Last Wednesday, Calais LNG delivered its second major surprise in just two weeks.  After stunning all parties by asking the Board of Environmental Protection for a last minute hearing postponement, Calais LNG announced on July 21 that its financial backer, GS Power Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, was in the process of “selling its ownership interests.”  Huh, go figure.  From our perspective, this just confirms that the smart folks at Goldman Sachs finally sat down after spending more than $24 million to take a hard look at the project and reached the same conclusion that we did long ago: the New England market is already saturated with natural gas and there is no need for a new industrial LNG terminal that will have significant adverse impacts on the environment and existing uses of Passamaquoddy Bay.

Calais LNG has promised to withdraw all of its applications for environmental approval if the company can’t find someone else willing to pay for the small army of lawyers and consultants by August 11, 2010.  Were the Calais LNG project to fade away, it would be the third LNG project in five years to withdraw its applications, joining Quoddy LNG and Downeast LNG.  And while there appears to be an obvious trend, namely failed projects and wasted time and money, Downeast LNG is still considering refiling with the BEP this summer.  If that is the case, we can only hope that the Board and State will have learned from past mistakes and not allow themselves to be bullied into unrealistically aggressive schedules for these complicated projects that will change the face and uses of Passamaquoddy Bay for generations to come.

Want to know more? Read this article in the Quoddy Tides.

The news from the Nation’s Capitol is bleak.

The United States Senate will not consider anything remotely like comprehensive energy and climate legislation before its August recess.

While it is good that they will be looking at legislation to address oil spills and laudable energy efficiency efforts like HomeStar the decision to not address the underlying climate and energy crisis is tragic. However, even after the BP oil disaster, Congress still continues to leave New England’s ocean and our coastal communities at risk of the next big spill.

Effectively, Congress is turning its back on the science that describes the fundamental peril facing our climate, the families who need the jobs that a surge of green development will bring and embracing a course of continued dependence on imported oil and dirty coal.

The handful of Senators who have blocked progress on this critical legislation should be ashamed of the damage they are doing to our environment, our economy and our communities.

Through a recently released tool authored by the World Resources Institute as part of Google’s Public Data Explorer, users are able to visualize greenhouse gas emissions like never before:

On a per capita basis, New England states are leading the pack with some of the lowest numbers.

Why?

1. New England states tend to be more efficient in our use of electricity and natural gas.
2. As our states are more compact and developed, New Englanders generally drive less.
3. New Englanders typically drive more efficient vehicles.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding:

Of course, there’s still plenty of room for improvement – and in this midst of this climate crisis, we’re all going to have to do much better to turn things around.

After months of political and legal muscle flexing to bully the Board of Environmental Protection into setting an extremely aggressive hearing schedule, the proponents of a liquefied natural gas import and regasification industrial facility on the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay sought and obtained a last minute postponement.  Why? The official story is that the BEP didn’t want to make their decision without certain information that Calais LNG failed to submit in response to comments they received three months earlier from two state agencies concerning impacts on wetlands and fisheries. We think there’s something else going on.  Perhaps the project’s financial backers, a shapeless subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, got tired of wasting money.  Or perhaps Calais LNG recognized the significant weaknesses and impacts of the project as set forth in testimony by CLF and others. Regardless, the request for a delay and the granting of that request only favors the applicant, giving it more time to address flaws, and disfavors the citizens and organizations who were forced to meet the expedited schedule that Calais LNG so stridently sought.

A whale in Passamaquoddy Bay, the proposed site of the Calais LNG Facility.

Why is CLF opposed to building a LNG facility in Passamaquoddy Bay in the first place?  Well, to begin with, there is no need for a project of Calais LNG’s size anywhere in New England, and there is certainly no reason to put one in the pristine coastal area of Passamaquoddy Bay.  The annual increase in natural gas consumption in the Northeast region through the year 2035 across all energy use sectors is projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to be under one percent. EIA estimates all natural gas needs can be met from the region’s existing LNG terminals, never mind the huge potential of domestic gas in the Northeast from tight shale formations.

But if there is so much natural gas in the area, then why does New England remain so dependent on heating oil as a fuel source?  The quick answer is that there is a lack of infrastructure for natural gas, especially in Maine, and that many users are hesitant to pay the upfront costs associated with switching to natural gas.  But despite promises by Calais LNG that its project will help to make this switch, this project will at best increase the supply of natural gas for a market already over-supplied.  It will do nothing to help Mainers switch from oil to natural gas to heat their homes, not even in Calais.

And while the energy benefits of building Calais LNG would be minimal, the environmental costs would be huge.  The proposed $1 billion project would include a 67-acre terminal site with two LNG storage tanks, a two acre pier, and a 20-mile natural gas pipeline connecting to the Maritimes&Northeast Pipeline. Although Calais LNG convinced the BEP to ignore the issue, if the project were built it would also require that a new pipeline run parallel to the existing M&NE pipeline, all 254 miles of it, with attendant impacts as well.  The construction and operation of the facility would result in the industrialization of Passamaquoddy Bay and would have permanent environmental impacts on the area’s wetlands, fisheries, wildlife and scenic character.

