(photo credit: flickr/Takashi H)

Like PSNH’s zombie talking points about the Northern Pass project, the company has once again repeated a baseless and misleading claim—this time in a vain hope of sustaining its failing coal-fired business model. Once again, the cold, hard facts belie PSNH’s claim of a $700 million savings to its customers over the last decade.  PSNH customers have lost hundreds of millions of dollars since 2003.

In early 2012, PSNH vigorously opposed a bill that would have required it to sell its power plants, where the market would be deciding their fates. It proclaimed, as it has for a decade, that divesting would be the wrong choice for PSNH customers and New Hampshire residents. A PSNH executive told legislators that “PSNH customers have saved more than $700 million over the last decade because our energy was priced below the market price for most of that time.”

PSNH has repeatedly touted this $700 million savings—most recently in a statement on its website last month—but it has never substantiated the figure. PSNH might have compared its rates to the average spot rates on the wholesale market, or it might have conducted some other irrelevant calculation. What is certain is that PSNH has never offered the most relevant and useful calculation, which is: How much would PSNH customers have paid for electricity if they had been served by a different New Hampshire utility for the past decade? The answer is, less. Hundreds of millions of dollars less.

Using data from PUC dockets, we compared the default service rates for small/residential customers of PSNH and those of Granite State Electric Company (GSEC). For PSNH, all figures were taken directly from PUC filings. For GSEC, figures from 2008 to 2013 were taken directly from PUC filings, and the average yearly rates from 2003-2008 were estimated based on a graph from the PUC Staff Report on Market Conditions, Default Service Rate, Generation Ownership and Impacts on the Competitive Electricity Market, which we explained here. By multiplying the cost differential of the PSNH and GSEC rates by the total kilowatts of electricity PSNH has delivered each year to its customers, we estimated that PSNH customers would have paid about $400 million less if they had been served by GSEC.

PSNH has already spent $40 million buying up land in the North Country for its Northern Pass route—the same amount its customers have lost on average every year. That average yearly loss has jumped to over $100 million/year since 2009.  That’s like buying a smartphone for every single residential PSNH electric supply customer every year, and then throwing them all in the Merrimack River.

PSNH could have purchased power competitively from the market like GSEC, and it could have had the same or even lower rates. As PUC Staff point out in their report: “If PSNH were to no longer own its generation fleet, and PSNH were then to procure its default service requirements as do the other New Hampshire distribution utilities . . . PSNH’s default service rate would more closely mirror prevailing market prices.” But instead it chose to continue running its inefficient fossil plants, forcing New Hampshire ratepayers to subsidize dirty, inefficient energy sources along with mounting costs for PSNH’s failed investments in its power plants, including the astoundingly costly $422 million scrubber project at Merrimack Station.

The good news is that every PSNH customer can choose to escape these costs and not to support these dirty, inefficient plants. 90,000 residential customers have already fled PSNH supply to competitive suppliers, who offer lower rates for cleaner power. This mass migration moves us closer every day to the clean, affordable energy future New Hampshire deserves.

As the PUC Staff Report predicts, the cost of this lost opportunity for PSNH customers will likely grow exponentially in coming years as PSNH’s coal units become increasingly inefficient. No matter how PSNH spins the numbers, the truth blares louder every day: By holding on to its dirty coal plants, PSNH is sucking millions of dollars out of New Hampshire ratepayers and denying the state the clean energy, public health, and economic benefits of a post-coal Granite State.

This past Friday, staff from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission and The Liberty Consulting Group issued the results of their investigation (PDF) into the impacts of PSNH’s failing business model and “ever higher costs” to consumers. The Union Leader and NHPR were quick to quote the report’s damning conclusion:

In summary, the situation looks to worsen, as continuing migration from PSNH’s default service by customers causes an upward rate trend. We find no supportable basis for optimism that future market conditions will reverse this unsustainable trend, especially in the near term. To the contrary, the PSNH fossil units face uncertainties that combine to create a risk of further, potentially substantial increases in costs.

