On Tuesday, Americans across New England joined their countrymen in casting their votes. As the results have become clear, one thing has become clear with it: It was a good night for science and for clean energy.

Maine, for instance, elected former wind developer Angus King as its new Senator, who ran with an ad dedicated to the need to address climate change and support sustainable energy. (Watch that ad here.) Meanwhile changes in both houses of Maine’s legislature are likely to dampen Governor LePage’s unpredictable but largely obstructionist posture. The same is true in Massachusetts, which elected Elizabeth Warren, a strong supporter for renewable energy and climate change mitigation. New Hampshire and Vermont also saw the pendulum swung strongly in a way that is likely to advance much needed efforts to protect the health of their environment and communities. Rhode Island seems to be the only state that has kept its status quo. (For full perspectives on each state, click here.)

In the end, New Englanders voted for a strong environmental agenda, and for candidates who shared that support. These local trends also broadly echo national voting trends. Obama, for instance, was strongly supported by Latino voters. A landmark 2012 study showed that 92% of Latino voters believe we have a responsibility to take care of the earth. The pro-environment agenda endorsed by Obama no doubt contributed to his support.

In reelecting Barack Obama, Americans also voted for an administration that has made science-friendly appointments to science positions, that has a high degree of scientific accomplishment, and that has been very supportive of science education and research.  And while the President was disappointingly silent about climate change and clean energy policy during the campaign, his administration’s pro-health and pro-environment actions to reduce toxic air pollution and to improve automobile  fuel economy standards no doubt resonated with voters nationally.

While there were many issues on the ballot, here in New England and across the country, there are also some very simple lessons from this election. The voters said a few things:

Yes, we believe in science.

Yes, we believe climate change is happening.

Yes, we need more sources of sustainable energy.

Yes, we want candidates who move us away from the dirty energy of the past to a more prosperous future.

And no, dirty energy, you cannot buy my vote.

Despite historic spending, the money spent by the dirty energy industry to try to buy this election didn’t seem to have much effect. In the end, clean energy and science were big winners.

New England cemented its reputation on Tuesday as a bastion of progressive environmental politics. Voters across our region want action on climate change, they want to advance clean energy, and they want to strengthen their communities.

It is my sincere hope that the elected officials in each state listen to their voters and make progress on these issues. It is also my sincere belief that we will be stronger as a movement if we work together across our New England: while some of our issues are local and some cry out for national leadership, many are regional in nature and can most effectively be addressed at the regional scale.

And then there’s the pragmatic reality that visionary leadership from Washington is very unlikely at this politically fractious time. But with New England’s leaders – of all political stripes – largely sharing a common vision for an economically, socially and environmentally thriving region, we can and must chart our own course right here. To succeed, we need to work together. When New England works together, we have shown that we can.

Tides in Maine vary enormously along the coast – tides along the sandy southern coast in York range between 5 to 7 feet while the tides in Eastport range from 18 – 21 feet. This week’s election results in Maine were more like the Eastport tides than the ones in York.

Maine is the first state to enact a same-sex marriage law by a vote of the general public. Mainers chose to replace Senator Olympia Snowe, a Republican long known for her independent streak, with an actual independent, former Governor and now Senator-elect Angus King. And Mainers also voted to replace the Republican majorities in the State House of Representatives and the State Senate with a Democratic majority in both houses. All of this is good news for Maine and for Maine’s environment.

Senator-elect King is an eloquent and thoughtful leader when it comes to climate change, an issue that received embarrassingly little attention in the Presidential election until the nation witnessed the devastation and loss of Superstorm Sandy, just the latest in a series of increasingly severe weather events that have caused death and destruction along the Atlantic coast. Prior to running for Senate, King not only talked the talk but he walked the walk, developing wind power projects here in Maine. While CLF is likely to have its disagreements with Senator-elect King on certain matters, his election to the Senate will provide that body with a strong voice for acting on climate change in a way that is both good for our communities and good for our economy.

Closer to home, the loss of one party rule at the State House in Augusta marks the end of the hegemony of the LePage Administration over the past two years. With control of both the House and the Senate, the LePage administration was able to push through many changes to Maine’s regulatory structure to the detriment of the environment with little benefit to the economy. Whether that was in limiting access to the Board of Environmental Protection, making it easier for a Canadian company to conduct open pit mining or eviscerating the Land Use Regulatory Commission, the track record of the current administration has been deeply troubling and well worth the D grade it received from the Maine Conservation Voters recently.  Indeed, had it not been for a few courageous and principled members of his own party, the damage would have been even greater.

With both chambers of the legislature now controlled by what the Governor calls the “opposition,” the LePage tide is now receding and one hopes that means that instead of trying to recreate the false dichotomy of environment vs. economy, Augusta can focus on the real challenges and opportunities for Maine’s environment and its economy.

