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 >

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.

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.

Credit: BMRR

It’s unfortunate that days after the State of the Union Address, in which President Obama emphasized the value of building a high speed rail network for the nation, New Hampshire’s legislature will be considering a bill that could send the Granite State off the rails.  On Tuesday, February 1, the NH House of Representatives’ Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on H.B. 218, which proposes to eliminate the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority — the body responsible for advancing the state’s much-needed passenger rail efforts.

The legislation, if enacted, couldn’t send a worse message.  At a time when the federal government is working to reverse decades of neglect for the nation’s rail system, and when other New England states are actively planning and investing in rail expansions and upgrades, New Hampshire stands to miss out on the many benefits of rail — jobs, sustainable economic development, cleaner air, less traffic congestion, and more affordable transportation options.

The New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority is making important progress on the NH Capitol Corridor rail project — a new rail service that would connect Concord, Manchester, Nashua and Boston with one another, and with the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport.  New Hampshire should be supporting the work of the Rail Transit Authority, not seeking its elimination.

Help send a message to the New Hampshire legislature that NH citizens, and New Englanders who visit New Hampshire, want rail as part of a clean and balanced transportation system.  Call your New Hampshire representative, or members of the Transportation Committee, and urge them to support rail, and the NH Rail Transit Authority, by voting against HB 218.  Let’s keep New Hampshire on track!

MBTA General Manager Richard Davey likes to say “We’re only as good as our last rush hour,’’ and by that standard the T is not doing very well right now. The long delays throughout system on a recent frigid day have enraged commuters and discouraged new riders from getting onboard, as Boston Globe reporter Eric Moskowitz wrote in an article published in yesterday’s paper.

The T, to its credit, did not pretend it was surprised it gets cold in Boston in January. When it discusses the T’s “aging fleet” the Globe hints at the real reason for these delays:  a long list of necessary repairs to its system that the T estimates will cost at least $2.7 billion to address.  Despite the ingenuity of MBTA’s employees to keep the system running, the only way we can ensure that the T runs smoothly in the future is to raise sufficient revenue to pay for much delayed improvements.  While few in government right now want to talk about raising revenue, investment in public transportation infrastructure, not just for the MBTA, but throughout the state, is critical for encouraging economic development, slashing the greenhouse gas pollution changing our climate, improving air quality, and providing affordable and efficient transportation for everyone.

When the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan came out on December 29, laying out roughly 40 policies to get the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, the proposal to test a fledgling concept called Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) (See page 61) auto insurance emerged as the plan’s poster child. We at CLF felt like proud parents. You see, CLF devised the concept of PAYD auto insurance more than a decade ago as a market-based solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. Over the past 10 years, in addition to offering partially mileage-based insurance policies through its Environmental Insurance Agency (EIA) subsidiary of CLF Ventures, CLF has engaged insurance industry leaders, regulators, policymakers, and the environmental community in exploring the potential for PAYD to be implemented on a broad scale.

True PAYD, which is not currently offered in Massachusetts (or any New England state), is priced based on the number of miles a policy holder drives, after taking into account traditional rating factors like where the car owner lives and their driving history. By creating a variable structure for insurance rates, as an alternative to the current fixed annual premium, PAYD would provide a powerful incentive for drivers to reduce their mileage. Put simply: drive less, pay less.

Does that mean the corollary is drive more, pay more? Not necessarily. In November, 2010, CLF and EIA released the results of a study that showed that if auto insurance were priced by the mile, drivers would reduce their mileage, lowering their accident risk while also reducing fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion. It also showed that car owners, regardless of where they live or work, could save money under a PAYD system if they drive fewer miles than the average for their area. Because a PAYD system by design reduces risk and accident costs, ultimately insurance prices would come down for the lion’s share of drivers.

Unlike the current insurance model that generally doesn’t care how much someone drives, the PAYD system would ensure that drivers pay their fair share for the amount of risk they incur, and eliminate the subsidy that low mileage drivers currently pay for high mileage drivers.

More data are needed to understand how to make PAYD work for as many Massachusetts drivers in as many different situations as possible. A flexible program that benefits the broadest spectrum of drivers is the key to gaining the widespread adoption needed to achieve the maximum environmental, public health and economic benefits of PAYD.

Could PAYD, which would help the state meet its climate goals and reduce accident costs while giving car owners more control over their auto insurance pricing, work in Massachusetts? We think so, and a pilot program is a great way to find out.

What do you think? Could PAYD benefit you?

The Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation (MAST), the statewide coalition of which CLF is a steering committee member, has submitted a proposal to increase commuter transit options, reduce household expenditures on gasoline and diesel, increase employment opportunities and productivity and reduce government expenditures by expanding the routes of the highly-successful ZOOM Turnpike Express bus services along the Maine Turnpike corridor. The program would also establish a fund for the improved maintenance of Maine’s roadways.

“Financially, this bill just makes a lot of sense for a fiscally-strapped state like Maine,” said CLF Maine Staff Attorney Jane West. “Instead of spending $56 million on a tollbooth or $150 million to widen a couple of miles of highway, this bill will serve thousands of commuters, reduce traffic congestion and provide a much-needed alternative to paying three dollars and more per gallon at the pump, for a fraction of the cost of any other solution.” More >

Let’s say you are a state agency tasked with making a tough choice on how to spend your money.  Your options are:

a.      Spend $150 million on widening 9 miles of highway despite the fact that volume has waned;

b.      Spend $56 million on building another toll booth;

c.       Spend $3.8 million on expanding an existing, highly successful bus service that will benefit thousands of commuters.

Did I mention that you have to do this all while complying with a state law that requires you to give preference to existing systems and other transportation modes (such as bus transit) prior to increasing highway capacity through road building activities?   The obvious answer here is (c), expanding bus service, specifically the ZOOM bus service that is operated by the Maine Turnpike Authority.

Currently, the ZOOM bus runs a limited service between Portland, Biddeford and Saco.  The primary hubs are Park & Ride lots, if you’ve driven by those lots, you will see they are chock full.  Those crammed lots are a glowing testament to the resounding success of the ZOOM.

In an effort to build on that success, last year the Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation approached the Authority to see if it would consider expanding the bus service up to Lewiston and Augusta.  Along the way, West Falmouth, Gray, Sabbatus and Auburn would finally get much needed access to public transit.  But the Authority remained convinced that answers (a) and (b) were right.   After all, highway widening remains a popular solution to just about any transportation problem, despite the fact that, time after time, massive multi-million dollar widening projects only result in more traffic and more congestion. [the fact is, these roads never pay for themselves via tolls or otherwise.]

Does Portland really need another highway widening?

No, and the numbers prove it:

But transit advocates, CLF among them, were not dissuaded.   We found a savvy supporter in Representative Bradley Moulton, a newly elected Republican, who decided to sponsor the ZOOM bus bill, known formally as “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service.”

And fiscally responsible it is.  Not only for the average commuter struggling with rising gas prices, but in the broader context of how Maine decides to spend money on transportation.  The days of subsidized highway widening projects are over.  With the fiscal belt tightening, now is a good time to make some smart decisions on transit.  The ZOOM bus goes a long way towards accomplishing that goal.