The road to clean energy future is a bumpy one — especially when it involves a disgruntled, behemoth corporation like Entergy.  Last year, Vermont decided it didn’t want Entergy’s leaky, old nuclear power plant on the banks of the Connecticut River to operate for another twenty years.  In the wake of the lies, leaks and the nuclear tragedy in Japan, Vermont’s decision was clearly a good one.

But the plant owner, Entergy, is not happy.  It tried to muscle its way to a new license.  This week Entergy sued the state of Vermont.  Entergy is breaking its promise to follow Vermont’s decisions and is asking the Court to allow it to break Vermont law.

Entergy may be a big corporation, but it still must follow the law.  It is not up to the Exxons, BPs and Entergys of the world to decide what our energy future looks like.  The region’s older nuclear fleet must clean up or shut down. It is time to transition away from old and dirty coal and nuclear plants.  We have the will and the ability to make this happen.

Entergy’s challenge is a bump in the road. But New England won’t be steamrolled.

The future? That's what MA Rep. John Keenan wants. (Photo credit: Marilyn Humphries)

Protecting dirty old coal plants. Whacking solar and wind. Sounds like the opposite of the clean energy revolution that is underway in Massachusetts, right?  Or perhaps a belated April Fool?  But no, sadly, these deeply troubling initiatives have been introduced by Representative John Keenan, the new House co-chair of the MA Legislature’s Energy Committee, through amendments to the state budget currently under debate on Beacon Hill.  All on the eve of Earth Day, no less.

These amendments are alarming, and would undo much of the enormous progress that has been made over the past few years with respect to reducing Massachusetts’ reliance on dirty and costly fossil fuels, most of which are imported from faraway lands and offer Massachusetts no economic development benefits.  And the use of the budget process, rather than stand-alone legislation with public hearings, adds insult to injury.   We strongly encourage everyone who cares about clean air and a clean energy economy to ask your Massachusetts state legislators to oppose the Keenan Amendments (# 594, 623 and 640).  For more detail:

Keenan Amendment # 594 would prioritize existing (and even mothballed) coal and oil plants over transmission alternatives – in other words, it would severely discourage upgrades to improve efficiency or capacity of existing power lines or new transmission that would connect to cleaner resources.  This amendment seeks to protect the dirty, obsolete energy generating sources of the past while standing in the way of cleaner alternatives.  Who would benefit?  Dominion Energy, the owner of the Salem Harbor Station coal and oil plant in Chairman Keenan’s District, would benefit more than anyone.  The rest of us would have to continue to pay the price in terms of dirty air.

Keenan Amendment # 623: This amendment would require Massachusetts to prioritize renewable energy that is the cheapest when viewed over a very short three year time period.  As such, it would promote facilities that can be cheaper to build, like biomass, at the expense of solar and wind, which have higher up-front costs but are powered by fuels that are free (unlike biomass).  The amendment would turn on its head the thoughtful balance struck by the legislature less than three years ago when the Green Communities Act was passed, requiring renewables to be “cost-effective” and “reasonable” to qualify for benefits such as long-term contracts.  If this system were scrapped in favor of prioritizing the “cheapest” resource, we probably would wind up with only one type of renewable energy – most likely biomass, possibly hydropower too – rather than the diverse array of clean energy solutions that we need.

Keenan Amendment # 640: The aim of this amendment is to take the MA Renewable Energy Trust’s limit of $3 million per year to support hydropower and convert that limit to a floor, or minimum, for annual investment of MA ratepayers’ dollars in hydropower.  The amendment has a fundamental technical flaw — it tries to adjust the language of a statute that was repealed last year — but otherwise it would guarantee investment in hydropower even if there are far more deserving solar, wind or other renewable energy projects available.

We hope that cooler heads will prevail and these amendments all will be rejected.  Otherwise, coal lobbyists and their clients will be dancing all the way to the bank (ka-ching!) while we face a major setback for Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy programs and the enormous environmental, public health and economic development benefits they bring.

When someone offers you a simple answer to a complicated and big problem be very suspicious.

Global warming, the ultimate in complicated and big problems, can only be addressed by deploying a wide array of tools aggressively and with honest awareness of what each tool can and can not do.

Some measures, like reducing energy use through efficiency and conservation or generating electricity from the wind or from sunlight, have a clear pollution reduction effect although measuring that effect and managing those resources to ensure they are as clean, affordable and effective as possible is not simple.

Other resources can best be thought of as being a choice between “less bad options” – a powerful example of this is the discussion of the relative greenhouse gas emissions (when you look at the full life cycle of the fuel and its uses) from coal and natural gas.

A paper by Cornell University Professor Robert Howarth has started a valuable dialogue about this important topic.  For a good discussion of that paper and the responses to it take a look at the New York Times blog post and news story about it as well as coverage in The Hill (a political publication in Washington) – and you can even read the paper for yourself.  MIT’s Technology Review also offers a perspective on this study.

The paper also figured in the Senate Committee hearing about hydraulic fracturing and natural gas held this morning.  If you really have nothing better to do check out the archived webcast.

Is natural gas only half as bad as coal?  Are they comparable? Is in fact gas worse under some circumstances?  These are all important questions but overlay the critical reality that both of these fossil fuels are simply not something we can rely upon in the long term to power our societies and our economies.

A longtime friend, colleague and hero of energy efficiency, Blair Hamilton, died peacefully on April 8, 2011.

Since the oil embargo in the 1970s, Blair worked tirelessly to advance energy efficiency and reduce our energy use. The national and international success of energy efficiency is due in no small part to Blair. He was a driving force behind Efficiency Vermont – the nation’s first energy efficiency utility — which is an international model for delivering energy efficiency.

CLF owes a huge debt of gratitude to Blair. He patiently taught me and others much of what we know about energy efficiency. To the extent CLF’s work on energy efficiency is successful, it is in large part because of Blair and his legacy. Blair was always a loyal and true friend, and a capable, dedicated and determined colleague. It has been an honor to know and work with him for many years.

We will miss you and think of you with our continued work.

The Obama Administration has issued a clear statement opposing the bill that would roll back the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Air Act.  It really speaks for itself so I am just pasting it in below as well as providing a link.

The question for our Senators and Representatives is: will they reject this attack on the public health and the environment? They should stand firm against this bill and underhanded attempts to slip the  same provisions into other legislation, like the budget.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 910 – Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

(Rep. Upton, R-MI, and 95 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 910, which would halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) common-sense steps under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to protect Americans from harmful air pollution.  H.R. 910 would also increase the Nation’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels as well as contradict the scientific consensus on climate change.

The CAA gives EPA the necessary tools to protect our families from a wide variety of harmful pollutants that cause asthma and lung disease – especially in children.  Weakening these standards would allow more pollution in the air we breathe and threaten the health of Americans across the country.  A recent report by EPA shows how important this landmark law has been in protecting public health.  In 2010 alone, just one part of the CAA prevented:

• 160,000 premature deaths;

• 130,000 heart attacks;

• More than 100,000 hospital visits by preventing millions of cases of respiratory problems, including bronchitis and asthma.  It enhanced productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays, and kept kids healthy and in school, avoiding millions of lost school days due to respiratory illness and other diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution.

Since 1970, the CAA has reduced key air pollutants that cause smog and particulate pollution by more than 60 percent.  At the same time the economy has more than tripled.  And since the CAA Amendments in 1990, electricity production is up and prices are stable.  In 2009, electric utilities delivered 33 percent more electricity to U.S. households and businesses than in 1990, while nationwide electricity prices remained essentially unchanged.

Over its 40-year span, the benefits of the CAA – in the form of longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections – outweigh the costs by more than 30 to one.

Passage of H.R. 910 would also block important policy measures that enable the CAA to achieve additional societal benefits related to carbon pollution.  For example, the bill would block EPA’s involvement in the historic, bipartisan Federal program to promote vehicle fuel economy standards for Model Years 2017-2025.  This program will reduce oil consumption, provide significant savings to American consumers at the pump, and limit pollution from tailpipe emissions.  Further, H.R. 910 would second guess the widely-accepted scientific consensus that carbon pollution is at increasingly dangerous concentrations and is contributing to the threat of climate change.  This could create uncertainty around the requirements which are currently in effect for the Model Year 2012-2016 vehicle standards.  Finally, H.R. 910 would contradict public health experts and scientists and strip EPA of its authority to develop sensible standards for currently unchecked carbon pollution, and thus prevent EPA from following its statutory obligations as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

If the President is presented with this legislation, which would seriously roll back the CAA authority, harm Americans’ health by taking away our ability to decrease carbon pollution, and undercut fuel efficiency standards that will save Americans money at the pump while decreasing our dependence on oil, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Today, the EPA announced the first national standard for emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants. This rule will protect public health, preserve our environment and boost our economy, particularly for New England, which absorbs the downwind effects of air pollutants generated in other regions of the country. Jonathan Peress, CLF’s director of clean energy and climate change, responds.

“Right now, coal-fired power plants are allowed to poison the air we breathe with toxic pollutants like mercury, arsenic and lead. The EPA’s proposed ‘Air Toxics Rule’ will provide critical protection from major health impacts, including cancer, brain damage and birth defects, associated with this deadly brew of as yet unregulated pollutants.” More >

Photo courtesy of NRCM

At a press conference held yesterday, CLF and our colleagues at the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) shined a spotlight on 50 bad bills that are now working their way through the state Legislature. If passed, these bills could:

• Open up the three million acres of the North Woods to development
• Repeal the ban on BPA and flame retardant chemicals that are hazardous to our health
• Allow big polluters to not be held accountable for cleaning up their own mess

A list of those bills is here, as are some media clips from Maine Public Broadcasting Network, the Portland Press Herald and the Lewiston Sun Journal related to yesterday’s conference.

The assault on Maine’s environmental protections continues, and we will continue to fight back—but we need your help. If you haven’t already, please add your voice to the effort by contacting your local legislator, submitting a letter to the editor to your local paper, or by becoming a member of CLF.

One of the easiest ways to make bad decisions is to allow ourselves to be drawn into a false choice – to see two options as an “either/or” where seeking one goal means stepping away from another. This can be a false choice because, fortunately, sometimes making the right decision will yield a double benefit.

When we have an opportunity to reduce energy use and harmful emissions while building jobs and the economy we encounter that kind of golden moment: when the right choice yields double, triple and even quadruple benefits.

There are people who will reject this formulation – who will present that most fundamental of false choices: the flawed argument that making the right choice for our environment and the public health is bad for the economic health of our communities and building jobs.

We are surrounded by proof that economic benefit flows from the same actions that reduce dirty energy use and emissions. The nation-leading energy efficiency programs funded by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which have created jobs while slashing the energy bills of families and businesses of the Northeast is a prime example.  A recent report issued by the states participating in RGGI (described here) provides hard numbers documenting this happy phenomena.

But we can do far better – and we need to if we are going to address the fundamental challenge of global warming and if we are going build the new economic base that can provide jobs and financial security for the future. Building that cleaner and more secure future will mean building on the successes of RGGI, making it more effective in reducing emissions and creating even more investment in energy efficiency so it slashes even more customer bills and creates even more jobs.

(Photo credit: Marilyn Humphries)

One small step for man, one giant leap for coal–or lack thereof. Under pressure from public health groups, environmental organizations, political leaders and community members, Dominion Energy of Virginia has taken another important step toward closing Salem Harbor Station, its 60-year-old, coal-fired power plant in Salem, Massachusetts. Known as a “non-price retirement” request, the move represents an official request to the electric system operator, ISO New England, to allow the plant to shut down permanently.

Shanna Cleveland, staff attorney for Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), said, “Dominion’s actions put Salem Harbor Station on a path to shut down by 2014. Combined with its recent statements to shareholders that it doesn’t intend to invest any more capital in the plant, it is clear that Salem Harbor Station cannot operate profitably. The only issue remaining is whether the plant will shut down sooner than 2014. An unprofitable plant is still a polluting one, as long as it operates.” More >