This underlines the benefits of abandoning PSNH’s residential energy service, noting that “PSNH’s default service rate has exceeded [competitive supplier] rates since mid-2009.” As PSNH itself stated in a filing before the NH Supreme Court in May, PSNH energy service ratepayers “have the legal right and ability to avoid payment of PSNH’s default energy service rate entirely by buying their electricity from a competitive electric power supplier.” The PUC staff’s report serves as a call to action for New Hampshire consumers to save money, protect their finances, and improve the environment by buying energy from lower cost and more efficient energy suppliers.

PSNH’s only public response to the report thus far has been to cite the dispatch of their coal units during extreme temperature events this year as evidence that the plants are necessary “insurance” against natural gas price increases. The report itself contradicts this, however, noting that even at this year’s levels of natural gas price spike frequency and severity in New England (due to a cold winter and a late spring heat wave two weeks ago), natural gas price fluctuations “have not served to give the PSNH fossil units enough of a boost to overcome their negative value,” and that PSNH has not offered any data or analysis to rebut this finding. That is, even with the extreme peaks of electric demand felt in the past year requiring their use more often than in the past few years, PSNH’s fossil fuel fired power units still lose ratepayer money.

The report assesses the real financial impacts of PSNH’s past and possible future decisions to invest in their coal units rather than shut them down, and demonstrates that the ratepayer money lost if PSNH’s electricity generation is sold off will be lower than many might fear. The key points raised by the report include:

• Even in a best case scenario, PSNH’s already above-market rates will continue to climb. The investigation calculated PSNH’s energy service rates with a myriad of possible variables, including high natural gas prices and lower coal prices (the scenario that PSNH claims will validate its economic decisions) and a migration rate lower than PSNH reported this April. In all cases, the report found that PSNH’s default energy service rate would climb still higher than their current well above market 9.54 cents per kilowatt hour rate, to 10 or 11 cents per kilowatt hour.
• Customers continue to flee PSNH’s energy service. CLF has been reporting the steep increase in residential customers rejecting PSNH’s high energy service rates for a while now. We’ve also noted that most large commercial customers had migrated away from PSNH years ago. The combination of these two trends led to the report this May that migration across all customers reached half of PSNH’s total load as of the end of April.
• The full cost of the Scrubber Project has yet to be felt by ratepayers. PSNH has started recovering the cost of the ill-founded scrubber installation at Merrimack Station to the tune of 0.98 cents per kilowatt hour on a temporary basis. The report estimates that full recovery of the scrubber’s cost would nearly double that amount, to 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour added to ratepayers’ bills. This, of course, is a cost that competitive energy service providers don’t have to deal with.
• Looming environmental compliance projects as Scrubber redux? PSNH is currently waiting for its new final permit from EPA for cooling water withdrawal and discharge at Merrimack Station. The final permit is likely to require cooling water intake structures (like those constructed at Brayton Point Station in MA), at a price tag of $111 million or more, in addition to other protections for water quality and wildlife. Costs associated with new or impending air quality requirements would require additional compliance at significant cost, and these estimates don’t even take into account the risk posed by CLF’s ongoing Clean Air Act citizen suit.
• Potential ratepayer costs from divestment of PSNH’s electricity generation would be minimal. If PSNH’s generating assets are sold, New Hampshire state law allows PSNH to recover from ratepayers costs that are not covered by sale proceeds (“stranded costs”). The report roughly estimates that potential energy service rate increases to cover stranded costs would be no more than 0.9 cents per kilowatt hour and possibly much less, given the high value of PSNH’s hydro generation units.

The report ultimately recommends that the PUC initiate a proceeding to solicit formal feedback on the report and its conclusions. This proceeding would likely result in firmer value estimates for PSNH’s assets, interim steps that could be accomplished through the PUC’s existing authority, and more detailed recommendations for legislation.

