The Vermont Public Service Board will be holding a public hearing on the proposed expansion of Vermont Gas facilities.

Vermont Gas Systems Expansion

Tuesday evening, September 10, 2013

7:00 p.m 

Middlebury Union Middle School, 48 Deerfield Lane, Middlebury, Vermont 

At a time when climate change is upon us we must think carefully about putting in place new fossil fuel systems that will be around for a very long time. Keeping us hooked on fossil fuels for many years is a bad idea.

The Board is considering a proposal to expand the Vermont Gas Systems pipeline to Middlebury and then beyond. The proposed project would run through valuable wetlands and farmland, and expands Vermont’s reliance on fossil fuels at a time we need to be moving away from these polluting sources. This is the beginning of a bigger project to supply gas across Lake Champlain to New York. It also moves Vermont closer to being able to access gas supplies from fracking in the United States.

Come let the Board know what concerns you have. Tell the Board you want to make sure energy is used wisely and that Vermont takes steps now to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels. It is important for the Public Service Board to hear from you.

photo courtesy of lydia_shiningbrightly@flickr.com

If your doctor puts you on a diet to prevent major health problems, it is a bad idea to fill your pantry with potato chips. Simply hoping you don’t eat the chips staring you in the face is a bad way to try losing weight.

Likewise, if you want to reduce fossil fuels and combat climate change, it is a bad idea to blindly expand pipelines that deliver these fuels to your doorstep and beyond. These are pipes that will be in place for the next 50 to 100 years. In that timeframe we need to move away from dirty fossil fuels, including fracked gas.

In Vermont, the proponents of a proposed gas pipeline expansion are sadly ignoring the long term impacts.

Instead of proposing a project that actually meets our climate change diet needs, the proposed gas expansion in Vermont is doing the equivalent of filling our energy pantry with potato chips. Chips that we will stare at every day and try not to eat in order to stay on our diet.

This is a bad idea.

The gas cheerleaders, including the Shumlin Administration, are hoping folks will only eat the chips as a small snack. But sadly they are not proposing any limits on the use of the gas, or sizing the project to meet our very limited dietary needs. They are not even considering the use of the full pipeline capacity in their analysis.

Testimony from Conservation Law Foundation provided by Dr. Elizabeth Stanton, explains the considerable uncertainty underlying the claims of Vermont Gas and states:

“As long as there is significant uncertainty in the emissions from natural gas, Vermont risks adopting long-lived natural gas infrastructure that is not compatible with meeting Vermont’s 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goals. Approving Vermont Gas’ request represents a gamble, on the part of the PSB, that Vermont’s current and future sources of gas will be at the low end of the current range of possible emission rates in the literature and not at the higher end, and that the uses of the gas will only replace oil or propane. Both assumptions are unlikely and as a result the project proposed will most likely increase greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the project.” (Stanton Testimony at 9-10).

The testimony from the Public Service Department, which is responsible for the State’s energy plan, and helping us meet our climate goals, provides various manipulations of others’ testimony but still simply assumes all the gas in the pipeline will replace oil use. (Poor testimony at pg 8). That is an analysis that is far too limited.

The testimony from the Agency of Natural Resources recognizes that if any gas supply sources have emissions as high as some of those documented, then the claimed emissions benefits of the project “could be reduced or even result in a scenario of increased GHG emissions relative to oil.” (Merrell Testimony at pg. 3). Instead of recommending ways to reduce that impact, however, the Agency calls for annual reporting. While more information is always good, the Agency’s suggestion will be about as effective as closing the stable door after the horse has already run away.

It is past time for Vermont to begin taking its climate change goals seriously. Expanding our addiction to fossil fuels by expanding gas pipelines in Vermont is irresponsible.

photo courtesy of kara newhouse@flickr.com

Expanding natural gas in Vermont moves us in the wrong direction to address climate change. The expansion increases greenhouse gas emissions, compounding Vermont’s contribution to climate change.

