Photo credit: Marilyn Humphries

For those of you looking for a good clean-energy read, check out this recent article by Climate Progress’s Stephen Lacey. Lacey focuses on the common myth that clean energy and climate reduction policies will mean higher energy costs for consumers, pointing out that two recently released reports show that the implementation of cleaner, more efficient energy systems will actually save them money in the long run. The same myth has been perpetuated regarding the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) here in the Northeast. To debunk that notion, Lacey quotes CLF’s VP for Climate Advocacy and Policy Seth Kaplan:

“The fact is, RGGI is a very, very, very small piece of the overall cost of electricity. There are so many costs that are much greater. Pulling out the cost of RGGI would be like factoring in the cost of mowing the lawn at the power plant or factoring in the property taxes. Some of the claims that groups are making about the cost of the program are patently absurd.”

To hear more from Seth on the subject, read the full article here.

Collins (left) and Snowe. (Photo credit: Office of Olympia Snowe)

Maine’s “Sister Senators,” Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, should be applauded once again for breaking rank with Republicans and voting in favor of the measure to eliminate billions in tax breaks for the five largest private oil and gas companies. These tax breaks cost the U.S. Treasury $43.6 billion over the last decade. Although Democrats fell short of the 60 votes they needed last night, it’s good to see our Senators acting fiscally responsible. Our sincere thanks also goes out to Sens. Sanders, Leahy, Shaheen, Kerry, Reed, and Whitehouse. Connecticut’s senators Lieberman and Blumenthal also voted against oil subsidies.

Rewarding these companies for continuing to pursue dirty energy options that only end up costing our society more is simply nonsensical – it is quite simply, a double tax. Not only are we directly handing over our tax dollars to the fossil fuel industry to conduct exploratory drilling for yet more dirty fuels, but we also get hit on the backside. We pay for healthcare costs and environmental clean-up and enforcement costs associated with increased pollution.

By contrast, continuing to provide subsidies for renewable, clean energy makes sense for society.  Many Republicans have argued that if we eliminate the tax incentives for dirty fossil fuels, we should eliminate them for clean fuels too – after all, isn’t that capitalism at its finest? Eliminate all subsidies and let the best fuel win?  But that argument fails to acknowledge the benefits clean fuels create for our health, our environment, and as a result, ultimately our checkbooks. Those sort of benefits needs to be encouraged on a broad scale. Until the market-driven demand breaks free from the artificially depressed prices of dirty fossil fuels, we will never get on board with clean energy in a meaningful way.  Dangling a carrot for continued development of clean energy in the form of tax incentives while simultaneously scaling back the incentives to dirty energy is the only way to begin to adjust this playing field and get moving in the right direction. What would clean energy in America look like today if we spent $43.6 billion on it every year for the past decade?

Today, the US Senate is poised to vote on legislation that would massively expand oil drilling along each coast of our nation. This new legislation would provide even less regard for oversight and safety than is required now. Click here now to tell your senators that you want our coasts protected from unsafe oil drilling.

CLF and Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) today jointly filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to intervene on the side of Vermont in the lawsuit brought last month against the state by Entergy, owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The two groups maintain that Entergy should follow Vermont law and shut down Vermont Yankee as planned in March 2012.

“This is an important case that will decide the direction of our energy future,” said Chris Kilian, VP and director of CLF Vermont. “CLF and VPIRG will support the state of Vermont in its efforts to uphold Vermont law and ensure that the people’s voice and vision for their energy future will prevail over the interests of out-of-state polluters.” More >

The wait is finally over. There is a clear path to the complete shutdown of Salem Harbor Station by June 1, 2014. Yesterday, ISO-NE presented its preferred option for upgrading the transmission system to relieve any need for the polluting, obsolete, and un-economic coal- and oil-fired plant. The solution is simple, cost-effective, and clean.

