CLF’s Seth Kaplan in an Op-Ed article from the October 26, 2009 Boston Globe:

THE BLUR of details and fog of ideological attacks can obscure the truly essential in the current congressional debate about legislation to confront global warming while building a green economy: the stark need for immediate action.

The bill recently unveiled by Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer represents an important step forward. The bill is not perfect, and ways that it can be strengthened are discussed below. However, it does include some of the most essential tools for addressing this most fundamental of challenges.

The Kerry-Boxer bill sets hard targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions consistent with the need identified by science. It creates new tools for tackling the job of climate stabilization while leaving in place the US Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to use tried-and-true tools in this cause. The citizens of Massachusetts should feel strongly about maintaining those tools: our attorney general’s office led the charge that culminated in a Supreme Court declaration that greenhouse gas emissions can be addressed under the decades-old federal Clean Air Act.

This core of essential provisions – a science-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions and sustained EPA authority – provides a solid foundation for federal climate legislation.

Kerry took a critical step toward moving the legislative process forward when he coauthored a New York Times op-ed article with Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, describing a course to the 60 votes needed for Senate passage. In his collaboration with Graham, Kerry is acting in the best tradition of reaching across the aisle to “get to yes.’’ However, while bipartisan compromise is essential, a climate bill must not be traded for the environmental soul of the Senate. Packaging a climate bill with provisions, hinted at in the op-ed, that make the climate challenge more difficult and that Kerry has long (and appropriately) rejected, such as opening fragile coastal waters to oil drilling, should be a nonstarter. The same is true for proposals to pour billions of dollars into expensive nuclear power plants, especially given the long-unanswered questions about the safety and security of those plants, the very dangerous waste they produce, and the opportunities that would be lost for investing instead in truly sustainable and clean energy resources.

Good federal climate policy will emphasize clean and cost-effective measures like energy efficiency, both supporting state efforts and introducing strong new federal mandates for deployment of efficiency resources. It should also bring forward state and federal incentives and standards for renewable energy, like wind and solar, breaking our dependence on dirty and imported fossil fuels. It should create a framework for planning new transmission lines to support a massive ramp-up in renewable electricity generation, while respecting the critical role of states and regions in electric system planning.

These clean energy provisions, as well as the excellent building and energy code provisions from the House’s Waxman-Markey bill, will fit cleanly into a Senate climate bill. The final legislative package must include smart “cap and invest’’ provisions that set out a mechanism for auctioning pollution allowances and investing the proceeds in clean energy, especially efficiency and conservation measures that can slash greenhouse gas emissions while reducing energy bills and fostering livable communities. It should also support clean transportation planning and infrastructure and mandate use of low carbon fuels.

The legislation also should build upon New England’s nation-leading role in beginning the process of purging our fleet of old, inefficient, and polluting coal-fired power plants – an essential transformation that can be accelerated and replicated nationally by a strengthened climate bill setting clear standards implemented through a rapid phase-in.

Passing climate legislation will not be easy. We must continue to look to leaders like Edward Markey and Kerry to press forward with this most difficult yet essential of tasks. If we do not fully support and help them and their colleagues to deliver on this critical legislation, we will both court disaster and bear responsibility for dumping an increasingly heavy burden on our children.

October 24, 2009 is the International Day of Climate Action, and author Bill McKibben’s advocacy movement known as 350.org has been getting a lot of attention. 350.org is coordinating a widespread day of environmental action with one goal: solutions to the climate crisis.

Why 350? McKibben argues that it is the safe upper limit in atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured in parts per million. In order to avoid an environmental catastrophe, it’s the number targeted by this movement. In this week’s Yale Environment 360, economist Frank Ackerman argues that what is good for the Earth is good for the wallet. Of course, it is an alarming idea that this is the “safe” level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as we are at 390 already – and rising.

Though 350.org’s wide umbrella includes some efforts that are problematic, the message is a powerful one: the time for solutions is now. The medium of that message, hundreds of thousands of people at 4,000 events in 170 countries, is even more striking.

