Merrimack Station Coal Plant. Photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond

New England’s old coal-burning power plants don’t just pollute the air. With their obsolete cooling technology, they also create havoc in the water bodies on which they reside. To control heat from the coal-combustion process, these coal plants draw millions of gallons of water daily into their antiquated cooling systems, killing the aquatic life that gets sucked in with it, and then discharge the super-heated, chemical-laden  water back into the fragile rivers and bays, where it creates untenable living conditions that destroy native fish and other species.

Under decades of pressure from CLF and other organizations, EPA has tightened its regulations around water intake and discharge at the region’s coal plants. At the GenOn Kendall Power Plant in Cambridge, MA, as a result of a lawsuit brought by CLF and the Charles River Watershed Association, EPA required last February that the plant owner, TriGen Corporation, build a “closed-cycle” cooling system that will reduce the water withdrawal and discharge of heated water into the Charles River by approximately 95%. Brayton Point in  Fall River, MA will finish construction of its new cooling towers in 2012, dramatically reducing its harmful impacts on Great Hope Bay.

Today, in another giant step forward, EPA issued a draft NPDES permit for Merrimack Station in Bow, NH, where heated discharge from the power plant’s old “once-through” cooling system has caused a 94 percent decline of the kinds of species that once lived in that part of the Merrimack River. CLF applauded the draft permit, which will require Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to install and operate year-round a modern cooling system that will decrease the plant’s discharge of heated water by nearly 100 percent.

In a statement, issued today in response to the release of the draft permit, CLF called the requirements “long overdue.” Jonathan Peress, director of CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program, said, “No matter what PSNH spends, it will not be able to turn this 50-year-old dinosaur into an economically-viable generating facility that benefits the people of New England. Still, as long as this plant remains in operation, it must comply with the law and we commend EPA for holding PSNH accountable.” Read the full statement here.

A decision in the Vermont Yankee case is expected before the end of the year.  Meanwhile, CLF in its role as “friend of the court” submitted a post trial memo supporting the State of Vermont’s right to have a say about Vermont Yankee.  The brief explains that the Vermont Legislature acted well within its rights and why Entergy’s safety characterizations are faulty.

CLF Attorney Sandy Levine was a guest on the Callie Crossley show on WGBH in Boston Monday  afternoon to discuss Vermont Yankee and the future of nuclear power.

Entergy’s nuclear plants continue to have problems calling into question their ability to  be trustworthy and responsibly manage their nuclear fleet.

A problem at Vermont Yankee Sunday night reduced power to 36% and if the situation is not remedied shortly, the plant will be required to shut down completely.

At the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in New York State, investigations led to 4 workers being fired, 34 disciplined, and criminal charges brought against the plant’s former radiation protection technician.  The investigations showed that employees falsified tests of safety equipment, failed to document air samples and failed to conduct leak testing, among other things.

In Michigan, the Palisades Nuclear Plant shutdown twice last week, due to a cooling system problem and also an electrical breaker fault.

This weekend Governor Cuomo stated that the Indian Point nuclear plant could easily be replaced with other power sources because “safety[is] first.”

Obviously, we here at the Conservation Law Foundation think that crafting and advocating for environmental solutions is a very important thing to be doing and that when we have a job opening that the best, smartest, most tenacious and brightest folks should apply.

However, we know that we are part of a much larger network and community of people and organizations working to create positive change.  Some of those groups work largely out of the public eye – providing critical infrastructure for the flashier and more visible efforts.  An excellent example of one such group is the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) which has done a phenomenal job of coordinating and advancing the work of the environmental and efficiency advocacy communities in the world of standards setting for appliances.  It might sound kind of boring but it is of critical importance – which I will lay out a bit more below.

But before I get to that here is the important part – they are hiring.  If you have what it takes to be a “Strategic Program / Technical Analyst” you should give them a look.

(more…)

If a tree falls in the forest in order to fuel in an inefficient electric power plant, does it make noise?  You bet it does.  This morning, dozens of advocates rallied at the Massachusetts State House to make a little noise while calling for the strengthening of the Commonwealth’s rules for forest wood-fueled – i.e., “biomass” – energy incentives.

Last year, we cheered as the Patrick Administration commissioned a ground-breaking study, known as the “Manomet Report,” to help understand the climate impacts of biomass energy.  That Report reaffirmed a growing scientific understanding that burning whole trees for energy can be worse than burning coal because of what I refer to as the “double whammy” effect:  (1) the immediate release into the atmosphere of the carbon stored in the tree; and (2) the tree that has been cut no longer is available to absorb new carbon from the atmosphere – or help promote clean water, wildlife habitat, shade or other benefits.