As CLF and the Empower NH coalition have repeatedly noted, promoting and advancing competition in New Hampshire’s energy service markets yields only benefits for the state’s electricity ratepayers in the face of PSNH’s “ever higher costs” to ratepayers. While the PUC and the Legislature decide how to implement the recommendations of this report, ratepayers should continue to vote with their feet and leave PSNH’s energy service.

Source: HAM Guy, Flickr.
New Hampshire’s state flower, and my favorite sign of spring.

It’s another spring in New Hampshire, and the slow death of Public Service Company of New Hampshire’s (PSNH) coal-fired business model continues, as do PSNH’s efforts to hold back reality and hold on to its regulatory protection from competition. More and more PSNH customers are choosing cleaner, cheaper energy options, the company is again getting special treatment as it initiates a strange new program to lure those fleeing customers back, and its dirty and inefficient coal plants are once again sitting idle, with PSNH customers still paying for their upkeep.

Increasing Choices for PSNH Customers

PSNH (and shareholders of PSNH’s parent company, Northeast Utilities) must be wondering when the rate of residential customers abandoning PSNH’s energy service will slow. It certainly wasn’t during the first three months of 2013, when the number of households purchasing power from PSNH’s competitors topped 49,000. By comparison, that number was 2,704 at the end of March 2012.

The number of small businesses migrating away from PSNH has steadily increased, from 11,194 in March 2012 to 16,919 this March. Of course, PSNH’s medium and large commercial customers have been taking advantage of competitive suppliers since long before it was a practical option for residents, and they move back and forth from PSNH and the competitors much more frequently; in any given month, between 75% and 90%+ of medium and large businesses purchase their power from PSNH’s competitors.

Source: PSNH data

We last checked in on PSNH’s accelerating death spiral in January, highlighting the historically low use of its coal plants to produce power and the flight of customers away from PSNH’s ballooning rates. The utility’s ancient, filthy coal plants are sitting idle for large stretches of time during the year, at substantial cost to ratepayers, because PSNH is able to recover its costs and a guaranteed profit from its customers even when it isn’t economic to put the plants online. Despite a winter when the spot market price of natural gas was very volatile, PSNH’s coal plants provided no economic relief to its customers, as its energy rates remained almost 40% higher than those offered by other New Hampshire utilities and energy suppliers.

In response to the huge disadvantage posed by PSNH’s coal plants, the competitive atmosphere has continued to flourish in New Hampshire’s energy market in 2013. We’ve previously highlighted the residential energy services offered by companies like ENH Power and North American Power, and still more companies are hurrying to take advantage of PSNH’s above-market rates by siphoning off customers.  As the Union Leader recently reported, four new competitive suppliers have applied for licensing with the NH Public Utilities Commission already this year.

The “Alternative Default Rate”

Looking to secure a special deal to protect itself from its new competitors, PSNH applied for and received [PDF] regulator approval to pilot an “alternative default rate” to lure back customers who had switched to other suppliers. The alternative rate will only be available to large commercial customers at first, with small businesses and residential customers to be added to the program within nine months.

After the increased public awareness of competitive electricity supply in NH around the end of 2012 rate hike, the press and public were quick to take note of this plan, and customers who stayed with PSNH through the January rate hike feel doubly burned.

Saving by Switching

After PSNH’s astronomical rate hike in January, the energy rates offered competitive suppliers like ENH Power and North American Power should be even more attractive to PSNH customers who were previously cautious about making the switch. And switching online is easy, free, and safe: it takes a matter of minutes if you have a copy of your latest PSNH bill handy.

As spring turns to summer, and PSNH’s troubles grow, the ongoing challenge remains: to ensure that clean energy competition continues to flourish in the Granite State and that PSNH does not secure a legislative or regulatory bailout that subsidizes its dying business model. Although PSNH doesn’t seem willing to change its terrible economic decision to keep operating its coal plants, New Hampshire residents and businesses are taking matters into their own hands and deciding to do something about it.