Instead of propping up the 60-year-old plant with above-market payments to be on call when electricity demand is highest, a transmission solution would upgrade the lines so they can carry more power into the area. The advantages are clear: by upgrading the transmission infrastructure, ratepayers will reap the benefits of a reliable system for years into the future at much lower cost than continuing to operate an out-of-date plant that emits tons of toxic pollution into the air each year.

The preferred alternative identified by ISO-NE is one of four that it presented in a compliance filing it submitted to FERC in December of 2010. FERC had directed ISO-NE to identify these solutions as the result of a protest lodged by CLF. The presentation yesterday was a result of Dominion’s February 2011 request to retire all four units at Salem Harbor Station. Although ISO-NE determined that Units 3 & 4 may still be necessary for reliability under existing system conditions, it has concluded that the proposed alternative would allow the units to retire without impacting system reliability.

The focus on existing lines, rather than building new ones, would reduce the cost and the timeline for implementation of the solution. CLF is confident that these upgrades can be completed and placed in operation in time to ensure that Salem Harbor Station shuts down no later than 2014, and possibly even earlier. With a confirmed date for shutdown, Salem residents and area ratepayers can better anticipate what’s next for Salem and pursue clean energy alternatives and economic development options now being studied for the site. CLF will work with ISO-NE, the transmission owners, and state agencies to make an expedited shutdown a reality.

Photo credit: puuikibeach, flickr

You know what they say: There’s no such thing as a free refill. This morning, the Boston Globe presented a front-page article about how coffee prices are at an all-time high and will increase further as supplies of what is a vital substance (for me and so many others) continues to decline.

The article comes exactly two months after a March 9 article in the New York Times reported on the scientific evidence that global warming is damaging global coffee production, noting that leading voices in the coffee industry describe the potential for the virtual extinction of Arabica, the bean behind most high-quality coffee.  But the Globe article makes no mention of global warming.

Until the media presents and connects these kind of dots, we will not be able to take the action needed to face this fundamental challenge. Global warming is changing everything – from the coastal communities facing rising sea levels to our farms and forests where fundamental changes are underway.  Until we wake up and smell the coffee (if any is still available) we will not be able to make the move to a cleaner, more efficient society and economy.

The Hydro-Quebec building in Montreal. (Photo credit: Wikimedia Creative Commons)

As the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) moves forward with the environmental review of the Northern Pass electric transmission project, one crucial question still remains–how much does New England need imports of Canadian power?

Today, CLF filed a motion to postpone the environmental review in order to answer that question, calling for a comprehensive public review of the region’s energy needs, the environmental impacts of the Canadian hydropower that would be imported through the project, the best transmission technologies available, and the alternatives to imports, such as renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and energy conservation measures. That analysis could then be used to guide future reviews of individual projects, as opposed to having DOE review each project independently.

“Before DOE can make a reasoned decision on whether the Northern Pass project or any similar proposal is in the ‘public interest,’ it needs to take a step back and consider whether and how new imports from Canada should be a part of our regional energy picture,” says CLF New Hampshire Director Tom Irwin.

> Read the rest of the story
> Visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center

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.

The current situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan has shone a spotlight on the risks associated with nuclear power. (Photo credit: PACOM, flickr)

In conjunction with a Massachusetts legislative hearing held today on nuclear power in New England, and with the Fukushima debacle still unfolding in Japan, CLF President John Kassel prevailed upon state and federal leaders to answer this wake-up call and take appropriate measures to avoid a similar crisis in New England or anywhere in the United States.

“Several of New England’s remaining nuclear power plants are on their last legs and continuing to prop them up at the taxpayers’ expense is not a viable long-term strategy,” Kassel said. “In the interest of public safety, these aging plants must comply with the latest safety standards within six months, or shut down. In addition, plant owners need to take immediate steps – at their expense – to better secure the radioactive waste now stored at these facilities. The notion that new nuclear power plants should be a cornerstone of our national energy policy is grossly irresponsible as long as there is no solution to the radioactive waste problem.” More >

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 >