A few weeks ago I attended a conference in Washington, DC that brought together environmental groups from all over the country. In speaking with my colleagues, I was reminded of how this country is a patchwork quilt: each of us brought a unique set of challenges, a strong independent sense of identity, and solutions to regional challenges – solutions that are sometimes adopted at the national level. This certainly is true of New England.

Over the last year, two events have emphasized the importance of interregional coordination. In the process, they have reminded me of New England’s long history of regional cooperation to advance nation leading clean energy projects, and of the way in which those have been adopted on the national stage.

The first of these issues is FERC Order 1,000 – a significant reform to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s position on “electric transmission planning and cost allocation requirements for public utility transmission providers” issued in June of 2010. That Order, and material explaining it, can be found on the FERC website. The new rules announced in that Order mandate that utilities operating wholesale electricity systems across the country engage in a process of regional planning. Here in New England, we have been doing that for as long, if not longer, than anywhere else in the country, so that part of the order will prompt new regional innovations largely elsewhere in the country. Another part of the order instructs regional operators of the electric grid to consider the public policy mandates of the states in their region in the planning they do for their part of the grid. The New England states have a variety of innovative policies intended to bring about a clean energy future. How our regional grid operator accounts for those in its planning is very likely to break ground for the rest of the country.

Similarly, the recent breakthrough settlement agreement by the Patrick Administration in the proposed merger between NStar and Northeast Utilities also reminded me of the need for regional coordination. Consider the scale of the proposed utility: As The Boston Globe reported, “the proposed $17.5 billion merger… would create the largest utility in the region, [and serve] nearly 3.5 million electric and gas customers from Westport, Conn., to Pittsburg, N.H., near the Canadian border.”

With a reach extending from southern Connecticut to Northern New Hampshire by way of Boston, the resulting utility has obligations under a variety of critical state policies intended to protect the environment and build a resilient clean energy economy. The right to operate as a state-sanctioned monopoly is conditioned on the utility meeting those obligations. The initial terms of the proposed merger did not meet those requirements; the merger as revised by the settlement, as my colleague Sue Reid said, “ensures that this powerful new utility will be in lockstep with Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy policies and propel the state forward instead of backwards in implementing them.”

This cases highlight the need for advocacy groups to be able to field their teams  on a scale and in a manner that that rises to the challenge of the moment. The NU/NStar merger required us to play on a regional scale; FERC Order 1,000 provides a chance to use the federally regulated planning process to advance critical state policies that are designed to build a cleaner and thriving New England. The challenges we face, and the institutions we engage (like utilities), are large and extend across our region and beyond, not respecting traditional boundaries. CLF must meet this challenge with size, scale, intentions, goals, and strategies that are appropriately sized to meet those challenges.

Given New England’s strong tradition of leadership on energy and environmental issues, I have confidence we have the tools required. However, as my conversations in DC emphasized, what is appropriate here in New England is not appropriate for every region.

Given the differences between the various regions of the country, and various areas within those regions, I wonder: To what extent can we successfully plot a common future? These questions are as relevant within New England as between regions.

Driving south from Acadia National Park in Maine or Hanover, New Hampshire, or east from Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT the scenery changes, the weather warms and the population becomes more dense. Though each place is in New England, each feels very different – and, if you ask someone on the street, chances are they’ll tell you just how unique and independent their town or city is. The same is true as you travel north from Atlanta or NYC to Boston, or east from Chicago or San Francisco. Within New England, as within our country, our differences can be easier to see than our shared future, but it is the latter that requires our attention.

More and more, we have the tools. That puts us in a good position to work together, town by town, region by region, for a thriving New England, and a thriving country.

In the last of a long and loud chorus of concern for the MBTA’s draconian service cuts and drastic fare increases, today is the last opportunity for members of the public to testify or comment formally on the MBTA’s proposals. If you have concerns, take a moment to share them. Some of us use the MBTA regularly, but all of us need it.

Tonight’s public hearing is the final in a series of more than 30. It will be held in the Brighton neighborhood of Boston. To find more details about that event, click here.

Fast Five. Alternatives for Community and Environment

Monday is also the last day written comments can be submitted through the T’s Web site. CLF submitted its comments in early March. A copy of these comments can be found here.

CLF is not alone in expressing its concerns about the proposed draconian service cuts and drastic fare increases. According to an article in Boston.com, “An agency spokesman says about 5,800 people have attended the public hearings over the past two months.” So popular have the events been that superheroes have attended (see photo on right). Similarly, the T has so far received 4,800 emails from customers.

