In response to a February 21 order by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed a brief defending its legal standing in the Deepwater Wind case and issued the following statement:

Jerry Elmer, staff attorney at CLF Rhode Island, said, “If CLF and others are denied standing in this case, it will have the effect of shutting down the process for reviewing and appealing the PUC’s decisions on renewable energy contracts, not just in this case, but potentially on all future contracts as well.”

Tricia K. Jedele, director of CLF Rhode Island, said, “The need for a fair and open process to ensure that renewable energy development is done right in Rhode Island is at the heart of CLF’s case. That fair and open process begins with a finding by the Court that CLF has standing to pursue this appeal on behalf of its members and in the interest of Rhode Island’s clean energy future, which is in the public interest.”

CLF has intervened in proceedings regarding the proposed merger of Northeast Utilities (NU) and NSTAR, which combined would create the third largest utility in the country and the largest in New England. CLF has intervened in the proceedings before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to ensure that the merger will only be allowed to go forward if it is “consistent with the public interest.”  This will require a thoughtful analysis of the merged utility’s long-term strategies for delivering energy while fully meeting the greenhouse gas emission reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements of the MA Global Warming Solutions Act and Green Communities Act.  It also will require a close look at the economic and environmental risks posed by the energy generation assets that would be owned by the merged utility.

One of CLF’s concerns is that NU subsidiary Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) owns and depends upon outdated, inefficient coal- and oil-fired power plants. These plants – which are obsolete and increasingly more expensive and less economic to operate – present risks and liabilities that would be spread to NSTAR’s ratepayers if the merger goes forward.  Another concern is that the merged utility might seek to weaken Massachusetts’ renewable energy standards, as suggested in some of the utilities’ public statements, allowing large hydropower to “flood” the market (pun intended!) and chill development of other renewable energy sources such as small wind and solar facilities.

Currently, the procedural schedule for the merger proceeding pending before the Massachusetts DPU has been suspended while the DPU considers whether to modernize the legal standard it will apply.  CLF and other parties have asked that the legal standard be adapted to account for changes in relevant laws, including the Global Warming Solutions Act and Green Communities Act.

Stay tuned as we await the DPU’s ruling and further action in the merger proceeding!

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.

Somerset residents gather in front of the plant. (Photo credit: Shanna Cleveland, CLF)

Massachusetts moved one step closer to a coal-free future this week as NRG, owner the Somerset Station power plant located in Somerset, MA, announced that it will shut the plant down permanently, effective immediately. The 85-year-old plant shut down initially in January 2010, after CLF and Somerset residents brought an appeal with regard to NRG’s plans to repower the plant using an experimental technology known as plasma gasification. Earlier this month, NRG asked the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) to withdraw approvals for those plans, saying the company had decided not to pursue its plasma gasification project that would have used fuels including coal, construction and demolition debris and woody biomass. MA DEP granted the request on February 18. More >

Learn more about CLF’s Coal-free New England Campaign >

(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 >

CLF submitted its proposal today to the Vermont Public Service Board recommending strong action in response to the ongoing leaks and contamination at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power facility.

“Entergy VY’s actions in response to the leaks have been and continue to be irresponsible and inadequate. ”
- CLF Proposal for Decision

CLF’s filing highlights the lackluster response of Vermont Yankee’s owners to the leaks.  With new contamination revealed only two weeks ago, it is long past time for Vermont regulators to take action.

Read CLF Recommendation

Read Entergy update – 2-11-2011

Be a superhero. Take the T.

In his column in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser illustrates that densely developed cities are better for the environment than leafy suburbs. The column correctly states that the average household in Boston’s urban core emits significantly fewer pounds of carbon dioxide per year, in part because people in the city drive less. Unfortunately, the column also states that public transportation “does little to balance the scales”— a statement that could easily be misinterpreted to mean that the use of public transit does little to decrease carbon emissions. In fact, Glaeser’s research that formed the basis for his conclusions indicates that although city dwellers tend to use more public transportation than suburbanites, their carbon footprint is still significantly lower precisely because the emissions from transit are modest relative to the contributions of cars. Travel by public transportation emits about half as much carbon dioxide per passenger mile than private vehicles, and uses about half the fuel.

Glaeser’s message is clear. If we’re going to minimize our carbon footprint, we need to not only support denser development in downtown Boston, but also greater investment in our underfunded public transportation system.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and innovative transportation for all New Englanders.

NSTAR Green 100 customers got a rude shock last week when a notice from the utility informed them, without any explanation, that their green power premiums would be going up by more than 300 percent in March. What’s up with that?

What’s up is that prices for natural gas, the dominant fuel used to create electricity in our region, are way down.  Meanwhile, the price of the clean, renewable wind power that NSTAR Green customers are buying to reduce our dependence on such polluting fossil fuels as gas and coal, is stable. So, because the NSTAR Green premiums are pegged to the price of power from those fossil fuels – i.e., the price of its “Basic Service ” – when the differential between its Basic Service and the cost of wind power increases, the premiums go up.

What NSTAR failed to explain to its Green customers is that, even with the  hike in premiums, customers will still pay the same or less  for their total energy bill (basic electric supply, transmission and distribution charges, plus the green premium) than they paid when the program first started. Other than the obvious environmental and public health benefits of consuming less fossil fuels, NSTAR Green customers also get the benefit of more stable and ultimately lower total energy prices over time. The drop in traditional electricity prices is temporary, and it is inevitable that they will soon rise again, given the finite nature of fossil fuels and the environmental, public health and national security costs of burning them. When the price of traditional electricity increases in the future, NSTAR Green premiums will go back down.

We wish that NSTAR had taken this opportunity to tell its customers who have chosen to buy clean power that their investment continues to be a sound one, one that will ultimately save them money by getting off of the fossil fuel roller coaster.