The State of Vermont and the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power facility squared off in Federal Court this week.  It was a three day trial.  The days were long.  The testimony was often technical.  The lawyering was skilled.  Vermont Yankee’s owners say everything is about safety and only the federal government can regulate safety so Vermont’s laws are invalid.  It is a convoluted argument.  The dots don’t connect. 

Vermont’s able lawyers went toe-to-toe with the owners every step of the way.  The State has a strong case.  Vermonters by nature are frank and direct.  Our laws say what they mean and mean what they say.   There is no decade-long grand conspiracy to hide intentions.  The Vermont Legislature acted well within its rights. 

CLF has joined the case as a “friend of the court” and has filed legal pleadings supporting the state.  We are also representing Vermont Public Interest Research Group whose representatives joined me at the hearings, and logged daily accounts of the trial. 

The trial is over.  A decision is expected before the end of the year.  Stay tuned.

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.

Map of Northeast Energy Link (potential route in yellow)

Earlier this week, National Grid, Emera, and First Wind announced preliminary plans for a major new transmission project between northeastern Maine and Massachusetts – the Northeast Energy Link (NEL).  The financing structure for the project, known as “participant funding,” is similar to the structure that federal regulators approved for the Northern Pass project in 2009.  NEL would consist of 220 miles of underground, high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines, apparently to be sited in existing rights of way and transportation corridors, that would deliver 1,100 megawatts of power from future wind projects in northern Maine, as well as additional imports from Canada, to southern New England. National Grid and its partners have apparently found a way to make the economics of burying lines in already disturbed corridors work.  This development deeply undermines the continued refusal of the proponents of the Northern Pass project, despite CLF’s and others’ repeated requests, to consider the same approach.

NEL is an intriguing proposal, particularly because it emphasizes New England-based wind resources. As with Northern Pass, the proposal warrants thorough review through robust, comprehensive permitting processes.

More immediately, the proposal underscores the urgent need for the regional energy study CLF and others are requesting within the Northern Pass permitting process.  There simply is no comprehensive plan in place addressing the best approaches for facilitating imports of Canadian power, if needed, and for adequately connecting homegrown renewable resources in remote areas to customers in southern New England.  With no plan, all we can do is react, piecemeal, to each private proposal that comes along.  Our energy and environmental agencies should be assessing the need for new transmission projects and then should consider only the best approaches that prioritize energy efficiency, minimize environmental impacts, reduce our reliance on the dirtiest power plants, and provide real public benefits. 

The recent delays in the Northern Pass review mean that the U.S. Department of Energy has a golden opportunity to help develop a regional plan, along with other stakeholders in the New England states and elsewhere in the Northeast.  CLF-NH Director Tom Irwin and a number of the other organizations that joined our motion to DOE seeking such a study make the case on the op-ed page of today’s Concord Monitor.  You can access the op-ed here.

It’s constant, it’s overwhelming, and it’s likely never to go away. What is it?  It’s information overload. We live in an age where everyone has an opinion, everyone wants a voice in the debate, and everyone thinks they’re right. With the Internet at our fingertips and the media hounding us with article upon article, it’s hard to know where to stand on hot topics like renewable energy.

We’ve probably all experienced that moment – eating our eggs and toast in our favorite diner, enjoying our cup of joe, and reading the morning paper – when we come across a letter to the editor arguing that wind power will improve energy security, energy prices, and climate change. Confusion sets in. You’re unsettled, perhaps even bothered. Didn’t yesterday’s article lambast wind power for its inefficiency, its price tag and its destructive scenic impact? Who has the facts right and who has the facts wrong? If wind is supposed to bring energy prices down, why is the electric bill creeping up month after month? If wind integration makes the grid more stable, why do you keep hearing that wind will only cause more power plants to be built? And if wind is so great, why are parts of the West disassembling their wind farms and halting project development? Why, wind proponents, why?

These are the right questions to be asking, and we’re glad you’re asking them.  These very same questions are being asked of wind project developers here in New England, most recently by the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) in connection with First Wind’s proposed Bowers Wind Project, a 27 turbine wind power project to be located in the Downeast Lakes area of Maine. Opposition to the Bowers Project stems almost exclusively from the visual impacts the project might have on a portion of the local economy, guided fishing. In all other respects, the project is commendable – Bowers will make use of existing logging roads and transmission lines and anticipated environmental impacts from the project’s construction are expected to be minimal.

