In an ongoing battle between the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the Administration of Governor Paul LePage over the release of public documents related to his regulatory reform proposals and “red tape audits,” the LePage Administration Thursday relented and agreed with CLF’s legal conclusion that Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requires the Governor’s office to disclose documents related to the development of his regulatory agenda and staffing that were generated during his post-election transition.

Naturally, I am pleased that the Governor’s office has agreed to comply with the law that allows citizens access to their government’s records; however, I remain concerned that the Administration’s first reaction was to fight disclosure, and that even this agreement to adhere to the law comes with strings attached.

The Governor’s Office takes the position that “the Transition Team was under no obligation to preserve such documents” and says that it will not turn over documents in the possession of Transition Team members. So what shade of transparency is this? Well, I construe this statement to mean that documents that formed the basis for the Governor’s sweeping regulatory reform proposal were either destroyed or are in the possession of the Transition Team, and though those documents are accessible to the Governor’s Office, they will be withheld from the public.

That’s right, it seems that when Governor LePage declared the “most transparent transition in Maine history,”  he forgot to mention that he wasn’t beyond secreting policy documents using legal technicalities. So why doesn’t the Governor want the people of Maine to know who was really behind this effort to reverse Maine’s progress in protecting natural resources that are vital to our economy and our way of life? Is it possible that we might learn that it was lobbyists, out-of-state corporations and some of those special interests by which the Governor claims he cannot be taken hostage?

To borrow your words, Governor–“the Maine people deserve to know.”

CLF, with the Appalachian Mountain Club and Coos Community Benefits Alliance, has filed an objection with the US Department of Energy (DOE) challenging the DOE’s selection of a contractor to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Pass electric transmission project. The objection comes out of concern that the contractor chosen will not be able to provide an objective, unbiased analysis, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

“The preparation of an objective Environmental Impact Statement is a core requirement of the public review and fully-informed decision making mandated by NEPA,” said Tom Irwin, director of CLF New Hampshire.  “DOE’s selection of a contractor—one that simultaneously owes a duty to the project applicant to help obtain state-level permits—flies in the face of this objectivity requirement and will undermine the legitimacy of the NEPA review process from day one.” More >

The LePage Administration appears to be failing its first formal test of what it claimed would be the most transparent administration in Maine’s history.

In response to a request we filed at the end of January under the Freedom of Access Act for documents related to Governor LePage’s so-called Regulatory “Reform” Proposals, the LePage Administration has stated that it would not provide any documents generated during the transition period for the new Administration, but only those documents generated after the January 5 inauguration. The announcement is in direct conflict with Maine’s Freedom of Access Act and relevant court decisions.

CLF seeks documents related not only to the proposals which threaten to eviscerate four decades of laws and regulations that benefit both the environment and economy of Maine, but also documents related to the “red tape” meetings organized by the Administration and business interest groups in December and January and the nomination of DEP Commissioner Darryl Brown.

“If they didn’t consult with Mr. Brown on these proposals, the vast majority of which are directed at the department he was to lead, then who did they consult with?” asked Sean Mahoney, director of CLF Maine. “It appears to us by the nature of many of these proposals and the document itself, that many of the proposals represent the wish list not from Maine residents or businesses, but out-of-state corporations and trade organizations.”

The Administration’s position is not only counter to its professed goals of transparency and putting people before politics but is legally unsupportable under the clear language of Maine’s Freedom of Access Act and as interpreted by the courts.  If they fail to change their position, CLF will take the fight for transparency and full disclosure to the courts. More >

Members of Mt. Holyoke's crew team pass Mt. Tom in the early morning.

CLF today announced that it intends to file a federal citizen suit against Mt. Tom Generating Company, FirstLight Power Resources and GDF Suez North America, the owners of Mt. Tom Station, for ongoing violations of the Clean Air Act. Mt. Tom, a 50-year-old coal-fired power plant in Holyoke, MA, is one of the top five sources of toxic emissions in the state, and one of the plants targeted by CLF’s Coal-Free New England campaign.

