The future? That's what MA Rep. John Keenan wants. (Photo credit: Marilyn Humphries)

Protecting dirty old coal plants. Whacking solar and wind. Sounds like the opposite of the clean energy revolution that is underway in Massachusetts, right?  Or perhaps a belated April Fool?  But no, sadly, these deeply troubling initiatives have been introduced by Representative John Keenan, the new House co-chair of the MA Legislature’s Energy Committee, through amendments to the state budget currently under debate on Beacon Hill.  All on the eve of Earth Day, no less.

These amendments are alarming, and would undo much of the enormous progress that has been made over the past few years with respect to reducing Massachusetts’ reliance on dirty and costly fossil fuels, most of which are imported from faraway lands and offer Massachusetts no economic development benefits.  And the use of the budget process, rather than stand-alone legislation with public hearings, adds insult to injury.   We strongly encourage everyone who cares about clean air and a clean energy economy to ask your Massachusetts state legislators to oppose the Keenan Amendments (# 594, 623 and 640).  For more detail:

Keenan Amendment # 594 would prioritize existing (and even mothballed) coal and oil plants over transmission alternatives – in other words, it would severely discourage upgrades to improve efficiency or capacity of existing power lines or new transmission that would connect to cleaner resources.  This amendment seeks to protect the dirty, obsolete energy generating sources of the past while standing in the way of cleaner alternatives.  Who would benefit?  Dominion Energy, the owner of the Salem Harbor Station coal and oil plant in Chairman Keenan’s District, would benefit more than anyone.  The rest of us would have to continue to pay the price in terms of dirty air.

Keenan Amendment # 623: This amendment would require Massachusetts to prioritize renewable energy that is the cheapest when viewed over a very short three year time period.  As such, it would promote facilities that can be cheaper to build, like biomass, at the expense of solar and wind, which have higher up-front costs but are powered by fuels that are free (unlike biomass).  The amendment would turn on its head the thoughtful balance struck by the legislature less than three years ago when the Green Communities Act was passed, requiring renewables to be “cost-effective” and “reasonable” to qualify for benefits such as long-term contracts.  If this system were scrapped in favor of prioritizing the “cheapest” resource, we probably would wind up with only one type of renewable energy – most likely biomass, possibly hydropower too – rather than the diverse array of clean energy solutions that we need.

Keenan Amendment # 640: The aim of this amendment is to take the MA Renewable Energy Trust’s limit of $3 million per year to support hydropower and convert that limit to a floor, or minimum, for annual investment of MA ratepayers’ dollars in hydropower.  The amendment has a fundamental technical flaw — it tries to adjust the language of a statute that was repealed last year — but otherwise it would guarantee investment in hydropower even if there are far more deserving solar, wind or other renewable energy projects available.

We hope that cooler heads will prevail and these amendments all will be rejected.  Otherwise, coal lobbyists and their clients will be dancing all the way to the bank (ka-ching!) while we face a major setback for Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy programs and the enormous environmental, public health and economic development benefits they bring.

One year ago the BP Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform erupted into a tower of flame. Eleven men were killed. Hundreds of millions of gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico and created the worst environmental disaster in the US since the Great Dust Bowl. What we might have seen in this last year was a national awakening to the myriad threats of our reliance on oil. Instead we’ve seen the predictable denial of responsibility, a full scale media relations blitz and even the astonishing heartfelt apology from a leading Member of Congress to the oil industry.

It gets worse. Last week the  House Natural Resources Committee passed three bills designed to reduce oversight and speed up offshore oil drilling. One bill, HR1231, would actually require oil sale leasing in the North Atlantic and the rest of the east coast. Massachusetts’ Rep. Ed Markey pointed out the obvious and Chairman Doc Hastings said if we don’t drill more in the US then the price of gas will go up. Meanwhile, Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, agreed with the Saudi Arabian oil minister that “There is no shortage of supply in the market.” I only wish I were making this up.