Just how much financial trouble is Dominion facing at its 50-year old coal and oil-fired power plant? The prospects are bleak and looking worse. For years, people have assumed that the largest coal-fired power plant in New England could weather any storm, but the numbers show that Brayton Point is facing dark days, and the clouds are not likely to lift.

Brayton Point Capacity Factors from 2007-2012

Today, Conservation Law Foundation released an independent analysis of the financial performance of Dominion Resources’ Brayton Point power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts. The report, authored by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, projects a bleak future for the 50-year-old coal-fired facility. Entitled Dark Days Ahead: Financial Factors Cloud Future Profitability at Dominion’s Brayton Point, the report found that the once profitable power plant’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) are plummeting due to a perfect storm of market conditions that are projected to continue at least through the end of the decade.

The report shows that those conditions make it unlikely that Brayton Point will ever recoup its recent $1 billion investment in upgrades to the facility, or return to profitability.

“Brayton Point is looking at losing money for the foreseeable future,” said David Schlissel, who co-authored the report with financial expert Tom Sanzillo. “The market conditions have changed and are continuing to change for old coal plants. There is nothing on the horizon that shows that this power plant will be able to return to financial health; in fact, even the most optimistic scenario shows that Brayton Point cannot produce earnings that would cover its costs and produce a return for equity investors at any time through 2020.”

Sanzillo added, “The forecast for Brayton Point is indicative of what’s happening all over the country. We are seeing the owners of these 50-year-old coal-burning facilities facing do or die decisions about their futures, with hundreds having already announced their plans to retire in the next few years and more going that route every month. Brayton Point’s current experience – bleeding money and owner Dominion Resources having already written off $700 million of its $1 billion investment in upgrading the plant – and its bleak outlook clearly show that continuing to operate this plant doesn’t make economic sense.”

A Perfect Storm of Changing Conditions Sends Earnings Plummeting

The report points to a set of changed conditions that together are putting severe downward pressure on Brayton Point’s earnings, which dropped from $345 million in 2009 to an anemic $24 million in 2012, a decrease of some 93 percent:

• Natural gas prices have declined significantly since 2008 and are expected to remain low for at least the remainder of this decade.
• Wholesale energy market prices have decreased In response to the declining natural gas prices, , meaning reduced revenue for coal plant owners and reduced generation at coal plants like Brayton Point.
• Meanwhile, prices for capacity have been also been declining with a 35% decrease in the price obtained in the Forward Capacity Auction in 2012 as compared to the price for 2010.
• Additionally, energy usage in ISO-NE decreased by 2-3 percent between 2008 and 2012 as a result of the economic downturn and increasing energy efficiency efforts.

Future Profitability is Unlikely

The report provides two extremely conservative scenarios of future performance: an “optimistic scenario,” in which generation from Brayton Point coal Units 1-3 is projected to rise to a 60% capacity factor through the years 2013-2020, and a “less optimistic” scenario, which assumes that the units’ generation will not exceed 40% for any year in the period. In 2012, Brayton Points Units 1-3 operated at an average 16% capacity factor. Thus, the report says, earnings from those units could be much lower than projected in the two scenarios modeled. “In no way have we looked at a ‘worst case’ scenario,” noted Mr. Sanzillo.

In both scenarios, based on forward-looking conditions, the report shows that it is unlikely that future energy market prices, ISO-NE capacity market prices, plant generation and coal prices will lead to earnings high enough to provide its owner with adequate recovery of capital or return on investment. The report’s conclusions are based on projections that show that it is reasonable to expect that for the remainder of this decade, at least:

• Energy market prices in New England will remain low, reflecting continuing low natural gas prices.
• Energy consumption in New England will remain flat while consumption in Massachusetts may decline.
• Bituminous coal prices will increase over time.
• As a result, the generation at Brayton Point Units 1-3 is not likely to reach the high levels of performance achieved by the units through 2009.
• Future New England capacity prices are not likely to increase significantly.