In detailed testimony filed with the Vermont Public Service Board, Conservation Law Foundation explained that the simplistic evaluation by Vermont Gas that the expansion will reduce emissions is simply wrong. Testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Stanton shows on pages 18-19 that expanding natural gas increases emissions more than three million tons over 100 years and brings environmental costs of an additional $76,000,000.

This project is not a good deal for Vermont.

Dr. Elizabeth Stanton shows that the emissions from the full life-cycle of the project result in significant increases in global warming pollution. This project will be around for a long time as will its greenhouse gases. Dr. Stanton explains on pg 9:

“The natural gas life cycle is the set of all processes related to the use of natural gas from its extraction, processing, and distribution, to its end-use combustion. Life-cycle analyses are studies that determine the upstream and downstream consequences of a particular product or service used by consumers.”

Its overall emissions include leaks of methane, a gas 25 to 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate change.

Testimony by Dr. Jon Erickson, Dean of the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont shows that expanding gas results in locking us in to fossil fuels at a time our climate and energy goals require moving the opposite direction. He states at pg 6:

“Any expansion of the delivery of natural gas to customers in Vermont has the potential to substitute for other nonrenewable, carbon-based fuels (such as fuel oil), but also has the potential to displace current and future uses of renewable energy (such as wood-based home heating or district heating).”

His testimony goes on to state at pg 8:

“Beyond GHG-related risk, the extraction of natural gas supplies is using increasingly environmentally damaging procedures such as hydro-fracking, a practice that Vermont has temporarily banned within State borders. Environmental regulation in other States and Canadian Provinces poses a risk to the long-term stability of natural gas supplies.”

Let’s be honest. Increasing our reliance on fossil fuels, including natural gas, is a bad move.

On Wednesday, May 9, House Bill 7581 (the O’Grady Bill) will be heard in the House Finance Committee of the Rhode Island General Assembly. The O’Grady Bill is a key legislative priority of Rhode Island’s environmental movement. The hearing is at 1:00 PM in Room 35 of the State House (Room 35 is in the basement). The O’Grady Bill would provide vitally needed funding for public transit in Rhode Island.

CLF members and friends are invited to attend the May 9 hearing on the O’Grady bill in order to show support for it.

Here in Rhode Island, as in the rest of New England, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – and the fastest growing. The simple fact is that the climate change emergency cannot (and will not) be addressed until and unless we address transportation emissions. By funding public transit in Rhode Island, the O’Grady Bill would provide an effective means of reducing vehicle miles traveled in private automobiles and an effective means of reducing overall carbon emissions.

That is why the Environment Council of Rhode Island, the coalition of over 80 Rhode Island environmental organizations has made the O’Grady Bill one of its top legislative priorities for 2012.

Another broad coalition, the Coalition for Transportation Choices (CTC) is also supporting the O’Grady Bill. CLF was instrumental in creating the CTC, and, in my capacity as a CLF Staff Attorney, I serve as CTC’s Co-Chair. At the May 9 hearing, I will be presenting to the House Finance Committee letters of support for the O’Grady Bill from a wide range of community organizations, ranging from the Providence Chamber of Commerce to the Transit Workers Union. We are hoping that this broad range of support will translate to legislative support.

Environmentalists in Rhode Island can take a concrete step to address carbon emissions in Rhode Island by coming to the May 9 House Finance Committee hearing (1:00 PM, Room 35) to testify in favor of the O’Grady Bill.

I’ll be there, and I’d be delighted to see you there, too.

Today, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services provided an annual report to the New Hampshire legislature detailing the results of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Carbon Dioxide Emissions Budget Trading Program.  The report notes that the program has supported approximately $20 million in job creating energy efficiency investment in New Hampshire and that each dollar of invested RGGI revenue resulted in $3.42 in direct energy savings (See this study by the University of New Hampshire). The report concludes that the effect of the RGGI program on rates has been negligible, amounting to .06 cents per kWh, or approximately 30 cents per month per household.

At the same time, electricity bills for customers of New Hampshire electric utilities have decreased dramatically since RGGI went into effect, with the exception of PSNH customers.  According to the report, the average PSNH residential customer is currently paying approximately $27 per month more than a New Hampshire customer in National Grid’s service territory for the same amount of power ($89 per month for PSNH versus $62 per month for National Grid).