To locate an event in your local community, use the map below:

To hop on this trajectory of a reduction in global carbon dioxide levels, learn the 5 things that New Englanders must do in 5 years, and 5 things that you can do in 5 minutes.

Incredibly, Boston-based energy management company EnerNOC, a company that likes to pitch itself as “green”, has convinced  the California Public Utilities Commission to approve a program that uses diesel generators to supply “peak power” to Sempra, the electric utility serving the San Diego area.  SNL, an energy and financial trade press website, reported the decision this way:

California narrowly approves diesel generators contract for demand-side management
October 15, 2009 5:11 PM ET
By Jeff Stanfield

In a rare 3-2 vote, the California Public Utilities Commission on Oct. 15 approved San Diego Gas & Electric Co.’s contract with Celerity Energy Partners, an EnerNOC Inc. company that aggregates distributed generation resources, with dissenting commissioners arguing that the decision threatens a core state energy policy.

The commissioners fell out over whether 45 MW of small diesel backup generators should be included at the top of the state’s loading order, which emphasizes energy efficiency and demand response as the first choice for meeting electricity needs.

. . . PUC President Michael Peevey and Commissioner Dian Grueneich argued that approval of the contract would be counter to the state’s energy policies.

“It would put diesels on top of demand response,” Peevey said. “Demand response is on top of the loading order, and this would flip [the energy resource preference policy] on its head. Placing diesel first is inconsistent with the state’s energy and environmental policies.”

For full story, including how the diesel generators that will be part of the program will install pollution control equipment (which they should do anyway but incredibly is not required for all diesel generators) and the justification for the decision as replacing new conventional power plants  click here

A staff “Administrative Law Judge” had recommended rejection of the contract. It is interesting to note that the 3-2 vote went the way it did, overriding that recommendation, because one Commissioner (in fact the one who proposed overriding the staff) phoned in his vote from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

Sadly, EnerNOC is polluting both the environment and its image when it gets involved in deploying diesel generators for peak electricity generation at the very times, and in the very places, when local populations are most vulnerable to air pollution.

Much of EnerNOC’s other technologies and actions help to reduce pollution and build a green economy – but deploying diesel generators that spew large quantities of greenhouse gas pollution, as well as conventional emissions, pulls in exactly the wrong direction. The investors who are buying into EnerNOC because they think it is a “green” company that is rising with that tide should be outraged by this project and action.

The NY Times presents some required reading about how improvements in air pollution control technology can have the unpleasant consequence of putting pollution into our waterways.  The problem of contaminated coal ash is one that CLF has engaged for years – back in the year 2000 CLF negotiated a successful settlement with the then-owner of the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power plants (PG&E) that cleaned up groundwater and land that had been contaminated by toxic coal ash over the course of decades – a settlement that predates the purchase of those power plants (out of bankruptcy) by Dominion – company that has its own checkered history regarding coal ash disposal.

Another manifestation of the same problem comes from the longstanding practice of using ash from coal fired powerplants as a “feedstock” for cement – iconic concrete structures containing coal ash include the Hoover dam, vast swaths of interstate highways and the tunnels and stations of the Washington DC metro.

More recently, coal plants have been awarded “carbon offsets” for selling ash to cement companies on the theory that use of ash “displaces” industrial kilns that produce greenhouse gas pollution while making cement.  Many organizations, including CLF, have expressed strong doubts about this practice – noting that it is simply paying coal plant owners once again for something they would have been doing anyway: turning a waste product into a revenue producing commodity.   A far better course of action, rather than create “rip offsets” that undermine climate protection while bestowing a windfall on polluters is to encourage processes and procedures that slash greenhouse gas emissions from cement kilns.

The increasing levels of toxic metals in the ash as air pollution regulations have tightened, is bringing an end to the practice of using fly ash in cement in projects designated as green under the LEED program of the U.S. Green Building Council and the innovative Collaborative for High-Performance Schools (CHPS).  Academic research strongly suggests that this is increasingly dangerous practice.