To join in this chorus, you can do a few things:

-          Attend tonight’s hearing

-          Use this form to contact your legislators, or

-          Email fareproposal@mbta.com.

Once all the comments have been collected, the T will review comments and then make a final recommendation to its board. These recommendations are expected by April 15, the deadline for approval of a new budget for the transit system.

The ocean holds a special place in our imagination. Its vastness and its great depths have inspired explorers and storytellers, scientists and entrepreneurs to set sail in search of new lands, mythical creatures, new discoveries and new business opportunities.

Yet as the planet has grown crowded, so too has our ocean. The blue planet we once saw as limitless is straining under the pressure as we demand more and more from it. Seafood to feed ever more people, oil to fuel our cars and our businesses and shipping lanes crowded with freight as trade expands around the world.

One of the great challenges of the 21st century is to find new ways to sustain and restore the ecosystems that are the basis of our economy and our environment. It will take smarter approaches if we are to grow our coastal economies while sustaining and restoring the ecosystems that they depend on.

That is why CLF is proud to join with Greenfire Productions to host premieres of the new film Ocean Frontiers this April in Boston and Rhode Island. Ocean Frontiers takes us on an inspiring voyage to seaports and watersheds across the country to meet unlikely allies: industrial shippers and whale biologists, pig farmers and wetland ecologists, sport fishermen, reef snorkelers and many more. All of these individuals have embarked on a new course of collaboration to improve management of the sea that sustains us..

Join us on the evening of April 3rd at the New England Aquarium or the evening of April 4th at the University of Rhode Island’s Bay Campus in Narragansett to see the film, meet the producer and engage in a conversation with nationally renowned experts about how New England can lead the nation and the world towards a new era of ocean stewardship. For details on the Boston Event click here, and for the Rhode Island Event click here.

You can learn more about these events and others from Winston Vaughan by writing wvaughan@clf.org

Both events are free and open to the public. To reserve your seat click here for Boston or here for Rhode Island. To learn more about the film please visit www.ocean-frontiers.org

Thanks, and don’t forget to bring a friend. Our ocean needs all the allies it can get.

Stuart Spina wtih the T Riders Union, speaking at the Chelsea MBTA public meeting. Photo courtesy of John Walkey, Transportation for Massachusetts.

In response to the MBTA’s proposed fare hike and service cuts, CLF today issued an action alert calling upon people to contact Massachusetts legislators and the Governor to share their concern about the MBTA’s future, and for Massachusetts’s environment. Some of us use the MBTA, but all of us need it and so here’s what you can do:

• Read a copy of the alert below;
• If you live in Massachusetts, use the simple form to contact Massachusetts legislators and the Governor; or
• If you live outside of Massachusetts, share this page with your friends and family in the Commonwealth. You can use this form to share it, or you can send this link in an email.

Thank you for taking a moment to help the MBTA and Massachusetts’s environment!

—

Dear Massachusetts Resident,

In response to an operating budget deficit of $161 million, the MBTA is proposing that you pay more – far more – for less. That’s why we need your help.

Please contact your state legislators and the Governor to share your concern about the MBTA’s future, and for Massachusetts’s environment.

The MBTA intends to eliminate close to 60% of all weekday bus routes in one scenario and, in both scenarios, the MBTA proposes to eliminate all weekend and evening commuter rail service, and all ferry service, among other significant cuts to the system. For this, the MBTA is proposing to increase single fares by over 41%: 150% for the senior rapid transit fare, 83% increase in the student bus fare, and a 500% increase in the fare for the disabled taking the RIDE in a portion of the service area. Our research reveals no other major transit authority has raised its fare by this much in one single increase in recent history. It would also be the largest increase of MBTA fares by percentage since 1949.

Do you want riders to pay far more for far less? Click here to express your concern about the MBTA’s drastic proposal.

The MBTA’s proposal would permanently hurt the Commonwealth’s public transportation system, cause irreparable damage to the economy and environment, and unfairly burden some of the state’s most vulnerable residents, while not even solving it’s own financial problems. Some of us use the MBTA, but all of us need it. Join us in urging the MBTA to devise a short-term solution and avoid the proposed drastic fare increase and draconian service cuts.

We need you to submit your support for a solution to transportation problems in Massachusetts.

Thank you for your support,
Rafael Mares
Staff Attorney
Conservation Law Foundation

P.S.- Please forward this message on to anyone you know who cares about the future of public transportation in MA.

http://action.clf.org/site/TellAFriend?msgId=7261.0&devId=0

With Northern Pass and other new transmission projects on the horizon, CLF and other leading New Hampshire environmental organizations are presenting a special free webinar on what it really means for New England to import more hydroelectric power from Canada.

