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

PSNH's Merrimack Station (photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond)

I appeared on NHPR’s The Exchange with Laura Knoy this morning, and the topic was the potential energy and economic impacts of the Northern Pass project. The show provided a good opportunity to explain why the project is inspiring so much opposition, why CLF has been skeptical of the current proposal, and how Canadian hydropower could play a role in the New England electric system if pursued appropriately. There was also a segment on the project’s potential impact on property values. You can catch the replay here if you’re interested.

Joining me on the show was Julia Frayer, an economist hired by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to tout the energy and economic benefits of the project. Recently, she penned a widely-reprinted op-ed and provided testimony to the New Hampshire legislature, suggesting the project will be a boon to consumers and the reliability of the electric system.

Unfortunately, and as I made an effort to point out on the show, the arguments for the current proposal are pleasant talking points without much to back them up. All the cited benefits are speculative, rather than firm commitments, and are not forthrightly presented alongside the proposal’s potential costs. As any student of economics can attest, an intelligent discussion about the economics of a project requires that we at least try to describe and compare the costs and benefits.  We know that the project may have significant negative impacts, ranging from the environmental impacts of generating the power in Canada to the potential effects of major new transmission lines on New Hampshire’s tourism and recreation industries. PSNH and the project developer, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC, have stubbornly failed to acknowledge these impacts, and there is no evidence they were taken seriously in the planning of the current proposal.

One point worth highlighting – the current plan calls for all of the supposed clean energy benefits and electric rate reductions to be delivered through the wholesale market, where Hydro-Quebec intends to sell the power delivered by the project.  But these benefits would mostly bypass the very residential ratepayers in New Hampshire who pay PSNH for electricity – because PSNH acquires very little power from the wholesale market. Instead, as customers of PSNH’s retail power, PSNH residential customers have been left to shoulder the uneconomic costs of PSNH operating several coal-fired generating units – and to pay the highest electric rates in New Hampshire as a result. Northern Pass does nothing to change this situation.  Many commercial ratepayers in PSNH territory have “migrated” in increasing numbers to other utilities that – unlike PSNH – do buy substantial power from the wholesale market to supply their customers. Residential ratepayers don’t have this choice – which means they’re saddled with PSNH’s higher costs, as PSNH loses more and more of its commercial rate base.  Again, Northern Pass does nothing to change this situation.  On closer inspection, the claimed benefits for New Hampshire consumers look more like phantom benefits than anything real.

The proposal promises to send huge profits to Hydro-Quebec, as it bids power into the wholesale market (easily paying back its investment in the transmission lines), and to provide a revenue stream of transmission payments to Northeast Utilities, PSNH’s parent company. But this structure makes very little sense because it means New Hampshire residents will continue to bear the burden of high cost power and dirty air from PSNH’s coal plants and will also face the environmental and economic impacts of a massive transmission project, while the power would only displace relatively less-polluting natural gas generation and may undermine the development of local renewable energy projects in the state. If it does indeed lower costs on the New England market, the effect will be to increase costs for PSNH’s residential customers as more large customers migrate to the competitive market and fewer customers are left to pay the costs of PSNH’s expensive coal plants.

The current proposal is coming into focus as a bad energy and economic deal for New Hampshire, and regionally the benefits seem less than impressive – especially because the emissions reductions made possible could be so much greater if there was a firm commitment to pair the new imports with the retirement of coal-fired units. As the project continues to wind its way through the federal and state permitting process, CLF will keep pushing for the project to make sense for New Hampshire and for the energy future of the region as a whole.

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.

Ever buy a furnace? How about a central air conditioning system?

Even if you haven’t you can guess that finding one that is right for your home, your bank account and will not be an energy hog is a tricky business.  Especially if it is wintertime in a cold place and you need to get the heat back on NOW.  And while air conditioning can be a luxury for some of us, imagine if you lived in a hot place and you have a family member with a medical condition who really needs cool and filtered air.

These kinds of examples – and the fact that the ability to shop for these large heating and cooling devices is limited, not to mention the fact that they are often installed by landlords, prior owners and others who don’t end up paying the bills of running them.

Driven by the need to improve the basic efficiency of all furnaces and central air conditioners a group led by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project crafted a set of new standards for these vital machines that were acceptable to environmental and efficiency advocates and to industry.  In a press release the good folks at ASAP summed up this development this way:

A diverse coalition of consumer, manufacturing, and environmental groups praised new energy efficiency standards just released by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) establishing the first-ever regional standards for central air conditioners and furnaces, as well as strengthened national standards for heat pumps. The new rules are based on a joint recommendation filed with DOE by the groups in 2009.

“Climates as different as those of Minneapolis and Miami need different furnace and AC standards,” said Andrew deLaski, Executive Director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP). “Until now, we’ve had one-size-fits-all national standards. These new, regional standards are a major breakthrough that will benefit consumers and the environment.”

Once the latest updated standards take effect, a typical new air conditioner in the South will use about 40% less energy, and a typical new furnace in the North will use about 20% less than before national standards were established in the late 1980s. According to DOE’s analysis, the improvements to the air conditioner and heat pump standards announced today will save 156 billion kilowatt hours of electricity over 30 years, or about enough to meet the total electricity needs of all the households in Indiana for three years, while delivering net savings of more than $4.2 billion to U.S. consumers. The new furnace standards will save 31 billion therms of natural gas, or about enough natural gas over 32 years to heat all the homes in New York State for more than 11 years and save consumers $14.5 billion.

While the Federal Government took a ridiculously long time to approve these standards their issuance is still very good news.

For more information check out the ASAP fact sheet on this.  Or if you want the down and dirty details the actual rule is available for light reading.  And if you think this is important then let your voice be heard – the US Department of Energy, in that notice, actively asks for input on the rule saying they may back off from it “if adverse comments are received”.

But hopefully this rule will move forward and the day when all furnaces and central air conditioners are efficient and kind to both our wallets and our environment will arrive sooner than later.

At a time when Maine’s new governor is trying to revive the false choice of business versus the environment, the Oakhurst Dairy company is proving that what’s good for the environment is also good for business.  As shown in this recent article, this family-owned business, based in Portland, ME, is not just talking the talk but walking the walk when it comes to environmentally-conscious businesses.  From committing to selling only artificial growth hormone-free milk to installing solar panels to heat water used to clean milk cases to its delivery fleet of trucks that use biodiesel and aerodynamic skirts to increase fuel efficiency, Oakhurst Dairy has significantly reduced the amount of oil and diesel fuel it otherwise would have used, and in doing so, reaped significant savings.  As one might expect of a company that started 90 years ago as a small dairy in Portland, Oakhurst takes the long view when it comes to how best to keep its niche in the market, and that’s good for Maine.