Photo credit: Flickr/peupleloup

As noted in numerous media reports (for example, here and here), the Province of Québec has formally announced its “Plan Nord,” a 25 year, $80 billion plan to develop Québec’s northern region (official “nutshell” here).  Plan Nord reflects major new public investments in mining operations, hydroelectric and wind energy facilities, forestry, and transportation and communications infrastructure.

The scale of Plan Nord is hard to overstate; Premier Jean Charest is proudly proclaiming that Plan Nord is the “project of a generation,” “a sweeping, human adventure,” and “unique both in its scope and its approach.”  The plan adds that “the scope of the Plan Nord will make it in the coming decades what the development of La Manicouagan and James Bay were to the 1960s and 1970s.”  The land area covered by the plan is about twice the size of Texas.

The formal public launch of Plan Nord is an opportunity to think about what Québec’s plans may mean for New England and our regional energy future. A fundamental part of Plan Nord is developing the region’s energy resources, including new hydroelectric generating capacity totaling 3,000 megawatts.  (This amount of power is equivalent to five Vermont Yankees.) While important to the plan’s projections of provincial energy needs, these facilities are also integral to Québec utility Hydro-Québec’s strategy to step up exports of electric power to the northeastern United States, including New England.  The plan itself notes Vermont’s recent renewal of a long-term agreement to import 225 megawatts of power from Hydro-Québec as a key early success.

Although Québec has marketed Plan Nord as at the vanguard of “sustainable development,” any plan this massive and costly should inspire a fair amount of skepticism, especially when its scale is compared to the breathtaking ecological manipulations of Québec’s recent history. Indeed, the plan’s economic focus on new investments in mining suggests less than a total commitment to sustainability. On the other hand, as our colleagues at the Pew Environment Group’s International Boreal Conservation Campaign noted yesterday, the plan commits to protection of 50% of Québec’s northern land area for environmental protection and safeguarding biodiversity. It remains to be seen if this commitment is meaningful; if it is, it would be a historic and farsighted move.

CLF is deeply concerned about what this plan – including its focus on resource extraction and exploitation - means for Québec, New England, and indeed the global environment.  Hydroelectric developments on the scale contemplated by Plan Nord involve inundation of vast land areas, which in turn results in the destruction of wide swathes of Canada’s boreal forest – one of the world’s largest intact carbon sinks - as well as methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing vegetation and releases of heavy metals from flooded soils. Hydropower reservoirs in Québec already cover an area greater than the size of New Hampshire, and further inundation will be required for Plan Nord projects.   These projects have dramatic impacts on indigenous people and their way of life; at least some indigenous groups appear deeply dissatisfied with the public process that led to the Plan Nord.

With Plan Nord moving forward, the time is now for the U.S. Department of Energy to answer CLF’s call for a regional, comprehensive analysis of the nature and extent of the need for energy imports from Québec.  Québec clearly has a plan for its future, and – laudable environmental “commitments” aside – that plan is all about enriching Québec; New England and the northeastern U.S. need a coherent plan of our own that reflects our energy policies and environmental values.

The Hydro-Quebec building in Montreal. (Photo credit: Wikimedia Creative Commons)

As the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) moves forward with the environmental review of the Northern Pass electric transmission project, one crucial question still remains–how much does New England need imports of Canadian power?

Today, CLF filed a motion to postpone the environmental review in order to answer that question, calling for a comprehensive public review of the region’s energy needs, the environmental impacts of the Canadian hydropower that would be imported through the project, the best transmission technologies available, and the alternatives to imports, such as renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and energy conservation measures. That analysis could then be used to guide future reviews of individual projects, as opposed to having DOE review each project independently.

“Before DOE can make a reasoned decision on whether the Northern Pass project or any similar proposal is in the ‘public interest,’ it needs to take a step back and consider whether and how new imports from Canada should be a part of our regional energy picture,” says CLF New Hampshire Director Tom Irwin.

> Read the rest of the story
> Visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center

Photo credit: National Park Service

We’re excited to share that we’re very close to reaching our Earth Day Challenge goal of raising $41,000 which CLF board members have agreed to match dollar-for-dollar, making your gift work twice as hard! We’d like to extend an enormous thank you to all of you who reached for your credit cards and checkbooks– and for those of you who haven’t, to announce that you’re not too late! Just to be absolutely sure that we meet our goal, we’re extending our Earth Day Challenge deadline until midnight on April 30. You can help push us over the finish line by making a new or increased gift today!

Today, 41 years after Earth Day’s founding, its purpose of shining a spotlight on environmental issues is more poignant than ever. In the past few weeks alone, we have watched with terror as a nuclear disaster unfolded in Japan and, just two days ago, solemnly observed the one year anniversary of the BP oil disaster. Yet, in the current political climate, our national resolve to avert disasters like these and protect our environment is weak. That’s why every day is Earth Day at CLF.