About 25 years ago, after a battle of several years, CLF drove the final stake through the heart of attempts to drill for oil on Georges Bank. We have been through these battles before yet we can’t take any attacks by the oil industry and their allies in Congress lightly.

Tomorrow in Boston CLF, Oceana and Masschusetts State Rep. Frank Smizik will hold a press conference to oppose oil drilling in the Gulf of Maine. Come join us.

Wednesday, April 20th. Noon until 1:00pm. Government Center, City Hall Plaza. Find us near the flagpole outside the Government Center T stop. Rain or shine.

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced in the Federal Register that it’s extending to June 14, 2011 the deadline for submitting scoping comments on the proposed Northern Pass electric transmission project.

UPDATE:  As of June 15, 2011, DOE has again reopened the comment period – this time indefinitely – pending the submission of updated route information from Northern Pass.  See more here.

This extension of the public comment period comes on the heels of huge turnouts at DOE’s seven public meetings in March and the news (noted on NHPR here and in the Concord Monitor here) that the developer of the project wants DOE to stop considering several alternative routes for the project in favor of its original preferred route.

DOE’s extension means that you still have an important opportunity to help shape the environmental impact statement (EIS) and influence DOE’s decision on the project.  The EIS will be a detailed statement of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the Northern Pass proposal and alternatives.

What Should I Address in My Comments?

CLF encourages you to raise any reasonable concern or question about the proposed Northern Pass project and alternatives:

• Describe how the project could affect the natural resources that you value.
• Explain your concerns about the potential impacts of the project on scenic landscapes, communities, wildlife, forest resources, wetlands, recreation areas, the energy sector, and the local economy.
• Demand that DOE analyze the environmental impacts associated with generating the hydroelectric power that the project will transmit.
• Insist that DOE rigorously examine all reasonable alternatives to the project, including alternative project designs (like burying the lines in railroad or highway rights of way) and options that would generate or save the same amount of power here in New England (like local renewable energy, energy efficiency, or conservation programs).
• Join CLF’s request for a comprehensive EIS that assesses New England’s need for Canadian hydropower and develops a more holistic, proactive plan for addressing any such need (as opposed to reacting to project-specific proposals such as Northern Pass)

How Do I Submit Comments?

To comment, email DOE at Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov or use DOE’s Northern Pass EIS web form by June 14, 2011.  UPDATE: As mentioned above, the deadline for comments has been extended again – to a date yet to be determined.

For More Information

• Visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center at http://www.clf.org/northernpass, and download CLF’s detailed written comments to DOE.
• Check out project maps and Northern Pass’s application filings (available at http://www.northernpasseis.us, under “Document Library”).
• Contact me at ccourchesne@clf.org.
• Become a member of CLF here, to support us in our work.

Daniel Johnson Dam, north of Baie-Corneau, Québec

Last night, CLF filed detailed written comments with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regarding the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Northern Pass project. (A PDF of our comments is here.)   First and foremost, our comments urge DOE to stay the Northern Pass proceeding and instead conduct a comprehensive, regional analysis (a comprehensive EIS) of the region’s need for Canadian imports, to enable sound planning as opposed to the piecemeal, project-by-project approach DOE is currently taking by simply reacting to the permit applications of private entities like Northern Pass.   

Our comments expand on the remarks (PDF) I made at the Pembroke scoping meeting last month and come on the heels of yesterday’s major news that (1) Northern Pass wants DOE not to consider some alternative routes it included in its Presidential Permit application and also needs more time to discuss additional potential routes through the North Country (a PDF of Northern Pass’s filing is here and coverage on NHPR here) and (2) DOE is reopening the scoping public comment period through a date to be determined in June.  The fact that Northern Pass itself has asked for a delay to reconsider aspects of its project is an even stronger indication that DOE can and should take the time it needs to undertake a full regional analysis through an open, and collaborative public process.   

