Back in the 1970′s the satirical and surreal Firesign Theater proclaimed that “Everything You Know is Wrong.” At the intersection of energy and economics, that absurdist assertion is a increasingly obvious reality that advocates, policy makers and industry must embrace.

Throughout history, there are moments when prior assumptions and core beliefs have simply stopped being accurate. Great examples include people discovering that the Earth is round, microscopic organisms cause disease, and that various substances (tobacco, asbestos, particles produced by diesel engines) are harmful. To paraphrase what John Maynard Keynes may or may not have said, when confronted with changed facts the intelligent person changes their perspective, assumptions and opinions accordingly.

In the wonky, but critically important, world of energy systems no assumption has been more ingrained than this: “over the long term, energy demand grows over time — and that the only time it stays steady or declines is when the economy is in crisis and not growing.” But this “truth” that “everyone knows” is increasingly obviously wrong: we can grow while using less. Indeed, sometimes we can do better and grow because we’re using less energy.

The good folks at the Andersen window factory in Minnesota agree with this realization that the old conventional wisdom is wrong: a recent newspaper column documenting the experience of Andersen Windows described how even though “Andersen is making and selling more of its products . . . it’s using less energy. They’ve done it by changing light bulbs, upgrading equipment, and educating employees about energy conservation.”

Here in New England we have a strong record of planning and implementing energy efficiency and it is paying off in the same way. That is the clear assessment of the sharp-penciled engineers at ISO New England (the folks who operate and plan our regional electricity system), as presented in the graph below from the final report of a working group that CLF participated in. It may seem like heiroglyphs, but let me explain.

In the graph below, ISO-NE (as it is know) presents three energy futures: the blue line is the traditional forecast of expected growth in energy demand tracking expected economic expansion, the “load growth” that traditional models expect when the economic grows. This is then adjusted in the red line to reflect energy efficiency and other demand resources that have been recognized (and purchased) in the regional  electricity markets, reflecting the past wise decision to allow such resources to participate in those markets. Finally, the forecast is then further adjusted in the black line to reflect the plans and programs for efficiency and alternative energy being undertaken by the New England states.

Credit: ISO-NE

What you see in the flat, black line is economic growth without growing energy demand. You see the kind of growth being undertaken at Andersen scaled to an entire region.

In a quiet way this is a revolution — a clear recognition that new wind turbines, solar panels, or gas fired power plants will replace existing old and dirty oil and coal fired power plants as they retire, not to meet rising demand.  This is a stunning reality and success: the increasingly successful efforts to foster efficiency have ended the upward march of energy demand, allowing our economy to grow without increasing electricity demand.

Let us now hope that, as the facts change, people and organizations change their beliefs, perspectives and plans accordingly.  Building and buying energy infrastructure must continue – but it can no longer assume rising demand. Our investments must be smart, targeted and build towards a cleaner, and thriving, future where we have squarely and honestly addressed our climate crisis and the challenges of economic growth. Getting this right is one of the most positive aspects of what Bill McKibben has described as the “terrifying new math” that global warming mandates – this is a real life example of where we are headed in the right direction, cutting the link between increased prosperity and increased energy use and emissions.

In 2011, CLF Ventures, the strategy-consulting arm of CLF, received a grant from the EPA to help two New England fishing/whale watching vessels replace the aging, inefficient engines on their vessels with cleaner-burning, more efficient four-stroke diesel engines. In this video, Captain Brad Cook of the Atlantic Queen II and Captain Chris Charos of Captain’s Fishing Parties reveal how the EPA grant and CLF Ventures enabled them to update their vessels’ technology, reducing emissions and substantially cutting their fuel use:

The EPA’s National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance program is designed to reduce air pollution and exposure to diesel fumes by covering up to 75% of the cost of an engine upgrade or repower. Replacing an outdated engine with the clean-burning technology used by Captain Brad and Captain Chris reduces asthma-causing particulate matter emissions by 63 percent and smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions by 40 percent.

The program also cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions by improving efficiency and reducing fuel use by up to 14 percent. Fuel use is a serious concern for the fishing industry. A 2005 report published in AMBIO revealed that in 2000, the industry consumed about 13 million gallons of fuel, or 1.2 percent of global consumption. If the fishing industry were a country, it would be the world’s 18^th-largest consumer of oil—on par with the Netherlands. Fishing is also one of the only industry sectors to consistently become less fuel-efficient in recent years. With declining stocks sending fishermen farther from shore, this problem will only become more severe without significant investments and improvements in technology. Programs like EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Program play an important role in greening the fishing fleet and helping to make fishing more sustainable.