The webinar will be next Friday, March 9, 2012, 2:30 to 4pm EST. Click here to register. All you’ll need is a computer and an Internet connection. Please join us, and spread the word to friends, family, and colleagues. The webinar is sponsored by CLF and our friends at the Appalachian Mountain Club, Conservation New Hampshire, The Nature Conservancy in New Hampshire, and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF). 

A scene along the Romaine River from Seeking the Current (copyright Chercher le Courant)

The idea is to provide an accessible summary of the environmental and energy implications of imports, including the often-overlooked impacts of the new hydropower developments in Canada that will supply the power. One of the key questions is what new imports will really mean for the climate, and I’ll explain the findings of a recent report commissioned by CLF on the greenhouse gas emissions of hydropower. As we’ve often pointed out, whether and how to import more hydropower from Canada is a critical issue for the entire region’s energy future. And it’s not just about New Hampshire and Northern Pass — just last week, the developer of the Champlain Hudson project in New York announced that it is moving forward with a revised proposal for an underwater and underground transmisssion line between Canada and New York City that will have the support of state officials, municipal governments, and environmental groups.

During the webinar, you’ll hear from me, and also from Tom Irwin, CLF Vice-President and CLF-NH Director; Ken Kimball, AMC Director of Research; and Will Abbott, SPNHF Vice President for Policy and Land Management.

The webinar will feature a special guest appearance by Québecois filmmaker Nicolas Boisclair, who will be in New Hampshire this month for a series of screenings of his documentary film, Seeking the Current, which shines an unsparing light on Hydro-Québec and its ongoing $8 billion hydropower project on the Romaine River. We’ve put all the details on the screenings (and the webinar too) at this link.

For more information about Northern Pass, sign-up for our monthly newsletter Northern Pass Wire, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northern-pass), and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Boston University (BU) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are preparing a mandatory revised risk assessment for BU’s National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories (NEIDL), which has received substantial federal funding through NIH. I described the specifics of this risk assessment in an earlier post. The draft of that risk assessment is currently ready for public review. Though we reported in our last post that the public hearing for NIH’s draft risk assessment would be held February 16, that hearing was delayed by NIH. NIH recently announced that the hearing has been rescheduled for April 19 and that they are accepting public comments on the draft risk assessment. Your input in this public process is crucial – here is how you can get involved:

• Review the Draft Risk Assessment: The first step is to review what NIH has prepared. You can access the draft risk assessment electronically here, and the accompanying Reader’s Guide here. You can also obtain a hard copy of the draft risk assessment and Reader’s Guide in the mail by e-mailing NIH at NIH_BRP@od.nih.gov or calling (301) 496-9838 to place your request.

• Submit Written Comments: Any member of the public can submit comments to NIH on the draft assessment – that means you! The public comment period closes on May 1, 2012. After reviewing the draft risk assessment, submit your comments to NIH by May 1^st via email at NIH_BRP@od.nih.gov or in hard copy to: The National Institutes of Health, ATTN: NEIDL Risk Assessment, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892.

• Attend the Hearing: The public hearing on the draft risk assessment has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 19, 2012, from 6:30-9:30 PM at Roxbury Community College, 1234 Columbus Avenue, Boston, MA 02120. This is your opportunity to offer comments on the risk assessment verbally. We strongly encourage you to support the local community members opposing this project by attending this public hearing – either to offer comments yourself, or to offer support through your presence. If you would like to offer oral comments, you will need to sign-in prior to the start of the meeting. You can sign-in beginning at 5:30 PM.

Your written and oral comments can be as long/detailed or brief/big-picture as you like – there is no one way to express your opinion. The important thing is that you speak up.

Check the CLF Scoop for more updates or contact me at jrushlow@clf.org with any questions.

Earlier this month I was pleased to join Boston Neighborhood Network (BNN) to discuss the MBTA’s proposed fare hikes and service cuts. See below for a copy of that interview.

Photo courtesy of Derek Keats @ flickr. Creative Commons.

Gulf of Maine cod, the lifeline of our inshore fishing fleet up and down the coast of New England, is in a biological crisis. That is why I wrote today to the Honorable John Bryson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, calling for federal fisheries disaster relief and interim emergency action. You can read a copy of the letter here, or scroll down to read it below this post.

My letter follows the latest scientific data – data that shows that cod stocks are much more heavily depleted than earlier assessments had indicated. According to the 2011 assessment, based on an improved scientific model, three additional years of survey data and more accurate weights-at-age estimates, Gulf of Maine the spawning cod estimates fell to 12,561 metric tons from 33,877 metric tons in 2008.

