Last week the development of wind energy offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts moved one step closer with the publication of an environmental assessment (EA) by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) regarding commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The purpose of the EA is to determine whether or not issuance of leases and approval of site assessment plans within a designated area offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts would lead to reasonably foreseeable and significant impacts on the environment. The EA is available online here.

BOEM will accept public comments on the EA and then will determine whether or not to issue a finding of No Significant Impact or conduct additional analysis under NEPA. The deadline for public comments is August 2.  CLF is reviewing the 379-page EA, with a particular focus on the impact to sensitive marine habitats, fish populations and fishing activities, water quality, and marine mammals – particularly the endangered right whale – and sea turtles. CLF will submit comments. CLF believes that offshore wind deployment is a critical clean energy supply resource which must be deployed expeditiously and in significant quantities, in a manner that protects ocean wildlife and sensitive seafloor habitats.

BOEM is hosting two public information sessions to provide an overview of the EA and the next steps in the leasing process. At these sessions, BOEM will accept comments and address questions, so CLF encourages interested members to attend.

Public Information Sessions:

Monday, July 16, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
University of Rhode Island
Coastal Institute – Hazard’s Room
218 South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02874

Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
Fairfield Inn & Suites
185 MacArthur Drive
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740

This week, along with millions of Americans, I will cheer at a parade, join a BBQ, and watch fireworks. I will do this with my family, in a familiar place, with familiar faces, and celebrate this most American of holidays.

July 4th has always meant a great deal to me, first as an American boy growing up, and now as an American environmentalist. It is a great holiday because it is a holiday that makes us proud of what we’ve accomplished. Independence. Self reliance. Prosperity.

These values are often associated with places: when we think of America, we think of the icons of America. Yellowstone. Zion. And New England’s very own Acadia National Park. As Americans, preserving these natural treasures is among our proudest accomplishments. Our oceans should be no different. Here, in the Gulf of Maine, we have George’s Bank, Stellwagen Bank, and Cashes Ledge – a spectacular undersea mountain range – where you find steep canyons, deep kelp forests, and vibrant, charismatic marine life. Their beauty and majesty are breathtaking.

Why, then, do these special ocean places not stir us like our special places on land? I believe it’s because  we don’t see them. We don’t think of our underwater treasures as icons of America because we can’t light up our grill next to a kelp forest and watch seals swim by, like we can an eagle flying over head.

There can be no doubt that our oceans are national treasures. To help raise awareness – and to literally raise these places out of the sea and into our living rooms and offices – we have launched the New England Ocean Odyssey with National Geographic photographer Brian Skerry. The photos from this first-of-its-kind journey will show just how magnificent, and how fragile, the ocean can be. Indeed, they already have. This early collection of photos from Brian is only the beginning.

The photo of a sea star, featured above, is a bright burst of color against a dark backdrop – a firework against a night sky. The seal is part friend, part pastor, welcoming you and praying at the same time. And the image of the right whale bursts with strength. It swells with American pride.

Just as there is no doubt that our oceans are treasures, so too is there no doubt that they are being damaged. Bottom trawlers damage huge swaths of the ocean floor with their heavy chains, doors and dredges, likened by some scientists to a bulldozer scraping the delicate floor of a pristine forest. New England’s oceans are rising much faster than predicted. They are also becoming more acidic from harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Recent record increases in precipitation may even be fundamentally altering plankton production, jeopardizing the very productivity of our marine web of life.

As you celebrate Independence Day this week, and think about America’s independence, think about what makes us proud to be Americans. Think about the pride we take in our National Parks, and the foresight we had to protect them and so many other treasured landscapes. And think about how much we depend on, but how little protection we give to, our oceans.

In our increasingly interdependent world, that is pushing the limits of our ecosystems, certain renewed forms of independence would be a good thing.

Independence from fossil fuels.

Independence from unhealthy food and transportation systems.

Independence from water-polluting infrastructure of all types.

