CLF's Melissa Hoffer at the No XL Rally Washington DC

And we did—at least for now.

The Keystone XL pipeline, proposed to be constructed by TransCanada, would bring 900,000 barrels per day of toxic tar sands oil 1,702 miles across six states and through the Ogallala Aquifer—which supports $20 billion in food and fiber production in the U.S. annually—from Alberta, Canada to Texas refineries.

On Thursday, the State Department announced that it would be delaying its decision on whether to grant a key permit that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline project to proceed, stating that alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills in Nebraska must be studied in order to move forward with a National Interest Determination for the Presidential Permit.  The State Department also announced that it will be examining “environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy.”  Nested in that parenthetical is a big victory for all of us who have been urging the federal government to review the project’s potential to contribute substantially to global warming pollution.

President Obama issued a statement supporting the decision noting that the permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment.  Today’s decision will push back completion of the additional environmental review process until at least early 2013. Following the announcement, TarSandsAction.org. spokesperson, Bill McKibben, declared, “It’s important to understand how unlikely this victory is. Six months ago, almost no one outside the pipeline route even knew about Keystone. One month ago, a secret poll of “energy insiders” by the National Journal found that “virtually all” expected easy approval of the pipeline by year’s end…A done deal has come spectacularly undone.”  Spectacularly undone, indeed.

The movement that has built up around Keystone holds lessons for climate and environmental advocates.  This is not the environmentalism of the 70s.  Last Sunday, I traveled with a group of friends to Washington DC where I joined thousands of other Americans to form a human circle around the White House and ask President Obama to deny the Keystone XL pipeline permit.  The event was organized by TarSandsAction.org, and at the pre- and post-circle rallies, we heard from Roger Toussaint, international vice president of the Transport Workers Union, who reminded us that this is not a labor versus environment issue.  Tom Poor Bear, vice president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, asked us to take heart in the fact that all races and men and women alike were joining together to fight this battle.  Naomi Klein (see her recent article Capitalism vs. the Climate) passionately relayed how hard people are working in Canada to stop the pipeline and its destruction of indigenous lands, and promised that if we work together and stop it here, our Canadian compatriots would stop it there; her thoughts were echoed by her countrywoman, Maude Barlow.  NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, who has for decades urged action to control greenhouse gas emissions, again called for action to reduce dangerously high levels of global warming pollution before it is too late.

Physicians for Social Responsibility warned that the human health impacts we already are experiencing from climate change are significant and growing—the World Health Organization estimates that there are 160,000 additional deaths annually around the world attributable to climate change.  John Bolenbaugh, a union worker who has blown the whistle on the failed Enbridge Energy oil spill “cleanup” in Michigan, cautioned that we should not believe TransCanada’s assurances of safety, pointing out the nation’s dismal record on pipeline spills.  (Enbridge, by the way, is proposing to construct the Trailbreaker pipeline that would bring tar sands oil from Alberta to Portland, Maine via Montreal.)

Farmers in the region where Keystone is proposed to be constructed called on us to help them protect their land and the Ogallala Aquifer through which the pipeline will run, placing this precious water source at great risk of irreversible contamination.  Cherri Foytlin of the Gulf Coast spoke movingly about just how wrongly things can go—she reported that dead wildlife, including fish, dolphins, and birds, continue to wash ashore there on a daily basis, coated with oil from the BP spill, and that fresh, wet oil is washed in on the waves, while people continue to get sick from exposure to the oil and chemicals used to control it.  “Our divers who dove into the spill, “she said, “are on their deathbeds.”  Representatives of the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and NRDC founder John Adams, each spoke about Keystone’s impact on the environment, and the potential for climate change to bring about the next, and sixth greatest, extinction event in the planet’s history.