Given the magnitude of the excessive energy costs paid by PSNH residential customers (comprising the overwhelming majority of New Hampshire homes), one might assume that the legislature would use the report as a basis for reviewing and revising the state’s policy that forces New Hampshire residents to subsidize PSNH’s above market costs to the tune of $324  per ratepayer per year.

Instead, House Speaker William O’Brien and Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt issued a statement today criticizing RGGI for laying an extra “$5.50 per year on the backs of our ratepayers.”  They appear to have missed the forest for the trees (and bungled their math).  New Hampshire ratepayers pay among the highest rates in the country because PSNH imposes on them the above-market cost of its dirty and expensive power.  In fact, the report shows that National Grid ratepayers in New Hampshire, having been spared the legislative mandates that inflict exorbitant costs on PSNH ratepayers, pay the lowest electric rates in New England. National Grid and other New Hampshire utilities purchase power from newer, more efficient power plants selling into the wholesale market.

Improving New Hampshire’s economic future requires a thoughtful review of the statutory policies that extend the lives of PSNH’s uneconomic power plants and foist the exorbitant costs of these plants, and the pollution they emit, on New Hampshire residents. Portraying a successful and economically beneficial program such as RGGI as a burden to ratepayers lays blame in the wrong place and amounts to a game of political charades—a disservice to New Hampshire voters and job creators.

Today marks a new milestone for CLF in our efforts to clean up the lower Charles River. Concluding a five-year negotiation, involving CLF and the other key stakeholders, the EPA issued a new water quality permit for the Kendall (formerly Mirant Kendall) Power Plant, a natural gas cogeneration facility owned by GenOn Energy. The plant is located on the Cambridge side of the Longfellow Bridge.

The new permit requires the plant to reduce its heat discharge and water withdrawal by approximately 95 percent, and to ensure that any heated discharge does not warm the river enough to cause harm.

The outcome is remarkable, not just for the dramatic improvements it will achieve in the lower Charles, but for the way in which the parties “got to yes.”

The plant will meet the new requirements by upgrading its existing “once-through” cooling system, to a new, closed-loop system. Kendall will capture most of the heat generated by the plant and distribute it as steam through a new pipeline to be built across the Longfellow Bridge over the next few years. The combination of the new co-generation turbine and expanded pipeline will allow Kendall to drastically reduce the amount of water it extracts from the Charles River, take more heat out of the plant, and double the amount of steam it can sells to heat buildings in the city of Boston.

It’s what’s known in the business as a “win-win situation.”

Today’s events would not have happened without the incredible efforts of two former CLFers: Carol Lee Rawn, who was a senior attorney in our Boston office, and Jud Crawford, who was senior scientist. They put together the case and the legal challenge to the Mirant Kendall permits based on a demonstration that EPA’s proposed heat discharges would threaten the fish and biological system in the lower Charles. They also showed that the proposed water intake damaged fish eggs, larvae, juvenile and adult fish and that better technologies were available in the market. CLF represented the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), who was the perfect conservation partner for our effort.

The outcome of this case has taught CLF a number of lessons. First, that being there is half the game. If we hadn’t appealed the EPA permit, none of this would have happened, no question. EPA and Mirant Kendall ultimately showed strong leadership qualities but needed a strong push. Second, that having a range of integrated advocacy initiatives can produce multiple, serendipitous results across the spectrum of CLF’s work in clean energy, clean water, ocean conservation and healthy communities. This single decision will create an opportunity for co-generation in an urban community, improve the health of our rivers and marine life, increase the quality of life for Esplanade users and river fishermen, and reduce green house gas emissions. Third, that a mix of good science and strong legal expertise is essential to our ability to make a credible challenge. And finally, that courtesy of all of the above and the generous and faithful support of our members over the past five years,  the Charles may one day be truly swimmable and fishable again.

For more information, you can read CLF’s press release, and check out the coverage in today’s Boston Globe.