The natural independence – and security – for our children and grandchildren, that flow from creating a truly sustainable future.

And independence that comes with the pride of protecting America’s natural resources – on land and under our shining sea.

Llike so many of us, I love New England’s ocean treasures. This July 4th, stand with CLF in remembering and protecting them, so our children and grandchildren can love them too.

Last week I stood in front of a group of young, energetic and extremely well qualified people and welcomed them as CLF’s 2012 summer interns – an act being repeated thousands of times around the country this summer. As I looked across the room at this highly talented group of young people, two thoughts occurred to me: among them are our future leaders, and our movement – the environmental movement – will be very different when they are standing in my position, welcoming interns to their organizations in the years ahead.

The movement certainly was different when I joined it, 35 years ago, as an intern with the Sierra Club. Working out of their DC office, I worked on issues related to Native Americans in Alaska. At the time, when the American environmental movement was still young, our issues were advanced primarily by litigation, by males, and by people who were predominantly well educated and white. That, thankfully, is no longer true.

Looking into the faces of our interns, I saw not just lawyers but city planners, economists and biologists. I saw people from all over the country, and people from all walks of life. Their toolbox is larger and more refined, their network larger and more informed than ours was 35 years ago. Looking around the room, at the new members of CLF’s family, I thought: some of these people will change the world. Of that I am convinced.

I also have little doubt that our movement will continue to change, as it has during my lifetime. In talking to these interns, I wondered: what advice could I give them, and people like them at other environmental organizations across the country? What advice could I give to young people hoping to enter the movement? I have three suggestions.

**

Be aggressive. Be creative.

Many people are hired as interns for specific projects that match their interests and the needs of the organization. This is a good thing, certainly. But it has been my observation that people often find their calling – where their skills and their passion combine with their work – when they least expect it. A career is often made not of straight lines, but of surprise turns that, once taken, are committed to.

Be aggressive in pursuing that which interests you. So long as you get your assigned work done, everyone will benefit from you going the extra mile and pursuing your interests.

Let it change. Help us grow.

Just like any movement, our movement needs to change so as to remain effective and fresh. Innovation and change occur because people have new ideas, and new people join the movement.

We have been successful as a movement, but the challenges facing us remain systemic and, at times, daunting. We need change; we should welcome and encourage innovation.

How do you do this as an intern? Become an advocate. Recruit your friends. Don’t settle for a system you think is broken. Make a ruckus, and make it as loud or as quiet as you need to be effective.

Be substantive.  Communicate well.

People trust others who know their stuff. Learn the details. Understand the science behind the positions we take. Learn the policy-making and regulatory processes you’re working with. There is no substitute for depth of knowledge and understanding of nuance. But hone your ability to explain what you know to ordinary people. It’s an art, and it takes constant practice. It is essential. An expert in isolation is a waste of an expert; and expert who can make her depth of knowledge readily understood is a gem.

**

On the day I greeted our new interns, someone else greeted my son as he began his internship in Chicago. I hope that person felt about him as I do about our interns: here at CLF is one of our new great leaders.

I’d like to think that CLF is fertile ground for nurturing environmental advocates. Among the ranks of our alumni are the leaders of companies, leading environmental advocates, leading public servants, and two current, long-standing CLF staff members who started as interns and never left.

To all those working for us this summer, I say: welcome to the CLF family. Now, go out and change the world. Make New England, and our world, thrive.

The Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding met on Friday, June 1, for what may prove to be its last meeting for this legislative session. (I sit on the Study Commission as a full voting member.) At the June 1 meeting, the Study Commission approved four separate recommendations; each separate recommendation was approved by a vote of 9 members in favor, 1 member opposed. All four recommendations were deeply disappointing.