Whether it’s working to ensure that appropriate caution is taken with the proposed Northern Pass transmission project in New Hampshire, or fighting to prevent Vermont’s state lands from being ravaged by ATVs, we shine a spotlight every day on the issues that concern you.

Tackling these challenges – and turning them into victories – is not possible without your help. Thank you in advance for all you do to help CLF protect our New England, today and every day.

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced in the Federal Register that it’s extending to June 14, 2011 the deadline for submitting scoping comments on the proposed Northern Pass electric transmission project.

UPDATE:  As of June 15, 2011, DOE has again reopened the comment period – this time indefinitely – pending the submission of updated route information from Northern Pass.  See more here.

This extension of the public comment period comes on the heels of huge turnouts at DOE’s seven public meetings in March and the news (noted on NHPR here and in the Concord Monitor here) that the developer of the project wants DOE to stop considering several alternative routes for the project in favor of its original preferred route.

DOE’s extension means that you still have an important opportunity to help shape the environmental impact statement (EIS) and influence DOE’s decision on the project.  The EIS will be a detailed statement of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the Northern Pass proposal and alternatives.

What Should I Address in My Comments?

CLF encourages you to raise any reasonable concern or question about the proposed Northern Pass project and alternatives:

• Describe how the project could affect the natural resources that you value.
• Explain your concerns about the potential impacts of the project on scenic landscapes, communities, wildlife, forest resources, wetlands, recreation areas, the energy sector, and the local economy.
• Demand that DOE analyze the environmental impacts associated with generating the hydroelectric power that the project will transmit.
• Insist that DOE rigorously examine all reasonable alternatives to the project, including alternative project designs (like burying the lines in railroad or highway rights of way) and options that would generate or save the same amount of power here in New England (like local renewable energy, energy efficiency, or conservation programs).
• Join CLF’s request for a comprehensive EIS that assesses New England’s need for Canadian hydropower and develops a more holistic, proactive plan for addressing any such need (as opposed to reacting to project-specific proposals such as Northern Pass)

How Do I Submit Comments?

To comment, email DOE at Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov or use DOE’s Northern Pass EIS web form by June 14, 2011.  UPDATE: As mentioned above, the deadline for comments has been extended again – to a date yet to be determined.

For More Information

• Visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center at http://www.clf.org/northernpass, and download CLF’s detailed written comments to DOE.
• Check out project maps and Northern Pass’s application filings (available at http://www.northernpasseis.us, under “Document Library”).
• Contact me at ccourchesne@clf.org.
• Become a member of CLF here, to support us in our work.

Daniel Johnson Dam, north of Baie-Corneau, Québec

Last night, CLF filed detailed written comments with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regarding the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Northern Pass project. (A PDF of our comments is here.)   First and foremost, our comments urge DOE to stay the Northern Pass proceeding and instead conduct a comprehensive, regional analysis (a comprehensive EIS) of the region’s need for Canadian imports, to enable sound planning as opposed to the piecemeal, project-by-project approach DOE is currently taking by simply reacting to the permit applications of private entities like Northern Pass.   

Our comments expand on the remarks (PDF) I made at the Pembroke scoping meeting last month and come on the heels of yesterday’s major news that (1) Northern Pass wants DOE not to consider some alternative routes it included in its Presidential Permit application and also needs more time to discuss additional potential routes through the North Country (a PDF of Northern Pass’s filing is here and coverage on NHPR here) and (2) DOE is reopening the scoping public comment period through a date to be determined in June.  The fact that Northern Pass itself has asked for a delay to reconsider aspects of its project is an even stronger indication that DOE can and should take the time it needs to undertake a full regional analysis through an open, and collaborative public process.   

(more…)

Portland Head Light, marking the southwest entrance to Portland Harbor (Photo Credit: Maine Department of Conservation)

The success of the new sectors approach to groundfish management, in which fishermen fish in community-based cooperatives (“sectors”) allocated a share of the annual catch limit in the fishery, is becoming more and more recognized as politicians such as Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree are speaking out in favor of the new system. Today, Congresswoman Pingree issued a press release declaring that the new sector regulations are working and noting that under the sector system, revenue for Maine fishermen is up over the previous year. The press release, which can be read in full here, also notes that Congresswoman Pingree spoke with Eric Schwaab, the top federal fisheries regulator, to reinforce her support for the current system and ask him to keep the regulations in place. A recent article in the Portland Press Herald also offered evidence of sectors’ success with quotes from a Maine sector fisherman saying that the new program has allowed fishermen to earn more money and reduce bycatch. The article also noted that Maine Senator Olympia Snowe recently asked federal regulators to continue with the sector system. CLF has long been on the record in support of Amendment 16 and the sector management plan it created, and it’s certainly encouraging to hear our local leaders and fishermen agree that sectors are helping to rebuild New England’s groundfish stocks and sustain its coastal communities.