On the longer horizon, from 2020 on, the report points to increasing pressure to place a significant price on carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, and the plant’s age, as additional factors that will likely weigh on the plant’s earnings.

N. Jonathan Peress, VP and director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program, commented, “Brayton Point, like many other old coal plants in New England and around the country, is at a tipping point. Dominion has already made a losing investment in trying to make this plant viable beyond its useful life. Now, Dominion and its shareholders need to decide whether to keep pumping money into Brayton Point with little chance of a return, as this analysis clearly shows, or to let it go. This report provides compelling evidence for the Town of Somerset, which has been seeing its tax revenue from the plant decline in recent years, to begin planning for Brayton Point’s retirement, and a healthier future for that community in all respects.”

The massive drag on New Hampshire’s economy caused by PSNH’s continued operation of the uneconomic and obsolete Merrimack Station and Schiller Station coal-fired units—extracting hundreds of millions per year in above market costs for its shareholders—is spiraling out of control, and several recent developments at the NH Public Utilities Commission raise troubling questions about what the agency empowered to protect ratepayers is doing about PSNH’s problems.

While competition among energy suppliers in New England is fostering efficiency, benefitting the environment and saving ratepayers money, PSNH’s energy service business, for which it collects its cost of service and a handsome profit, is increasingly looking like a dinosaur ready for extinction. Thousands of NH ratepayers are taking advantage of lower cost, more efficient electricity suppliers, but those remaining with PSNH are being dragged down into its death spiral.

One recent indicator is PSNH’s skyrocketing energy service rate. In early December, PSNH requested a 34% energy service rate increase (to 9.54 cents/kwh, equating to hundreds of dollars extra per household per year) beginning in 2013. At the end of December, the PUC approved the rate increase. CLF is challenging that increase at the PUC on the grounds that, even aside from the fact that it entirely consists of above market costs, NH law prevents the PUC from approving a utility’s requested rate increases when the utility has not submitted required planning documents demonstrating that it has a sound plan for serving its customers at the lowest cost. PSNH failed to submit long term least cost planning documents due last September; until they do so, the PUC is not authorized to approve their rate increases.

Fundamentally, the job of a utility commission dealing with a regulated utility like PSNH is to ensure that prices mimic the results of market competition while ensuring the best service for ratepayers. Thus far, the PUC has shielded PSNH from the consequences of its poor decisions, lack of meaningful planning, and insistence on retaining antiquated power plants that sit idly due to their high costs. It also is once again delaying the release of economic and environmental information that PSNH used when deciding to build the $422 million scrubber project at Merrimack Station. And days ago the PUC approved PSNH’s 2010 plan for its energy supply resources – a plan that utterly ignored lower natural gas market forecasts and impending environmental regulations when planning its future operations.  CLF is acting to protect ratepayers from PSNH’s dying business model; the extent to which the PUC is doing so is less than clear.

The PUC is engaged in dockets investigating both the costs of the scrubber project and PSNH’s increasing energy service costs. It remains to be seen whether these investigations will have any impact on the expensive mess PSNH has yoked to NH ratepayers, and whether PSNH will continue even farther down the path of  eroding New Hampshire’s advantage as a low cost state to grow a business and a family.

The data don’t lie. In line with the trends we’ve been warning about for years, PSNH’s coal-fired business model is in free fall:

Residential and small business customers continue to flee PSNH’s dirty, increasingly expensive energy service.

Source: NHPUC data

• Over the past year the number of residential energy customers in New Hampshire who purchased energy service from a supplier that is not PSNH jumped to around 30,000 households in December of 2012 (compared to around 2,000 households in December of 2011).
• That figure doesn’t include the veritable flood of customers who abandoned PSNH’s energy service at the end of 2012 when word got out about PSNH’s 34% rate increase (ENH reported signing up 1,700 customers on December 31 alone for service starting January 1). The stampede of residential and small business customers away from PSNH’s energy service shows no signs of slowing down.

