Photo credit: Beerzle, flickr

In 2007, Congress passed energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that will decrease air pollution, improve public health and decrease household energy bills. A no-brainer, right? Wrong. This week, the House will vote on bills to repeal those standards – and we need your help to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

The standards require new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012, and 65 percent less energy by 2020. These standards will not ban the incandescent light bulb, but instead give consumers a wider range of bulbs to choose from, including new and improved incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are far more efficient than required by the 2012 standards. What’s more, several manufacturers, including GE, Philips Lighting and Osram Sylvania, already sell new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that use halogen technology. These bulbs meet the 2012 standards and are already available for sale. Learn more about light bulb standards here.

By the numbers, these standards will:

• Save American households $100 to $200+ per year
• Reduce U.S. energy bills overall by more than $10 billion per year – energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants
• Jump-start industry innovation and investment that is creating U.S. jobs
• Avoid 100 million tons of global warming pollution per year – equal to the emissions of more than 17 million cars

But we won’t see any of these benefits if the standards are repealed and we return to using traditional light bulb technology, which has changed very little since Thomas Edison invented the incandescent bulb some 125 years ago. This is a battle that we can’t afford to lose.

Here’s a bright idea. Send a message to your representatives opposing any bills that would weaken or reverse light bulb efficiency standards.

Photo credit: S1acker, flickr

As you hit the road this holiday weekend, you will be joining millions of others in filling up your gas tank and will watch in consternation as your paycheck pours into your tank. The sad thing is, you are probably driving a vehicle that gets far less than 45 mpg, so you might have to fill that tank more than once to get back home.

These days, Americans spend on average $369 dollars a month on gas. By contrast, the average monthly gas bill in April 2009 was $201. That’s a lot less money that you have to go towards dining out and hotel rooms this holiday weekend. The good news is that the EPA and DOT are currently contemplating raising fuel economy requirements to between 47 to 62 mpg starting with all 2017 model vehicles. That means  getting twice or even three times as far without having to fill up.

You would think that states buckling under the weak economy would rejoice at any effort that would give folks more money to spend. Unfortunately, Governor LePage seems to disagree.

In response to EPA and DOT’s effort, LePage joined a small handful of other governors this week in a signing a letter to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cautioning them to be  “sensible” about raising fuel economy standards and claiming that “overreaching regulations can be a cost burden on individuals, families and businesses in our state” because the technology used for fuel-efficient vehicles makes them more expensive for consumers.

In other words, we haven’t learned any lessons, we couldn’t care less if our constituents have to spend half their paycheck at the pump and we have no problem with our addiction to foreign oil.

Fuel efficiency standards for 2012-2016 were set in 2007 at 35 mpg. When those standards were about to go into place, there was a remarkably similar wave of national hand-wringing. People were concerned that the new standards would have a negative effect on the auto industry and Americans’ perceived need to have large, affordable vehicles. Yet, the sky didn’t fall. Detroit had been teetering on the brink of survival not because of MPG standards but due to their failure to stay ahead of the innovation curve, like Toyota, in creating fuel efficient vehicles. The success of the Ford Focus speaks for itself.

Opponents to increasing the MPG standards claim that the government needs to stay out of this — market demand will dictate higher fuel efficiency.  But the data doesn’t bear that assertion out.  In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on the effects of the CAFE standard. The report concluded that in the absence of fuel economy regulations, motor vehicle fuel consumption would have been approximately 14 percent higher than it actually was in 2002.

Americans are fully capable of stepping up to the plate and developing the affordable technology necessary to bring the higher standard to fruition. They’ve done it before and they can do it again. And here’s the thing– a whopping 78 percent of Americans think they should. According to a recent poll by the Mellman Group, the majority of Americans support efforts by the auto industry to reduce CO2 emissions. And if that also means saving money on gas, then Maine should be embracing the new standards and not trying to slow them down.

Today,  the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the state Department of Environmental Protection announced that they have settled claims over violations of air quality at the Mt. Tom Power Plant in Holyoke, MA.

“CLF is gratified to see the State take enforcement action to address the violations that were uncovered at Mt. Tom,” said staff attorney Shanna Cleveland. “Particulate matter is one of the deadliest air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants, and is a major contributor to the poor air quality that is sickening residents in Holyoke and surrounding communities. The State’s insistence on continuous monitoring is an important step toward ensuring that the plant cannot continue to violate emissions limits with impunity.”