In honor of the 41st anniversary of Earth Day, CLF Board members from across New England have banded together to make an extraordinary $41,000 investment in CLF’s – and our region’s – future. Every new or increased gift you make now through Earth Day – April 22– can be matched, dollar-for-dollar, up to $41,000.

Your gift today will go toward solving the region’s toughest environmental problems, and help us ensure a healthy, thriving New England for generations to come. From Maine to Rhode Island, CLF stands up for your favorite places, for the health of your families and your communities, and for the prosperity of our region. Since the last Earth Day, we:

• Cleaned up the air in Somerset, MA by closing the doors on an old, polluting coal plant
• Won tougher standards for phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain, VT
• Preserved the fragile ecosystem of Great Salt Pond on Block Island, RI
• Saved Mainers millions of dollars on electricity infrastructure
• Helped NH cities and towns save energy and money by increasing energy efficiency

As Earth Day approaches, we are reminded that around the world and right here in New England, our land, our oceans and our air are in peril. On the heels of the 2010 elections, many in the new Congress are pursuing a clear anti-environment agenda, one that cuts directly to the core of the most fundamental protections for our health, safety and well-being. With leadership in Washington sorely lacking, CLF is uniquely poised to take the reins in protecting New England.

Today, we are asking you to help us continue our progress by taking part in our Earth Day Challenge. Your commitment enables CLF to safeguard our oceans, clean up our lakes, rivers and forests, promote clean energy innovations and build healthy, livable communities. We hope you will take part in our Earth Day Challenge by making a donation today to help CLF protect our small but mighty corner of the world.

If the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) does its job right, the environmental review of the Northern Pass project – the largest infrastructure project in recent New Hampshire history – will be a massive and complex undertaking, analyzing all alternatives to the current proposal and describing the many social and environmental impacts of the project.  That’s why it’s critical that DOE begin its work with the right plan – one that takes into account the tremendous public input DOE has received during the ongoing scoping process and that also reflects DOE’s technical expertise, especially regarding the possible technological alternatives to the current proposal.  (Information on the scoping process and how to submit comments to DOE is here – the deadline for written comments is April 12.)

Today, in a joint letter to DOE, CLF and several partners renewed their request (also made at the mid-March scoping meetings) for DOE to release a report – before it begins work on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – identifying the alternatives DOE plans to study in depth, the alternatives it plans to exclude from the analysis, and the categories of social and environmental impacts that it will consider.  We believe that DOE should not only prepare such a report, but also provide the public the opportunity to comment on it.

The report on the scoping process that DOE currently intends to issue – one that simply summarizes public input – is not enough, especially for this project.  The project application provided almost no information on alternatives and environmental impacts (something CLF and others vehemently objected to months ago), and that lack of information has undermined the public’s ability to provide meaningful feedback during the scoping process as a result.

Before DOE and the EIS contractor it ultimately selects to replace its original contractor begin studying the project and its alternatives behind closed doors, the public deserves to know DOE’s plan and to have the chance to suggest changes to that plan. Otherwise, DOE may “re-emerge” from its work months from now with a document that misses important alternatives and will be very challenging to change – a result that would be problematic for DOE and the public alike.  DOE needs to get it right the first time, and the public should be invited to help ensure that DOE has the right plan to do so.

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Credit: Cynthia Irwin

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency took an important step in putting New Hampshire’s Great Bay estuary on the path to recovery.  As a direct result of CLF’s advocacy, EPA issued a draft Clean Water Act discharge permit for the Exeter sewage treatment plant requiring — for the first time — nitrogen pollution limits.

Exeter’s facility — one of the largest sewage treatment plants in New Hampshire’s Seacoast — discharges directly into the Squamscott River, which flows downstream into Great Bay.  As EPA’s fact sheet for the draft permit explains, EPA began the re-permitting process for the Exeter plant in 2007.  Noting significant pollution problems in the Squamscott River and Great Bay, CLF objected to the 2007 draft permit for its failure to regulate nitrogen.  Based on those concerns, as well as further data showing the estuary’s decline – including the loss of essential seagrass habitat — EPA’s draft permit now proposes much-needed discharge limits to control nitrogen pollution from the Exeter sewage treatment plant.

Finally controlling nitrogen pollution from this significant discharge will be essential to protecting the health of the Squamscott River, which has experienced excessive levels of chlorophyll-a, depressed levels of oxygen, and the loss of important eelgrass habitat.   It also will help tackle nitrogen pollution problems in Great Bay.  But as EPA and the Department of Environmental Services know, reducing pollution from stormwater and other sewage treatment plants will be critical for the health of the Great Bay estuary.  Of the 18 sewage treatment plants discharging into the estuary, not one has a nitrogen pollution limit.  Exeter’s will be the first, and it’s an important step in the right direction.

EPA’s draft permit will be finalized after a public comment period which expires July 22.  A public hearing on the draft permit is scheduled for June 9 (6:30 p.m. at Exeter Town Hall).  You can help secure needed protections for the Squamscott River and Great Bay by weighing in!