Unfortunately, the gist of all four recommendations is that the Study Commission recommends waiting until after RIPTA completes its anticipated Comprehensive Operations Assessment (COA) before the Study Commission recommends any new, significant, sustainable funding for RIPTA. The fourth recommendation sums up the gist of all four: “Upon completion of the COA and pricing analysis [that is, zone fares], develop a comprehensive, sustainable funding approach for inclusion in the FY 2014 budget.”

In other words: nothing meaningful should happen now; let’s wait until after the COA is done; and then (maybe) recommend something in the future. The inevitable result will be that RIPTA will face major service cuts as early as the end of this calendar year. This will directly hurt Rhode Islanders who depend on RIPTA to get to jobs, school, medical appointments, or recreation. And it will hurt the environment, because expanding public transit is a major way to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution.

I was the sole Study Commission member to oppose the four recommendations. I explained that there is no reason to wait until after the COA is done to recommend new, sustainable funding for RIPTA, because the COA will not provide any relevant, new information. We know why RIPTA experiences perennial budget shortfalls; it is due to two major factors:

• Declining yield on the gas tax, which is RIPTA’s largest single source of revenue; this yield declined 12.9% in just four recent years; and

• Rising diesel prices for RIPTA busses. Diesel fuel is RIPTA’s second largest expense (after personnel); and diesel prices have increased 100% since 2005.

The fact is that the COA will not add any new, relevant information about these critical issues.

We also know the options for new funding; again, the COA will not add any new, relevant information there, either. At the June 1 meeting, I suggested that the Commission endorse the O’Grady Bill, H-7581, as an alternative to the four pre-written recommendations.

Each of the four proposed recommendations was moved separately and voted on separately. All four of the proposed recommendations passed by votes of 9 in favor, one opposed. I was the sole dissenter in each case. After I had lost on all four proposals, I made a proposal for a fifth recommendation.

I proposed that the Study Commission re-convene in September, rather than in March/April, as it has in the past, in order to be ready earlier in the next General Assembly session with new funding recommendations for RIPTA. In effect, my proposal was a challenge to the Study Commission. I was saying: If you insist on waiting until after the COA to recommend more funding for RIPTA (despite my objection to the delay), then, at least, move quickly after the summer and be ready with recommendations early in the next legislative session. My proposal was approved unanimously.

All in all, this was a disappointing end to this year’s meetings of the Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding.

However, CLF will remain engaged on the transportation front. Here in Rhode Island, the transportation sector is both the largest source of carbon emissions and the fastest growing – so we must address transportation if we are to address climate change. When the Study Commission re-convenes after the summer we shall re-double our efforts to have the General Assembly revamp the broken and inadequate ways that RIPTA is funded.

This week Rhode Island’s dominant utility, National Grid, made its first-ever filing with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) under Rhode Island’s newly enacted “revenue decoupling” statute. Grid’s filing resolves once and for all a debate that has been swirling around the environmental community in Rhode Island (and the rest of New England) for years – an argument over whether decoupling is a rip-off of utility rate-payers. CLF (and other environmental advocates) have argued for years that there are important environmental benefits to be reaped from decoupling. Opponents, including some ratepayer advocates, argued that decoupling would be bad for rate-payers because it would inevitably lead to unjustified rate hikes.

In response to Grid’s filing with the PUC, the PUC opened a new docket (case) to consider decoupling.  CLF has filed papers to intervene in (participate in) this new PUC docket as a full party; you can see CLF’s Motion To Intervene here.

Grid’s highly technical, 51-page filing with the PUC this week is dense reading, with pages upon pages of complicated charts, but at the end of the day the filing resolves the controversy. Decoupling is good for ratepayers. And in just this first year of operation, Rhode Island electricity ratepayers will receive a collective refund from National Grid of over a million dollars.

Some explanation of what decoupling is and how this controversy has developed is in order.

Traditional utility regulation provides little incentive for utilities to promote energy efficiency. This is because reduction in sales equals a reduction in profits for the utility.

Decoupling is a way to address this problem and to align the utility’s pecuniary interest with the public interest in efficiency and conservation. Decoupling separates (that is, “decouples”) a utility’s income from the amount of commodity the utility sells. This effectively removes a major disincentive to utility enthusiasm for and participation in energy efficiency measures.

Decoupling is not all that is needed to achieve carbon-emission reductions through energy efficiency; but decoupling is one important and necessary ingredient. Many states have decoupled, and there is a high correlation between states that reduce carbon emissions the most (thereby lowering ratepayer bills the most) and states that have decoupled.

Work on “decoupling” is one aspect of CLF’s wider work on reducing carbon emissions in order to address the climate change emergency. More specifically, decoupling is closely linked to our work on energy efficiency. One of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions in the short- and medium-term is to work on energy efficiency.

In 2008, CLF participated in a litigation in the PUC in which we tried to get the PUC to decouple gas prices. The litigation, PUC Docket 3943, took weeks, and CLF presented an expert witness, crossed examined witnesses of other parties, submitted briefs. But CLF lost the case; the PUC ruled that it would not decouple gas prices in Rhode Island.

In 2009, CLF tried again, this time trying to get the PUC to decouple electricity prices. This litigation, PUC Docket 4065, also took weeks – again, we presented an expert witness, cross-examined other parties’ witnesses, briefed the issue. Again we lost; the PUC ruled that it would not decouple electricity prices.

The main argument against decoupling was that it would hurt ratepayers. The Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (this is the statutory ratepayer advocate in Rhode Island, and is different than the PUC) opposed decoupling for this reason, as did others. One expert witness against decoupling put it this way: “[T]he plan would allow a broad range of automatic rate adjustments that would result in rate increases . . . .There is no down side to the Company. The only down side is to the ratepayers.”

In response, CLF introduced evidence that actually came from 28 natural gas utilities and 12 electric utilities in 17 states across the country that have operative decoupling mechanisms. This broad range of utilities showed two important results from decoupling. First, decoupling adjustments tend to be small, even miniscule. Compared to total residential retail rates, decoupling adjustments have been most often under two percent, positive or negative, with the majority under 1 percent. Second, decoupling adjustments go both ways, sometimes providing small refunds to customers, sometimes providing small surcharges.

Nevertheless, despite the evidence we introduced, we lost both cases. The PUC was persuaded that decoupling was just a trick whereby the utility could always ratchet rates upward.

In 2010, CLF, working with other environmental organizations supported a bill in the Rhode Island General Assembly that would require decoupling of both electricity and gas prices. On May 20, 2010, Governor Donald Carcieri signed the bill into law.

On October 18, 2010, the PUC opened a new docket in order to implement the new law that mandated decoupling. This time, the question wasn’t whether Rhode Island would decouple, but how. CLF participated as a full party in the docket in order to ensure that the decoupling mechanisms adopted would be designed to reap all the environmental benefits without unduly hurting or harming ratepayers. Nine months later, on July 26, 2011, the PUC approved an excellent set of decoupling rules for both electricity and gas.

And this week, Grid filed its first report under the new Rhode Island decoupling statute and under the PUC rules. It shows that, on the electricity side, Grid is going to rebate to Rhode Island ratepayers just over a million dollars for the year just ending.

Remember the two points that CLF’s expert witnesses made in the decoupling dockets that we lost in 2008 and 2009.

• First, decoupling adjustments tend to be very small, even miniscule.

• Second, decoupling adjustments go both ways. Sometimes ratepayers pay a little extra; sometimes ratepayers get a rebate.

Grid’s filing this week in the PUC shows that CLF was correct on both points. This time, ratepayers are getting a rebate. And, yes, the amount is small. For the average (500 kilowatt-hour per month) electricity customer, the rebate will be 7¢ per month, or 84¢ per year. (And, yes, the adjustments can go both ways, and next year there might be a miniscule surcharge.) Meanwhile, everyone in Rhode Island enjoys the savings and efficiency benefits that decoupling enables – and the environment enjoys lower carbon emissions.

I think there may be two lessons that can be learned from this – one about CLF and one about the broader environmental movement.

About CLF: One of the things I love about working for CLF is the stick-to-itiveness that the organization (and my fellow and sister staff members) have. In 2008, we litigated decoupling, and we lost. So we tried again. When we lost again, we turned to a different forum, the General Assembly. When the law we supported passed, we were pleased – but we didn’t rest. We still had another litigation in the PUC to make sure that the law was properly implemented.

CLF is nothing if not persistent!

And about the broader environmental movement: So often our opponents argue that environmental protections are too costly to implement. Too often, the arguments made by environmentalists about the benefits and savings from environmental protections are just not believed by decision-makers and by ordinary citizens. With decoupling, everyone (including the PUC and so many others) just “knew” that decoupling would be an expensive rip-off. When evidence like this comes to light about the financial and pecuniary benefits of environmental laws, we should make sure that the public knows.

I received that message this week. It came in two parts. The first part was delivered by a polite and efficient Somerville, MA police officer, in the form of the below ticket. I had blown right through a red light.

The second part was the irony that hit me as his blue lights were flashing: Just last week I posted this blog post, about how far we’ve come in Boston toward a safe and respectful bike commuting environment, in part because cyclists tend to follow the rules far more regularly than they did in the past.

I am guilty. No question about it. It doesn’t matter that the move I made was safe – to me and others – and likely promoted efficiency because I got out of the way of traffic before the waiting cars started moving through the intersection. I violated the rules that we have developed to govern our competing demands on a shared resource: our roadways.

I am blowing the whistle on myself for a few reasons, but principally to make a simple argument: the rule of law is not only necessary, but immensely helpful. We should respect it. Now, to those reasons.

First, the experience gave me the opportunity to reflect on how subjective we all get when using the roads. I bike, and I drive. When biking, I am often amazed at how quickly I fall into the mindset that all drivers are the problem, and when driving how quick I am to note the bad moves of the cyclists on the road.  You may know what I mean.

Test yourself: are you, or is any one, really capable of innately respecting the rights of all users of a shared resource when we are users ourselves?

Which leads to the second point: this is why we have laws. They govern situations that humans are not entirely capable of governing in the absence of law. The rule of law is, in my view, one of the greatest human inventions yet. It is the fundamental underpinning of so much of a civil society, including the rational sharing of scarce, common resources subject to multiple demands, for the greater good of all.

Resources like clean water. Like marine fisheries. Like clean air for all who breathe. Like a healthy economy for the welfare of all. Like justice. And like safe streets and other public investments in transportation.

If we don’t like the rules we should not flaunt them, we should work to change them. Some innovations worth watching are now in the works.  France, for example, appears to be experimenting with new rules that would allow cyclists to go through red lights in some situations, where clearing the intersection of cyclists before cars start up might actually make for safer conditions.

I don’t know if that’s right or wrong. But I do know it was wrong for me to adopt that rule for myself. Civil society, operating under the rule of law, can’t work that way. Open respectful debate, and thoughtful engagement in our democracy and participation in the governing process – that’s how we develop the rules we use to promote the general good of the body politic.

We at CLF are engaged in that sort of work in every one of our states, to promote what we and our members (and many more) believe is the general good of society, and we’re proud to do it. Especially in the election season that is now upon us, we invite all to join in the process on whatever issue excites you. It’s good for all of us, and necessary if we’re going to address the challenges we face effectively, and together. And that’s how it has to be done.

On Wednesday, May 9, House Bill 7581 (the O’Grady Bill) will be heard in the House Finance Committee of the Rhode Island General Assembly. The O’Grady Bill is a key legislative priority of Rhode Island’s environmental movement. The hearing is at 1:00 PM in Room 35 of the State House (Room 35 is in the basement). The O’Grady Bill would provide vitally needed funding for public transit in Rhode Island.

CLF members and friends are invited to attend the May 9 hearing on the O’Grady bill in order to show support for it.

Here in Rhode Island, as in the rest of New England, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – and the fastest growing. The simple fact is that the climate change emergency cannot (and will not) be addressed until and unless we address transportation emissions. By funding public transit in Rhode Island, the O’Grady Bill would provide an effective means of reducing vehicle miles traveled in private automobiles and an effective means of reducing overall carbon emissions.

That is why the Environment Council of Rhode Island, the coalition of over 80 Rhode Island environmental organizations has made the O’Grady Bill one of its top legislative priorities for 2012.

Another broad coalition, the Coalition for Transportation Choices (CTC) is also supporting the O’Grady Bill. CLF was instrumental in creating the CTC, and, in my capacity as a CLF Staff Attorney, I serve as CTC’s Co-Chair. At the May 9 hearing, I will be presenting to the House Finance Committee letters of support for the O’Grady Bill from a wide range of community organizations, ranging from the Providence Chamber of Commerce to the Transit Workers Union. We are hoping that this broad range of support will translate to legislative support.

Environmentalists in Rhode Island can take a concrete step to address carbon emissions in Rhode Island by coming to the May 9 House Finance Committee hearing (1:00 PM, Room 35) to testify in favor of the O’Grady Bill.

I’ll be there, and I’d be delighted to see you there, too.

Last night, in the Town of South Kingstown, Rhode Island, the State’s coastal management agency met to hear the Town’s plea to reclassify Matunuck Beach –a natural headland bluff and coastal beach – as a manmade beach. This reclassification, the Town argued, would allow the business and home owners in the village of Matunuck to defend themselves against the rising sea and the erosion that is eating away feet of beach weekly by allowing them to build a sea wall along the beach. With less than three feet between the ocean and the state road, the Town argued that without the reclassification, the peril to its citizens and to the road, which has been there since the late 1800s, was imminent.

Many supported the reclassification and some opposed it. Legal arguments, policy arguments, and economic arguments were all advanced over the course of four hours. But, shortly before 10 p.m., the second to last public witness, advanced an argument that brought a hush to the room of hundreds.

A young woman from Matunuck approached the podium from the back of the auditorium in her jeans and flip-flops. When she began to speak she was visibly nervous and apologetic for not being as comfortable as others who preceded her. Her hands were shaky, her voice unsteady, but her point was resoundingly clear. She had lived in Matunuck for twenty-five years. She loved the village and the people in it. She had grown up playing on the south coast’s barrier beaches. I waited for her to express her support for the reclassification of the beach and the construction of a sea wall to save the town, but she expressed something else.

She thought the Town’s approach and the whole conversation we were having reflected an incredible short-sightedness and that the solutions proposed were short-spanned. She found it hard to believe that people were actually talking about trying to save a house or a road or a business on the grounds that it had been in Matunuck for 50 or 100 years. “The beach and these bluffs and this ecosystem have been here for millions of years,” she said. She expressed her genuine concern that if we allowed for the construction of a wall on this beach that we would destroy the entire barrier beach system and the hope that these beaches would be here for our children.

Here this woman stood, courageously arguing against her neighbors, and perhaps even her own self-interest to save the beach for the future. I remember thinking to myself, “so this is what climate change and sea level rise looks like when we add people to the equation.” It is people, not policies, that will have to make the hard choices between the long-term interests of a community and their own private interests. Neighbors from close-knit communities will disagree on both solutions and outcomes. Governments will have to balance long-term economic sustainability with immediate financial crises.

If we wait to respond to the inevitable, these scenes will begin to play out more often throughout our New England communities. But, if we’ve grown tired of waiting for the choices to be thrust upon us, there is something we can do about it.

We can begin to identify the strategic solutions that allow for bearable economic costs, minimal and organized relocation, and sustainable resource protection measures. We can protect our own interests and the longer-term interests of a broader community.