Today marks a new milestone for CLF in our efforts to clean up the lower Charles River. Concluding a five-year negotiation, involving CLF and the other key stakeholders, the EPA issued a new water quality permit for the Kendall (formerly Mirant Kendall) Power Plant, a natural gas cogeneration facility owned by GenOn Energy. The plant is located on the Cambridge side of the Longfellow Bridge.

The new permit requires the plant to reduce its heat discharge and water withdrawal by approximately 95 percent, and to ensure that any heated discharge does not warm the river enough to cause harm.

The outcome is remarkable, not just for the dramatic improvements it will achieve in the lower Charles, but for the way in which the parties “got to yes.”

The plant will meet the new requirements by upgrading its existing “once-through” cooling system, to a new, closed-loop system. Kendall will capture most of the heat generated by the plant and distribute it as steam through a new pipeline to be built across the Longfellow Bridge over the next few years. The combination of the new co-generation turbine and expanded pipeline will allow Kendall to drastically reduce the amount of water it extracts from the Charles River, take more heat out of the plant, and double the amount of steam it can sells to heat buildings in the city of Boston.

It’s what’s known in the business as a “win-win situation.”

Today’s events would not have happened without the incredible efforts of two former CLFers: Carol Lee Rawn, who was a senior attorney in our Boston office, and Jud Crawford, who was senior scientist. They put together the case and the legal challenge to the Mirant Kendall permits based on a demonstration that EPA’s proposed heat discharges would threaten the fish and biological system in the lower Charles. They also showed that the proposed water intake damaged fish eggs, larvae, juvenile and adult fish and that better technologies were available in the market. CLF represented the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), who was the perfect conservation partner for our effort.

The outcome of this case has taught CLF a number of lessons. First, that being there is half the game. If we hadn’t appealed the EPA permit, none of this would have happened, no question. EPA and Mirant Kendall ultimately showed strong leadership qualities but needed a strong push. Second, that having a range of integrated advocacy initiatives can produce multiple, serendipitous results across the spectrum of CLF’s work in clean energy, clean water, ocean conservation and healthy communities. This single decision will create an opportunity for co-generation in an urban community, improve the health of our rivers and marine life, increase the quality of life for Esplanade users and river fishermen, and reduce green house gas emissions. Third, that a mix of good science and strong legal expertise is essential to our ability to make a credible challenge. And finally, that courtesy of all of the above and the generous and faithful support of our members over the past five years,  the Charles may one day be truly swimmable and fishable again.

For more information, you can read CLF’s press release, and check out the coverage in today’s Boston Globe.

There are many things about Governor LePage regulatory “reform” proposals that could impact the quality of my family’s life here in Maine, from developing the North Woods to loosening restrictions on dirty air emissions.  But a couple of proposals in particular really frustrated me as a parent.  LePage’s proposal to repeal the BPA ban and the toxic flame retardant ban. The BPA ban phased out the toxic chemical in consumer products such as baby bottles and sippy cups.  The bill had strong support and there wasn’t a single Maine based business that testified against the bill.  But it received plenty of opposition from deep pocketed chemical industries, such as Dow Chemical.

While Washington based groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council have supported a repeal of the ban, local grocers, including the Maine Grocers Association have not taken an active role and have not taken a stance on the ban.

I am the mother of two young boys, ages 17 months and 2 and a half.

My boys on the shore of Moosehead Lake

I spend a considerable amount of time combing through labels on baby products to make sure that the materials aren’t toxic.  It is time consuming to ground truth the harmful effects of chemicals.  What are the hormone disrupting effects of Bispehnol-A (BPA)?  Will that stain resistant/flame resistant perfluorinated synthetic chemical (PFC) on that couch give my boys bladder cancer?  So my attitude is to err on the side of being safe by buying products with as few chemicals as possible.  You would be surprised at how challenging  it is to achieve even that tepid goal.  But last year, Maine lawmakers took considerable strides towards making my decision making easier and safer by enacting bans on known toxic chemicals in kids products, through the Kids Safe Products Law.

Why are we trying so hard to appease out-of-state chemical companies?  Dan Demeritt, LePage’s communication director, dryly pointed out that BPA-free products are available on the market, parents don’t have to choose to buy products that contain the chemical.  This is the “people before politics” response?  As a parent that is constantly pressed for time (aren’t we all?) who frequently does shopping with 2 kids piled into a shopping cart where 5 minutes too long can spell “melt-down”, I don’t have time to read through all the product disclaimers.  Why should any parent have to take that extra step to protect their children when a simple solution is already in place?

I was pleased to see that Republican Senator Dana Dow took a stand on this issue.  He works in the furniture industry and relayed a story of a simple blood test revealed soaring high toxicity levels for PFCs.  Take a look at the link, Senator Dow testifies at around 8 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlc5urnzB50

This issue impacts all of us.  Will Maine choose to protect our children over out of state chemical companies?  Next time you are barreling down a grocery aisle trying to read the label, remember to call your representative and help them figure this one out.

NSTAR Green 100 customers got a rude shock last week when a notice from the utility informed them, without any explanation, that their green power premiums would be going up by more than 300 percent in March. What’s up with that?

What’s up is that prices for natural gas, the dominant fuel used to create electricity in our region, are way down.  Meanwhile, the price of the clean, renewable wind power that NSTAR Green customers are buying to reduce our dependence on such polluting fossil fuels as gas and coal, is stable. So, because the NSTAR Green premiums are pegged to the price of power from those fossil fuels – i.e., the price of its “Basic Service ” – when the differential between its Basic Service and the cost of wind power increases, the premiums go up.