“The soot Mt. Tom releases contains dangerous pollutants that threaten the health of everyone who breathes them–particularly children and the elderly,” said CLF staff attorney Shanna Cleveland. “Despite recent investments in new technology, this plant is unable to operate in compliance with the law, and therefore within the limits of what is considered safe for human health.” More >

By now, you’ve heard about Governor LePage’s regulatory “reform” proposals that threaten to dismantle four decades of sound environmental regulations and put Maine’s environment and economy at risk.

CLF is already hard at work evaluating these “reform” proposals and their sources, and has submitted a formal request under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act for the documents, communications and other materials that served as the basis for this proposal.  CLF is ready to work with the new administration to create proposals that make existing regulations and institutions more efficient; however, we are also prepared to hold the LePage administration legally accountable for the changes they propose to implement.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Attend a Hearing

The LePage administration is moving quickly to codify the proposals with a public hearing on LD 1, the vehicle for making these concepts law.  Come stand with CLF and our allies to support Maine’s environment and voice your opposition to these “reforms” by attending the public hearing on LD 1 on Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m. at the State House in Augusta, at which the Joint Standing Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform will take testimony on the Governor’s proposals.

Public Hearing on Governor LePage’s Regulatory Reform Proposals
Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m.
Maine State House
100 State House Station
Cross Building, Room 208
Augusta, ME 04333

Stand with CLF and tell the Governor that his proposals will:

• Threaten Maine’s economy by endangering the natural resources that bring businesses and tourists to Maine from all over the globe and $10 billion annually;
• Eliminate environmental safeguards that have been in place for decades to ensure clean air, clean water and a clean food supply;
• Endanger the health of all Maine residents;
• Perpetuate our dependence on oil; and
• Tear down the solid regulatory foundation that benefits every family and business in Maine.

2. Send a message to the LePage Administration

If you are unable to attend the hearing, you can submit your comments online to Governor LePage and the committee chairs for the Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform.

Protect Maine. Tell Governor LePage and the committee chairs, Senator Jonathan Courtney and Representative Jonathan McCain, that these proposed “reforms” will threaten the future of the Maine we know and love.

Want to learn more? Check out what CLF Maine director Sean Mahoney had to say on the subject in this Solve Climate News article.

Among the many questions CLF is asking about Northern Pass — the 180-mile transmission line proposed to transport 1,200 megawatts of hydro-generated power from HydroQuebec into New England — is what the project would mean for the development of local renewable energy in New Hampshire and New England.  With the recent introduction of HB 302 in the New Hampshire legislature — to be heard by the House Science, Technology & Energy Committee on February 8 — we soon may learn at least part of the answer to that question.

In 2007, New Hampshire passed its Renewable Portfolio Standards statute, or “RPS” — an important law to encourage the development of low-emission renewable energy sources in New Hampshire and New England.  The law requires that by 2025  nearly 25 percent of the electricity to be provided in New Hampshire must be generated by qualifying low-emission renewable sources — sources such as wind and small-scale hydro.

HB 302 seeks to change this important law by allowing large-scale hydropower — including large-scale hydropower from outside the region – to qualify as renewable.  Clearly intended to tilt the playing field in favor of the Northern Pass, HB 302 will greatly undermine one of the core purposes of New Hampshire’s RPS law: the stimulation of investment in renewable energy technologies in New England and, in particular, in New Hampshire.

The Northern Pass project developers have repeatedly claimed that they do not need and will not seek to change New Hampshire’s RPS law to benefit their project.  We intend to hold them to those claims.  The development of local renewable energy in New England is essential to building a clean energy economy for the region.  Join us in supporting a clean energy future for New Hampshire and New England by contacting members of the House Science, Technology & Environment Committee and voicing your opposition to HB 302.

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.