Last year, Senator Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced inconspicuous amendments to various appropriations bills designed to delay federal regulation of carbon dioxide.  Word on the D.C. street is that tomorrow Senator Murkowski will take aim at the oceans when she introduces an amendment on the Senate floor for debate.   The language we anticipate is something along the lines of “No funds shall be expended to implement any provisions of coastal and marine spatial planning under Executive Order 13547 (the President’s National Ocean Policy).”  The Murkowski amendment might also try to stop funding for longstanding coastal zone management programs that are a benefit to coastal communities, maritime safety and ocean-related commerce.   Interestingly enough, Alaska’s coastal program was eliminated last July.  With 36,000 miles of coast line to worry about, the Alaska legislature adjourned without reauthorizing its own coastal program.  Now that Alaska has lost all state control of its own coastline (no more federal consistency review over oil and gas projects, no more federal funding, no more state and local input for coastal policy and siting decisions that impact the Alaskan coastal zone), it seems that Alaska doesn’t want any other state to have the ability to responsibly manage its natural coastal and ocean resources.  This doesn’t sound like lawmaking.  It’s just sour grapes.  http://www.adn.com/2011/05/15/1864275/adjournment-dooms-coastal-zone.html#ixzz1b4CO5PMp

This morning at 9 a.m. at the State House in Boston, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will hold a field hearing on the first year of implementation of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan.

Amendment 16, as readers of the CLF Scoop may know, has been in effect since May 2010. While some predicted dire revenue losses under the new sector system implemented by Amendment 16, the National Marine Fisheries Service recently reported that all-species gross revenues for the groundfish fleet in the 2010 fishing year–$297.7 million–were $26.6 million more than gross revenues in the 2009 fishing year. Groundfish permit sales, an important indicator of consolidation at an organization level, were extremely low.

In a statement issued today, Peter Shelley, CLF Senior Counsel, said the following: “These outcomes show a healthy, adaptive fleet that has diversified to target multiple species beyond groundfish, and that has begun to take advantage of the added flexibility that the sector system in New England provides even in the challenging start-up year. Amendment 16 is an important step in the right direction for New England and New England’s fishermen. It should be supported in Washington, D.C., and efforts to improve the system should be spearheaded in New England as intended by Congress.”

To read the full CLF statement, click here.

Merrimack Station Coal Plant. Photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond

New England’s old coal-burning power plants don’t just pollute the air. With their obsolete cooling technology, they also create havoc in the water bodies on which they reside. To control heat from the coal-combustion process, these coal plants draw millions of gallons of water daily into their antiquated cooling systems, killing the aquatic life that gets sucked in with it, and then discharge the super-heated, chemical-laden  water back into the fragile rivers and bays, where it creates untenable living conditions that destroy native fish and other species.

Under decades of pressure from CLF and other organizations, EPA has tightened its regulations around water intake and discharge at the region’s coal plants. At the GenOn Kendall Power Plant in Cambridge, MA, as a result of a lawsuit brought by CLF and the Charles River Watershed Association, EPA required last February that the plant owner, TriGen Corporation, build a “closed-cycle” cooling system that will reduce the water withdrawal and discharge of heated water into the Charles River by approximately 95%. Brayton Point in  Fall River, MA will finish construction of its new cooling towers in 2012, dramatically reducing its harmful impacts on Great Hope Bay.

Today, in another giant step forward, EPA issued a draft NPDES permit for Merrimack Station in Bow, NH, where heated discharge from the power plant’s old “once-through” cooling system has caused a 94 percent decline of the kinds of species that once lived in that part of the Merrimack River. CLF applauded the draft permit, which will require Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to install and operate year-round a modern cooling system that will decrease the plant’s discharge of heated water by nearly 100 percent.

In a statement, issued today in response to the release of the draft permit, CLF called the requirements “long overdue.” Jonathan Peress, director of CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program, said, “No matter what PSNH spends, it will not be able to turn this 50-year-old dinosaur into an economically-viable generating facility that benefits the people of New England. Still, as long as this plant remains in operation, it must comply with the law and we commend EPA for holding PSNH accountable.” Read the full statement here.