And since this is Maine…what about the lobstermen?  The development would significantly harm the area’s aquaculture, lobster, and fishing industries; three of the few viable industries left in Washington County.  Calais LNG will try to argue that they’ve come up with an ingenious solution to avoiding fishing impacts.  During the American lobster season, LNG carriers will only transit in Canadian waters, thereby avoiding any delays and gear loss.  Unfortunately for Calais LNG, Canada has continued to state, as recently as June, that they will not allow American LNG tankers in Canadian water.

So, while we are frustrated that the hearing has been delayed, we’re confident that Calais LNG will be just as bad of a proposal in the fall when the hearing is rescheduled as it is in the summer.

If nothing else, this week’s debacle should make the Board question the merits of deciding proposals of this magnitude on such a frenzied schedule.  This isn’t the first time the state has spent considerable resources on potential LNG projects only to have the applicants withdraw unannounced.  Two years ago, Downeast LNG, who plans to re-file this summer, withdrew their permit application right after a week-long BEP hearing.  As is often said, fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Learn more:
Read news coverage on the issue in the Portland Press Herald,  Bangor Daily News, and MPBN.net

On an appropriately wet and windy afternoon yesterday in Boston, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act with a vote of 101-52. Modeled after the bill passed by the Senate in February, the Act will streamline the siting process for wind energy projects, making it easier for developers and local authorities alike to incorporate well-designed wind power initiatives into the plan to meet the state’s energy demand. The new legislation is a major step towards building a clean energy economy for Massachusetts and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The bill will now head to a House-Senate conference committee for further discussion.

Here’s what Sue Reid, director of CLF’s Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Change Program, had to say on the issue:

“Massachusetts needs to tap into its abundant wind energy resources in order to meet its clean energy goals. We are delighted that the Massachusetts House of Representatives has joined the Senate in passing this wind siting reform bill that is crucial to meeting the state’s energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preserving our natural resources. This new legislation will make it easier to develop well-designed wind energy projects. Today’s vote represents a key victory in the state’s ongoing efforts to reduce our dependence on dirty fossil-fuel fired power in Massachusetts.”

Read CLF’s full press statement>>
Learn more about CLF’s renewable energy initiatives in MA and throughout New England>>

Global Warming is real . . .  and I don’t just say that because it is really hot outside.

Yet again the core science presented by such reliable sources as the National Research Council has been vindicated.

As the New York Times reports a fifth official commission report (know as the “Muir Report”)  has come out debunking the fake “scandal” generated by public release of illegally obtained emails between scientists.   Opponents of action on global warming had attempted to portray those emails as showing the existence of some sort of conspiracy to distort science to meet a political agenda.  These were ironic accusations as the small band of climate deniers (whose lack of credentials and credibility is documented in this recent paper in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences) have been engaging in exactly that practice.  In a similar vein, an expert panel convened by Penn State University found that allegations that those same emails showed improper behavior by Prof. Michael Mann of Penn State were unsupported and cleared him completely.

The new British report concluded that the “honesty and rigour” of the scientists was not in question but that there had been a failure to be as open to inquiries and requests for public information and data as they should have been.

And there is the real scandal: that the opponents of sound science and action on global warming have created a toxic dynamic that drives climate scientists into a virtual bunker, rightfully fearing that speaking the truth will result in massive waves of harassment and attack.

There is much more that science needs to tell us about our climate. But the basic principles are clear – and even presentable in rather entertaining cartoons.

Not surprisingly the scientists over at Real Climate engage the news of the “Muir Report”  in depth, as well as the vindication of Michael Mann at Penn State.

The time is long past for the public dialogue and for our political leaders to walk away from these phony debates and focus on solutions.  So what are you waiting for tell your Senator to take action !!  While none of the climate or energy  bills rattling around Washington are perfect (and some are quite bad) the only way to make them better is to force an active debate and a real and concerted effort to solve the climate and energy crisis that we face.

Another radioactive fish was found near the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in southern Vermont.

This is the second time a fish contaminated with Strontium-90 was found in the Connecticut River.

Vermont Yankee officials defy common sense.  They continue to claim there is no connection between the contaminated fish and the nuclear reactor on the banks of the river.

CLF refutes these silly claims.  In testimony CLF filed with the Vermont Public Service Board last Friday, CLF refutes claims that contamination is not moving with water through the ground.

CLF’s expert showed that radioactive isotopes are not limited to areas near the leak.  Instead, they migrated through the site with the release of tritium.  Hydrogeologist Stratton French testified:

“A more likely explanation for their occurence at these distant locations is that these radioisotopes migrated beyond the release point along groundwater flow pathways.  This conclusion is supported by Entergy VY’s own sampling data.”

COME TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY EVENING

AT 7:00 p.m. at the  BRATTLEBORO UNION HIGH SCHOOL.

Tell the Public Service Board whether you think.  Should the plant should be closed before 2012 in response to the continued leaks?  This is your chance for your voice to be heard.

Massachusetts State House in downtown Boston.