The bottom line is clear: coal is laden with toxic materials, and converting coal into energy, whether it be through burning it in the oldest or newest of plants (or even gasifying it)  releases these materials creating a serious toxic waste handling and disposal issue with potentially catastrophic effects if done badly.

The other day I got an email from the folks at Zipcar asking for support from Zipcar members who live in Brookline MA to speak up regarding proposed revised zoning ordinances to encourage car sharing, and this note is to ask for your support of these updates. The proposed changes are “Warrant Articles” 12 and 13 on the November 2009 Town Meeting Warrant.  Here’s a quick overview prepared by Zipcar:

• A limited number of shared car parking locations will be permitted in all areas except those zoned for single family dwellings.
• A special permitting process would be available for those locations where member demand requires us to provide more than the number of spaces allowed under Article 13.

In response I sent the following email to members of Brookline Town Meeting:

Dear Town Meeting Members,

I am writing to you today in both my personal capacity as a Brookline resident and in my professional capacity, as a climate and environmental advocate, in order to urge you to vote in favor of Warrant Articles 12 and 13.

Almost ten years ago I had an opportunity to discuss the idea of car sharing with the founders of Zipcar just prior to the creation and launch of that enterprise. I urged them to press ahead with the concept and company and I joined shortly after the launch and have made heavy use of their services ever since. I can directly testify that the presence of Zipcar (particularly in Brookline Village) has allowed my family to manage with only one car. Car sharing reduces demand for parking, consumption of land by cars and traffic on the streets as cars are juggled among parking spaces. It supports and enhances public transportation use and activity in our commercial and residential centers (like Brookline Village, Coolidge Corner and Washington Square) and town policy should encourage and foster its expansion.

Zipcar started with a single green Volkswagen New Beetle in the Springfield Street municipal parking lot in Cambridge and its early expansion brought it naturally to Brookline. Through organic growth and merger it has now expanded across the continent (from California to Canada) and even across the Atlantic to London. We should be proud of the role that Brookline played in providing this good enterprise with a base for growth and should recognize that it continues to provide value to our residents and a benefit to the Town. The proposed Warrant Articles are reasonable measures that will facilitate this important community benefit – whether it is provided by Zipcar or another car sharing service.

Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional information or answer any questions on this, or any other, subject.

Seth Kaplan

I firmly believe in the value of car sharing (really, the wikipedia entry is quite good) as a tool for reducing car ownership and usage and for boosting transit use and helping build vital urban communities.

Some members of Brookline Town Meeting have suggested that they are concerned about noisy and disruptive college students traveling to and returning from cars stored in residential areas. This is a legitimate concern – but I would point out that Zipcar (and pretty much every operation of this sort) requires that members be at least 21 years of age and having shared cars in the neighborhood has the positive effect of providing local students (and recent grads) with an alternative that allows them to avoid owning a car that will clog up local streets.

On August 21st, the Thai based energy company PTTEP announced that a “crude oil gas leak incident occurred” in the Timor Sea about 155 miles northwest of Western Australia.  The energy company’s press released continued that “the size of the spill is not known.  Aproximately 40 barrels of oil were discharged from the wellhead in the initial incident.”  In the ensuing month, it has become clear that this oil spill is much more serious than initially thought:

Aerial Photo of the oil spill from the drilling platform in the Timor Sea (Source: SkyTruth)

1. As of September 25th, photos from NASA satellites document that the oil slicks and sheen from the spill covered 9,870 square miles, an area even bigger than the state of Vermont.  Part of the oil sheen has been moving perilously close to the Cartier Island Marine Reserve.
2. According to conservative estimates by the World Wildlife Fund, the rig has been leaking 400 barrels a day — over 14,000 barrels since late August.  That equates to about 600,000 gallons of oil.
3. When the spill was first reported, the government of Australia predicted it would take 7 weeks to clean up.   Already, it has been 5 weeks and the spill isn’t contained.