Particulate matter is responsible for a wide range of health impacts, including heart disease, lung damage and an increased risk of lung cancer. The asthma rate in Holyoke is more than twice the statewide average of 10.8 percent.

Cleveland continued, “This enforcement action is a step in the right direction, but even with the pollution controls recently installed at Mt. Tom, the plant has continued to emit harmful pollution and violate emissions limits. Despite their significant investment in technology to clean this plant up, the reality is that a 50-year-old coal plant cannot be modernized enough to run in compliance with the law, and moreover, cannot run efficiently, or economically. The only way to stop Mt. Tom from polluting the air and making people sick is for it to shut down. We need to be thinking less about how to keep old, polluting coal plants operating and more about how to get our electricity from clean, renewable energy.” More >

This Saturday, June 25, thousands of people from all across the world will take part in an event known as “Hands Across the Sand” by taking a trip to their local beach and joining hands with friends, neighbors and total strangers to send a message to our leaders—no to expanded offshore oil drilling and yes to clean energy. Last year more than 100,000 people took part in this event in all 50 states and in 43 countries around the world.

This year’s Hands Across the Sand could not come at a more important time and that is why CLF has joined as a sponsor of the event. With memories of the BP Horizon disaster fading from the public memory, and gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, the oil industry and their allies in Congress are mounting a major effort to dramatically expand oil drilling in US waters. They are even bringing back a proposal that seemed unthinkable a year ago—oil drilling on New England’s Georges Bank, one of the richest fisheries on earth. The truly scary part is that Big Oil is making progress. In Washington DC the House of Representatives recently passed 3 bills that would have required a massive expansion of offshore drilling, and a recent poll shows that public support for drilling is on the rise as gas prices tick up.

The drilling bill was rejected in the US Senate (no thanks to Senator Scott Brown) but the threat of oil rigs in New England’s waters remain a very real possibility, threatening New England’s critical fishing, tourism and outdoor recreation industries which employ tens of thousands and sustainably generate far more revenue than oil drilling ever could.

There is an old saying that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day but if you teach a man to fish he will eat for the rest of his life. Drilling in New England might create a few jobs years down the road for as long as the oil lasts, but we would be risking far more jobs in other ocean industries such as fishing. However by improving the health of our oceans and fisheries, and promoting the responsible development of renewable energy, we will create jobs that last for generations to come.

That is why this Saturday CLF is joining with the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association to sponsor a Hands Across the Sand event at noon this Saturday, June 25^th on Pavilion Beach in Gloucester. Environmentalists, fishermen and beachgoers will all be there to join hands and say no to offshore drilling and yes to a clean, renewable energy future and yes to healthy oceans and the jobs they support. I hope you can join us in Gloucester but if you can’t make it, click here to find an event near you.

P.S. If you need another reason to come, the Gloucester Hands Across the Sand event will coincide with the annual Saint Peter’s Fiesta so you can speak out for our ocean and have a great time in Gloucester too!

A package of three major new renewable energy bills has just passed both houses of the Rhode Island General Assembly unanimously.  Taken together, the bills will give Rhode Island one of the best and one of the most coherent sets of renewable energy laws in the country.  Over the past three months, CLF staff have worked extensively with the leadership of both the RI House and the RI Senate on drafting the actual language of these major bills.

One bill addresses what is called “net metering.”  Net metering occurs when an electric customer’s meter can run not only forward but also backward.  Net metering is important to individuals and companies that have small renewable projects (like solar panels on the roof of a home) because net metering often makes the difference between those projects being economically viable and being non-viable.  Until now, net metering law in Rhode Island was a shambles:  for example, some renewable energy technologies qualified for net metering but (for no apparent reason) other did not qualify; moreover, many portions of the law were so vague (or incoherent) that no one was sure what they meant, and there was even litigation challenging net metering by alleging that Rhode Island net metering law conflicts with federal law.  The newly passed statutes fix all those problems.  The new law makes clear that net metering is available to all renewable technologies, gives a generous price to renewable energy generators, and outlines exactly the boundaries between Rhode Island and federal law.