Last night, in keeping with the long and rich tradition of Massachusetts political debate, the candidates in this fall’s gubernatorial election appeared at Boston’s Old South Meeting House to discuss the most pressing environmental issues facing the Commonwealth. Several hundred people attended the Gubernatorial Forum on Energy and the Environment, which was sponsored by CLF and a coalition of other local environmental organizations. Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat), Dr. Jill Stein (Green-Rainbow Party), State Treasurer Tim Cahill (Independent) and State Representative Brad Jones (appearing as a representative for Republican Charlie Baker’s campaign) appeared in succession, each presenting opening remarks and then answering questions from panelists and audience members. The forum was moderated by George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, and panelists included Beth Daley of the Boston Globe and Steve Curwood of Public Radio’s “Living on Earth.”

Governor Deval Patrick appeared first, highlighting his administration’s environmental achievements on climate change mitigation and land conservation, among other programs, and voicing his continued support for the Cape Wind project to put offshore wind turbines in the Nantucket Sound. Dr. Jill Stein spoke next, presenting herself as a Beacon Hill outsider and charging the current administration with not taking sufficiently strong action on issues such as greenhouse gas reduction and funding for environmental programs. Treasurer Tim Cahill took the podium third and struck an honest tone, explaining that while his lack of party affiliation would allow him to consider all sides of a debate, in a conflict between protecting the environment and growing the economy, he would take a pro-growth stance. Finally, Rep. Brad Jones appeared on behalf of Republican candidate Charlie Baker, who was absent due to a prior commitment. The audience was keen to hear Rep. Jones’s response to questions about Baker’s previous remarks that some interpreted as skeptical of climate change. Rep. Jones explained that while Baker does not believe he has the technical knowledge to discuss the science of climate change, he does support renewable energy projects.

The overtones of a struggling economy were heard throughout the forum as candidates disucssed such issues as green jobs, a dwindling state budget, and of course, the economic viability of renewable energy. While Governor Patrick defended his decision to offer tax incentives to companies to create green jobs, Dr. Stein argued that the money spent on tax breaks should instead be used to close the funding gap for state environmental programs. While the Governor discussed the future economic and environmental benefits of Cape Wind, Treasurer Cahill declared offshore wind to be a prohibitively expensive technology.

The audience, for its part, was respectful but responsive, asking detailed questions and frequently interrupting candidates’ statements with supportive applause. While the event was capped at two hours, there’s no doubt that it could have gone on much longer. All in all, it was a successful airing of the candidates’ environmental views. Thanks to the groups, candidates, moderator, and panelists who made it possible and to all of the concerned citizens who attended the event!

Click here to watch video clips, courtesy of ELM.

Big announcement yesterday:

In an ongoing effort to protect the environment and the public from the hazards of dirty coal-fired power plants, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed a federal suit against Dominion Energy of New England for repeatedly exceeding smokestack emissions limits at its Salem Harbor Station facility in Salem, Massachusetts.  The suit holds Dominion Energy accountable for willful and ongoing violations of the federal Clean Air Act’s “opacity” requirements. The Clean Air Act sets limits on opacity – a measure of the density of smokestack emissions – to minimize the amount of soot that is released into the air.  Soot, which contains harmful chemicals, metals and ash, has been linked to severe health and environmental problems.

The suit would hold Dominion responsible for paying millions of dollars in penalties retroactively for violations of the smokestack emissions limits. The violations – 317 in a five year period – are documented in Dominion’s own quarterly reports of mandatory monitoring at the Salem Harbor Station power plant.

“Abiding by the Clean Air Act is not optional,” said Shanna Cleveland, CLF staff attorney. “According to its own reports, Salem Harbor Station is in continual violation of what the law has deemed necessary to safeguard public health. This casual disregard for the law and the people impacted by Dominion’s negligence must not go on unchecked.”

Recent studies have shown that even short-term exposure to soot has been linked to higher rates of hospitalization for heart and respiratory problems. Children and the elderly are the most vulnerable, experiencing health problems ranging from decreased lung function to premature death.

Martha Dansdill, executive director of the public health advocacy group HealthLink and a co-plaintiff in the suit, said, “Salem Harbor Station must not be allowed to continue to pollute with impunity. It is clear that Dominion is not operating in the best interest of the people who live nearby and must breathe in air dirtied by this particulate-laden, toxic plume. Dominion cannot continue its lax management at Salem Harbor Station which risks our health.”

For two decades, CLF, along with residents of Salem and neighboring communities, has fought to force Dominion, and before them the prior owners of the plant, to clean up or shut down Salem Harbor Station. The plant has a long history of violations related to its coal-burning operations, repeatedly exceeding legal limits on the discharge of known pollutants including, over time, mercury, coal ash and now, soot.

The Conservation Law Foundation (www.clf.org) works to solve the most significant environmental challenges facing New England.  CLF’s advocates use law, economics and science to create innovative strategies to conserve natural resources, protect public health and promote vital communities in our region.  Founded, in 1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

# # #

NOTE: Photos of Salem Harbor Station’s plume are available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/conservationlawfoundation/sets/72157623295027376/

The press is picking up the story – including the Boston Globe, the Boston Business Journal and the Salem News.