The program isn’t just good for the environment; it’s also good for fishermen. A more efficient engine can save a fisherman 9,500 gallons of fuel per year, cutting fuel costs and increasing profit margins. Crew aboard these vessels reduce their exposure to harmful diesel fumes, which were recently classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization and placed in the same category as deadly toxins like asbestos and arsenic.  Consumers asking for sustainable options will appreciate the reductions in emissions and fuel use, too, and recreational fishermen and whale watchers aboard vessels with new engines can enjoy a quieter, cleaner ride.

Still, new engines can only go so far in cleaning up the fishing fleet. The industry is built on technology that made sense decades ago, when fuel was cheap, fish were more plentiful close to shore, and consumers weren’t demanding sustainable seafood choices. Down the line, greening the fleet will mean rebuilding it from the water up and introducing lighter, safer vessels that inherently use less fuel.

A recent decision from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offers hope that the nuclear industry’s free ride is coming to an end. The problem of what to do with the ever-growing amount of nuclear waste that is stockpiled at nuclear sites around the country has been vexing industry and regulators for years. It is a shameful reminder of poor management. Our nuclear reactors continue to operate and generate more waste when we have no real solution for its long-term storage.

Absent a permanent answer, the waste sits where it ends up when it is no longer useful. In the case of Vermont, it sits on the banks of the Connecticut River or in a spent fuel pool of the same style and vintage as was used at the Fukushima reactor.

On August 7, the NRC decided no new or extended licenses will be finalized until the Commission completes the environmental review of waste issues that a Federal Appeals Court required in a June decision. Specifically the NRC decided it will:

(1) suspend final licensing decisions in reactor licensing cases, pending the completion of our action on the remanded Waste Confidence proceeding; (2) provide an opportunity for public comment on any generic determinations that we may make in either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS); and (3) provide at least sixty days to seek consideration in individual licensing cases of any site-specific concerns relating to the remanded proceedings.  (pg.3)

This is a very significant decision. The Federal Court gave the Commission a strong rebuke when it rejected NRC and industry claims that keeping waste where it is indefinitely is safe based only on a limited analysis of keeping it there for twenty years.

The waste storage issue is huge. It is crazy to think we can continue to license and operate nuclear facilities when we acknowledge we don’t have a place to put the waste. This decision is a step in the right direction, as we now have some assurance the impacts will be evaluated and the public will be allowed to participate in that process.

It is unclear what effect this will have on existing licenses. The specific decision only addressed licenses that are pending, including renewals.  As for Vermont Yankee, it is likely that these decisions will affect the state-level Public Service Board review. Vermont regulators must determine if continued operation “promotes the general good of the state.” While issues of radiological health and safety can legally only be managed at the federal level, the indefinite storage of waste and the lack of solutions produce economic burdens that are important for state regulators to address. Vermont and other states cannot be stiffed into holding the bag and bearing the economic burdens of unsound nuclear waste management. this harms Vermont’s “general good.”

Additional information is available in this Vermont Digger article - Nuclear Regulatory Commission halts nuclear power licensing decisions

Last week I found myself on the beautiful shores of Lake Champlain in Burlington Vermont at the 36th Annual meeting of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.

Normally, this meeting is a low key affair that doesn’t have a big impact on the place where it is being held. That was not the case this year. Protests outside the meeting drew attention to issues, like potential import of tar sands oil into New England, that were not on the formal meeting agenda.

An Op-Ed by CLF President John Kassel which ran in a number of regional newspapers before and after the meeting and can now be found on the CLF blog, as well as those protests and pointed inquiries by the press in the meeting forced drew focus towards important and contentious issues like tar sands oil imports and the Northern Pass project.

But the action inside the conference was real and important.  Some notable highlights:

• The Governors adopted a plan for “regional procurement” of renewable energy that creates an important framework for getting much needed clean renewable energy to get built across New England
• The Governors and Premiers came together to hail the progress that has been made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across our shared region since 2001 and to lay out a framework for further action
• A plan was adopted for moving towards a cleaner transportation system that maintains and builds mobility while moving away from gasoline and other dirty fuels that produce a range of pollutants

The overall story here is of a cross-border region that is struggling to do the right thing for its economy and its environment.  The challenge we all face is ensuring that our states and provinces live up to the promises of their words, making the difficult transition away from dirty fossil fuels and providing leadership to both the United States and Canada to build a new clean energy economy.

Against a backdrop of protesters vehemently opposing bad proposals to bring energy from Canada into New England, governors from the six New England states this week demonstrated their commitment to a clean energy future for our region. They resolved to pool their buying power, regionally, for renewable energy. This will boost wind and solar energy, among other clean sources, at the best available price — a much-needed step on our path to affordable renewable energy and independence from dirty fossil fuels.

