The Vermont Statehouse

A bill nearing completion will soon give the public much more say in environmental enforcement actions in Vermont.

Historically in Vermont, agencies and violators of environmental laws have often negotiated resolutions behind closed doors without notice to affected members of the public. The results have often been weak penalties and ineffective remedial action by polluters, a problem which Conservation Law Foundation has long worked to correct.

Vermont’s exclusion of the public from environmental cases was not only bad policy, but contrary to the requirements of federal environmental law, as pointed out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Vermont Environmental Division Judge Thomas Durkin.

The issue is also part of CLF’s petition asking the EPA to revoke delegated authority for the state to administer the Clean Water Act unless shortcomings in the program are corrected.

Last year, CLF and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, which helped draft the bill co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, brought the issue before the Vermont Legislature. A long effort in the House, including many versions of the bill and testimony from a wide variety of interests in two committees, paid off in a 109-25 vote of support.

This year, the second of Vermont’s legislative biennium, the work was taken up in the Vermont Senate by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Another round of rigorous review by legislators resulted in broad support for the bill, which won final support on a voice vote Thursday after Tuesday’s roll call of 27-2.

If the bill moves on to be signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin as anticipated, Vermont will not only come into compliance with federal requirements, but it will help make sure that environmental cases are fairly and thoroughly dealt with, including consideration of evidence, where deemed worthwhile by a judge, from those affected by pollution.

The measure goes beyond federal programs like the Clean Water Act – it offers the same opportunity for public participation in state environmental cases as well.

CLF was helped in its work on the issue by the Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, by members of CLF’s Vermont Advisory Board and by fellow environmental organizations, in particular the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Furthermore, as the bill was worked on and considered, some companies and industry groups who originally opposed the measure came to support its passage, helping to secure support by wide margins in both houses of the Vermont Legislature.

Judge Murtha’s decision was clear. The Vermont Public Service Board continues to have authority to review Entergy’s actions and determine if continued operation is beneficial to Vermont.

CLF opposed Entergy’s past efforts. This new request is premature. It is contrary to the Court’s order and ignores facts that are important for the Board to hear. Most notable is the fact that Entergy provided false information to the Board about buried pipes.

Entergy’s lack of trustworthiness cannot be ignored. It is an important matter that has bearing on whether Entergy should be allowed to continue to operate Vermont Yankee.

While Entergy might like to ignore these facts, Vermont won’t.

These questions are so challenging because they are so fundamental; Americans have wrestled with these same questions for over 200 years. You’ll recall that our first national government, under the Articles of Confederation, was too weak to do the job. The Constitution granted greater power to the national government, but had to be balanced by the Bill of Rights, securing the rights of individuals and of states. The rest of our efforts to get the federal/state balance right has been marked by long periods of contentious negotiation and flashbulb moments of fractious history –national banking, secession and the Civil War, the busting of industrial trusts, the New Deal, and civil rights for all.

Protecting our health and our environment has been a part of the national and regional negotiations for decades. Recent events have provoked further discussion.

By the 1960’s and ‘70’s, when Congress began to address environmental protection and energy in a serious way, its constitutional authority to do so was relatively clear. It exercised that authority boldly, for the great benefit of generations of people and other species. However, as in much of our federalist system, there’s still a sharing of power between national and state governments, both by design and by default. The zone between federal and state authority is sometimes gray. It’s in that messy, gray area that many of our most controversial environmental issues are being debated.

These debates continue to this day. Take two of CLF’s hot issues recently in the news: Vermont Yankee and Cape Cod nitrogen pollution.

Vermont Yankee

The first is the adverse federal court decision CLF (and the State of Vermont) received on Vermont Yankee, the aging nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. The decision affirmed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s broad authority over safety issues relating to nukes. It  preempted a role for states and handed a major victory to Entergy Corporation.

However, as Anthony Iarrapino points out in this blog post, the fight is far from over. There is a clear role for states in shaping our energy future; in the absence of federal action, states are leading the effort in promoting a clean energy future. Furthermore, as Anthony pointed out in his post, the court said:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

Even in the highly “federalized” area of nuclear power there is an undeniable role for states.

Cape Cod

The second is a settlement in principle of our litigation to clean up pollution from sewage on Cape Cod. This is a great step forward – one that  has attracted the focused attention of anti-environmentalists in Congress, as this article attests.