The scale of the climate emergency is paralyzing for many.  Now, we can actually see what climate change looks like, in the form of record-breaking Spring floods in 2010 throughout New England, a tornado that killed four people this spring in Western Massachusetts, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Irene (especially in Connecticut, Vermont, and Western Massachusetts), and just days ago, a record breaking late October snowstorm that left millions without power (again) as heavy wet snow snapped tree trunks and limbs, many still bearing green leaves.  These weather patterns, as msnbc recently reported, are consistent with the predicted trends for our region as the climate warms, and extreme weather is already costing us billions in response costs.  Everywhere people are talking about these unprecedented weather events, yet many still do not understand or acknowledge that climate change is the cause.  For those who do, the realization is accompanied by a bewildering sense of both the urgency and enormity of the problem, for every aspect of our modern, energy-dependent lifestyles contributes to planet-warming pollution.

But like most very difficult problems, we will solve this one step at a time, and killing Keystone is a very good step, since it will make it that much harder for TransCanada to tap and sell one of the largest remaining oil reserves in the world.  Keystone XL is the poster child for what we should not be doing.  Transportation sector emissions, for example, constitute about a third of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and in New England, that sector is the fastest growing source of GHG.  We need to be moving away from high carbon fuels, like tar sands, to low carbon fuels.  Because it is such a dirty fuel source, according to NRDC, replacing three million barrels per day of conventional oil with tar sands oil would be equivalent to adding more than 22 million passenger cars to our roads. The environmental impact statement for Keystone (which did not adequately account for lifecycle GHG pollution) estimated that the project would emit in the range of 12-23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually—on par with the emissions from two to four coal fired power plants, according to TarSandsAction.org. Quite simply, that is obscene.

The Keystone movement is a model of what we will need to do if we are to succeed in the fight to take back our environment and restore the climate.  We will need to work together, across political lines, across the borders real or imagined that often separate us, finding and holding that common thread that weaves us together:  our knowledge that we are in the fight of our lives and our commitment to win it, whatever it takes.  Climate change is not in the national interest.

photo credit: l . e . o/flickr

With each passing day, the dire reality of PSNH’s coal-fired business model is becoming clearer in New Hampshire.  The cost of operating PSNH’s obsolete power plants continues to grow, accelerating the Company’s death spiral where fewer captive ratepayers are saddled with unsustainable above-market rates as more PSNH customers choose to buy power from better managed competitive suppliers.  We are also learning that Northern Pass will make the situation worse for ratepayers, not better, and that PSNH and its Northern Pass partners are poised to pull in huge profits.  In just the last few days:

• PSNH revealed that, as it has begun bringing online its $450 million scrubber project at PSNH’s 50 year old coal-fired Merrimack Station, the bill is now coming due. If state regulators at the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approve passing the cost on to ratepayers, the energy rates for PSNH customers – already the highest in New Hampshire by a wide margin – will go up by at least 1.2 cents per kilowatt hour, or almost 15%.  CLF is seeking to intervene in the PUC proceeding on the rate increase.  PSNH, unsurprisingly, wants to keep CLF out, in addition to any other party seeking to intervene on behalf of ratepayers.  There is no better illustration of the folly – for ratepayers and the environment alike – of major new investments in coal-fired power plants than PSNH’s flawed effort to extend the life of Merrimack Station.  These investments are a disaster for ratepayers, and don’t even ensure compliance with the plant’s environmental requirements – a case CLF is making right now in federal court with regard to other modifications to Merrimack Station.
• Large commercial and industrial customers with the buying power to avoid the high rates for PSNH’s fossil power continue to do so in dramatic numbers.  PSNH announced that, in September, about 82% of these customers were buying power elsewhere in the market (accounting for 93% of the power delivered to these customers) – a phemonenon known as “migration.”  Meanwhile, more than 99% of New Hampshire residents in PSNH territory were left behind to pay PSNH’s already exorbitant rates.  The scrubber rate increase is going to make this situation even worse for residents – additional businesses will find other suppliers and PSNH will need to jack up its rates even more.  More cost-effective competitive suppliers are cleaning PSNH’s clock among large customers.  Given the company’s excessive and increasing rates, residential ratepayers are starting to vote with their pocketbooks for more sustainable energy supplies.
• It is becoming increasingly clear that the current Northern Pass proposal is designed around PSNH’s bottom line, not the interests of New Hampshire ratepayers.  As we’ve mentioned before, the large customer “migration” problem and its upward pressure on homeowners’ electric bills are likely to get worse with Northern Pass, which would further depress regional wholesale electric rates and encourage more customers to leave PSNH.   Adding in the cost of the scrubber will only widen the divide between the businesses that can choose other suppliers and potentially benefit from Northern Pass, and the residential customers who are currently  stuck with PSNH. A new wrinkle emerged last week – testimony from PUC staff showing that PSNH’s consultants estimated a year ago that Northern Pass will cannibalize PSNH’s already meager revenues from Newington Station, PSNH’s little-used power plant in Newington, New Hampshire, that can operate with either oil or natural gas.  Northern Pass would mean it would almost never run and that the investments ratepayers have made over the years to keep Newington Station operating will essentially be lost.  This same dynamic will apply to the rest of PSNH’s power plants:  Northern Pass will diminish their market value further exposing New Hampshire businesses and residents to the risk of excessive costs.  Once again, a series of poor decisions and self-interested advocacy by PSNH (at the expense of ratepayers) is forcing the legislature to intervene.

