means plan B. Talk about how climate links to energy security and such. That’s now happening and it is having an effect (across the board the polling data are much more favorable to regulation on greenhouse gases when the questions focus on other benefits). Obviously we can’t over-sell this approach because it won’t stop warming and it easily leads to mischievous policies that hide true intentions and lard the economy with lots of extra costs. But all else equal, the more “reluctant” a country is to do something on climate itself the more important it is to talk about other goals as well. The community of policy advocates—especially folks drawn from academic science and engineering—is shockingly naïve about politics and the strategy of political action.

Revkin also provides us with a quote from Prof. Victor on the literary and historical metaphor that should be expunged from the climate advocacy vocabulary:

A last word—a plea really. Let’s all stop evoking Galileo. Whenever someone feels under siege they look to Galileo because he was right and persistent and his critics were both wrong and egregious. But the metaphor is hard to use effectively because what really matters is ex ante. For every Galileo there were thousands of others who were hacks. Maybe the one thing that we have learned from Galileo is that it is unwise to punish dissenters, and that’s a good message. But it is interesting to read the Tea Party stuff on climate and see that they use Galileo as well. Everyone is dueling over the same metaphor—they just can’t agree on who is Galileo and who’s the Pope.