Another of these bills addresses “distributed generation.”  The DG Bill seeks to fix an unforeseen problem in an earlier renewable energy law, the Long-Term Contracting Statute (LTC Statute) that the General Assembly enacted in 2009.  Long-term contracts are especially important to renewable energy developers because such long-term contracts enable the developers to get financing for their projects.  The LTC Statute turned out to have one unexpected problem.  It worked very well for large companies, like Deepwater Wind, that wanted to develop and build utility-scale projects.  But the LTC Statute was not so good at helping smaller developers that were unable to afford an army of lawyers to negotiate individual contracts with the utility.  The  DG Bill solves this problem.  The DG bill carves out a portion of the long-term contracting obligation created in the 2009 LTC Statute and sets that portion aside just for small, local projects (like a town that wants to put up a single wind mill at its Town Hall).  In order to obviate the need for that (expensive) army of lawyers, the DG Bill creates a very simple, standard contract for developers of small, local renewable energy projects.  Basically, the law says:  If you have a small, local renewable energy project, you do not need to negotiate your own contract with Grid; instead you can automatically get a standard, short, easy-to-understand two-page contract.  The DG Bill also sets a standard price for such small renewable energy projects — the price is set by a board and is designed to be high enough so that such small projects are economically viable, but low enough so that the public is not forced to over-pay for renewable energy.  The big, utility-scale projects can still be built; but the DG bill will now make it easier for smaller projects also to be built.

The third bill in the set makes it easier for renewable energy developers to connect to the electricity grid by setting a timetable and prices for such interconnections.

CLF worked long and hard on this package of renewable energy legislation, and we are very gratified to see its success in the General Assembly.  We were also pleased to see the package of bills highlighted in the lead editorial of the Providence Journal on June 21.

PSNH's Merrimack Station (photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond)

I appeared on NHPR’s The Exchange with Laura Knoy this morning, and the topic was the potential energy and economic impacts of the Northern Pass project. The show provided a good opportunity to explain why the project is inspiring so much opposition, why CLF has been skeptical of the current proposal, and how Canadian hydropower could play a role in the New England electric system if pursued appropriately. There was also a segment on the project’s potential impact on property values. You can catch the replay here if you’re interested.

Joining me on the show was Julia Frayer, an economist hired by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to tout the energy and economic benefits of the project. Recently, she penned a widely-reprinted op-ed and provided testimony to the New Hampshire legislature, suggesting the project will be a boon to consumers and the reliability of the electric system.

Unfortunately, and as I made an effort to point out on the show, the arguments for the current proposal are pleasant talking points without much to back them up. All the cited benefits are speculative, rather than firm commitments, and are not forthrightly presented alongside the proposal’s potential costs. As any student of economics can attest, an intelligent discussion about the economics of a project requires that we at least try to describe and compare the costs and benefits.  We know that the project may have significant negative impacts, ranging from the environmental impacts of generating the power in Canada to the potential effects of major new transmission lines on New Hampshire’s tourism and recreation industries. PSNH and the project developer, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC, have stubbornly failed to acknowledge these impacts, and there is no evidence they were taken seriously in the planning of the current proposal.

One point worth highlighting – the current plan calls for all of the supposed clean energy benefits and electric rate reductions to be delivered through the wholesale market, where Hydro-Quebec intends to sell the power delivered by the project.  But these benefits would mostly bypass the very residential ratepayers in New Hampshire who pay PSNH for electricity – because PSNH acquires very little power from the wholesale market. Instead, as customers of PSNH’s retail power, PSNH residential customers have been left to shoulder the uneconomic costs of PSNH operating several coal-fired generating units – and to pay the highest electric rates in New Hampshire as a result. Northern Pass does nothing to change this situation.  Many commercial ratepayers in PSNH territory have “migrated” in increasing numbers to other utilities that – unlike PSNH – do buy substantial power from the wholesale market to supply their customers. Residential ratepayers don’t have this choice – which means they’re saddled with PSNH’s higher costs, as PSNH loses more and more of its commercial rate base.  Again, Northern Pass does nothing to change this situation.  On closer inspection, the claimed benefits for New Hampshire consumers look more like phantom benefits than anything real.

The proposal promises to send huge profits to Hydro-Quebec, as it bids power into the wholesale market (easily paying back its investment in the transmission lines), and to provide a revenue stream of transmission payments to Northeast Utilities, PSNH’s parent company. But this structure makes very little sense because it means New Hampshire residents will continue to bear the burden of high cost power and dirty air from PSNH’s coal plants and will also face the environmental and economic impacts of a massive transmission project, while the power would only displace relatively less-polluting natural gas generation and may undermine the development of local renewable energy projects in the state. If it does indeed lower costs on the New England market, the effect will be to increase costs for PSNH’s residential customers as more large customers migrate to the competitive market and fewer customers are left to pay the costs of PSNH’s expensive coal plants.