The costs of PSNH’s coal-fired power plants are becoming untenable, and a radically redesigned Northern Pass proposal and other alternatives could help PSNH meet its customers’ power needs more cheaply and with less damage to public health and the environment.  Instead of planning for a cleaner energy future, PSNH is working only to preserve its regulator-approved profits.  CLF will be using every tool at our disposal to force a rethinking of PSNH’s approach.

The Land Use Regulatory Commission has begun deliberations on the Bowers Mountain Wind project, which CLF supported as an intervener.  Sean Mahoney presented a closing statement in support of the project  (Sean Mahoney Closing Statement 10-5-11) which built upon the testimony of Abigail Krich (Abigail Krich Direct Testimony 6-10-11 and Dr. Cameron Wake (Dr. Cameron Wake Direct Testimony 6-10-11).  As with many wind power projects in Maine today, the biggest issue for LURC to resolve is the project’s impact on scenic resources in the area.  The testimony of Roger Milliken (Roger Milliken Direct Testimony 6-10-11) spoke to the push and pull of that issue eloquently.  A decision from LURC on the project is expected sometime in early November.

Boston, MA – September 8, 2011- Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) issued the following statement in defense of the Cape Wind power purchase agreement, currently being disputed by opponents of the project. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the case today.

Seth Kaplan, Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy at Conservation Law Foundation, said, “The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) left no stone unturned when it reviewed and approved the contract between National Grid and Cape Wind. The DPU’s conclusion, based on extensive testimony and other evidence presented by both Cape Wind supporters and opponents, was that Cape Wind’s long-term power purchase agreement is ‘cost-effective’ and reasonable, and will deliver net economic benefits for electric ratepayers and the Commonwealth. Opponents have thrown up every possible obstacle to Cape Wind’s progress and this obstruction has had delayed the day when residents of the Commonwealth can reap considerable economic and environmental benefits of the project. The public’s patience is, appropriately, wearing thin. These stall tactics are draining public resources while keeping Massachusetts from benefiting from the clean energy and green jobs that Cape Wind will provide.”

Conservation Law Foundation, represented by CLF Massachusetts Director Susan Reid, intervened with the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Clean Power Now in the case of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound vs. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, filing a full brief in the case in July.

To read the full statement, click here.

Why buy when you can save? Power saved through energy efficiency is widely available, clean, and costs approximately one half to one third the cost of buying electricity from a power plant. During a nine-month workshop process with regulators, utilities and businesses, CLF recommended Vermont invest in far greater efficiency to aggressively tackle high-energy bills, curb pollution and climate change, and provide a more secure energy future. While Vermont regulators acknowledged that greater efficiency pays for itself and avoids more expensive power purchases and transmission upgrades, they ultimately approved only a small increase for efficiency efforts.

