Maine Turnpike Authority Executive Director Paul Violette steps down after 23 years at the MTA.

A well-entrenched leader who spent decades in power of a wealthy quasi-government agency just resigned amid a public outcry over extravagant spending.  No, this isn’t another North African country unshackling itself from an autocratic regime, it’s the Maine Turnpike Authority’s Executive Director, Paul Violette, stepping down after running the MTA for 23 years.

Legislators in Augusta sought Violette’s ouster in the wake of a report released in January by the state’s Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA). The watchdog report scrutinized MTA’s complex budget and spending practices and unearthed questionable expenses including spending $1.1 million for travel and meals for employees from 2005 to 2009 and other luxurious expenditures for MTA management.  And while it is these flashy expenses that have enraged the public, a more in depth review of the report reveals that much work is needed to create an atmosphere of transparency and accountability, especially with respect to what constitutes an operating surplus–how expenses and costs are categorized by the MTA has a direct and profound impact on the quality of Maine roads that aren’t operated by the MTA.  In response to the report, the MTA disagreed with OPEGA’s characterization of the operating surplus budgeting as “ambiguous.”

The operating surplus issue is one that has been neatly and powerfully addressed by Rep. Moulton’s ZOOM bill, LD 673, by requiring the MTA to provide MDOT with at least three percent of its operating revenue and any operating surplus.  In addition, the bill seeks to get the MTA to stop spending money on road widening and instead, reallocate funds towards mass transit that will serve far more Mainers, from York, Wells, Biddeford, Saco, Portland, Lewiston, Auburn and Augusta.  For years, the MTA has spent a mere pittance on mass transit; only $8 million out of a $666 million, 10-year operating budget.  With the management shake-up at MTA, we can hope that the days of squandering are over and the time for accountability has arrived, with an immediate focus on meeting the transit needs of Maine people.

CLF and all stakeholders concerned about the fairness and objectivity of the environmental review process for the proposed Northern Pass electric transmission project scored an important victory today.  Responding to concerns raised by CLF and others, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC has today formally requested termination of an agreement with the Department of Energy that tasked Northern Pass’s contractor, Normandeau Associates, with preparing the federal Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project.  Northern Pass Transmission, LLC has requested that the Department of Energy, which is administering the environmental review as part of its Presidential Permit process, select a new contractor to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement.

In filings with the Department of Energy last month, CLF and other parties sounded the alarm about the Department of Energy’s choice of Normandeau on the grounds that Normandeau was also working for the project applicant, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC and demanded that the Department of Energy retain a different contractor without a conflict of interest.  More recently, New Hampshire’s two U.S. Senators added their voices to the chorus questioning the selection of Normandeau to prepare the EIS.  With the pressure mounting and scoping meetings for the EIS scheduled to take place next week, Northern Pass’s action today means that the Department of Energy should now move forward with the environmental review of the Northern Pass project with the objectivity and independence that federal law requires.

As the process gets underway and a new contractor is selected, CLF will continue to advocate for an open, fair and rigorous environmental review of this transmission project, its many significant potential impacts and all possible alternatives to the current proposal.

CLF has intervened in proceedings regarding the proposed merger of Northeast Utilities (NU) and NSTAR, which combined would create the third largest utility in the country and the largest in New England. CLF has intervened in the proceedings before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to ensure that the merger will only be allowed to go forward if it is “consistent with the public interest.”  This will require a thoughtful analysis of the merged utility’s long-term strategies for delivering energy while fully meeting the greenhouse gas emission reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements of the MA Global Warming Solutions Act and Green Communities Act.  It also will require a close look at the economic and environmental risks posed by the energy generation assets that would be owned by the merged utility.

One of CLF’s concerns is that NU subsidiary Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) owns and depends upon outdated, inefficient coal- and oil-fired power plants. These plants – which are obsolete and increasingly more expensive and less economic to operate – present risks and liabilities that would be spread to NSTAR’s ratepayers if the merger goes forward.  Another concern is that the merged utility might seek to weaken Massachusetts’ renewable energy standards, as suggested in some of the utilities’ public statements, allowing large hydropower to “flood” the market (pun intended!) and chill development of other renewable energy sources such as small wind and solar facilities.

Currently, the procedural schedule for the merger proceeding pending before the Massachusetts DPU has been suspended while the DPU considers whether to modernize the legal standard it will apply.  CLF and other parties have asked that the legal standard be adapted to account for changes in relevant laws, including the Global Warming Solutions Act and Green Communities Act.

Stay tuned as we await the DPU’s ruling and further action in the merger proceeding!

Photo courtesy of NRCM

At a press conference held yesterday, CLF and our colleagues at the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) shined a spotlight on 50 bad bills that are now working their way through the state Legislature. If passed, these bills could:

• Open up the three million acres of the North Woods to development
• Repeal the ban on BPA and flame retardant chemicals that are hazardous to our health
• Allow big polluters to not be held accountable for cleaning up their own mess

A list of those bills is here, as are some media clips from Maine Public Broadcasting Network, the Portland Press Herald and the Lewiston Sun Journal related to yesterday’s conference.

The assault on Maine’s environmental protections continues, and we will continue to fight back—but we need your help. If you haven’t already, please add your voice to the effort by contacting your local legislator, submitting a letter to the editor to your local paper, or by becoming a member of CLF.

A new report from the Washington, D.C. –based Brookings Institution found that two of Maine’s metro areas drive 54% of the state’s economic output, amounting to $2.7 billion dollars in gross domestic product.  Portland-South Portland-Biddeford and the Lewiston-Auburn areas are also responsible for creating 51% of the jobs here in Maine, despite only accounting for 47% of the population.  Currently, the ZOOM bus service provides limited yet very successful service between Portland and Biddeford.

Representative Moulton’s bill, LD 673, “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service,” seeks to improve that existing service and add a much needed route up to the economic hub of Lewiston-Auburn.  This critical and long overdue link would connect 106,539 L/A residents with 266,800 jobs in the Portland-Biddeford area, according to the Brookings Institution report.  The report notes that 60.4% of the state’s innovation workers are located in the Portland metro area.   Doesn’t it make sense to connect major population hubs with innovative jobs?  That is what the ZOOM bus bill contemplates, all with the comfort of modern wi-fi access to provide for a better connected, more productive work force.

The report also credits the Bangor area with 11% of the state’s economic output.  Imagine increasing bus service to the Bangor area after the successful implementation of the current bill to reach a trifecta of economic growth, job creation and mass transit.  According to the report, these metropolitan areas represent the engines of state economic growth and concentrate the assets critical to building the “Next Economy.”  And while that is very exciting news, the fact is, we can’t afford to ignore the mass transit connections that will help move the people of the state of Maine forward in a competitive economy.

One of the easiest ways to make bad decisions is to allow ourselves to be drawn into a false choice – to see two options as an “either/or” where seeking one goal means stepping away from another. This can be a false choice because, fortunately, sometimes making the right decision will yield a double benefit.

When we have an opportunity to reduce energy use and harmful emissions while building jobs and the economy we encounter that kind of golden moment: when the right choice yields double, triple and even quadruple benefits.

There are people who will reject this formulation – who will present that most fundamental of false choices: the flawed argument that making the right choice for our environment and the public health is bad for the economic health of our communities and building jobs.

We are surrounded by proof that economic benefit flows from the same actions that reduce dirty energy use and emissions. The nation-leading energy efficiency programs funded by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which have created jobs while slashing the energy bills of families and businesses of the Northeast is a prime example.  A recent report issued by the states participating in RGGI (described here) provides hard numbers documenting this happy phenomena.

But we can do far better – and we need to if we are going to address the fundamental challenge of global warming and if we are going build the new economic base that can provide jobs and financial security for the future. Building that cleaner and more secure future will mean building on the successes of RGGI, making it more effective in reducing emissions and creating even more investment in energy efficiency so it slashes even more customer bills and creates even more jobs.

On Wednesday, CLF received some welcome, high-profile help in its effort to ensure that the Department of Energy’s environmental review of the Northern Pass electric transmission project is unbiased, objective, and legitimate.

As noted in the Concord Monitor, Senators Shaheen and Ayotte joined CLF, its partners the Appalachian Mountain Club and Coos Community Benefits Alliance, and others, in questioning the Department of Energy’s selection of Normandeau Associates, the same consulting firm that project proponent Northern Pass Transmission, LLC has engaged to obtain other permits for the project, to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement or “EIS” for the project.

