Why buy when you can save? Power saved through energy efficiency is widely available, clean, and costs approximately one half to one third the cost of buying electricity from a power plant. During a nine-month workshop process with regulators, utilities and businesses, CLF recommended Vermont invest in far greater efficiency to aggressively tackle high-energy bills, curb pollution and climate change, and provide a more secure energy future. While Vermont regulators acknowledged that greater efficiency pays for itself and avoids more expensive power purchases and transmission upgrades, they ultimately approved only a small increase for efficiency efforts.

The Board’s order is disappointing. A limited number of businesses opposed increasing efficiency. This opposition is short-sighted. The most successful businesses are also the most efficient. They represent opportunities for growing our economy and keeping jobs in Vermont and pollution out of Vermont. With more energy efficiency, we can support and grow our economy instead of throwing our energy dollars out the window. Efficiency investments provide savings through financial incentives for equipment, lighting, renovation, and construction that allows buildings and homes to use less energy.

Even with this limited increase, Vermont will remain a strong leader on electrical energy efficiency. Unfortunately, there are still too many savings left on the table. As a result, Vermonters will be paying too much and polluting too much to meet our power needs. We could easily make twice the investment we are making now, and that’s what we should be doing. The Board’s decision is a baby step in the right direction, but we still have a marathon to run.

The Vermont Public Service Board recently approved a contract for Vermont utilities to buy power from Hydro-Québec for 20 years.  The new contract will supply about 20% of Vermont’s power needs, bringing 225 MW of power into Vermont to replace an expiring contract for 310 MW.  The starting price for the power is about $58.07 per MWh and will be adjusted annually based on regional electricity prices.  Vermont regulators found the agreement provides Vermont financial benefits by locking in a stable price that is lower than many other sources of electricity.  Contracts such as this represent only the tip of the iceberg for power imports from Québec, as Hydro-Québec partners to build transmission lines through New York and New Hampshire.

Hydro-Québec is a government-owned utility with some nuclear and fossil fuel plants, 60 hydroelectric generating stations, including seven new dams built since 2000, and significant new expansions on the horizon, including 3,000 MW of new hydropower projects in Québec’s far north as part of the province’s $80 billion “Plan Nord.”  Because Hydro-Québec supplies more than enough power for its own region, the expansion represents Hydro-Québec’s commitment to selling more power to other areas, including New England.

Regulators quickly approved the contract, citing its purported value as a relatively low-carbon and low-cost power source.   However, importing vast amounts of power from Québec is no “green” silver bullet.  Last October, CLF highlighted troubling aspects of the power deal between Hydro-Québec and Vermont utilities. CLF showed that the power deal falls short by failing to honestly represent its environmental impacts.  A few of the problems with the deal:

• Without adequate verification, the environmental claims aren’t necessarily accurate.  A portion of the claimed “clean power” could really be coming from coal or other fossil fuels.  Under the contract, the energy sold must be 90% hydropower, but without any independent verification, it is impossible to ensure that Vermont gets what it bargained for.
• The contract fails to address impacts of new dams that would flood vast areas of northern Québec. Nothing in the contract limits Hydro-Québec’s ability to build new dams as demand for energy grows; this means the contract with Vermont tacitly supports new dams and the resulting damage.
• The contract allows Vermont utilities to sell the renewable claims elsewhere when Vermont itself has no firm obligation to keep its energy supply low-carbon.  Unlike other New England states, Vermont has no requirement now to purchase renewable power. This means that Vermont utilities benefit financially from a system it is not truly a part of, and would allow other states to continue to rely on dirty power sources such as coal.

As a region, we must ensure any new commitments to import power from Canada clearly advance our clean power goals.  Any new imports of hydropower should replace the power we are currently getting from coal and other dirty, inefficient power plants.  Only then can we actually lower our carbon emissions from electricity.   The challenge for New England is to make sure any level of imports meets our needs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and avoids exporting environmental problems to the north.  Indeed, that challenge is why CLF is calling for a comprehensive, regional analysis of imports from Canada within the Northern Pass permitting process.  CLF continues to push for greater reliance on cleaner energy resources and to demand honest evaluations and representations of environmental benefits and impacts.