The Board’s order is disappointing. A limited number of businesses opposed increasing efficiency. This opposition is short-sighted. The most successful businesses are also the most efficient. They represent opportunities for growing our economy and keeping jobs in Vermont and pollution out of Vermont. With more energy efficiency, we can support and grow our economy instead of throwing our energy dollars out the window. Efficiency investments provide savings through financial incentives for equipment, lighting, renovation, and construction that allows buildings and homes to use less energy.

Even with this limited increase, Vermont will remain a strong leader on electrical energy efficiency. Unfortunately, there are still too many savings left on the table. As a result, Vermonters will be paying too much and polluting too much to meet our power needs. We could easily make twice the investment we are making now, and that’s what we should be doing. The Board’s decision is a baby step in the right direction, but we still have a marathon to run.

Another radioactive fish was found near the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in southern Vermont.

This is the at least the third time a fish contaminated with Strontium-90 was found in the Connecticut River.

Vermont Yankee officials defy common sense.  They continue to claim there is no connection between the contaminated fish and the nuclear reactor on the banks of the river, choosing to blame nuclear bomb testing that took place decades ago and the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

An news articles point out, Vermont Yankee reported Strontium-90 releases to the NRC in annual reports from 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. So, what is more likely? That these releases caused radioactive isotopes to show up in fish a few miles downstream, or that events taking place over 25 years ago are to blame? During Public Service Board hearings last year, CLF’s expert showed that radioactive isotopes likely migrated through the site along with the release of tritium.  Hydrogeologist Stratton French testified:

“A more likely explanation for their occurence at these distant locations is that these radioisotopes migrated beyond the release point along groundwater flow pathways.  This conclusion is supported by Entergy VY’s own sampling data.”

This continues to show that Entergy is an untrustworthy partner to supply Vermont with energy.

PSNH: In a death spiral? (photo credit: CC/Nick Seibert)

In every possible way – on television, in mailings, and on the web – New Hampshire has heard again and again that the proposed Northern Pass transmission project will reduce electric rates for New Hampshire customers. The claim is at the core of PSNH’s case that the project is a good deal for New Hampshire. If only it were true…

As I mentioned in a post last month, the very design of the project as it stands is for reduced electric rates to benefit only those ratepayers that get their power from the regional electric markets. In New Hampshire, homes and small businesses in PSNH territory would see very little benefit because their energy rates are overwhelmingly tied to propping up PSNH’s old, inefficient fleet of coal-fired and oil-fired power plants.  These plants would not be able to compete with other cleaner power sources if forced to compete in the marketplace, something New Hampshire law does not currently allow and PSNH has fought to avoid. (Supposedly, an agreement between PSNH and Hydro-Québec for some power for PSNH customers is in the works, but, if it ever materializes, Northern Pass has said it would only be for a small amount of power, which would not do much to change PSNH’s overall portfolio. Northeast Utilities admitted as much in testimony before the Massachusetts DPU this week and also noted that there is “really little activity” around securing any such agreement.)

As explained in a piece on NHPR featuring our own Jonathan Peress, the above-market costs of PSNH’s aging fleet are causing large customers to buy power from (or “migrate” to) cheaper suppliers. Regulators this week turned back PSNH’s attempt to saddle those customers with its fleet’s escalating costs. But this situation is creating a so-called “death spiral,” because PSNH is forced to raise its rates again and again on a shrinking group of customers – homeowners and small businesses who do not have the purchasing power to contract with another supplier.

What does this all have to do with Northern Pass? The truth is that Northern Pass will – indeed, is intended to – make the “death spiral” worse.  If Northern Pass lowers the regional price of power as all those ads proclaim, it will make PSNH power even less competitive, causing even more customers with choices to leave PSNH behind.  PSNH spokesman Martin Murray so much as promises that result when he says in the NHPR piece that Northern Pass power will not displace PSNH generation. As Jonathan explained on NHPR, that means that the same homeowners and small businesses that will have to deal with 180 miles of new transmission lines will have higher, not lower, electric rates. This is not the Northern Pass story PSNH has been telling.