PSNH’s coal plants are becoming even less competitive and will operate even less in 2013 than in 2012.

Source: ISO-NE, EPA, and PSNH data

• We noted before that PSNH’s coal unit capacity factors have taken a nosedive over the past five years, and they are projected to keep falling on an annual basis in 2013 (see chart below).
• A power plant’s capacity factor reflects the amount of power the plant generated compared to the amount of power it could have generated if used to its full potential; when that number is low, it means it was a better economic choice for the plant’s owner to keep the plant idle most of the time. While other coal plants throughout New England are also running at low capacity, PSNH is the only utility in the region that can force ratepayers to bear its fixed costs plus a hefty guaranteed profit, even when its plants don’t generate power.

The Bottom Line:

Even as many customers are taking advantage of cleaner, cheaper alternatives, PSNH’s dirty and costly power plants are a heavy – and growing – burden for the majority of New Hampshire ratepayers and for New Hampshire’s economy. In a future post, I’ll discuss how the state agency tasked with protecting ratepayers from unreasonable rates is handling PSNH’s implosion (spoiler: not well) and what CLF is doing about it (another spoiler: fighting to protect New Hampshire ratepayers and the environment).

For the past 25 years, Toxics Action Center has been “awarding” New England’s worst polluters with the dubious Dirty Dozen award. This year’s winners were no surprise: PSNH, New Hampshire’s largest electric utility, was on the list once again.

In this year’s annual spotlight on twelve of New England’s worst polluters, PSNH’s largely coal-firing Merrimack Station and Schiller Station power plants earned the award for the millions of pounds of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gases released by the plants. The Dirty Dozen awards are getting lots of press coverage around New Hampshire, and highlight the massive problems PSNH’s coal plants cause New Hampshire residents.

There is good news. Three of New England’s eight coal plants have closed in the past three years, and the rest (including Merrimack and Schiller) should be well on their way thanks to the massive economic inefficiencies of burning coal in the age of cheap natural gas. While these giant, ancient plants were built to run all day, all year round, the reduced demand for coal energy means that plants like Merrimack and Schiller are being used at historically low rates.

While the current cost of energy production at coal plants is staggering, nothing represents the exorbitant costs of coal better than Merrimack Station’s $422 million scrubber project. PSNH is already recovering the cost of that “investment” from its customers with a temporary rate increase, and has requested an even higher permanent rate increase to recover scrubber costs. Installing massively expensive pollution controls on an obsolete coal-fired power plant was recently shown to be a valueless endeavor when the investment firm UBS valued Dominion Energy’s Brayton Point coal plant (currently for sale) as a worthless asset, due to its poor prospects in the New England wholesale electricity market. Dominion has essentially written off its almost $1 billion pollution control investment at Brayton Point, which has little utility to a plant that does not operate due to its high cost to produce electricity in comparison to cleaner sources.  Merrimack Station’s scrubber investment is faring even worse in the market, because the plant is older and less efficient than Brayton Point.  In this regard, Dominion’s write down at Brayton Point foreshadows the future for Merrimack’s “investment.”

As we documented earlier this month, PSNH’s residential and small business energy service customers are abandoning the utility in favor of its competitors at a breakneck pace, following the lead of its medium and large commercial customers and creating an economic “death spiral” as costs climb and customers disappear. And since PSNH is guaranteed a profit by NH law for maintaining and operating its coal plants, the repercussions of the “death spiral” are felt by residential customers, rather than the company’s shareholders.

The residential customers who have not switched to a different energy service provider are projected to subsidize PSNH’s dirty power plants by an estimated $70 million above market rates in 2013. The above-market residential rate payments are then turned into dividends for the shareholders of Northeast Utilities, PSNH’s Connecticut-based parent company.

Northeast Utilities’ dividends are increasing steadily on the backs of New Hampshire ratepayers, and Merrimack and Schiller continue to produce pollution more efficiently than they generate electricity. How long will PSNH be allowed to fleece New Hampshire’s citizens?