(more…)

When someone offers you a simple answer to a complicated and big problem be very suspicious.

Global warming, the ultimate in complicated and big problems, can only be addressed by deploying a wide array of tools aggressively and with honest awareness of what each tool can and can not do.

Some measures, like reducing energy use through efficiency and conservation or generating electricity from the wind or from sunlight, have a clear pollution reduction effect although measuring that effect and managing those resources to ensure they are as clean, affordable and effective as possible is not simple.

Other resources can best be thought of as being a choice between “less bad options” – a powerful example of this is the discussion of the relative greenhouse gas emissions (when you look at the full life cycle of the fuel and its uses) from coal and natural gas.

A paper by Cornell University Professor Robert Howarth has started a valuable dialogue about this important topic.  For a good discussion of that paper and the responses to it take a look at the New York Times blog post and news story about it as well as coverage in The Hill (a political publication in Washington) – and you can even read the paper for yourself.  MIT’s Technology Review also offers a perspective on this study.

The paper also figured in the Senate Committee hearing about hydraulic fracturing and natural gas held this morning.  If you really have nothing better to do check out the archived webcast.

Is natural gas only half as bad as coal?  Are they comparable? Is in fact gas worse under some circumstances?  These are all important questions but overlay the critical reality that both of these fossil fuels are simply not something we can rely upon in the long term to power our societies and our economies.

Last week was a busy week for the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC).  First, intervention status was granted to CLF and several other organizations in the Highland Wind case, a 39 turbine project located in Somerset county.  In addition, the Commission was presented with a novel legal argument.   The issue revolves around what sort of scenic standard should be applied to “associated facilities” of a grid scale wind power development.  The various components that make up the physical characteristics of a wind development consist of two broad categories: 1) generating facilities (the turbines, towers and transmission lines) and 2) associated facilities (the roads, buildings, generator lead lines, substations, etc…).

Historically, the scenic impact of both sets of facilities were evaluated under the Wind Energy Act (WEA) that seeks to provide meaningful guidance on evaluating scenic impacts by providing a list of 6 criteria that the applicant must adhere to.  However, last week, Commissioners were asked to apply an exception provided for under the WEA statute.  The exception provides that if the Commission “determines that application of the [wind-power-specific standard] to the development may result in unreasonable adverse effects due to the scope, scale, location or other characteristics of the associated facilities” then the Commission can revert to the more general standard when assessing the effect of the associated facilities on the scenic character of the affected area.

One of the issues that the parties and the Commission will be struggling with going forward is how to comprehensively analyze scenic impacts.  Wind energy development, of necessity, includes associated facilities.  How exactly do you go about erecting the turbines without the roads to transport the turbines in the first place? Better yet, once there, how do you collect the power generated without lead lines and substations?  Should the various parts of a single, cohesive development be judged with two very different standards?

LURC was clearly in a difficult position when grappling with whether to apply the exception.  The language of WEA lacked guidance on what sort of fact based criteria should be considered in determining whether the exception applies.  In the end, in a decision of first impression, LURC opted to apply the exception so that associated facilities will be evaluated by a different scenic standard from generating facilities.    The decision was hailed by wind opponents but the ultimate result of the decision has to be determined.  What is needed, by either LURC or the legislature, is clear guidance and a meaningful standard on when the exception should apply so that all parties can move forward with a sense of consistency on what standard will be applied to a project.

A longtime friend, colleague and hero of energy efficiency, Blair Hamilton, died peacefully on April 8, 2011.

Since the oil embargo in the 1970s, Blair worked tirelessly to advance energy efficiency and reduce our energy use. The national and international success of energy efficiency is due in no small part to Blair. He was a driving force behind Efficiency Vermont – the nation’s first energy efficiency utility — which is an international model for delivering energy efficiency.