CLF supports this project and, anticipating the confusion under which LURC might be working, submitted testimony from two experts to dispel some of the myths that the wind debate has generated. Specifically, Dr. Cameron Wake testified on the impacts of climate change on Maine and New England’s natural resources and how wind power is one tool to be used in addressing that challenge; and Abigail Krich testified on the systemic benefits of integrating wind power into the electric market.

After peppering Ms. Krich with questions, the Commission walked away with two major takeaways from her testimony:

• Wind power does result in cost-savings because it brings the costs of generating electricity down. Unfortunately, those savings are all but wiped out by the increasing cost of transmitting electricity.
• Increasing the amount of wind power generated and used in New England will not require the construction of additional power plants to balance wind’s variability. The New England Wind Integration Study, performed by ISO-NE, concluded that even if 12,000 MW of wind power were integrated into the system, no new power plants would be needed to balance wind’s variability.

While CLF appreciates that the scenic impacts of these projects are, at the end of the day, a highly personal matter (or as my Latin teacher would say, “de gustibus non est disputandum” or “taste is not a matter of debate”), it’s important that objective facts not be obscured by subjective, and ultimately misleading, ones.

Photo credit: Beerzle, flickr

In 2007, Congress passed energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that will decrease air pollution, improve public health and decrease household energy bills. A no-brainer, right? Wrong. This week, the House will vote on bills to repeal those standards – and we need your help to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

The standards require new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012, and 65 percent less energy by 2020. These standards will not ban the incandescent light bulb, but instead give consumers a wider range of bulbs to choose from, including new and improved incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are far more efficient than required by the 2012 standards. What’s more, several manufacturers, including GE, Philips Lighting and Osram Sylvania, already sell new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that use halogen technology. These bulbs meet the 2012 standards and are already available for sale. Learn more about light bulb standards here.

By the numbers, these standards will:

• Save American households $100 to $200+ per year
• Reduce U.S. energy bills overall by more than $10 billion per year – energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants
• Jump-start industry innovation and investment that is creating U.S. jobs
• Avoid 100 million tons of global warming pollution per year – equal to the emissions of more than 17 million cars

But we won’t see any of these benefits if the standards are repealed and we return to using traditional light bulb technology, which has changed very little since Thomas Edison invented the incandescent bulb some 125 years ago. This is a battle that we can’t afford to lose.

Here’s a bright idea. Send a message to your representatives opposing any bills that would weaken or reverse light bulb efficiency standards.

Flooding in Minot, ND (photo credit: USACE)

Earlier this month, my CLF Vermont colleague Anthony told the tale of his brush with a changed climate in dealing with flood waters in the Montpelier area.  Severe weather around the country continues to make news, with record floods in North Dakota and an “exceptional” drought and wildfires in the Southwest.  Although it got lost in the controversy over Al Gore’s critique of the Obama administration’s climate efforts, Gore’s essay last week in Rolling Stone also highlighted the mounting evidence that that climate change is causing severe weather and resulting disasters – record droughts, fires, floods, and mudslides - to increase in intensity and frequency all around the world. 

This week, a three-part series of articles in Scientific American is tackling the same issue.  (Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 is coming tomorrow.)  Some key points: 

• Global severe weather data – not just sensational anecdotes – are demonstrating that climate change is the culprit.  As series author John Carey puts it, “The signal of climate change is finally emerging from the ‘noise’—the huge amount of natural variability in weather.”
• Extreme weather is now regularly happening in places it has been exceedingly rare, and weather events are becoming much more intense, even where severe weather is a way of life.
• What we are seeing is, essentially, elementary physics and meteorology at work.  More heat means more evaporation, and more water in the atmosphere changes longstanding weather patterns, often in dramatic ways.  As these patterns change, scientists are finding tipping points and feedback loops that are making severe weather events even more diastrous.
• Climate scientists are increasingly able to finger climate change as the reason for the severity of individual weather events, including Hurricane Katrina and the 2003 European heat wave.

I urge you to read the whole series, and to share it with others.  Whether the next weather disaster is front-page news or actually hits home, as it did for Anthony, severe weather is yet one more reason why aggressive policies to transform our energy and transportation systems to curb emissions of greenhouse gases are so overdue.  As Betsy Kolbert eloquently argued in the New Yorker earlier this month, it is simply not true that these weather tragedies are “beyond our control.”

PSNH's Merrimack Station (photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond)

I appeared on NHPR’s The Exchange with Laura Knoy this morning, and the topic was the potential energy and economic impacts of the Northern Pass project. The show provided a good opportunity to explain why the project is inspiring so much opposition, why CLF has been skeptical of the current proposal, and how Canadian hydropower could play a role in the New England electric system if pursued appropriately. There was also a segment on the project’s potential impact on property values. You can catch the replay here if you’re interested.

Joining me on the show was Julia Frayer, an economist hired by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to tout the energy and economic benefits of the project. Recently, she penned a widely-reprinted op-ed and provided testimony to the New Hampshire legislature, suggesting the project will be a boon to consumers and the reliability of the electric system.

Unfortunately, and as I made an effort to point out on the show, the arguments for the current proposal are pleasant talking points without much to back them up. All the cited benefits are speculative, rather than firm commitments, and are not forthrightly presented alongside the proposal’s potential costs. As any student of economics can attest, an intelligent discussion about the economics of a project requires that we at least try to describe and compare the costs and benefits.  We know that the project may have significant negative impacts, ranging from the environmental impacts of generating the power in Canada to the potential effects of major new transmission lines on New Hampshire’s tourism and recreation industries. PSNH and the project developer, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC, have stubbornly failed to acknowledge these impacts, and there is no evidence they were taken seriously in the planning of the current proposal.

One point worth highlighting – the current plan calls for all of the supposed clean energy benefits and electric rate reductions to be delivered through the wholesale market, where Hydro-Quebec intends to sell the power delivered by the project.  But these benefits would mostly bypass the very residential ratepayers in New Hampshire who pay PSNH for electricity – because PSNH acquires very little power from the wholesale market. Instead, as customers of PSNH’s retail power, PSNH residential customers have been left to shoulder the uneconomic costs of PSNH operating several coal-fired generating units – and to pay the highest electric rates in New Hampshire as a result. Northern Pass does nothing to change this situation.  Many commercial ratepayers in PSNH territory have “migrated” in increasing numbers to other utilities that – unlike PSNH – do buy substantial power from the wholesale market to supply their customers. Residential ratepayers don’t have this choice – which means they’re saddled with PSNH’s higher costs, as PSNH loses more and more of its commercial rate base.  Again, Northern Pass does nothing to change this situation.  On closer inspection, the claimed benefits for New Hampshire consumers look more like phantom benefits than anything real.

The proposal promises to send huge profits to Hydro-Quebec, as it bids power into the wholesale market (easily paying back its investment in the transmission lines), and to provide a revenue stream of transmission payments to Northeast Utilities, PSNH’s parent company. But this structure makes very little sense because it means New Hampshire residents will continue to bear the burden of high cost power and dirty air from PSNH’s coal plants and will also face the environmental and economic impacts of a massive transmission project, while the power would only displace relatively less-polluting natural gas generation and may undermine the development of local renewable energy projects in the state. If it does indeed lower costs on the New England market, the effect will be to increase costs for PSNH’s residential customers as more large customers migrate to the competitive market and fewer customers are left to pay the costs of PSNH’s expensive coal plants.

The current proposal is coming into focus as a bad energy and economic deal for New Hampshire, and regionally the benefits seem less than impressive – especially because the emissions reductions made possible could be so much greater if there was a firm commitment to pair the new imports with the retirement of coal-fired units. As the project continues to wind its way through the federal and state permitting process, CLF will keep pushing for the project to make sense for New Hampshire and for the energy future of the region as a whole.

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Thanks to all of the CLF members and allies who called and e-mailed their US Senators about the oil drilling vote today. The nasty McConnell bill needed 60 votes to pass and was defeated by a final tally of 42 ayes to 57 nays. Most of New England’s delegation voted the right way but Sen. Scott Brown and Sen. Kelly Ayotte voted in favor of the drilling bill today and last night in favor of retaining taxpayer subsidies for the five biggest oil companies. Clearly some education is needed. Maine’s senators both voted correctly yesterday on oil subsidies but today Sen. Snowe kept her record clean on oil drilling with a no vote while Sen. Susan Collins unfortunately decided to support oil drilling.

Besides the attempts to increase oil drilling, the McConnell bill included a section that would have greatly limited the ability of citizens to access the courts and get a fair hearing in front of a judge. It would have denied the award of legal fees to organizations bringing successful lawsuits against oil companies. With tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies aiding oil companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on lobbying, do oil companies really need to skew citizen access to the courts and put their greasy paws on the scales of justice? Are there limits to their greed and attempts to manipulate the law?

Legislated requirements to drill off the coast of Virginia or mandate certain oil sales in Alaska creates a slippery slope to drilling in New England. We don’t need oil rigs on Georges Bank or massive petro-chemical infrastructure in our coastal communities. That’s why this vote was important for New England. Thanks for taking action today and thanks for your continued support for CLF.

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

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

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

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