In the case of Gulf of Maine cod, the numbers are so close to the bone that a couple thousand metric tons of cod landed either way could spell the difference between a rebounding fishery and a total collapse. Given the economic importance of Gulf of Maine cod to coastal fishermen, what would the appropriate risk be?

Indications are that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will set a quota of 6,700 metric tons (mt) for the 2012 fishing year that begins May 1. At this level the risk of the spawning population dropping below critical thresholds is greater than 31%. Drop the catch levels to 4,000mt and the risk drops to less than 10%. Still a risk but a safer bet. That is why as I said in my letter, “Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) recommends a one year 4,000mt catch level for the fishing year which starts May 1, 2012. While that level of catch is  2,700mt less than the lowest level proposed by the New England Fishery Management Council, it still presents a significant risk of further stock declines.”

Setting the catch levels too high on May 1, 2012 creates substantial risk that the whole fishery may have to be closed in the future. This isn’t sheer speculation; when Newfoundland’s northern cod fishery – a close cousin of our Gulf of Maine cod – collapsed in the early nineties, the fishery has had to be closed for decades to allow the cod stocks to rebuild.

As I said in my letter, at 4,000mt, “the estimated gross revenue losses at that catch level are $4,677,000. Importantly, an estimated sixty-six percent of those losses will fall on the smaller, inshore fleet (see attachment), a group that is already operating close to or below the economic break-even point and won’t have alternative fishing options in many cases.” Given this, I asked Secretary Bryson to “set up a disaster relief fund available to all active groundfish companies that would provide some relief for any demonstrated losses that they experience until GOM cod stocks can be rebuilt.”

The livelihoods of New England’s coastal fishermen hang in the balance with the Gulf of Maine cod. A three-part solution is required to protect these fishermen and the fish they depend upon.

• First, NMFS should limit the risk of further long-term damage to the fishery by setting the quota at no higher than 4,000 metric tons for the 2012 fishing year. That will buy some time to do further analysis to inform catch limits for 2013 as the nature and extent of the crisis becomes better understood.
• Second, NMFS should allocate those fish to the boats most economically dependent on Gulf of Maine cod, and restrict large trip boats from fishing for them.
• Third, federal and state authorities should declare an economic fishery disaster and make funds available to assist the coastal fishermen who will suffer significant financial losses under any proposed scenario and look towards broader economic assistance for affected coastal communities.

Failing to take the right action for Gulf of Maine cod at this critical junction may well be failing the region’s fishing future. Fast and effective management steps have to be taken to head off that possibility.

—

A copy of the letter I sent to Secretary Bryson can be found below or as a .pdf here.

February 21, 2012
The Honorable John Bryson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20230

RE: Gulf of Maine Cod Federal Fisheries Disaster Relief & Interim Emergency Action

Dear Secretary Bryson:

We are writing to you now to support the earlier requests by Governor Deval Patrick for federal fisheries disaster relief pursuant to section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The new scientific assessments for Gulf of Maine cod (GOM cod) stocks document that the economic situation in the region is significantly more dire than previously thought. Immediate and aggressive action is needed to avoid any risk of creating a long-lasting biological crisis with GOM cod with widespread, crippling economic implications.

As a result of the recent science assessment, GOM cod catch levels will have to be drastically cut back on May 1, 2012. Even at low catch levels, there still will be a significant risk that the spawning stock levels could decline below the lowest level ever observed. In the words of one of the New England Council’s scientists who has extensively studied the complete commercial collapse of the northern cod stocks in the early 1990’s off Newfoundland, “the similarities [between the two situations] are a bit frightening.” Dr. J.-J. Maguire (email to SSC members and others 1/25/12). Following that collapse, Newfoundland’s cod stock has been largely closed to fishing for decades.

The recent GOM cod reassessment was a unique and highly unusual set of events that was beyond anyone’s control. The scientists exercised their best professional judgment in performing the original assessment in 2008, the managers strictly followed the scientific harvest level advice, and the fishermen appear to have stayed within their prescribed quota limits. And yet, the future of GOM cod is now at an unforeseen but significant risk. These circumstances meet all the criteria in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s disaster relief policy guidance: there is a fishery resource disaster as defined by the MSA; it was caused by events beyond human control; and there will be significant economic impacts stemming from this disaster.

Economic analysis indicates that single-year gross revenue losses for the commercial fleet from current revenue levels could range from  $1,354,000 to $14,620,000, depending on the catch level that is set. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) recommends a one year 4,000mt catch level for the fishing year which starts May 1, 2012. While that level of catch is 2,700 metric tons less than the lowest level proposed by the New England Fishery Management Council, it still presents a significant 10% probability of further spawning stock declines.