Co-written with N. Jonathan Peress

Photo courtesy of phault @ flickr

This is an exciting time for clean energy in New England. Why? Because our region could have not one but three offshore wind farms constructed by 2016.  Not only that, these would be the first three in the nation!

The Cape Wind Project, off the coast of Cape Cod, will site 130 wind turbines between 4–11 miles offshore and produce an average of 170 MW of electricity, or about 75% of the average electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island. Block Island Wind Farm is scheduled to be constructed in Rhode Island state waters next spring. It is a 5 turbine, 30 megawatt demonstration-scale wind farm about three miles off of Block Island which will generate over 100,000 megawatt hours annually, supplying most of Block Island’s electricity with excess power exported to the mainland. And on a very exciting note, here in Maine, international energy company Statoil’s proposal to build a four turbine floating wind park is moving forward. For recent news coverage, read here.

Clean energy is sprouting up all around New England. For some projects, it’s about time. Recent FAA approvals on Cape Wind, for instance, come after more than a decade of exhaustive reviews and strong opposition from dirty energy-funded opponents. Each of these projects has enormous potential. Together, if built, these three offshore wind farms would transform New England’s energy mix.

Here in Maine, Statoil’s unsolicited bid to develop the floating wind farm is moving through the federal review process. The Bureau of Ocean energy Management (BOEM) has published a notice to determine if there are other developers interested in competing to use the area and to solicit comments about the proposal. The notice is published here.

CLF will provide comments that balance our commitment to helping New England develop clean renewable energy with protecting the ocean environment. BOEM published a second notice that it will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) when Statoil submits its construction and operations plan (COP). The EIS will consider the environmental consequences associated with the Hywind Maine project. BOEM will accept public comments about the environmental issues that should be considered in the EIS until November 8. For more, read here.

In addition, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is reviewing the proposed terms of a long-term contract that would permit Statoil to sell the energy generated from the wind farm  into Maine’s energy grid over the next 20 years. The PUC’s authority to approve this contract flows from Maine’s 2010 Ocean Energy Act, which supports research and development of offshore wind energy technology. The PUC may decide whether to accept the proposed contract terms within the month.

For a current and accurate summary of the state of offshore wind off the Atlantic Coast, please read the National Wildlife Federation’s report released on September 24, “The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy.” CLF helped write sections of the report and co-sponsored it.

There’s no question we’re making incredible progress – but there is more to be done. If you support this work, sign up to become a CLF e-activist to keep informed about our work. And check back in regularly for updates as we try to get these projects built!

A keystone to CLF’s work to secure a clean energy future for the region is completing the transition to a coal-free New England. It is a time of historic progress: cleaner, cheaper alternatives are driving coal out of the market, and old coal plants are closing their doors. But New Hampshire remains a critical battleground for CLF’s work, with two costly old coal-fired power plants being kept alive by failed state policies and ratepayer subsidies.

That’s why we’re delighted to be partnering with the Sustainability Film Series at Phillips Exeter Academy to present a free screening of the critically acclaimed documentary The Last Mountain in Exeter, New Hampshire, on Friday May 4. With stunning footage of the practice of mountaintop removal mining, the film bears dramatic witness to the social, public health, and environmental damage wrought by coal and power companies, and chronicles the grassroots fight against coal in Appalachia and around the country. The New York Times called The Last Mountain a “persuasive indictment” of coal; I think you’ll agree.

The Last Mountain producer Eric Grunebaum and I will be on hand for a panel discussion to discuss the film and the future of coal-fired power in New Hampshire and New England.

Please join us:

When: Friday, May 4, 2012. 7 pm.

Where: Phillips Exeter Academy, Phelps Academy Center in The Forum (3rd Floor), Tan Lane, Exeter, NH (map). 

Bring your friends and family, and email me at ccourchesne@clf.org with any questions. We hope to see you there!

Here is the trailer: