In their rush to exploit recovery efforts from Tropical Storm Irene, ideologues who perpetually fight against regulation and science and who posture as the defenders of traditional “Yankee” values are forgetting two important rock-ribbed principles.

The first is frugality. There has been a lot of loose talk about how much money was supposedly saved by largely ignoring environmental review and permitting as bulldozers, excavators and dump trucks rushed into rivers across Vermont in dozens of places. Understandably, given the dire situation facing the state at the time, these claims are based on initial, back-of-the-envelope cost estimates made with little or no analysis. However, using those alleged savings to argue for a change in policy is irresponsible as a matter of policy, and discourteous to basic math.

The accounting trick the deregulation folks are trying to pull off ignores the near-term and future public and private costs that Vermonters will inevitably incur and in some cases are already incurring to fix the problems caused by hasty “restoration” that did more harm than good. The overall restoration effort was extraordinary, and the state’s road system has been rebuilt quickly. But as any old hill farmer can tell you, a quick repair is rarely the last fix you need, and haste, even when necessary, makes waste.

Camp Brook in Bethel is a prime example where "restoration" work done hastily in the throw-the-law-and-science-out-the-window free-for-all that followed Tropical Storm Irene is now being redone, at additional cost to taxpayers, to minimize new flooding risks caused by the hasty Post-Irene stream alteration

The second Yankee principle ignored by those who don’t want to let modern understandings of river physics, science-based laws and common sense stand in the way of their crusade against regulation is that we don’t solve our problems by pushing them on to our neighbors.

One of the purposes of the science-based river alteration regulations that have evolved in Vermont during the last few decades is to minimize and prevent flooding altogether rather than simply transfer problems onto neighboring properties. Mining gravel from the stream next to your house might prevent – for a time – your fields from flooding. But it increases the likelihood of your neighbor’s house getting washed away. Striking the balance calls for smart regulation such as Vermont has developed. To do river work right, is to do right by your neighbors.

And, although some would not have it so, those principles of true frugality, quality workmanship, and true community remain in Vermont, and must be restored along with our roads, homes, and towns.

Take for example the case of Camp Brook in hard-hit Bethel.  As reported in Sunday’s Times Argus and Rutland Herald (sorry I can’t link to the story it is behind a paywall), the bulldozers are back in the river.  But this time scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and volunteers from nonprofit White River Partnership are guiding their work closely.  You see, the bulldozers are there trying to fix the mess (likely made with the best of intentions) that the early recovery efforts made of the Brook; a mess that, according to the news report, actually increased the risk of flash flooding and threatens upstream and downstream bridges along Rt. 12 with erosion around their abutments and more intense flows from a river artificially straightened after Irene.  Here is an excerpt that sums up the status of the Brook as a result of the rush job:

“[N]o one in the excavators really knew what the brook had looked like before.  The valley was flattened.  Berms stood mid-slope.  Where the lawn had once been, the river now braided over dirt and rocks, with no banks to direct its flow.  There were no boulders or even large rocks to add burbles to its sound or prevent flash flooding.”

After weeks of careful remediation, the new science-guided effort is restoring Camp Brook to a healthy functioning stream with natural structures that will help prevent future flooding and restore habitat for fish.  Even though it’s buried in the back pages of the paper, it’s good news for people who care about protecting property and maintaining healthy streams.  It’s bad news for the deregulation crowd because it directly contradicts the claim that we can save money by gutting environmental regulations that require recovery work to be done carefully in a manner that is consistent with science-based state and federal laws. In the long run it is cheaper for us and for those downstream to do a job right the first time lest we keep having to relearn the lesson that haste makes waste.

On Thursday October 27, Tricia Jedele, CLF’s VP and Director of the Rhode Island office will be at the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation in Johnston speaking with a number of esteemed guests on the future of solid waste management the state. Our limited landfill capacity means that planning and strategic decisions have to be addressed now to sustain us for the future.

Hosted by the Environmental Business Council of New England’s Rhode Island Chapter, key decision-makers will discuss current and future issues regarding solid waste management and will also discuss options and solutions for reducing and handling solid waste in 2012 and beyond, including recycling, product stewardship, regulatory or legislative amendments and other issues related to the long term management of the solid waste stream in Rhode Island. For more information, visit the EBCNE website.