CLF owes a huge debt of gratitude to Blair. He patiently taught me and others much of what we know about energy efficiency. To the extent CLF’s work on energy efficiency is successful, it is in large part because of Blair and his legacy. Blair was always a loyal and true friend, and a capable, dedicated and determined colleague. It has been an honor to know and work with him for many years.

We will miss you and think of you with our continued work.

The current situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan has shone a spotlight on the risks associated with nuclear power. (Photo credit: PACOM, flickr)

In conjunction with a Massachusetts legislative hearing held today on nuclear power in New England, and with the Fukushima debacle still unfolding in Japan, CLF President John Kassel prevailed upon state and federal leaders to answer this wake-up call and take appropriate measures to avoid a similar crisis in New England or anywhere in the United States.

“Several of New England’s remaining nuclear power plants are on their last legs and continuing to prop them up at the taxpayers’ expense is not a viable long-term strategy,” Kassel said. “In the interest of public safety, these aging plants must comply with the latest safety standards within six months, or shut down. In addition, plant owners need to take immediate steps – at their expense – to better secure the radioactive waste now stored at these facilities. The notion that new nuclear power plants should be a cornerstone of our national energy policy is grossly irresponsible as long as there is no solution to the radioactive waste problem.” More >

The Obama Administration has issued a clear statement opposing the bill that would roll back the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Air Act.  It really speaks for itself so I am just pasting it in below as well as providing a link.

The question for our Senators and Representatives is: will they reject this attack on the public health and the environment? They should stand firm against this bill and underhanded attempts to slip the  same provisions into other legislation, like the budget.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 910 – Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

(Rep. Upton, R-MI, and 95 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 910, which would halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) common-sense steps under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to protect Americans from harmful air pollution.  H.R. 910 would also increase the Nation’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels as well as contradict the scientific consensus on climate change.

The CAA gives EPA the necessary tools to protect our families from a wide variety of harmful pollutants that cause asthma and lung disease – especially in children.  Weakening these standards would allow more pollution in the air we breathe and threaten the health of Americans across the country.  A recent report by EPA shows how important this landmark law has been in protecting public health.  In 2010 alone, just one part of the CAA prevented:

• 160,000 premature deaths;

• 130,000 heart attacks;

• More than 100,000 hospital visits by preventing millions of cases of respiratory problems, including bronchitis and asthma.  It enhanced productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays, and kept kids healthy and in school, avoiding millions of lost school days due to respiratory illness and other diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution.

Since 1970, the CAA has reduced key air pollutants that cause smog and particulate pollution by more than 60 percent.  At the same time the economy has more than tripled.  And since the CAA Amendments in 1990, electricity production is up and prices are stable.  In 2009, electric utilities delivered 33 percent more electricity to U.S. households and businesses than in 1990, while nationwide electricity prices remained essentially unchanged.

Over its 40-year span, the benefits of the CAA – in the form of longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections – outweigh the costs by more than 30 to one.

Passage of H.R. 910 would also block important policy measures that enable the CAA to achieve additional societal benefits related to carbon pollution.  For example, the bill would block EPA’s involvement in the historic, bipartisan Federal program to promote vehicle fuel economy standards for Model Years 2017-2025.  This program will reduce oil consumption, provide significant savings to American consumers at the pump, and limit pollution from tailpipe emissions.  Further, H.R. 910 would second guess the widely-accepted scientific consensus that carbon pollution is at increasingly dangerous concentrations and is contributing to the threat of climate change.  This could create uncertainty around the requirements which are currently in effect for the Model Year 2012-2016 vehicle standards.  Finally, H.R. 910 would contradict public health experts and scientists and strip EPA of its authority to develop sensible standards for currently unchecked carbon pollution, and thus prevent EPA from following its statutory obligations as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

If the President is presented with this legislation, which would seriously roll back the CAA authority, harm Americans’ health by taking away our ability to decrease carbon pollution, and undercut fuel efficiency standards that will save Americans money at the pump while decreasing our dependence on oil, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.