There are many things about Governor LePage regulatory “reform” proposals that could impact the quality of my family’s life here in Maine, from developing the North Woods to loosening restrictions on dirty air emissions.  But a couple of proposals in particular really frustrated me as a parent.  LePage’s proposal to repeal the BPA ban and the toxic flame retardant ban. The BPA ban phased out the toxic chemical in consumer products such as baby bottles and sippy cups.  The bill had strong support and there wasn’t a single Maine based business that testified against the bill.  But it received plenty of opposition from deep pocketed chemical industries, such as Dow Chemical.

While Washington based groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council have supported a repeal of the ban, local grocers, including the Maine Grocers Association have not taken an active role and have not taken a stance on the ban.

I am the mother of two young boys, ages 17 months and 2 and a half.

My boys on the shore of Moosehead Lake

I spend a considerable amount of time combing through labels on baby products to make sure that the materials aren’t toxic.  It is time consuming to ground truth the harmful effects of chemicals.  What are the hormone disrupting effects of Bispehnol-A (BPA)?  Will that stain resistant/flame resistant perfluorinated synthetic chemical (PFC) on that couch give my boys bladder cancer?  So my attitude is to err on the side of being safe by buying products with as few chemicals as possible.  You would be surprised at how challenging  it is to achieve even that tepid goal.  But last year, Maine lawmakers took considerable strides towards making my decision making easier and safer by enacting bans on known toxic chemicals in kids products, through the Kids Safe Products Law.

Why are we trying so hard to appease out-of-state chemical companies?  Dan Demeritt, LePage’s communication director, dryly pointed out that BPA-free products are available on the market, parents don’t have to choose to buy products that contain the chemical.  This is the “people before politics” response?  As a parent that is constantly pressed for time (aren’t we all?) who frequently does shopping with 2 kids piled into a shopping cart where 5 minutes too long can spell “melt-down”, I don’t have time to read through all the product disclaimers.  Why should any parent have to take that extra step to protect their children when a simple solution is already in place?

I was pleased to see that Republican Senator Dana Dow took a stand on this issue.  He works in the furniture industry and relayed a story of a simple blood test revealed soaring high toxicity levels for PFCs.  Take a look at the link, Senator Dow testifies at around 8 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlc5urnzB50

This issue impacts all of us.  Will Maine choose to protect our children over out of state chemical companies?  Next time you are barreling down a grocery aisle trying to read the label, remember to call your representative and help them figure this one out.

MBTA General Manager Richard Davey likes to say “We’re only as good as our last rush hour,’’ and by that standard the T is not doing very well right now. The long delays throughout system on a recent frigid day have enraged commuters and discouraged new riders from getting onboard, as Boston Globe reporter Eric Moskowitz wrote in an article published in yesterday’s paper.

The T, to its credit, did not pretend it was surprised it gets cold in Boston in January. When it discusses the T’s “aging fleet” the Globe hints at the real reason for these delays:  a long list of necessary repairs to its system that the T estimates will cost at least $2.7 billion to address.  Despite the ingenuity of MBTA’s employees to keep the system running, the only way we can ensure that the T runs smoothly in the future is to raise sufficient revenue to pay for much delayed improvements.  While few in government right now want to talk about raising revenue, investment in public transportation infrastructure, not just for the MBTA, but throughout the state, is critical for encouraging economic development, slashing the greenhouse gas pollution changing our climate, improving air quality, and providing affordable and efficient transportation for everyone.

Grist, the environmental news website has a good piece about a book called Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth about “the 2 billion or so young people who will be stuck dealing with global warming and weirding for their entire lives — and who have to figure out how to do it sanely and humanely.”

As the author of the book Mark Hertsgaard notes in an article  in The Nation adapted from his book, “”My daughter and the rest of Generation Hot have been given a life sentence for a crime they didn’t commit.” Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, there are still climate deniers out there who claim that global warming isn’t real–and we need a multifaceted, aggressive, solutions-oriented approach to overcome that hurdle and start cooling things down (so to speak). The latest paleoclimate data suggests that things are even worse than computer models have projected–up to two times worse, according to Climate Progress author Joe Romm.