I recently moved to a part of Rhode Island that is very close to this power station. When I first saw these two huge towers, I got nervous. “Am I living near a nuclear reactor?” Turns out it was my director who was in charge of getting these cooling towers built in the first place. They help to dramatically reduce the amount of cooling water the station uses from Mt. Hope Bay, thereby minimizing the thermal impact on the bay. A closed-loop system reduces the required amount of cooling water by more than 90 percent.

I grew up on the Atlantic Ocean and living near the water has always been important to me. To work with an organization that wants to continue to keep our waters clean, and to know that I can feel safe that our natural habitats have support from CLF means the world to me. Now when I drive to the beach and friends ask me what those big towers are, I proudly tell them, “My boss did that!”

Smart electricity use means less pollution and more money in our pockets. Tools to make this happen are being deployed in Vermont, which has committed to putting a nearly universal smart grid into operation by 2013. A smarter grid can smoothly integrate energy efficiency and renewable energy resources so our homes, businesses, cars, rooftop solar and smart appliances all work in concert to meet our power needs and reduce pollution. This commitment stems in part from a 2008 settlement between Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont’s largest utility, obligating the utility to implement advanced metering technology, “as fast as it reasonably can.”

Roughly 32,000 Vermonters already have some version of smart meters installed in their homes through utility programs. Expanding on the programs will happen rapidly and soon through the utilities’ partnership with the Department of Energy. The project costs $138 million total, of which half, or $70 million, comes through the DOE from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act stimulus, and half from Vermont utility companies.

Smart meters record the energy use of a home or business and communicate that information to the utility for monitoring, This two-way system of communication enables customers to make better choices about how to use power. Vermont utilities and customers can rely on time-based-rates, meaning the price of energy depends on the time of day and demand for power. This allows customers to lower the demand, lower bills, and ultimately lower the price of electricity for everyone by using more power at low-demand times of the day.

For example, with information about energy use easily available through the smart meter and accessible on-line, utility customers can run a clothes dryer or dishwasher during off-peak hours, when the price of energy is low, saving money and lowering congestion on the electric grid. Smart meters also improve utility service by reducing meter reading costs and allowing utilities to more quickly pin point and respond to outages.

At peak times of the day, when the most electricity is being used, it is often powered from the dirtiest sources. Smart meters have the potential to help us cut emissions by reducing our reliance on these dirtier sources.

As Vermont’s grid becomes smarter, so must utility programs in order to make the most of this technology. Going forward, CLF is pushing to ensure Vermont’s smart grid investments will have the flexibility needed to assimilate new technologies that enable smart appliances, integrate hybrid electric vehicles, and facilitate smaller renewable energy projects. Vermont is already a leader on delivering electric energy efficiency. Leading on smart grid is another tool to capture even greater financial and environmental benefits for the state and the region.

Yesterday, National Public Radio reported on a severe toxic algae bloom that is plaguing a popular lake in Oklahoma.

The algae in Oklahoma was spurred by familiar factors – lower water levels in the lake due to higher  water consumption by people, hotter conditions and low rainfall attributable to climate change, and nutrient pollution swept into the lake by stormwater runoff from the surrounding land area.

What was new was to hear public officials acknowledge that the lack of clean water is hurting the local economy and impacting people’s health.

As NPR Reported:

“ Across the state, the lack of water has even cut into tourism. Low water levels in northeast Oklahoma’s Grand Lake resulted in a spike of toxic levels of blue-green algae.

Gov. Mary Fallin says this hit just as visitors were arriving for July 4 celebrations.

It took a toll on businesses and tourism at the lake itself,” Fallin says. ‘Some of the businesses I talked to at Grand Lake told me they saw a 50 percent drop in the number of people who were coming into their businesses.’”

As the CLF Scoop reported earlier this summer, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe got sick after swimming amid the toxic blue-green algae in Grand Lake, and pinned his own illness on the algae.  Inhofe is known as one of the staunchest anti-environmentalists in Congress, and has opposed regulation to address climate change.  The Senator himself reportedly admitted the irony, suggesting that “the environment was fighting back.”

CLF hasn’t been sitting on the sidelines like some.  We’re fighting back against the sources of toxic algae blooms in New England – polluted stormwater runoff, inadequate management of sewage, and carbon dioxide emissions that accelerate climate change.  Reversing the devastating toxic algae blooms that regularly shut down bays along Cape Cod, Lake Champlain, New Hampshire’s Great Bay, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, and elsewhere throughout the region is a top priority for CLF.

Unfortunately, it has taken a crisis to convince some elected officials what CLF has known for years.  Clean water generates economic growth, health, and tourism, while creating outdoor spaces that nurture our spirit.

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!