Based on the Manomet Report, the Administration released an encouraging framework for revised biomass regulations that included the key policy pillars of science-based carbon accounting, strong sustainable harvesting requirements, and minimum efficiency standards for capturing the energy stored in biomass fuels.  Unfortunately, the latest version of the regulations and related guidance have been substantially weakened, treating all forms of biomass as “carbon neutral” over a short period of time, promoting the removal of all harvest residues from the forest floor, and encouraging the cutting of whole trees for biomass fuel.  This retreat is disturbing both in terms of likely impacts in Massachusetts and the precedent it would set for other states, the nation, and beyond.

As we spelled out at today’s State House rally, Massachusetts still has an historic opportunity to “get it right”.  To make this happen, CLF and many others are asking for three simple things:

1.       The final biomass regulations must be based on the SCIENCE, consistent with the core lessons of the Manomet Report;

2.       Incentives must be reserved for practices that DO NO HARM to our forests, for example by leaving sufficient tree tops and limbs in forests to replenish soil nutrients and provide habitat;

3.       Benefits should be limited to those practices and facilities that AVOID WASTE by efficiently using biomass fuel, ensuring that the majority of its energy potential is captured and used.

The specific changes to the draft rules that we are seeking are spelled out in greater detail here.

Massachusetts’ forests currently absorb a whopping 10% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we produce each year from electric power generation, transportation, heating, cooling and all other activities combined. This doesn’t mean that we need to leave all forests untouched – there is a role for sustainably harvested forest products of many kinds, just as there is a role for untouched forest reserves.  But we do need to watch out for the “double whammy” and make certain that limited ratepayer-funded clean energy dollars are not steered toward wasteful forest harvesting and combustion practices that would move us away from the clean energy future we seek.

The State of Vermont and the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power facility squared off in Federal Court this week.  It was a three day trial.  The days were long.  The testimony was often technical.  The lawyering was skilled.  Vermont Yankee’s owners say everything is about safety and only the federal government can regulate safety so Vermont’s laws are invalid.  It is a convoluted argument.  The dots don’t connect. 

Vermont’s able lawyers went toe-to-toe with the owners every step of the way.  The State has a strong case.  Vermonters by nature are frank and direct.  Our laws say what they mean and mean what they say.   There is no decade-long grand conspiracy to hide intentions.  The Vermont Legislature acted well within its rights. 

CLF has joined the case as a “friend of the court” and has filed legal pleadings supporting the state.  We are also representing Vermont Public Interest Research Group whose representatives joined me at the hearings, and logged daily accounts of the trial. 

The trial is over.  A decision is expected before the end of the year.  Stay tuned.

Groundbreaking for the Wonderland Parking Garage

Less than five years ago, in response to a CLF lawsuit, Massachusetts committed to building one thousand new “park and ride” parking spaces in the Commonwealth. The idea was to put the parking spaces near public transportation, making it easy for people to ride rather than drive to their destinations. The commitment was intended to reduce the number of cars on the roads and their emissions in order to help the Commonwealth come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. Currently, Massachusetts does not meet the national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone, a dangerous byproduct of vehicle exhaust that can trigger serious respiratory problems and cause permanent lung damage. Building parking spaces in the right locations, it has been proven, actually helps reduce air pollution.

Originally, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) selected Beverly and Salem as the locations to build the bulk of these spaces with new parking garages near their commuter rail stations.  Although both communities welcomed these facilities with open arms, MassDOT decided last year instead to seek to meet their obligation by counting the “park and ride” spaces already being constructed near the Wonderland MBTA station on the Blue Line.  They feared the Beverly and Salem garages would not be completed on time, but now the Wonderland park and ride spaces are also delayed.

Although it had five years to build the parking spaces, MassDOT announced this summer that it will not meet this obligation by the end of 2011.The Clean Air Act requires the Commonwealth to somehow achieve the same air quality benefits during the period of delay, through a so-called interim offset project or measure.  MassDOT, however, has petitioned the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to delay the completion of this requirement without proposing any such interim offset project or measure.  Why, you ask?

MassDOT is arguing that since the parking garage it chose last year to fulfill the bulk of this requirement is near private parking lots that are $2 to $3 lower in price than what the Commonwealth would have charged for parking in the new garage, the new parking facility would have been underutilized and as such would have no measurable air quality benefits.  Are you kidding me?  This tortured analysis is akin to my asking to get paid for a day that I did not show up at work since I would have been on Facebook all day anyway, had I been in the office.  Hopefully, such bootstrapping will motivate DEP to keep its rubber stamp locked up.

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.