States like Massachusetts are developing nation-leading strategies to reduce that life sentence, maybe even with a chance of parole. Most recently, last month, Governor Patrick announced the release of the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan, which will reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. That’s the maximum target authorized by the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act– a sign that the state is committed to combating climate change. A centerpiece of the Plan is Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance (PAYD), a market-based, mileage-based solution that rewards drivers for driving less, and an initiative that CLF has been working on for over a decade.

But the work is far from done. Before we can implement measures that will lead New England to the clean energy future it deserves, we have to eradicate the outmoded, dirty sources of power that brought us here in the first place. CLF’s Coal-free New England campaign is designed to do just that, by pushing for the shutdown of the seven major coal-fired power plants in New England that are still in operation, and combined provide about 10 percent of the region’s power and 25 percent of the power in Massachusetts.

Generation Hot may be hot right now, but you know how trends work–they fade. And with a lot of hard work and ingenuity, Generation Hot will be on its way to becoming the most unfashionable generation yet.

Less than a week after I posted my blog post about the environmental and health problems associated with road salt, the Boston Globe published an article about de-icing alternatives some Massachusetts communities are turning to. Boston has received almost 50 inches of snow this winter compared to a total of 17 inches on average around this time. We can only assume that it means we’re using record amounts of salt to combat all this snow. While it is difficult to say if the increased snowfall we’re seeing is directly related to climate change, increased temperatures tend to increase evaporation thus resulting in increased precipitation.  (In the Northeast, there has been a 5 to 10% increase in annual average precipitation since 1900.) More generally speaking, scientists are increasingly concerned about the link between global warming and anomalous winter weather (such as the bizarre snowstorms seen recently in the South). As such, it is encouraging to hear that towns are looking to more environmentally friendly alternatives to deal with our new weather conditions as the planet continues to warm.

Besides rock salt (sodium chloride), calcium chloride and magnesium chloride can be used in colder temperatures but unfortunately, they are significantly more expensive than the traditional rock salt. Instead a growing number of Massachusetts communities are returning to an age-old solution: brine. The mixture is a combination of rock salt and water. Applying brine before snow falls and ice forms on the roadway (known as “anti-icing”) can prevent snow and ice from sticking to roads. Unlike plain old rock salt, this stuff doesn’t bounce or get blown off the roads like we’ve all seen. As such it dramatically reduces the amount of salt used and the time it takes to remove snow and ice from the roads in turn saving towns money. A study done in Oregon and Washington state showed that anti-icing can decrease costs by more than 50% compared to conventional de-icing. And it reduces the amount of salt that gets into our drinking water and the negative impacts on the environment.

This yet again reinforces the idea that solutions that are good for the environment are often also good for people and the economy.

In a letter to President Obama today, CLF added a regional voice to the chorus of national organizations asking him to use the State of the Union address on January 25th to show his support for the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act’s vital public health protections are once again under attack from the nation’s biggest polluters and their supporters in Congress; the President has a chance to let the nation know where he stands. We were proud to represent New England in this important call to action to the President.

When the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan came out on December 29, laying out roughly 40 policies to get the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, the proposal to test a fledgling concept called Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) (See page 61) auto insurance emerged as the plan’s poster child. We at CLF felt like proud parents. You see, CLF devised the concept of PAYD auto insurance more than a decade ago as a market-based solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. Over the past 10 years, in addition to offering partially mileage-based insurance policies through its Environmental Insurance Agency (EIA) subsidiary of CLF Ventures, CLF has engaged insurance industry leaders, regulators, policymakers, and the environmental community in exploring the potential for PAYD to be implemented on a broad scale.

True PAYD, which is not currently offered in Massachusetts (or any New England state), is priced based on the number of miles a policy holder drives, after taking into account traditional rating factors like where the car owner lives and their driving history. By creating a variable structure for insurance rates, as an alternative to the current fixed annual premium, PAYD would provide a powerful incentive for drivers to reduce their mileage. Put simply: drive less, pay less.