They preposterously allege collusion between environmentalists and the EPA in cases like this to expand federal jurisdiction beyond what Congress authorized in the Clean Water Act, thereby trumping state authority.  However, the federal/state line under the Clean Water Act is about as blurry as they come, in part because the facts relating to pollution and its impacts are extremely complex. As in all cases, the facts matter. Careful, dispassionate assessment of the scientific facts about discharges and pollution, and how the law applies to those facts – not political grandstanding by Members of Congress – is what’s necessary to achieve the visionary goal Congress as a whole committed to decades ago: the elimination of polluting discharges to United States waters, by 1985! It’s time we lived up to that commitment.

There is opportunity in messy, gray areas like the shifting federal/state interface: we can go forward or backward. That is, we can develop sensible allocations of authority between federal and state governments to achieve the public goals behind all of these public initiatives – a healthy environment and a healthy economy, or we can descend into politically motivated mudslinging that obscures the real issues and thwarts real progress.

At CLF we are committed to rational, fact-based discussion of the issues, and prudent forward motion that yields a thriving New England, for generations to come and for all. We know this terrain well. You can count on us to keep working it.

The decision makes clear that State officials — specifically the state’s Public Service Board — still have broad authority to deny Entergy the “Certificate of Public Good” on grounds that are traditionally within the authority of the state to decide, including economics, land use, and trustworthiness of the plant’s owners to be honest, fair-dealing members of the state’s business community.  Unless Entergy receives a Certificate of Public Good authorization from the Board, it cannot continue operating the plant for another 20 years past its long-scheduled retirement date of March 2012.

Nothing in the Court’s decision upsets that aspect of longstanding Vermont state law — a law that applies to all sorts of power generating projects located in Vermont’s borders — the so-called “Section 248 process”. On page 4 of the Court’s decision the judge clearly states as follows:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

So where does that leave things?

Fortunately, CLF has played a leading role in the ongoing Public Service Board proceedings involving Entergy’s application for a new Certificate of Public Good.  Tapping some leading industry experts, CLF has presented a clear case that continued operation of the Vermont Yankee is NOT in the public good of the citizens of Vermont.

Our case rests entirely on grounds that are specifically not placed out of bounds by the Court’s decision yesterday.  These include economics and the failure to have sufficient funds available close the plant and restore the site at the end of its useful life.  Also the claims of an economic benefit from the revenue sharing agreement and the lack of a power contract all show that continued operation does not benefit Vermont.  Add to that the failure of Entergy officials to be forthcoming and provide truthful information about underground pipes, and Entergy’s failure to abide by existing water quality permits and there are many areas of traditional state concern that remain.

The court’s decision is a definite setback, but there are still many opportunities.  Vermont shouldn’t be forced to prop up this old reactor.  Enough is enough.  The Court’s decision left many avenues still open for Vermont to have a say in whether Vermont Yankee continues to operate for another twenty years.

• CLF’s Statement in Response to the U.S. District Court’s Decision.
• A copy of the decision itself.
• Timeline of CLF Advocacy on Vermont Yankee

Trial commentary:

• Post-trial commentary, by Sandy Levine
• Post-trial commentary, by Anastasia Douglas
• Pre-trial, by Sandy Levine

Blog posts:

• Untrustworthy Again – Entergy Orders New Fuel for VT Yankee
• CLF, VPIRG support Vermont, oppose Entergy request to keep Vermont Yankee going
• Court blocks Vermont Yankee bid to stay open
• Cleanup Needed NOW at Vermont Yankee
• Conservation Matters cover story: “Vermont Yankee: The Costs of Nuclear” 

A little background on a long-running case: By the terms of a Vermont law passed in 2006, as well as the 2002 approval of the sale of Vermont Yankee, and a 2002 express agreement with Entergy, approval by Vermont is needed for the plant to continue to operate after 2012. In 2002, the Vermont Public Service Board approved the sale of the Vermont Yankee facility to Entergy.  The sale included an agreement by Entergy not to operate the plant after 2012, when its license expires, without obtaining regulatory approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. Concerned about whether it would be good for Vermont if Vermont Yankee to operated past 2012, the Vermont Legislature passed a law in 2006 requiring approval of the Legislature before the Public Service Board could issue a new license. In 2008 and 2009 proceedings were underway at the Public Service Board to consider a license extension.  In an historic vote in 2010 the Vermont Senate declined approval.  In April 2011, Entergy filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging Vermont’s authority to regulate and license the power generation facilities operating in the state. Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Public Interest Group (VPIRG) later intervened on Vermont’s side in the lawsuit. For a complete timeline of the activities leading up to today’s decision on Vermont Yankee, click here.

Caption: CLF President John Kassel, Bear, and his brother Peter Kassel, on a New Years hike up Vermont’s Camel’s Hump. (Bear is the one in the middle.) Note the extremely thin snow cover – unusual for the Green Mountains at that time of year.

In the mid-1990’s a Vermont ski area executive told me this joke.

“How do you make a small fortune in the ski industry in New England?” he asked.

“Start with a large one.”

He was talking about the challenges he faced then, which seemed normal at the time:  limited water for snowmaking, labor shortages, skyrocketing costs of doing business, aging baby boomer population, and inconsistent (though generally reliable) snowfall. The snow sports industry now faces a much more fundamental challenge: a shrinking winter.

But for a recent cold snap, a light dusting on MLK day, and a destructive storm in October, our winter here in New England has been largely without snow. The temperature has been high – in many instances, far higher than normal.

Consider recent temperature trends as reported by @JustinNOAA – the Twitter feed by NOAA’s Communications Director. On Friday, December 9^th, he Tweeted: “NOAA: 971 hi-temp records broken (744) or tied (227) so far this January.” The day before broke “336 hi-temp records in 21 states.”

Rising temperatures are a death knell for falling snow. On the final day of 2011, only 22% of the lower 48 had snow. Today, New England remains largely untouched by snow. A glance at NOAA’s snow depth map shows most of New England with 4 or less inches of snow. This was true of my New Year’s hike with my brother and his dog up Camel’s Hump. As the background of the photo shows, there was little snow across the surrounding Green Mountains.

With so little snow, New England is suffering. While ski mountains have been making snow (and areas like Sugarloaf and Stowe are reporting recent snow fall), other outdoor recreationists are suffering. Some seasons haven’t even started yet, weeks if not months into their normal season.

Snowmobilers, for instance, are facing one hell of a tough time. With so little snow in most of New England, they’ve been prevented from riding over familiar terrain. Ice fishermen, too, are facing lakes and ponds that, by this time of year are usually covered in a thick layer of ice by mid December. Today, many that are usually frozen by now remain open bodies of water.

The effects of this extends beyond our enjoyment to our economy. According to a story on NPR, reported by Maine Public Broadcasting, the unseasonably warm winter has meant millions of dollars in lost revenue for sporting good stores, lodging, and recreation. One store in the story has reported a decline in sales by around 50%.

Competitive cross-country and downhill skiers suffered, too. They’ve have had their race schedule reshuffled due to rain last week. According to the US Ski Team development coach Bryan Fish, quoted in the Boston Globe, “We’ve had the same challenges on the World Cup. It is always a challenge in a sport that relies on the climate.”

That is precisely the problem. People are drawn to New England to live, work and play for its climate: its warm summers, stunning falls and picture perfect winter landscapes, suitable for a wide range of outdoor activities. Walk down the halls of our states offices and you’ll see signs of that passion right here at home: people wearing ski vests, pictures of people snow shoeing, cabins nestled into densely fallen snow. If our climate changes – which the IPCC and others have repeatedly demonstrated it will – then New England will be a very different region than the one we all have come to know and to love.

That’s why I ask you to help us protect our New England winters. Help us protect the places where we enjoy ourselves.

To do just that, I suggest a few things:

1)      Help us transition away from inefficient, 20^th century energy to clean energy of the 21^st century. As a recent EPA report showed, power plants account for 72% of greenhouse gases – by far the largest contributor to global warming in the U.S. Here at CLF, we’re pushing for a coal free New England by 2020.

2)      Also according to the EPA, transportation accounts for the second largest portion of greenhouse gasses. Ride your bike, walk, or take public transportation to work, to do your errands or your other daily tasks. It makes a big difference.

3)      Support both national and regional or local environmental organizations. As I wrote in a NY Times letter to the editor recently, local environmental organizations “have known for years what the nationals are only now realizing: we’ve got to engage people closer to where they live.” Support local, effective environmental organizations who are creating lasting solutions in your area.

4)      Make yourself heard; write letters to your Senators, Congressmen and Representatives. Ask tough questions, and don’t settle for easy answers.

5)      And be sure to get outside. Plant a garden, even if it’s a small one in a city. Go for a hike, or for a bike ride. And take a friend or family member. Remind yourself and others why we need to protect our environment.

By doing all of these simple but important things, you can help us keep winter, winter.

GDP and similar metrics fail in several ways when used as proxies for more general societal progress. First of all, GDP doesn’t tally many parameters that matter as much or more than production when trying to track the overall health of our society. For example, GDP does not count work without wages by stay-at-home parents. And many things that are tallied are not measured in terms of their true worth.

Damage from Tropical Storm Irene is an all-too-familiar example. Despite the heroic recovery efforts and assistance from the federal government, it is hard to consider the storm as a benefit. But given how spending is measured, GDP will count the recovery efforts as an economic boon to Vermont – in keeping with the tradition that breaking and replacing windows is measured as productivity.