Obviously, we here at the Conservation Law Foundation think that crafting and advocating for environmental solutions is a very important thing to be doing and that when we have a job opening that the best, smartest, most tenacious and brightest folks should apply.

However, we know that we are part of a much larger network and community of people and organizations working to create positive change.  Some of those groups work largely out of the public eye – providing critical infrastructure for the flashier and more visible efforts.  An excellent example of one such group is the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) which has done a phenomenal job of coordinating and advancing the work of the environmental and efficiency advocacy communities in the world of standards setting for appliances.  It might sound kind of boring but it is of critical importance – which I will lay out a bit more below.

But before I get to that here is the important part – they are hiring.  If you have what it takes to be a “Strategic Program / Technical Analyst” you should give them a look.

(more…)

CLF President John Kassel (right) accepts check for a Clean Diesel project from EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding

CLF Ventures, Conservation Law Foundation’s non-profit consulting affiliate, has been awarded an EPA grant to help two New England charter fishing vessels reduce their diesel emissions. The project will repower four “tier 0″ marine engines on the vessels The Atlantic Queen, out of Rye, NH and The Captain’s Lady II, out of Newburyport, MA. Jo Anne Shatkin, PhD, CEO of CLF Ventures, said the funding will allow CLF to work with the two vessels to reduce their impacts on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce fuel costs.

EPA’s Clean Diesel projects help create and retain jobs, as well as reduce premature deaths, asthma attacks and other respiratory ailments, lost work days and other health impacts associated with air pollution from diesel engines. John Kassel, CLF president, accepted a check for $391,500 from EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding at a ceremony today in Boston. Read EPA’s press release here.

Just over a year ago, CLF and the Buzzards Bay Coalition sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to expedite the clean up of a nitrogen pollution scourge  on Cape Cod that was threatening the Cape’s bays and the local economy that depends on them. Today, CLF and the Bay Coalition filed a second lawsuit against EPA that focuses on the Agency’s failure to regularly approve and update a critical wastewater management plan that, if implemented, might have averted the crisis. CLF and the Bay Coalition’s actions seek to move the clean-up forward before it is too late.

In a press release, Chris Kilian, CLF’s director of Clean Water and Healthy Forests, said, “Cape Cod is on brink of ecological disaster. We need enforceable regulatory commitments to ensure that the clean-up happens before it is too late. The discussions of what solutions will work and how to pay for them are critical and must continue, but they can’t go on forever. We intend to hold EPA accountable for its obligations to review, update and enforce a working, time-bound plan to stop the flow of nitrogen-laden wastewater and stormwater into the Cape’s bays. It is the keystone of this clean-up effort.”

The parties will commence a mediation process known as Alternative Dispute Resolution on Wednesday, September 21 at EPA’s offices in Boston. The deadline for a resolution is December 6, 2011.

Read the full press release.

If a tree falls in the forest in order to fuel in an inefficient electric power plant, does it make noise?  You bet it does.  This morning, dozens of advocates rallied at the Massachusetts State House to make a little noise while calling for the strengthening of the Commonwealth’s rules for forest wood-fueled – i.e., “biomass” – energy incentives.

Last year, we cheered as the Patrick Administration commissioned a ground-breaking study, known as the “Manomet Report,” to help understand the climate impacts of biomass energy.  That Report reaffirmed a growing scientific understanding that burning whole trees for energy can be worse than burning coal because of what I refer to as the “double whammy” effect:  (1) the immediate release into the atmosphere of the carbon stored in the tree; and (2) the tree that has been cut no longer is available to absorb new carbon from the atmosphere – or help promote clean water, wildlife habitat, shade or other benefits.

Based on the Manomet Report, the Administration released an encouraging framework for revised biomass regulations that included the key policy pillars of science-based carbon accounting, strong sustainable harvesting requirements, and minimum efficiency standards for capturing the energy stored in biomass fuels.  Unfortunately, the latest version of the regulations and related guidance have been substantially weakened, treating all forms of biomass as “carbon neutral” over a short period of time, promoting the removal of all harvest residues from the forest floor, and encouraging the cutting of whole trees for biomass fuel.  This retreat is disturbing both in terms of likely impacts in Massachusetts and the precedent it would set for other states, the nation, and beyond.