Does that mean the corollary is drive more, pay more? Not necessarily. In November, 2010, CLF and EIA released the results of a study that showed that if auto insurance were priced by the mile, drivers would reduce their mileage, lowering their accident risk while also reducing fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion. It also showed that car owners, regardless of where they live or work, could save money under a PAYD system if they drive fewer miles than the average for their area. Because a PAYD system by design reduces risk and accident costs, ultimately insurance prices would come down for the lion’s share of drivers.

Unlike the current insurance model that generally doesn’t care how much someone drives, the PAYD system would ensure that drivers pay their fair share for the amount of risk they incur, and eliminate the subsidy that low mileage drivers currently pay for high mileage drivers.

More data are needed to understand how to make PAYD work for as many Massachusetts drivers in as many different situations as possible. A flexible program that benefits the broadest spectrum of drivers is the key to gaining the widespread adoption needed to achieve the maximum environmental, public health and economic benefits of PAYD.

Could PAYD, which would help the state meet its climate goals and reduce accident costs while giving car owners more control over their auto insurance pricing, work in Massachusetts? We think so, and a pilot program is a great way to find out.

What do you think? Could PAYD benefit you?

Let’s say you are a state agency tasked with making a tough choice on how to spend your money.  Your options are:

a.      Spend $150 million on widening 9 miles of highway despite the fact that volume has waned;

b.      Spend $56 million on building another toll booth;

c.       Spend $3.8 million on expanding an existing, highly successful bus service that will benefit thousands of commuters.

Did I mention that you have to do this all while complying with a state law that requires you to give preference to existing systems and other transportation modes (such as bus transit) prior to increasing highway capacity through road building activities?   The obvious answer here is (c), expanding bus service, specifically the ZOOM bus service that is operated by the Maine Turnpike Authority.

Currently, the ZOOM bus runs a limited service between Portland, Biddeford and Saco.  The primary hubs are Park & Ride lots, if you’ve driven by those lots, you will see they are chock full.  Those crammed lots are a glowing testament to the resounding success of the ZOOM.

In an effort to build on that success, last year the Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation approached the Authority to see if it would consider expanding the bus service up to Lewiston and Augusta.  Along the way, West Falmouth, Gray, Sabbatus and Auburn would finally get much needed access to public transit.  But the Authority remained convinced that answers (a) and (b) were right.   After all, highway widening remains a popular solution to just about any transportation problem, despite the fact that, time after time, massive multi-million dollar widening projects only result in more traffic and more congestion. [the fact is, these roads never pay for themselves via tolls or otherwise.]

Does Portland really need another highway widening?

No, and the numbers prove it:

But transit advocates, CLF among them, were not dissuaded.   We found a savvy supporter in Representative Bradley Moulton, a newly elected Republican, who decided to sponsor the ZOOM bus bill, known formally as “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service.”

And fiscally responsible it is.  Not only for the average commuter struggling with rising gas prices, but in the broader context of how Maine decides to spend money on transportation.  The days of subsidized highway widening projects are over.  With the fiscal belt tightening, now is a good time to make some smart decisions on transit.  The ZOOM bus goes a long way towards accomplishing that goal.

Conservation Law Foundation issued the following statement in response to today’s release of Massachusetts’ Clean Energy and Climate Plan, which will reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

“The 25 percent target puts Massachusetts on the right trajectory to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions the science says we need to see by 2020,” said John Kassel, president of Conservation Law Foundation. “Setting the target at the maximum authorized by the Global Warming Solutions Act is in keeping with the Patrick Administration’s track record of bold and innovative clean energy and climate policy that recognizes the opportunity in aligning our environmental objectives with our economic ones. The new plan will put in place a diverse portfolio of pragmatic solutions that create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions – a winning formula for the Commonwealth and one that will no doubt be watched closely around the country.”

Kassel served on the Climate Protection and Green Economy Advisory Committee that consulted with state officials on the drafting of the Plan. CLF played a key role in making the statute a reality and has lent its expertise throughout the planning process to ensure a final plan that was aggressive enough to achieve the necessary GHG reductions while still being achievable.

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people. Using the law, science and the market, CLF creates solutions that preserve natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy region-wide. Founded in1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

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.