Both New Hampshire Senators sent letters to Secretary Chu (Senator Shaheen’s is here and Senator Ayotte’s should be posted here soon) demanding an explanation for Normandeau’s selection.  As Senator Shaheen put it:

In order for the public and those affected by the proposed transmission project to have confidence in the DOE permitting process, it is essential that there be no conflict of interest in the approval process. While DOE, Normandeau and Northern Pass LLC have sought to address the potential conflict of interest by separating the employees and teams working on their respective aspects of the project, even the perception of a conflict is problematic given the significance of this project.

Senator Shaheen attached CLF’s and its partners’ formal objection filed with the Department of Energy to her letter.  As our objection made clear, Normandeau’s conflict of interest is both clear as a matter of common sense and forbidden by the federal regulations governing the environmental review process.

The Department of Energy has not said when (or even if) it will rule on CLF’s and others’ objections to Normandeau’s selection. It is critical that it do so soon, as the EIS “scoping” process is about to kick off with a series of scheduled public meetings throughout New Hampshire in mid-March.

CLF will be an active participant throughout the environmental review process for the Northern Pass project, and an overview of the project and CLF’s concerns is here.  As the process moves forward, we will be posting additional resources on the project, its impacts, and the permitting process on CLF’s website.

Somerset residents gather in front of the plant. (Photo credit: Shanna Cleveland, CLF)

Massachusetts moved one step closer to a coal-free future this week as NRG, owner the Somerset Station power plant located in Somerset, MA, announced that it will shut the plant down permanently, effective immediately. The 85-year-old plant shut down initially in January 2010, after CLF and Somerset residents brought an appeal with regard to NRG’s plans to repower the plant using an experimental technology known as plasma gasification. Earlier this month, NRG asked the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) to withdraw approvals for those plans, saying the company had decided not to pursue its plasma gasification project that would have used fuels including coal, construction and demolition debris and woody biomass. MA DEP granted the request on February 18. More >

Learn more about CLF’s Coal-free New England Campaign >

The story is sad and simple:

The National Research Council (the “NRC”) of the National Academies, the official science and technology adviser to the nation was directed by United States Congress in 2008 to “investigate and study the serious and sweeping issues relating to global climate change and make recommendations regarding what steps must be taken and what strategies must be adopted in response to global climate change, including the science and technology challenges thereof.”

In its report to Congress in 2010 the NRC stated that, “A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”  Not surprising as this is deeply consistent with the conclusions that so many other scientists and experts, like those at the American Geophysical Union, have also reached about the phenomena of Greenhouse Gas emissions from human activities and the resulting changes to our climate.

Did Congress respond to this expert advice by enacting comprehensive climate legislation?  If you are reading this you are almost certainly aware that the answer is “no” – that after heroic efforts led to passage of a climate and energy bill in the House that effort, sadly, collapsed in the U.S. Senate.

Many of the same folks who prevented Congress from taking action to address this most systemic and dangerous of threats are now working to stop the Federal Government from taking action to reduce emissions of the Greenhouse Gases that are threatening the public health and environment.  Incredibly, those who stopped Congress from taking action are now arguing that EPA should not step in – but rather leave this job to Congress, a job they worked so hard Congress did not complete.

Specifically, at 2:23 AM on February 19, 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment to the “Continuing Resolution” needed to prevent a shut-down of the Federal Government that would “prohibit use of funds by EPA to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of greenhouse gases”.  Yes, you read that right, they are not eliminating the responsibility of EPA to take action – just taking away the money to fund the agency from doing so !! Want to see how your Representative voted? Check it out.  And at 4:40 AM the “Continuing Resolution” (now with that amendment embedded in it) was passed by the House.

But the story is not over. Not by far.  Will the Senate step up and allow EPA to do its job? A  job that (as explained by the United States Supreme Court in the court case known as  Massachusetts v. EPA)  was given to it by Congress in the Clean Air Act.  Will the Senate listen to science and allow EPA to protect the environment and the public health?  Give your Senator a call or drop them an email and ask them where they stand on this issue – with science and working to protect our health and the environment and with those trying to build a new clean energy economy or with the forces of denial who are fighting against the future and protecting entrenched fossil fuel interests.  Ask them oppose this effort to deny EPA of the power and resources to move forward in the battle to fight global warming.