This devastating spill may be a world away but US ocean waters, including Georges Bank and the rest of the Gulf of Maine, are also at risk because they no longer are protected from the devastating impacts of oil and gas extraction. As a parting gift before leaving office, President Bush lifted the Presidential Moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf that had been in place since 1990.  On September 30, 2008, Congress followed suit and lifted a longstanding legislative ban on offshore oil and gas leasing as part of a large government operations appropriations bill.  As a result, important habitat in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank — one of the world’s premier fishing grounds — is at risk of industrial scale fossil fuel energy development.

As the Saudi oil fields are tapped out, there is increased pressure to drill in remote areas of the ocean.  For example, at the beginning of September, BP announced a “giant oil discovery” 35,055 feet below the Gulf of Mexico seafloor, which itself is already 4,132 feet below the surface of the ocean.  In an ironic twist of fate, just as the ocean is beginning to bear the brunt of the impacts of climate change (see my earlier blog post on ocean acidification), oil companies are stepping up efforts to locate and drill for oil and gas under the seafloor.

Clearly we need energy — but how do we design a sustainable, climate neutral ocean energy solution that will not put important marine wildlife, habitat and ecosystems at risk? As Greg Watson, then a VP at the Mass Technology Collaborative, noted, New England (and Massachusetts in particular) is “the ‘Saudi Arabia of Wind.’” Of course, we need to responsibly tap this renewable resource — we can’t build wind farms wholesale across the region just because there is a lot of wind on the ocean.  Rather, we need to engage in a thorough marine spatial planning process whereby different human uses and ecological resources are identified and mapped and responsible renewable energy development is sited in a way that doesn’t create unreasonable impacts on those activities or natural resources.  Massachusetts is in the process of doing just that — and has released the first in the nation Draft Ocean Management Plan.  In Maine, the governor appointed an Ocean Energy Task Force to evaluate how to develop offshore renewable energy.  Rhode Island is working on an Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) in part to promote offshore renewable energy development.  Finally, at the federal level, President Obama issued an Executive Memorandum calling for a national ocean policy and marine spatial planning  framework.  CLF is working on all of these issues.

Imagine if all of Vermont were covered in an oil spill.  Well it has been over a month and an equally large spill in the Timor Sea hasn’t been contained.  Oil and gas drilling is still a risky business and, thanks to former President Bush and Congress, these projects are allowable in US ocean waters.  A concerted effort is needed to make oil and gas drilling old news.  We need to usher in a new era of responsible, climate friendly, renewable ocean energy development.  Help CLF make this a reality!

What can you do to help promote responsible marine renewable energy Development?

1. Sign the CLF Ocean Petition
2. Learn more about the Massachusetts Draft Ocean Management Plan, Maine Ocean Energy Task Force, Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan and the National Ocean Policy and Marine Spatial Framework.
3. Learn more about the Timor Sea Spill

Satellite Image of the oil spill in the Timor Sea. Northwest Australia is in the lower right hand corner of the photo (Source: SkyTruth)

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in an order issued on September 18, 2009, has sided with the operator of the New England electricity system (ISO-NE) in a dispute with Dominion, the owner of the Salem Harbor Power Plant.

Here is the basic situation:  Dominion has “de-listed” the Salem Harbor Power Plant in the upcoming “Forward Capacity Auction”.   This means that it is virtually certain that in the 2012-2013 period that the plant will not be obligated to run and will not received capacity payments that power plants receive when they have such an obligation.   While the plant could still run and be paid for the electricity it made the act of de-listing means that the owner of the plant thinks there is a significant chance it will not be running during that year.  If, however, ISO-NE, finds that one (or more) of the  power generating units at the plant are “needed for reliability” then Dominion would receive payments set at the level of the “de-list bids” submitted this year.

Here is the dispute:  ISO-NE argued that Dominion had set the amount of its “de-list bids” to high.  Dominion had calculated those bids assuming that all pollution control equipment put into the plant would have to be depreciated (basically paid off) within three years.  ISO-NE argued that this was inappropriate. Local newspapers took note of this dispute.