None of this makes sense. PSNH’s coal- and oil-fired power plants are bad for ratepayers and disasters for public health and the environment. As our lawsuit filed last week makes clear, PSNH’s efforts to prop up its largest plant failed to comply with even basic emissions permitting requirements and have increased that plant’s emissions. Any plan to import Canadian power with PSNH’s name on it should provide real benefits to its own customers and focus on responsibly freeing New Hampshire (and the lungs of millions of New Englanders) from PSNH’s dirty, uncompetitive dinosaurs.

ADDED: I should also point out, in the same Massachusetts DPU proceeding mentioned above, that counsel for NSTAR (the junior partner in Northern Pass) asserted that “[i]t’s entirely speculative as to what the impact of Northern Pass will be on rates in New Hampshire, and then [migration].”  Quite a statement given Northern Pass’s public relations campaign asserting that rates will go down. And we disagree with NSTAR’s counsel wholeheartedly. It is reasonable – not speculative – to expect the current proposal will lead to higher rates for PSNH ratepayers.

The nuclear industry – and Entergy in particular – sure seems to have problems keeping promises.  Back in the 70s, nuclear power was “too cheap to meter.”  With Vermont Yankee, Entergy officials swore under oath there were no underground pipes.  Then those pipes were found to be leaking.  Last month, Entery told a federal court judge it needed an immediate court order to stay open to make the $65 million investment in new fuel.  The Court didn’t buy Entergy’s bullying and last week declined to order a preliminary injunction.  Today, Entergy announced it will purchase the fuel anyway.

Entergy’s fuel purchase decision is not surprising.  The court’s order noted that refueling will cost between $60 and  $65 million, and Vermont Yankee will generate $90 million in revenues by operating until March 2012.  Vermont Yankee’s revenues will cover its fuel costs.

Still, this is a dubious and risky business decision for Entergy.  Their Nuclear Regulatory Commission license is on appeal.  CLF is representing the New England Coalition in this appeal.  Also, Vermont Yankee does not have the needed permission to operate from Vermont past 2012.  This is an old reactor with a long and troubled history.  Retiring the facility as planned on March 2012 is the responsible thing to do.

Entergy’s credibility is buried along with its leaky pipes.  Any economic risk is Entergy’s own making.  Vermont continues to have a strong legal case.  States have the right to decide their energy future and land use and shouldn’t be forced to accept polluting, unreliable and untrustworthy nuclear plants and operators.  Let’s leave a clean energy legacy to our children and grandchildren.

Merrimack Station power plant in Bow, NH. (Photo credit: John Moses)

Today CLF filed a federal Clean Air Act citizen suit in New Hampshire federal district court against Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), the owner of Merrimack Station power plant for the plant’s repeated failures to obtain required air permits. CLF’s citizen suit also cites numerous violations of Merrimack Station’s current permits and the resulting illegal emissions from the plant.

Merrimack Station  is among the most polluting coal-fired power plants in New England and is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in New Hampshire, releasing over 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals every year. In addition, the plant is causing PSNH’s energy rates (already the highest in New Hampshire) to steadily climb as ratepayers are forced to foot the bill for the above-market cost of keeping PSNH’s old coal plants in operation.

CLF’s complaint contends that the plant, which is more than a half-century old and is in the midst of a major, multi-faceted life extension project, never obtained required permits authorizing renovations to major components of Merrimack Station, including much of an electric-generating turbine, even though the changes increased pollution from the plant.  As predicted by PSNH’s own projections, the changes led to more emissions of pollutants, including smog-causing nitrogen oxide and particulate matter, or soot, which causes respiratory problems when inhaled and is linked to increased hospitalizations, lung damage in infants and children, and premature death.

“In the course of this project, PSNH has repeatedly violated the Clean Air Act, putting the health of the public, especially children and senior citizens, at risk,” said Christophe Courchesne, CLF staff attorney. “PSNH is not above the law and CLF is committed to holding them accountable. With PSNH trumpeting the supposed ‘clean air’ benefits of the Northern Pass project with full-page ads in newspapers across New Hampshire, it is imperative to shine a light on PSNH’s coal plants, which easily cancel out the purported benefits of Northern Pass.” Read more >