The resolution was announced at the 36th annual meeting of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, held July 29th and 30th in Burlington, Vermont. The protesters outside the meeting had the attention of high-ranking officials from Canada, whose energy system has been linked with ours – in small ways so far – for decades.  That linkage could grow dramatically in the future, for mutual benefit.  Eastern Canada has the potential to serve markets all over New England with low-carbon, low-cost and clean electricity from renewable sources. And New England needs it, if we get it on the right terms.

The wrong terms are exemplified by the Trailbreaker proposal and the Northern Pass transmission project, the two Canadian energy proposals galvanizing protesters outside the meetings in Burlington. Trailbreaker would send slurry oil derived from tar sands in Western Canada to Portland, Maine by reversing the flow of the Portland-to-Montreal pipeline that has cut across Quebec, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine since it was built over 50 years ago. Northern Pass would cut a route running the length of New Hampshire, including through the White Mountains, for a high-voltage DC transmission line to deliver Canadian hydropower to parts of New England. In both cases, the environmental burdens far outweigh any benefits for our region.

However, long-term supplies of hydro, wind and other sources of power – that respect and significantly benefit the landscape through which they are transmitted, support rather than undermine the development of New England’s own renewable energy resources, replace coal  and other dirty fuels, keep the lights on at reasonable cost, and accurately account for their impacts – are what New England needs. The details will be complicated, but they can be worked out.

Conversations inside the meeting were tilting in the direction of such productive cross-border cooperation, and the announcement of a regional resolution to bring clean, affordable energy to New England may have provided some salve for the protesters. Still, we need to continue to be vigilant about Trailbreaker and Northern Pass and we will spend the effort to defeat them if we must. But any effort spent on these deeply-flawed proposals –whether advancing them or fighting them – is an unfortunate use of precious time for both countries, given the urgent call of climate change.

The sooner we get to the task of building our shared clean energy future the better, for New Englanders and our friends to the north.

Not a moment too soon, the Massachusetts Legislature has enacted important new clean energy legislation that will maintain the state’s momentum in advancing clean renewable energy solutions like wind and solar energy. We breathed a sigh of relief as the final favorable votes were taken on July 31 – the very last day of the Legislature’s formal 2-year session – sending to Governor Patrick’s desk An Act Relative to Competitively Priced Electricity. The legislation includes key provisions that are essential for ensuring Massachusetts reaches its renewable energy targets. And this highly welcome development comes in the nick of time, just as existing programs are hitting their limits.  This means we can avoid a solar slowdown and keep the wind blowing behind the state’s clean energy revolution.

CLF celebrates the new Massachusetts energy bill together with the Green Communities Act Coalition (GCA Coalition) – a diverse coalition of business, labor, environmental, clean energy, low-income and other stakeholders who advocate for strong clean energy policies in Massachusetts. The GCA Coalition, which is co-led by CLF and the New England Clean Energy Council, came together in Fall 2011 in the face of attacks by clean energy skeptics who wrongly suggested that Massachusetts cannot afford clean energy. Since then, the GCA Coalition has worked together to bring forward facts demonstrating that clean energy is one of the most promising areas of economic growth, and that it is delivering considerable economic benefits. (See here for a helpful myth v. fact sheet.)

The new energy legislation, which some have dubbed “Green Communities Act – Part II”, builds on the tremendous success of the 2008 Green Communities Act, which is delivering hundreds of millions of dollars of net economic benefits while dramatically boosting the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy. The new Energy Bill will ensure continued growth of the state’s renewable energy programs with an even greater focus on affordability. This is a win for the environment, public health, jobs and the economy.

So, what exactly will the new Massachusetts Energy Bill do?

Central to the Energy Bill are provisions that will extend two critically important renewable energy programs: long-term renewable energy contracts and “net-metering”:

• The Energy Bill requires electric utilities to work together to sign additional long-term (10-20 year) contracts for the purchase of renewable energy to meet 4% of total customer demand.

 » This is in addition to the long-term renewable energy contracts the utilities already have signed under the existing 2008 Green Communities Act (which established a 3% minimum) — bringing the total amount of renewable energy long-term contracts to at least 7% of the electricity that is consumed in Massachusetts.

» Contrary to some confusing media reports, this requirement does not change the overall amount of new renewable energy that electric utilities must purchase each year (currently at 7% of all electricity consumed, and increasing by 1% per year). Instead, it only increases the extent to which utilities buy that energy using long-term contracts instead of spot-market purchases or alternative compliance payments.

» Long-term contracts are a win for renewable energy projects and customers alike.  Such contracts have become essential for getting new renewable energy projects built because the developers can show lenders that they will be able to re-pay their loans. This translates into lower financing costs, and those savings are passed on to electric customers.