The estimated gross revenue losses at that catch level are $4,677,000. Importantly, an estimated sixty-six percent of those losses will fall on the smaller, inshore fleet (see attachment), a group that is already operating close to or below the economic break-even point and won’t have alternative fishing options in many cases. We ask that you set up a disaster relief fund available to all active groundfish companies that would provide some relief for any demonstrated losses of net revenues that they experience until GOM cod stocks can be rebuilt.

Without relief from the crushing economic circumstances many coastal boat owners are facing, , managers are being tempted to take risks in setting the short-term quotas too high, potentially imperiling the fishery for decades. A further commercial collapse of GOM cod stocks would cripple many of New England’s fishing communities that are wholly dependent on cod. The indirect losses in the maritime support industries multiply those potential direct costs many times. Economic disaster assistance can greatly reduce the pressure on managers to allow short-term overharvesting as the region transitions to a sustainable fishery. Moreover, in addition to direct disaster relief, we encourage you to implement the suggestions of the Commerce Department Economic Development Administration’s recent evaluation of certain New England ports and provide necessary aid and technical assistance for the economic transition of these communities.

CLF supports the New England Council’s emergency action request and the general approach that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed in taking interim emergency action to respond to this unexpected and troubling new development. As mentioned above, however, we feel strongly that the quota should be set no higher than 4,000mt. And we have called for the imposition of a series of management measures that would direct the majority of the limited cod quota to the boats that are most dependent on cod. In support of this, we have provided NMFS with a position paper on this issue, which we are also attaching to this letter. Thank you for your careful consideration of the management and economic assistance measures we propose. We look forward to your response and your agency’s further efforts to work towards solutions that help all of New England’s coastal communities weather this tough economic crisis and to thrive in the future.

Sincerely,
Peter Shelley
Vice President

Steven Syre, in his widely read Business news column in the Boston Globe, delves into one of the many important aspects of the settlement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Northeast Utilities and NStar, setting the stage for those two utilities to proceed with their plans to merge. As he notes, most of the attention (understandably) about that settlement has been focused on the provision regarding the purchase of power, by NStar on behalf of its customers, from the Cape Wind project.

However, Syre discusses the provisions of the settlement regarding imports of power from large hydroelectric facilities in Quebec into New England. He notes that the settlement includes a commitment by the Massachusetts utilities signing the agreement that they would not use any large hydropower to meet state-mandated renewable energy targets for the next five years and describes the concerns that lead to this conclusion.

Syre describes how, “State officials and others point to several reasons why it would be a bad idea to count hydropower as a source of power that qualifies as renewable energy. They say that such a designation could increase the price of hydropower and hinder the long-term development of other forms of renewable energy.”

He notes that:

“Other critics even think Hydro-Quebec’s environmental benefits are being oversold. A new study commissioned by the Conservation Law Foundation says large-scale Canadian hydropower will produce ‘substantial greenhouse gas emissions that are comparable to those of modern natural gas-fired power plants.’”

CLF’s take on the agreement grows out of our deep involvement in the merger proceeding and our engagement with many issues that are addressed in the settlement. These include both the Cape Wind project and the questions about the net environmental impact of large hydroelectric power. CLF commissioned the study that Syre discusses, as well as a related analysis that highlights the existential threat to New England-based renewable power from designating large hydropower as eligible for financial incentives under our renewable energy laws.

All of the provisions of the agreement work together to move towards the goal of net gain for the customers of the merging companies and movement towards attaining the important environmental goals of Massachusetts. As Sue Reid of CLF, our lead advocate on the merger, said about the settlement, it is a significant advancement for Massachusetts and all of New England in a number of regards:

• It removes the last major hurdle to building Cape Wind;
• It ensures that the Commonwealth will continue to reap the cost savings and environmental benefits of the Massachusetts Green Communities Act;
• It will help ensure that imported hydropower does not diminish other renewable energy deployment in Massachusetts and beyond;
• It will reduce barriers to installation and operation of small, distributed renewable energy generating facilities in Massachusetts; and
• It will freeze the merged utility’s rates for 4 years, will require transparent public review of NSTAR’s electric and gas rates before the rate freeze expires, and will deliver – upon approval of the merger – an immediate 50% credit to Massachusetts customers based on expected merger savings during the first 4 years following merger approval.

All of these provisions are significant and are reason to hail this agreement as an important landmark in the evolution of our energy system and the march towards a cleaner and better future where our economy, environment and communities can all thrive.