Norm Olsen, Maine's now-former commissioner of marine resources.

As if the life and times in Augusta haven’t already been strange enough, the third of Governor Paul LePage’s cabinet members tendered his resignation to the Governor Wednesday. What makes the departure of Norm Olsen, the now-former commissioner of the Department of Marine Resources, more notable is the manner in which he left. While Philip Congdon was forced to resign as commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development after disparaging Mainers from Washington and Aroostook counties and Darryl Brown was forced to resign as commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection because of Maine’s conflicts of interest law, Olsen’s resignation caught many off guard- but not for long. Although his formal resignation was apparently conveyed to the Governor in a one-line, handwritten note delivered after a meeting with the Governor, Olsen made his reasons abundantly clear in a bomb dropped, er, document released yesterday. The document provides a view on how Maine’s chief executive conducts business by a man described at this past year’s Fishermen’s Forum as the man “in charge” of Maine’s marine affairs. The document also provides a few other nuggets, including the Governor’s determination that there would be:

• No further collaboration with the City of Portland to develop measures to return our groundfish boats to Maine, despite the work already done to secure the support of visiting Commerce Department officials. Portland was against him, LePage said, and we will not work with that city. Rather than work with Portland, he said, we’ll build a new port somewhere.
• No further collaboration with the Director of the federal National Marine Fisheries Service to secure emergency federal assistance that could help return the fleet to Maine.
• No consideration of measures to properly and prudently manage the heavily overcapitalized shrimp fishery so that Maine could gain the most value-added from this resource.
• No collaboration with the federal government to jointly manage resources in federal waters. Instead, he instructed his deputy legal counsel to find a way for Maine to supersede federal authority outside the three-mile limit.

The LePage administration is sure to rebut Mr. Olsen’s statement. But regardless of how this saga ends, it is, to say the least, another interesting chapter in the story of the LePage administration.  There is undoubtedly more to come.

Photo credit: S1acker, flickr

As you hit the road this holiday weekend, you will be joining millions of others in filling up your gas tank and will watch in consternation as your paycheck pours into your tank. The sad thing is, you are probably driving a vehicle that gets far less than 45 mpg, so you might have to fill that tank more than once to get back home.

These days, Americans spend on average $369 dollars a month on gas. By contrast, the average monthly gas bill in April 2009 was $201. That’s a lot less money that you have to go towards dining out and hotel rooms this holiday weekend. The good news is that the EPA and DOT are currently contemplating raising fuel economy requirements to between 47 to 62 mpg starting with all 2017 model vehicles. That means  getting twice or even three times as far without having to fill up.

You would think that states buckling under the weak economy would rejoice at any effort that would give folks more money to spend. Unfortunately, Governor LePage seems to disagree.

In response to EPA and DOT’s effort, LePage joined a small handful of other governors this week in a signing a letter to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cautioning them to be  “sensible” about raising fuel economy standards and claiming that “overreaching regulations can be a cost burden on individuals, families and businesses in our state” because the technology used for fuel-efficient vehicles makes them more expensive for consumers.

In other words, we haven’t learned any lessons, we couldn’t care less if our constituents have to spend half their paycheck at the pump and we have no problem with our addiction to foreign oil.

Fuel efficiency standards for 2012-2016 were set in 2007 at 35 mpg. When those standards were about to go into place, there was a remarkably similar wave of national hand-wringing. People were concerned that the new standards would have a negative effect on the auto industry and Americans’ perceived need to have large, affordable vehicles. Yet, the sky didn’t fall. Detroit had been teetering on the brink of survival not because of MPG standards but due to their failure to stay ahead of the innovation curve, like Toyota, in creating fuel efficient vehicles. The success of the Ford Focus speaks for itself.

Opponents to increasing the MPG standards claim that the government needs to stay out of this — market demand will dictate higher fuel efficiency.  But the data doesn’t bear that assertion out.  In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on the effects of the CAFE standard. The report concluded that in the absence of fuel economy regulations, motor vehicle fuel consumption would have been approximately 14 percent higher than it actually was in 2002.

Americans are fully capable of stepping up to the plate and developing the affordable technology necessary to bring the higher standard to fruition. They’ve done it before and they can do it again. And here’s the thing– a whopping 78 percent of Americans think they should. According to a recent poll by the Mellman Group, the majority of Americans support efforts by the auto industry to reduce CO2 emissions. And if that also means saving money on gas, then Maine should be embracing the new standards and not trying to slow them down.