As we spelled out at today’s State House rally, Massachusetts still has an historic opportunity to “get it right”.  To make this happen, CLF and many others are asking for three simple things:

1.       The final biomass regulations must be based on the SCIENCE, consistent with the core lessons of the Manomet Report;

2.       Incentives must be reserved for practices that DO NO HARM to our forests, for example by leaving sufficient tree tops and limbs in forests to replenish soil nutrients and provide habitat;

3.       Benefits should be limited to those practices and facilities that AVOID WASTE by efficiently using biomass fuel, ensuring that the majority of its energy potential is captured and used.

The specific changes to the draft rules that we are seeking are spelled out in greater detail here.

Massachusetts’ forests currently absorb a whopping 10% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we produce each year from electric power generation, transportation, heating, cooling and all other activities combined. This doesn’t mean that we need to leave all forests untouched – there is a role for sustainably harvested forest products of many kinds, just as there is a role for untouched forest reserves.  But we do need to watch out for the “double whammy” and make certain that limited ratepayer-funded clean energy dollars are not steered toward wasteful forest harvesting and combustion practices that would move us away from the clean energy future we seek.

Groundbreaking for the Wonderland Parking Garage

Less than five years ago, in response to a CLF lawsuit, Massachusetts committed to building one thousand new “park and ride” parking spaces in the Commonwealth. The idea was to put the parking spaces near public transportation, making it easy for people to ride rather than drive to their destinations. The commitment was intended to reduce the number of cars on the roads and their emissions in order to help the Commonwealth come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. Currently, Massachusetts does not meet the national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone, a dangerous byproduct of vehicle exhaust that can trigger serious respiratory problems and cause permanent lung damage. Building parking spaces in the right locations, it has been proven, actually helps reduce air pollution.

Originally, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) selected Beverly and Salem as the locations to build the bulk of these spaces with new parking garages near their commuter rail stations.  Although both communities welcomed these facilities with open arms, MassDOT decided last year instead to seek to meet their obligation by counting the “park and ride” spaces already being constructed near the Wonderland MBTA station on the Blue Line.  They feared the Beverly and Salem garages would not be completed on time, but now the Wonderland park and ride spaces are also delayed.

Although it had five years to build the parking spaces, MassDOT announced this summer that it will not meet this obligation by the end of 2011.The Clean Air Act requires the Commonwealth to somehow achieve the same air quality benefits during the period of delay, through a so-called interim offset project or measure.  MassDOT, however, has petitioned the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to delay the completion of this requirement without proposing any such interim offset project or measure.  Why, you ask?

MassDOT is arguing that since the parking garage it chose last year to fulfill the bulk of this requirement is near private parking lots that are $2 to $3 lower in price than what the Commonwealth would have charged for parking in the new garage, the new parking facility would have been underutilized and as such would have no measurable air quality benefits.  Are you kidding me?  This tortured analysis is akin to my asking to get paid for a day that I did not show up at work since I would have been on Facebook all day anyway, had I been in the office.  Hopefully, such bootstrapping will motivate DEP to keep its rubber stamp locked up.

Boston, MA – September 8, 2011- Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) issued the following statement in defense of the Cape Wind power purchase agreement, currently being disputed by opponents of the project. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the case today.

Seth Kaplan, Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy at Conservation Law Foundation, said, “The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) left no stone unturned when it reviewed and approved the contract between National Grid and Cape Wind. The DPU’s conclusion, based on extensive testimony and other evidence presented by both Cape Wind supporters and opponents, was that Cape Wind’s long-term power purchase agreement is ‘cost-effective’ and reasonable, and will deliver net economic benefits for electric ratepayers and the Commonwealth. Opponents have thrown up every possible obstacle to Cape Wind’s progress and this obstruction has had delayed the day when residents of the Commonwealth can reap considerable economic and environmental benefits of the project. The public’s patience is, appropriately, wearing thin. These stall tactics are draining public resources while keeping Massachusetts from benefiting from the clean energy and green jobs that Cape Wind will provide.”

Conservation Law Foundation, represented by CLF Massachusetts Director Susan Reid, intervened with the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Clean Power Now in the case of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound vs. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, filing a full brief in the case in July.

To read the full statement, click here.