What NSTAR failed to explain to its Green customers is that, even with the  hike in premiums, customers will still pay the same or less  for their total energy bill (basic electric supply, transmission and distribution charges, plus the green premium) than they paid when the program first started. Other than the obvious environmental and public health benefits of consuming less fossil fuels, NSTAR Green customers also get the benefit of more stable and ultimately lower total energy prices over time. The drop in traditional electricity prices is temporary, and it is inevitable that they will soon rise again, given the finite nature of fossil fuels and the environmental, public health and national security costs of burning them. When the price of traditional electricity increases in the future, NSTAR Green premiums will go back down.

We wish that NSTAR had taken this opportunity to tell its customers who have chosen to buy clean power that their investment continues to be a sound one, one that will ultimately save them money by getting off of the fossil fuel roller coaster.

With just one click of your mouse, you can help save 500 million barrels of oil, cut 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution, and produce $41 billion in net economic benefits.

Please take action today: Support EPA’s first-ever climate pollution and fuel economy standards for freight trucks and buses.

The deadline for comments is Monday, January 31st, so make sure your voice is heard.

Background

Last October, the EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a joint proposal to adopt America’s first-ever climate pollution and fuel economy standards for freight trucks and buses.

These vehicles – from the largest pickups to 18-wheelers – use more than 100 million gallons of oil per day. They are also responsible for about 20% of the climate pollution from America’s transportation sector.

The new standards, which will apply to trucks and buses manufactured in model years 2014 to 2018, will help strengthen our economy, increase our national security and reduce dangerous air pollution. By 2030, the volume of projected daily oil savings from the proposed standards would be large enough to offset America’s oil imports from Iraq.

This proposal follows two previous actions by EPA and DOT to improve fuel efficiency and climate pollution standards for passenger cars and trucks.

The first announcement was in April, when the Obama administration adopted the first-ever national greenhouse gas emission standards for model year 2012-2016 cars and light trucks. The second announcement came in October with the announcement of a blueprint for new standards for model years 2017 to 2025.

CLF has led our region in pushing for these initiatives to reduce dangerous emissions from transportation and protect the health of all New Englanders. Please join CLF in supporting these new standards by submitting your comments to the EPA.

The public comment period ends January 31st, so add yours now.

We have previously written about CLF friend Leslie Harroun trying to blog her way to the North Pole so she can tell the climate story.   She has made great progress and is now in 8th place with well over 900 votes.  And she just needs to get the top 5 and if she continues to pile up votes at her current pace she will definitely make it. So read her post and vote for her !!

Grist, the environmental news website has a good piece about a book called Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth about “the 2 billion or so young people who will be stuck dealing with global warming and weirding for their entire lives — and who have to figure out how to do it sanely and humanely.”

As the author of the book Mark Hertsgaard notes in an article  in The Nation adapted from his book, “”My daughter and the rest of Generation Hot have been given a life sentence for a crime they didn’t commit.” Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, there are still climate deniers out there who claim that global warming isn’t real–and we need a multifaceted, aggressive, solutions-oriented approach to overcome that hurdle and start cooling things down (so to speak). The latest paleoclimate data suggests that things are even worse than computer models have projected–up to two times worse, according to Climate Progress author Joe Romm.

States like Massachusetts are developing nation-leading strategies to reduce that life sentence, maybe even with a chance of parole. Most recently, last month, Governor Patrick announced the release of the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan, which will reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. That’s the maximum target authorized by the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act– a sign that the state is committed to combating climate change. A centerpiece of the Plan is Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance (PAYD), a market-based, mileage-based solution that rewards drivers for driving less, and an initiative that CLF has been working on for over a decade.

But the work is far from done. Before we can implement measures that will lead New England to the clean energy future it deserves, we have to eradicate the outmoded, dirty sources of power that brought us here in the first place. CLF’s Coal-free New England campaign is designed to do just that, by pushing for the shutdown of the seven major coal-fired power plants in New England that are still in operation, and combined provide about 10 percent of the region’s power and 25 percent of the power in Massachusetts.

Generation Hot may be hot right now, but you know how trends work–they fade. And with a lot of hard work and ingenuity, Generation Hot will be on its way to becoming the most unfashionable generation yet.

President Obama is accepting questions from the public. Ask him if he will defend the Clean Air Act in the State of the Union. Tell him yourself at YouTube.com/askobama or on Twitter using #askobama

In a letter to President Obama today, CLF added a regional voice to the chorus of national organizations asking him to use the State of the Union address on January 25th to show his support for the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act’s vital public health protections are once again under attack from the nation’s biggest polluters and their supporters in Congress; the President has a chance to let the nation know where he stands. We were proud to represent New England in this important call to action to the President.

The folks who deny that the globe is warming are fond of saying the computer models that show how our climate is changing are wrong.  It looks like they may be right – but not in they way they intend. The situation may be much worse as in-depth review of paleoclimate data (information about the changes in the earth’s climate stretching back millions of years) suggests that CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models” – which would mean that we could see changes in global average temperatures by 2100 that would render large sections of the earth uninhabitable.

Scary stuff that is described quite clearly by Joe Romm on his authoritative Climate Progress blog.

This science reinforces, yet again, the need to take aggressive action on a wide range of fronts to slash greenhouse gas emissions.