We wrote about the Legislature’s wrongheaded – fically and environmentally -  pursuit to acquire the leaking and contaminated Dolby landfill two weeks ago. Despite the opposition of several representatives and senators, and a request by Senators Cynthia Dill and Elizabeth Schneider for an opinion from Attorney General William Schneider on the constitutionality of the law, the bill passed and on June 17, Governor LePage signed into law, LD 1567—Resolve, To Authorize the State to Acquire a Landfill in the Town of East Millinocket. If and when the Katahdin mill’s owner Brookfield lines up a buyer for the mills, which currently appears to be International Grand Investors Corp., a Delaware corporation owned by Chinese investors in Taiwan, the state now has the authority to bring the deal to fruition by accepting, on behalf of the State of Maine, Brookfield’s generous donation of the Dolby landfill.

Despite the Dolby landfill’s projected $250,000 in annual operating costs and an estimated $17 million in closure and cleanup costs, the Attorney General’s office concluded on its response to the Senators’ request for a legal opinion  that LD 1567 does not trigger the $2 million debt limitation threshold contained in Article IX, section 14 of the Maine Constitution. Although that result appears counterintuitive given the staggering costs associated with the Dolby landfill, the AG’s office reasons that “LD 1567 does not commit the State to the assumption of any particular debts or liabilities associated with the landfill” and suggests that the SPO can contract away some or all of that liability. Unfortunately, the version of LD 1567 that was passed and signed into law did not incorporate the Attorney General’s suggestion that LD 1567 be amended to require that any contract entered into by the SPO to acquire the Dolby landfill contain a clause limiting the State’s liability for pre-acquisition operation of the landfill.

Although the authority granted under LD 1567 apparently does not trigger Article IX, section 14, the AG’s office concedes that the terms of Article IX, section 14 “will be relevant to the terms of [an] agreement” by which the State takes title to Dolby. Thus, Article IX, section 14 remains part of the conversation. But the extent to which it does remains unclear. To that end, legislators have requested an additional legal opinion from the AG’s office regarding the relevancy of Article IX, section 14 to any contract transferring ownership of the Dolby landfill to the State. Given that Brookfield is just as steadfast in its resolve to dump the landfill as the State is in its resolve to acquire the landfill, it is hard to fathom that Brookfield would agree to remain responsible for the majority of the $17 million in closure and cleanup costs or to indemnify the State for pre-acquisition liabilities associated with the landfill. Would a contract that failed to limit the State’s liability for the Dolby landfill to less than $2 million be subject to approval by two-thirds of the Legislature and a popular vote? Stay tuned . . .

Yesterday in Augusta, CLF and members of the Environmental Priorities Coalition (EPC) today jointly hailed the work by the 125^th Legislature in exercising restraint in the wake of a record number of proposed bills that sought to weaken Maine’s environmental regulations.

The deregulation effort started with Governor LePage’s proposed rollbacks that were released in early January.   Over the course of the session, that proposal became LD1, “An Act to Ensure Regulatory Fairness and Reform” an umbrella bill that encompassed a wide variety of issues that would significantly harm Maine’s air, water, landscapes and public health.  With over 50 rollback bills in play, the EPC had a busy agenda protecting Maine’s environment but the organization drew on its many coalition partners to target areas of expertise for each bill. Read more >

With the passage of the state budget this week, the Maine legislature put politics ahead of the people in rejecting the Efficiency Maine Trust’s effort to maintain its funding for electrical efficiency programs. The Trust was proposing to increase a charge to electricity ratepayers in order to to sustain its funding levels for electric efficiency over the next three years and replace drained federal stimulus funds.

This was the perfect opportunity for our elected officials to help fulfill their campaign promises to produce growth and economic development in the state. How surprising then, that when presented with a chance to invest in a program that provides at least three dollars of return for every dollar invested, create thousands of jobs in Maine and stimulate commerce, the legislature’s Republican majority and Governor LePage openly rejected it.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the vote was at least in part a product of bias among  conservatives against a program that, because it happens to be good for the environment and was widely supported by Democrats, is perceived to have liberal leanings. In reality, the Trust and its programs are just as much about energy cost savings and economic development, goals to which both parties should aspire. The Trust is the public entity that helps to fund projects that enhance the energy efficiency of Maine’s homes, businesses and industries.

The work of the Trust is important for several reasons.:

• The financing provided by the Trust inspires the replacement of outdated technologies, from machinery to light bulbs, in favor of more energy efficient alternatives that reduce overall energy consumption.
• Less energy consumption means lower electrical bills for the recipient, lower energy prices and less frequent costly upgrades to our electrical transmission infrastructure to accommodate increasing demand, savings that are shared by all Mainers.
• The funding provided by the Trust is only a portion of the overall efficiency investment. The Trust’s “seed money” results in significant private investment, borrowing from banks and other forms of financing. In short, the added push of the Trust’s funding for a project results in a commercial ripple effect that benefits many sectors of our economy, providing jobs and demand for products.
• Greater energy efficiency means less electricity needs to be produced, which translates into reduced consumption of fossil fuels and reduced pollution.