CLF, and the Massachusetts Attorney Generals office, agreed with ISO-NE that Dominion’s bids were inappropriate.  CLF, pressing beyond the polite wording of ISO-NE’s filing, argued that the only appropriate circumstance for the “super-accelerated depreciation” being sought by Dominion would be appropriate only if Dominion were proposing to permanently de-list the plant.  The absurdity of Dominion’s position was highlighted by the fact that it was contradicted by public statements of its own spokesman in a local newspaper.

The Mass. AG, supported by CLF, also raised concerns about the lack of public disclosure of key information about the plant and the lack of auditing of the representations that plant owners like Dominion made to ISO-NE.

FERC, in the order resolving the dispute, accepted the basic logic that ISO-NE and CLF presented, requiring use of the longer depreciation period proposed by ISO-NE.   FERC stated that it could not consider converting a de-list bid from being one-year to permanent at this point in the process – which is essentially a moot point as CLF floated that as an idea that would only apply if the shorter depreciation period was accepted, which it was not. Also, FERC did not squarely address the issues of public disclosure and auditing, relying on earlier decisions that will be continued to be criticized.

But in the end this was squarely a defeat for Dominion: their bluff of calculating costs as if the plant was shutting down, but not actually committing to do so, was called.

These battles will continue.  The likely next dispute will center around “reliability” as all of these numbers games are meaningless if ISO-NE recognizes that the improved transmission system, new generation and rising amounts of energy efficiency and “demand response” (slashing energy use at peak hours during the summer) means that the plant can retire without causing any shortages in the regional electricity system.  They are very close to doing so (having found that other nearby plants can safely retire) and are likely to reach the right result here – although it might take some encouragement.

At the just-concluded meeting of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in Saint John, the capital of the province of New Brunswick in Canada, the governors of the New England states adopted a “Blueprint” for electric transmission to facilitate development of wind power.  The idea was to sketch out a basic plan for supportive infrastructure needed if the region is going to meet its renewable energy and climate goals.

The plan, which is available at the website of an interstate organization known as the “New England States Committee on Electricity” (“NESCOE“) is not perfect.  It does not appropriately consider the impact of rising CO2 prices on the price of electricity and underestimates the reductions in electric demand as we become more efficient.  But it is a good start to the very serious discussion about renewable energy and transmission that is needed in order to confront and win our climate challenge and meet the targets that science tells us we need to hit.

The governors are, among other things, trying to strike a balance here between meeting our goals through imports of renewable power from outside the region and through homegrown renewable energy projects.  In the long run it is very clear that we need to do both in order to meet our stated goals and reduce our emissions in the manner that science tells us is needed – but getting that balance right is tricky, as can be seen in this NY Times blog entry which describes the very blunt take of Arnold Schwarzenegger on the subject . .

Tar sands activists unveil massive banner in Alberta, Canada

Pop quiz: Which country is the biggest exporter of oil to the United States?

Venezuela? Mexico? Saudi Arabia? None of the above. The correct answer is America’s neighbor to the north, Canada.

In a story that will almost certainly not make headlines in mainstream American news outlets, a group of activists blocked tar sands mining operations in Northern Alberta. The activists unveiled a massive banner and chained themselves to equipment.

Most of Canada’s oil comes from the tar sands – a bitumen rich deposit of sand, clay and water the size of England. It is the single the largest industrial project in the world.

Creating usable petroleum from the tar sands isn’t easy – or environmentally friendly – and has only been feasible in light of higher oil prices and newer technologies.

According to Greenpeace:

Tar sands Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, already nearing those of Norway, could soon more than triple to 140 million tonnes a year, as outlined in a Greenpeace report by award winning author Andrew Nikiforuk released this week. At that point they would equal or exceed those of Belgium, a county of 10 million. These numbers account only for the production of tar sands oil, and do not account for the massive additional GHG impact of burning the fuel.

Tar sands mining has other detrimental impacts on the environment, including toxic runoff and deforestation. CLF’s work on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is intended to, among other things, reduce use of bitumen mining.

The activists hope to put the tar sands in the spotlight as President Obama and Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, meet in Washington, DC today.