Thanks to all of the CLF members and allies who called and e-mailed their US Senators about the oil drilling vote today. The nasty McConnell bill needed 60 votes to pass and was defeated by a final tally of 42 ayes to 57 nays. Most of New England’s delegation voted the right way but Sen. Scott Brown and Sen. Kelly Ayotte voted in favor of the drilling bill today and last night in favor of retaining taxpayer subsidies for the five biggest oil companies. Clearly some education is needed. Maine’s senators both voted correctly yesterday on oil subsidies but today Sen. Snowe kept her record clean on oil drilling with a no vote while Sen. Susan Collins unfortunately decided to support oil drilling.

Besides the attempts to increase oil drilling, the McConnell bill included a section that would have greatly limited the ability of citizens to access the courts and get a fair hearing in front of a judge. It would have denied the award of legal fees to organizations bringing successful lawsuits against oil companies. With tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies aiding oil companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on lobbying, do oil companies really need to skew citizen access to the courts and put their greasy paws on the scales of justice? Are there limits to their greed and attempts to manipulate the law?

Legislated requirements to drill off the coast of Virginia or mandate certain oil sales in Alaska creates a slippery slope to drilling in New England. We don’t need oil rigs on Georges Bank or massive petro-chemical infrastructure in our coastal communities. That’s why this vote was important for New England. Thanks for taking action today and thanks for your continued support for CLF.

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!

A new report from the Washington, D.C. –based Brookings Institution found that two of Maine’s metro areas drive 54% of the state’s economic output, amounting to $2.7 billion dollars in gross domestic product.  Portland-South Portland-Biddeford and the Lewiston-Auburn areas are also responsible for creating 51% of the jobs here in Maine, despite only accounting for 47% of the population.  Currently, the ZOOM bus service provides limited yet very successful service between Portland and Biddeford.

Representative Moulton’s bill, LD 673, “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service,” seeks to improve that existing service and add a much needed route up to the economic hub of Lewiston-Auburn.  This critical and long overdue link would connect 106,539 L/A residents with 266,800 jobs in the Portland-Biddeford area, according to the Brookings Institution report.  The report notes that 60.4% of the state’s innovation workers are located in the Portland metro area.   Doesn’t it make sense to connect major population hubs with innovative jobs?  That is what the ZOOM bus bill contemplates, all with the comfort of modern wi-fi access to provide for a better connected, more productive work force.

The report also credits the Bangor area with 11% of the state’s economic output.  Imagine increasing bus service to the Bangor area after the successful implementation of the current bill to reach a trifecta of economic growth, job creation and mass transit.  According to the report, these metropolitan areas represent the engines of state economic growth and concentrate the assets critical to building the “Next Economy.”  And while that is very exciting news, the fact is, we can’t afford to ignore the mass transit connections that will help move the people of the state of Maine forward in a competitive economy.

CLF submitted its proposal today to the Vermont Public Service Board recommending strong action in response to the ongoing leaks and contamination at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power facility.

“Entergy VY’s actions in response to the leaks have been and continue to be irresponsible and inadequate. ”
- CLF Proposal for Decision

CLF’s filing highlights the lackluster response of Vermont Yankee’s owners to the leaks.  With new contamination revealed only two weeks ago, it is long past time for Vermont regulators to take action.

Read CLF Recommendation

Read Entergy update – 2-11-2011

In New England the issue of fisheries management is a serious topic as it involves serious questions of science, economics, healthy ecosystems, an iconic part of New England’s culture and the very real issue of many people’s livelihoods. Still, the public debate around fishing and fisheries management in New England can often be a lot like arguing baseball – the home team is usually deemed more virtuous than the rest of the league and many facts, figures, data and theories are promoted to defend that assertion. These debates can happen between any combination of folks with an opinion or a perceived stake in the issue – trawlers and gillnetters, one port versus another, one state versus another, commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen, fishermen and regulators, and fishermen and conservationists, among others. While baseball rivalries can be pretty heated, the overwhelmingly vast majority of fans are able to understand that, after all, it’s just a baseball game. Most times.

