photo credit: Ivy Dawned, Flickr

The end of any legislative session is tumultuous. Vermont’s citizen legislature, that meets part-time only a few months each year, is no different. In this year’s end-of-session tumult, progress on clean energy was left on the cutting room floor. This is a big disappointment. The same legislature that made skiing and snowboarding Vermont’s official winter sports failed to pass legislation that would keep those sports off the endangered list.

The Vermont Legislature stripped the Renewable Energy Standard from the energy bill it approved. Renewable standards require utilities to help address climate change by providing their customers with a certain percentage of power from clean, renewable sources. The more power we get from clean sources, the less power we get from older and dirtier fossil fuel plants. Twenty-nine states, including every other New England state, already have renewable standards, but Vermont is left behind in the dark ages of dirty power.

Throughout the session, CLF worked closely with other environmental organizations, business leaders and renewable developers to put in place a meaningful renewable standard so Vermont’s electric power users can do more to reduce carbon. The urgency of the climate crisis demands strong action.

There will be opportunities to move further ahead on renewable electricity next year, along with some legislation to help heating efficiency and electric vehicles, but each year we delay means more carbon reduction is needed. It is disappointing that in a year in which Vermont saw, in the form of flooding from Hurricane Irene, the kind of damage that climate change can do, and then saw one of the warmest winters on record (which wreaked havoc on ski areas and maple syrup production), we are not doing more to tackle climate change.

A keystone to CLF’s work to secure a clean energy future for the region is completing the transition to a coal-free New England. It is a time of historic progress: cleaner, cheaper alternatives are driving coal out of the market, and old coal plants are closing their doors. But Massachusetts remains a critical battleground for CLF’s work, with two costly old coal-fired power plants continuing to jeopardize public health and stoke climate change.

That’s why we’re delighted to tell you about an event hosted by Cambridge City Councilor Marjorie Decker entitled “The True Cost of Energy: Coal.” Councilor Decker has invited the public to a panel discussing the true costs of coal and a free screening of the critically acclaimed documentary The Last Mountain in Cambridge, MA, on Wednesday, May 9. With stunning footage of the practice of mountaintop removal mining, the film bears dramatic witness to the social, public health, and environmental damage wrought by coal and power companies, and chronicles the grassroots fight against coal in Appalachia and around the country. The New York Times called The Last Mountain a “persuasive indictment” of coal; I think you’ll agree.

The Last Mountain producer Eric Grunebaum will be on hand for a panel discussion to discuss the film and the future of coal-fired power in Massachusetts and New England. I will be available before and after the event to answer any questions you may have about CLF’s work to secure a coal-free Massachusetts.

Please attend:
When: Wednesday, May 9, 2012. 5-8:30 pm.
Where: Cambridge Public Library, 449 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02138 (map).

Bring your friends and family, and email me at scleveland@clf.org with any questions. I hope to see you there!

You can watch the trailer here:

photo credit: riekhavoc, flickr

Another false claim by Entergy – the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility in Vermont – is laid to rest. On Monday, the ISO-New England came out with an important determination that Vermont Yankee is not needed for reliability of the electrical grid.

This has been brewing for awhile and is quite significant since Entergy keeps claiming its tired old and polluting plant on the banks of the Connecticut River is needed for reliability. That claim is simply false.

In a filing made with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the ISO New England stated:

“[T]he ISO determined that Vermont Yankee is not needed for reliability for the 2015-2016 Capacity Commitment Period. This determination is based on the expectation that certain transmission upgrades will be in place prior to the 2015-2016 Capacity Commitment Period as well as new resources which have been procured through the Forward Capacity Market.”  [see page 8-9 of this filing]

This is a very important determination and is good news for New England’s clean energy future. It shows the transformation of our power grid to cleaner sources and away from older and polluting coal and nuclear plants.

By way of explanation, the ISO New England operates the region’s electricity grid to ensure the lights stay on. It holds auctions to determine which resources will supply capacity to meet power needs in future years. This is the forward capacity auction referred to above.

What this means is that Entergy will not collect capacity payments for Vermont Yankee during 2015 to 2016.  That means that ratepayers will not be forced to prop up this tired, old, expensive and polluting nuclear plant, or its untrustworthy owners. Ratepayers will not be paying for Vermont Yankee to be available to operate.

This determination recognizes that grid improvements and new resources will keep the lights on without Vermont Yankee. Another false claim by Entergy is laid to rest. Our region moves one step closer to a cleaner energy future.

Image courtesy girl_named_fred @ flickr. Creative Commons.

One of the most cherished natural resources Rhode Islanders have is miles and miles of coastline. Rhode Islanders take significant pride in the fact that while the State is small, people travel from all over the world to walk along our beaches. But, the beaches are in trouble.

One serious coastal erosion issue in Matunuck village in South Kingstown is leading the State’s coastal resources management agency down a slippery policy slope and it doesn’t bode well for the state’s coastline. Matunuck is essentially falling into the ocean, or the ocean is coming to take Matunuck. However you look at it, the rates of coastal erosion are accelerating.

The state road that provides the only evacuation route to our fellow Rhode Islanders that live in Matunuck is being undermined and will be lost to the sea without action from the coastal agency. Homes and businesses are also in jeopardy. The challenge, however, isn’t in identifying the problem. The challenge is in identifying a solution.

Climate change is causing more significant storm events and increasing wave energy along certain segments of our coastline. Irresponsible and short-sighted permitting decisions have allowed hardened structures to be placed on Matunuck’s coastal features, structures that only increase and accelerate erosion. The past five decades of science has allowed coastal managers to evolve in their thinking about the best beach management practices, and time and again, experienced coastal managers tell us that allowing hardended shoreline protection (like sheet pile walls) to be built on coastal features seriously undermines the ability of the beach to re-nourish and restore the sand, and exacerbates erosion. Indeed, the State of Rhode Island’s coastal plan strictly prohibits hardened structures or other shoreline protection devices to be used for the purpose of regaining what has been lost to historical erosion.

Despite this prohibition in the state’s plan, and despite what the science tells us, the state’s coastal agency is considering changes to the coastal program that will allow the long-term continued maintenance of hardened structures without a public dialogue about whether those structures should be removed. And, on April 24th the coastal agency will consider a petition to allow Matunuck and several private property owners to build a seawall around the village, wiping out what little there is left of the beach and the public’s right to access it.

This issue isn’t just about Matunuck. It’s about how we will manage our environment in the face of climate change. And, it’s about the coastline and the need to protect the policies that were established to protect it – for today and the future.

As climate change continues to advance, these are the kinds of issues that we will continue to be faced with, both in our coastal and river communities. We will have an opportunity to make the right policy choices, but they won’t be easy choices to make. Will we have the courage to base our choices on science?

I am not the only person to find a sharp description of our unfortunate political and cultural situation in W.B. Yeats dark meditation on the aftermath of World War I: The Second Coming.

Many remember that poem for the hair-raising question that comes at its end, “. . . what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

However, the poem also famously states: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”

It is hard to imagine a more accurate statement of the problem around the climate debate where denial is often presented with powerful zeal and, too often, truth is presented in a tentative manner.

However, fortunately, sometimes the tellers of truth show powerful courage.  Doctor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist, is one of those who has refused to temper his message and bow in the face of those who denounce him for clearly and powerfully presenting the results of his research.   He tells the story of his life, his research, the attacks upon him and the lessons he has learned from these experiences in a deeply readable book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”

His book is required reading for all those who want to understand climate science – as well as those who want an inside view of a critical political and cultural debate between sound science and ideologically driven denial.

In the short term this remarkable book presents a happy ending as Dr. Mann is able to continue with his work and survive scurrilous attack. However, like a monster movie that ends with a moment of peace that fades into ominous music and a hint of the horrible threat just waiting to burst on the scene, the book ends with a question: Will humanity listen to the message of science and avert the catastrophe of a warming and disrupted planet?

As the scheduled retirement date for Vermont Yankee approaches, it becomes clearer than ever that this costly, tired, leaky and polluting plant’s days are numbered.

The disappointing Federal Court decision that limited action by the Vermont Legislature to close Vermont Yankee kept intact review by Vermont utility regulators.

That review began and Entergy is being pressed hard to justify its continued bullying and defiance. 

Conservation Law Foundation’s recent recommendations note:

• The Vermont law that was not struck down by the federal court precludes storing waste generated after March 21, 2012.
• Entergy’s current authorization precludes operation after March 21, 2012 except for decommissioning.
• The sale of Vermont Yankee to Entergy in 2002 was approved based on a promise not to operate past March 21, 2012.

The broken promises from Entergy continue.  A new book, aptly titled “Public Meltdown” that highlights some of CLF’s work, provides great insight into how the public lost trust in Entergy and Vermont Yankee over the past few years.  Entergy’s recent actions continue this sad trend.

*UPDATE* 3/20/12  – Late Monday the federal district court issued a disappointing new order that precludes the State from taking some actions, while an appeal is pending, regarding storage of spent fuel.  This is a step backwards for clean energy.  Vermont may be forced to store additional nuclear waste for years while this appeal winds its way through the courts.  Five minutes later, Vermont regulators issued a stunning rebuke to Entergy that makes it clear they intend to hold Entergy to its promises and commitments.  Stay tuned.

It has been apparent for some time that anyone who lives, works or is generally attached to a coastal community should be very concerned about the effects of sea level rise flowing from global warming.

A comprehensive new scientific paper and data tool, that builds on prior analysis, like the “Climate’s Long Term Impact on Boston” from 2005, is getting broad and deep press interest.

What is particularly striking is the ability to use this tool to look at the likely and predictable effects of sea level rise on particular places.  For example, applying the tool to the Boston waterfront confirms that epicenter of new development in the city is right in the bulls eye of sea level rise and if current trends continue the only way to enjoy the new restaurants in that area will involve swimming.

This realization should drive us both to plan in a way that acknowledges this very real threat but also to be even more serious and focused in our efforts to sharply reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are the underlying cause of the damage that is being done to our climate.

Update – The debate about this phenomena continues.  See compilation of further ruminations about continued available petroleum and climate from a variety of powerful voices in another post from June 11, 2012.  And some of the same ideas are chewed on in an interesting op-ed by Reuters editor Chrystia Freeland in the August 9, 2012 New York Times.

In 1991 Daniel Yergin published his massive history of the petroleum industry, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. Regardless of what you think about Yergin’s perspective on the topic, it is hard to dispute the complete and authoritative nature of that book. It provided a guided tour through the life of one of the defining industries of the 20th century and remains a powerful and surprisingly readable look at this essential subject.

In the years that followed there was strong interest in an update to The Prize that brought the story up towards the present and grappled with challenges to the ascendancy of petroleum in our economy and society – like the realization that global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is causing deep and systemic damage to the planet.

In 2011 Doctor Yergin did produce that much awaited sequel, The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World. That book contains six full chapters detailing the evolution of modern climate science and leaves no doubt about the fundamental validity of the observation that the phenomena of global warming from the burning of petroleum and other fossil fuels is indeed, very real.

However, that point must play out against the backdrop of Dr. Yergin’s deep and abiding belief that the there is no such thing as “peak oil” – that global oil production may plateau and stop rising but that improvements in technology mean that we will never see a steep decline in exploitable oil reserves. Indeed, he is even more firm in his belief that if you look at the broader array of fossil hydrocarbons, including natural gas, that the progression of technologies like hydraulic fracturing and its deployment across the world will lead to continued availability of such fuels at fairly low prices for the long term – really, he argues, indefinitely. This is a hard perspective for a climate advocate to ponder – he is in effect arguing that continued availability of hydrocarbons is an “inconvenient truth” that those addressing the challenge of global warming must face, that the argument that “we are running out of the stuff anyway” is simply not part of the debate about continued use of fossil fuels.

But Dr. Yergin has his own dilemma to confront: he does not address the fundamental collision between his observations about the validity of climate science and his belief that we are not in danger of running out of affordable hydrocarbons. This is an especially difficult circle for him to square as he is fundamentally an optimist – believing that society has always found technological solutions to the problems we have encountered and created for ourselves in the past and we will do so again. To Dr. Yergin’s credit he does engage renewable energy and energy efficiency, the  key tools for decarbonizing our economy, at  length in The Quest but never quite gets to the point of describing a path to a future where we are no longer burning fossil fuels and putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

It would be very difficult for Dr. Yergin to fully confront the dilemma implicit in his work – that the presence of affordable hydrocarbons (oil and/or natural gas) for indefinite future will create a strong pull constantly moving us away from making the reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions that science tells us we need to make in order to save ourselves.

Bill McKibben has noted on many occasions, getting off fossil fuels will be the hardest thing that humanity has ever done and the only thing that would be harder would be living in the world where we don’t. And Dr. Yergin is telling us that his expert analysis is that it will be even harder than many believe to make that transition because new technologies and techniques will continue to increase the pool of available fossil fuels – but he has looked at the climate science and he does not deny that we must make the transition.

The Obama Administration says more oil is being produced in the United States than anytime in the last eight years. One news outlet reports that the boom times for the oil industry have meant an increase in jobs for college students. And then we have this statement from the Tulsa World newspaper as reported in RIGZONE: “A weekly rig count tabulated by Baker Hughes Inc. showed the number of working U.S. oil rigs at 1,293, more than 50 percent higher than the 801 recorded a year ago. In fact, the oil rig count is the highest since Baker Hughes separated oil and natural gas rigs in its weekly tally in 1987.”

But tomorrow — Tuesday March 13^th — Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts will try to pass a 78 page love letter to the oil industry amendment to the Surface Transportation bill which will require that half of all the acres in each region of our nation’s oceans be leased for more oil drilling. The Roberts amendment would also require oil leases in state waters of any state where the governor simply requests leasing.

On Tuesday morning call your US Senators through the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 and urge them to OPPOSE THE ROBERTS AMENDMENT.

Sen. Roberts says more drilling will put oil on the international market and this will bring down gas prices. Does this sound right to you?

The Roberts amendment would mandate oil drilling in New England’s ocean no matter the many tremendous reasons to not have offshore drilling here. This same approach was defeated last May. Please help defeat the Roberts amendment again.

On Tuesday morning call your US Senators through the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 and urge them to OPPOSE THE ROBERTS AMENDMENT.

You can also find your Senators on the web and call their office directly. Urge them to vote against the Roberts amendment to the Surface Transportation bill.

Short Memories Make Bad Legislators - Oppose the Roberts Amendment