» The Energy Bill generally requires utilities to jointly solicit and enter long-term renewable energy contracts, and competitive bidding will be required. Based on prior experience in Massachusetts, land-based wind energy projects are likely to be particularly successful in securing long-term contracts under the new law. In addition, the mechanism for joint solicitation should provide opportunities for larger projects to compete to sell their power to all Massachusetts customers.

» This expanded renewable energy long-term contracting program is likely to be an important complement to the agreement reached on July 30 by the New England Governors to work together to implement a regional renewable energy purchasing commitment.  Massachusetts already is ahead of the curve and well situated to help lead the region to success!

• The Energy Bill also will significantly expand existing renewable energy “net metering” programs, providing an important boost to smaller scale clean energy projects throughout Massachusetts:

»  “Net-metering” makes small-scale renewable energy installations more affordable by ensuring that homeowners and small businesses will be compensated fairly – at retail rates – for excess power that they deliver into the electric grid.

»  The Energy bill doubles the existing net-metering program limits, up to 6% of total electricity consumed in Massachusetts (3% from publicly owned facilities, 3% from privately owned).

»  The bill also allows anaerobic digestors – projects that convert organic waste to energy – to qualify for the program for the first time, together with small wind and solar projects.

These provisions are hallmarks of a critically important clean energy bill that will maintain clean energy momentum as we enter the summer doldrums.

The Energy Bill also is noteworthy for what it does not include:  e.g., significant clean energy program rollbacks that were championed by skeptics, and provisions that risked locking in new fossil fuel fired generation.  Whew!

So please join us in applauding the Massachusetts Legislature and the Patrick Administration for advancing an important and balanced Energy Bill that will keep clean energy growing!

Environmental issues span the globe. When it comes to nuclear power, global action is needed. That’s why it was a privilege for CLF advocates to meet with a number of environmental lawyers from Japan, many of whom are members of the Japan Environmental Lawyers Federation.

The tragedy of Fukushima shows the need for the US to stop giving nuclear power a free pass. Just yesterday another mishap at the accident-prone Vermont Yankee facility resulted in the draining of some of the radioactive cooling water. Enough already.

Our conversation addressed how environmental groups operate. We also touched on some of the litigation tools available to protect our environment from the risks of nuclear power – from problems with the storage of waste, the possibilities of accidents, and the economic problems that nuclear power creates.

Our colleagues in Japan have a far keener sense of how important this work is. As different as our legal systems are, it was interesting to find the similarities as well, including how challenging it is to navigate the interplay of state or local government oversight with federal regulations.

The attorneys shared with CLF MA advocate Jenny Rushlow that most Japanese attorneys interested in practicing environmental law are only able to dedicate a small percentage of their time to environmental cases, as it is difficult to find compensation for that work. As a result, the attorneys we met with mostly take on environmental cases on a volunteer basis. The group reported on a number of high impact cases, including a current lawsuit aimed at classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, much like the Massachusetts v. EPA case.

CLF is pushing the ISO-NE to fully and properly account for all of the valuable energy-efficiency programs that the six New England states are already operating.

Energy efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest way for New England to meet its energy needs. We can save money and create jobs while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. To learn more about what CLF is doing to promote energy efficiency, click here.

“ISO-NE” stands for Independent System Operator-New England; this is the organization of engineers and technical experts that runs New England’s electricity grid. To learn more about CLF’s work with ISO-NE, click here.

Together, the six New England states are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on energy efficiency programs. In 2011, the ISO created an “Energy Efficiency Forecast Working Group” to forecast how much energy efficiency was actually going to get bought for all that money. CLF has been participating in this ISO-NE Working Group since its inception.

The first report of this Working Group, published in April 2012, was very exciting, because it predicted that more than 100% of projected electricity load increases for New England over the next three years could and would be achieved  through energy efficiency, not from new generating plants. This is good news for the environment because it means lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, CLF thought that there were some mistakes in the forecast, mainly from under-counting the energy efficiency expenditures of those states (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) that had made the most enthusiastic commitments to energy efficiency.

On July 11, 2012, CLF sent a letter to the ISO-NE’s Energy Efficiency Forecast Working Group, urging it not to repeat those same under-counting mistakes in its work on the 2013 energy efficiency forecast. You can see the full text of CLF’s letter, here.

Ultimately, energy efficiency is paid for by electricity customers. In order for ratepayers to get all they efficiency they are paying for, the ISO-NE needs to count all the money that is being spent.

If CLF’s recommendations are adopted by the Working Group, it will benefit ratepayers by reducing electricity bills; and it will benefit the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a classic win-win!