The thing is, fishermen, regulators or conservationists involved in fisheries issues in regions outside of here often consider the debate and behavior in New England to be much more contentious. For some reason we seem to treat each other more rudely and with such a lack of civility that it is noted across the country. The public debate and political hyperbole over the implementation of the most recent groundfish management plan is a clear example. Despite years of hard work and robust debate by the New England Fishery Management Council and a near unanimous vote to approve the “sectors” plan (final vote 16-1) for managing species like cod, haddock and flounder, the current public debate resembles a fist fight over the results of last year’s World Series. Working the refs, rallying the crowd and harassing the other team’s fans has become a larger part of the story than the game, as it were.

So, when federal Commerce Secretary Gary Locke issued a plain, legal, factual and well reasoned response to deny Gov. Patrick’s request to raise the catch limits through “emergency action” we felt the Secretary deserved an honest “thank you.” CLF and nine other conservation groups sent him a  letter saying so. Thank you Secretary Locke. We think you made an important, rational and sober decision that will help move New England forward.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (known as “FERC”) has delivered a clear message: the time to plan for a future without coal is now. This comes in response to a protest submitted in October by CLF that challenged a decision by the New England Independent System Operator (ISO-NE) that could have kept the 60 year old Salem Harbor Station running for years longer, despite the damage it causes to public health and the environment and the huge costs it imposes on ratepayers.

CLF argued that ISO-NE, the overseers of the regional electricity system under FERC’s supervision, should have developed an alternative to retaining units at Salem Harbor Station to meet the area’s reliability need.  CLF therefore asked FERC to step in to expedite the planning process. Today, the FERC issued a decision directing ISO-NE to find a solution that would allow shutdown of the Salem Harbor power plant – a dirty, obsolete and unprofitable plant that has long outlived its lifespan and has requested to leave the market.

“We…order ISO-NE to submit a compliance filing within 60 days that either identifies alternatives to resolve the reliability need for Salem Harbor Units 3 and 4 and the time to implement those solutions, or includes an expedited timeline for identifying and implementing alternatives.”

The news that FERC is mandating action to ensure that this dirty coal plant can retire without impacting reliability is a game changing development of national significance. The Chicken Little warning that old coal is needed to keep the lights on—brandished by coal interests primarily to delay long overdue emissions reductions requirements—simply isn’t true.  Today FERC concurred that the sky will not fall – the lights will not go out without old coal – if we envision a future without it and plan for that future.  That future starts here in New England with a concrete plan and timeline for life without Salem Harbor Station.

Students from the Environmental Law Clinic at Columbia Law School provided excellent research in support of CLF’s filing.

In the wake of Dominion’s announcement that it would not be cost effective to continue to operate and invest additional capital for pollution controls at Salem Harbor Station, the Patrick Administration has sent a message to ISO-NE calling for action.  In a letter to the President of ISO-NE, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Ian Bowles, highlighted the need to invest in clean energy instead of propping up old, environmentally obsolete coal plants such as Salem Harbor Station.  Secretary Bowles urged ISO-NE to “quickly implement” a solution to allow Salem Harbor Station to retire.

Clean energy policy has been one of the centerpieces of the Patrick Administration, and this letter signals not only the Administration’s commitment to building clean, new energy infrastructure, but also the important role they have in hastening the retirement of the coal-fired power plants that cause significant damage to public health and the environment.

ISO-NE is responsible for finding an alternative that will remove any need for Salem Harbor Station; however, after 7 years of transmission upgrades and planning, ISO-NE rejected Dominion’s request to remove Salem Harbor Station from the market over concerns that the plant could be needed on the hottest days of the year.  CLF has been pushing ISO-NE to expedite its planning process so that ratepayers will not be forced to bear the costs of keeping this 60 year old coal and oil plant on line despite its continued struggles to meet environmental regulations. 

The Secretary’s letter is particularly timely given that ISO-NE will host meetings on December 15 and December 16 to discuss the planning process for replacing Salem Harbor Station.