The current proposal is coming into focus as a bad energy and economic deal for New Hampshire, and regionally the benefits seem less than impressive – especially because the emissions reductions made possible could be so much greater if there was a firm commitment to pair the new imports with the retirement of coal-fired units. As the project continues to wind its way through the federal and state permitting process, CLF will keep pushing for the project to make sense for New Hampshire and for the energy future of the region as a whole.

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Photo credit: CLF

For those of you following Maine Governor Paul LePage’s assault on the state’s environmental protections, check out this op-ed by CLF Maine Director Sean Mahoney, which appeared June 3 in the Bangor Daily News. Here, Mahoney rebuffs LePage’s claim that generating more energy from renewable sources in Maine, as required by the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, means higher energy prices for Maine consumers, and rejects his so-called “solution,” a bill entitled “Act to Reduce Energy Prices for Maine Consumers.” Want to hear four reasons why LePage’s Act and attitude are bad for Maine? Mahoney has them here. Read more >

With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, many New Englanders are rightfully asking why we’re paying so much at the pump. Many economists will point to price speculation and other factors such as political unrest and conflicts in oil producing nations. Oil industry reps have been claiming that high prices are due to all that clean air we use and all those required practices that help keep workers safe. They seem to think our leaders in congress should reduce environmental regulations put in place after the BP oil spill.

The fact of the matter is that domestic production has little to do with the price of oil, which is set on the world market.  In fact last year US oil production reached its highest levels since 2003.

David Koch — a billionaire oilman widely known for funding campaigns to discredit climate science and oppose the construction of clean, renewable wind energy projects—has launched a new campaign through his group “Americans for Prosperity” to convince us that environmental regulations are to blame for high gas prices. Furthermore, they are looking to target political leaders who support tougher safety and environmental reviews for the oil industry that could prevent another catastrophic spill, and the clean energy sources that could break our addiction to their oil.

While most serious economists will tell you that the conflict in Libya, and soaring demand for gas in emerging economies such as China are the key factors driving energy prices up, most serious economists don’t have billions of dollars to spend on massive PR campaigns and secret political donations. As mentioned in this story the Koch brothers are betting that their ad campaigns and political donations will be enough to convince our leaders in congress to ignore real solutions and instead weaken environmental regulations.

Unfortunately, we’re seeing signs that their campaign is working.  As I wrote last week, the US House of Representatives recently passed three bills that would have required massively expanded offshore drilling all around the country, including in New England.  Thankfully, the Senate voted down a similar measure, but oil industry supporters have vowed to keep up the fight. Unfortunately when faced with a decision between big oil and New Englanders who depend on a healthy ocean, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown sided with big oil. Click here to hear the radio ads CLF is running across the state, and here to write Senator Brown to urge him to stand with us in opposition to expanded drilling and for real solutions to high gas prices.

CLF applauds the balance regulators struck in approving the Kingdom Community Wind Project in Lowell, VT. The order allows the controversial project to move forward while protecting wildlife habitat and ensuring restoration of disturbed areas.  The decision addresses all the concerns that were raised and provides some innovative means to manage the impacts.

All power supplies – including wind – have environmental impacts.   While the environmental harms associated with wind are less than most sources of generation, they need to be minimized and mitigated, not ignored. The Vermont order includes specific requirements from an agreement with Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources that permanently protects significant habitat and requires re-vegetation and restoration of disturbed areas both after construction and when the project is no longer used.  These measures go a long way to reduce the environmental footprint of the project.  The decision also calls for minimizing lighting while still conforming to FAA requirements.  Overall, the decision can be a model for how projects can move forward while responsibly addressing impacts. 

The project’s benefits are significant and weighed in favor of approval.  Powering 20,000 homes from this project will help Vermont meet it renewable energy goals, create jobs and tax revenue, avoid greenhouse gas emissions, and provide long-term, stably priced power. In an interview with VPR, GMP’s President Mary Powell described the project as, “incredibly cost effective for premium renewable electricity.”

The project, consisting of 20-21 400-foot turbines along 3 miles of Lowell Mountain ridgeline, is expected to break ground in August of this year. The turbines will power an estimated 20,000 households, making it the largest wind site in the state. The project is moving forward with the approval of the Lowell community, who voted in favor of the turbines during Town Meeting Day in 2010.  CLF is excited to support wind projects that bring the community to the table, are responsibly cited, and mitigate the impacts on the environment in exchange for clean, locally produced energy.