But increasing electricity charges can’t be good for Mainers you might suggest. Therein lies the rub. First, the proposed increase was small, approximately one dollar a month for the average household—the cost of a cup of coffee. Second, the economy is not going to rebound while we stand by idly wishing for a miracle, it takes investment to get a return and the Trust is proven to produce returns. In 2010, the EMT saw its $17 million investment in efficiency projects render a lifetime energy savings valued at $95.7 million and serve as the impetus for an additional $76.9 million in private investment in businesses and homes across Maine. Efficiency spending not only saves money– it is an economic driver. Indeed, the Trust funding that the Legislature just denied was predicted to produce an $840 million benefit to Maine energy consumers.

So why would our governor and the legislature effectively defund a program that could generate such significant financial benefits to the state? The answer appears to be party politics that defy logic and economic policy and theory. Perhaps worst of all, it also happens to deviate from state law which requires that Maine, through the Trust, fund and pursue maximum achievable cost-effective levels of energy efficiency.

Postcard depicting the Great Northern paper mill in East Millinocket (top) and the Mt. Katahdin skyline (bottom).

With the close of this legislative session looming, the LePage administration and proponents in the Legislature are continuing their push for passage of L.D. 1567—“Resolve, To Authorize the State To Acquire a Landfill in the Town of East Millinocket.”  Pursuant to this resolve, the State Planning Office (SPO) would have the authority to acquire ownership (either by purchase or donation) of a leaking landfill that has limited remaining capacity, annual operating costs of $250,000, contamination issues, and closure costs estimated at $17 million and rising.

The administration apparently considers granting the State the ability to acquire the Dolby landfill absolutely essential to finding a buyer for two currently shut down pulp and paper mills in East Millinocket and Millinocket.  Brookfield Asset Management, LLC, through its subsidiary Katahdin Paper Company, owns the mills and the Dolby landfill, which has been accepting waste from those mill operations for over thirty years.  Brookfield claims it cannot find a buyer for the mills because no prospective buyer wants anything to do with the landfill.  Not surprising considering that any new owner would acquire the $17 million liability associated with the Dolby landfill.  Including the state.

Although that liability has effectively deterred private buyers, it has not given the state nearly enough pause, especially considering that, as currently configured, L.D. 1567 works a violation of the state Constitution.  Article 9, section 14 of the Maine Constitution limits the State’s ability to create a debt or liability in excess of $2 million by requiring that two-thirds of the House and Senate and a majority of the electorate approve the bond issuance needed to fund the liability.

Accordingly, my op-ed in the Portland Press Herald highlighted both the amount of the liability attached to the Dolby landfill and the corresponding Constitutional issue.  That op-ed was succeeded by my written request to the Attorney General’s office for an opinion on the constitutionality of L.D. 1567.  Those efforts prompted further discussion in Senate debate and ultimately resulted in Senators Dill and Schneider formally requesting that the Attorney General render an opinion on the constitutionality of L.D. 1567.

While these efforts and continuing press coverage have succeeded in creating additional debate, the bill’s proponents recently amended the text of L.D. 1567 to classify it as emergency legislation in attempt to speed up its prospective implementation.  Such textual changes do not nullify the Constitutional issues presented by L.D. 1567.  Accordingly, we encourage people to contact their Senators to ensure that L.D. 1567 does not take affect until it has undergone the process mandated by the Constitution.  A proposal that enables Brookfield to dump its liability for the Dolby landfill, allows a new owner to purchase the mills for one dollar without acquiring any liability associated with the Dolby Landfill, and authorizes the SPO to accept on behalf of the State of Maine Brookfield’s generous donation of a leaking landfill and all the liability that accompanies its ownership most certainly deserves the additional consideration and process that the Constitution imposes.   Additional process that the LePage administration called for back in February.

At a time when Maine’s new governor is trying to revive the false choice of business versus the environment, the Oakhurst Dairy company is proving that what’s good for the environment is also good for business.  As shown in this recent article, this family-owned business, based in Portland, ME, is not just talking the talk but walking the walk when it comes to environmentally-conscious businesses.  From committing to selling only artificial growth hormone-free milk to installing solar panels to heat water used to clean milk cases to its delivery fleet of trucks that use biodiesel and aerodynamic skirts to increase fuel efficiency, Oakhurst Dairy has significantly reduced the amount of oil and diesel fuel it otherwise would have used, and in doing so, reaped significant savings.  As one might expect of a company that started 90 years ago as a small dairy in Portland, Oakhurst takes the long view when it comes to how best to keep its niche in the market, and that’s good for Maine.