It’s not a new problem. Robert Kennedy spoke to it in 1968 when he pointed out that GDP “counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.”

Kennedy concluded that GDP “measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile … and it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

This doesn’t mean that GDP is useless or false. The mistake is to treat the ups-and-downs of one very limited measurement as a broader signal of how we and our neighbors are doing.

We need a more comprehensive and accurate way of evaluating our progress, especially here in Vermont, where quality of life and environmental health are so fundamental. Many of the factors nearly or completely left out of GDP calculations – including loss of farmland, short commutes, air quality and the health of the whitetail herd – are particularly important to Vermonters. With the help of state government, legislative economists and the state’s university, we could track the measures we consider most relevant.

Some important work in this area has already been undertaken by the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont. Ten years ago Gund researchers estimated measures of the Genuine Progress Indicator for Burlington, Chittenden County and Vermont as a whole from 1950 until 2000. All three levels of measurement in Vermont had significantly better GPI per capita since 1980 than the United States overall – and by the year 2000 per capita GPI in the Green Mountains was twice what it was nationally. The main factor was better performance on the environmental measures compared to the national average.

A Vermont GPI is much needed, because it has significant potential as an extremely useful indicator of whether residents are making progress towards the lives they want.

This article originally appeared in the Rutland Herald and Times Argus on January 1, 2012.

If you look at a wind map of the United States you’ll see that all prevailing winds east of the Mississippi eventually converge right here, in New England. That helps make New England the place so many of us love – warm summers, stunning falls, and cold, snowy winters – but it also makes New England the tailpipe of the nation.

Beginning in the mid-20^th century, researchers began documenting evidence of the effect of acid rain on Camel’s Hump in Vermont’s Green Mountains. They documented dramatic decreases in biomass, forest reproduction, seed germination, and other damaging effects among such species as red spruce, mountain maple, sugar maple, and beech – some of the trees whose brilliant fall colors draw millions of tourists to New England each fall. The cause? Acid rain.

Today, the problem continues, though in different ways. Antiquated coal plants built before 1970 have long enjoyed loopholes in the Clean Air Act that allowed them to emit toxic pollutants without modern controls. They have spewed a mix of mercury, arsenic, lead, and soot that harms all Americans by degrading our air and water quality, as well as our public health by increasing the rates of lung disease and causing asthma attacks, among other ailments. Even though many New England states have imposed modern controls on their plants, winds continue to carry pollution from the rest of the country that harms New England’s environment and its people.

That’s why today’s ruling from the EPA on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) is so laudable. As my colleague Jonathan Peress said in a press statement, these standards “amount to one of the most significant public health and environmental measures in years.” They are also similar to standards we adopted here in New England years ago.

According to EPA estimates, these standards will prevent 11,000 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks annually among Americans by 2016. The standards will also save at least $59 billion measured as a reduction in premature deaths, lower health care costs, and fewer absences from work or school. That is undoubtedly a good thing. It is also undoubtedly long overdue.

The affected coal plants are toxic dinosaurs. According to an AP survey, the average age of the plants is 51 years – some of them were even built when Harry S Truman was president. EPA’s new standards will finally allow the public health protections, signed into law by George H.W. Bush as a part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, to do their job. As Ilan Levin, associate director of Environmental Integrity Project, said in a piece on Climate Progress, “The only thing more shocking than the large amounts of toxic chemicals released into the air each year … is the fact that these emissions have been allowed for so many years.”

Here in New England, we have long understood the importance of controlling harmful pollution. CLF together with a close coalition pushed for strict state air pollution standards to clean up the dirtiest plants in Massachusetts. In 2001, the Department of Environmental Protection adopted regulations known as “The Filthy Five” that went beyond the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, and tackled the issues of mercury and carbon dioxide. From our experience with stringent state standards in Massachusetts and Connecticut, we know the substantial benefits to public health and the environment that will result from these rules.

Concern that these standards will directly shut down plants is misguided. According to an AP survey, “not a single plant operator said the EPA rules were solely to blame for a closure.” Instead, a confluence of factors have already initiated a broad technology shift we’re already seeing here in New England: coal prices are rising and natural gas prices are declining against a background of strict state clean air rules. Given this, many (but not all) of New England’s plants have either already installed modern pollution controls, or are actively planning for retirement, in ways that will keep the lights on.

I applaud the EPA, and Administrator Jackson, for their good work on these standards. We will continue to support them, and they’ll need our help.

And in any event, how long are people to suffer while clean air requirements on the books go unenforced? 21 years (since 1990) is too long. The time has come. Finally.