Conservation Law Foundation issued the following statement in response to today’s release of Massachusetts’ Clean Energy and Climate Plan, which will reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

“The 25 percent target puts Massachusetts on the right trajectory to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions the science says we need to see by 2020,” said John Kassel, president of Conservation Law Foundation. “Setting the target at the maximum authorized by the Global Warming Solutions Act is in keeping with the Patrick Administration’s track record of bold and innovative clean energy and climate policy that recognizes the opportunity in aligning our environmental objectives with our economic ones. The new plan will put in place a diverse portfolio of pragmatic solutions that create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions – a winning formula for the Commonwealth and one that will no doubt be watched closely around the country.”

Kassel served on the Climate Protection and Green Economy Advisory Committee that consulted with state officials on the drafting of the Plan. CLF played a key role in making the statute a reality and has lent its expertise throughout the planning process to ensure a final plan that was aggressive enough to achieve the necessary GHG reductions while still being achievable.

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people. Using the law, science and the market, CLF creates solutions that preserve natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy region-wide. Founded in1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The Boston Globe ran an interesting essay in its Ideas section on whether we should do “randomized trials’ of new laws before applying them to our entire society and economy.

Louis Brandeis, a great Boston lawyer before ascending to the Supreme Court once eloquently and clearly presented the mechanism we have long had in place for doing something of the sort:

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” – New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 52 S.Ct. 371, 386-387, (1932) (dissenting opinion of Brandeis, J.)

Back in 1932 a knuckle-dragging Supreme Court invalidated a law enacted by the State of Oklahoma that required  people who wanted to manufacture, distribute or sell ice obtain a license first.  In the dissent quoted above Justice Brandeis blazed a path that continues today – a path based on the clear recognition that states should be generally allowed to enact their own laws subject only to clear preemption by federal law.

This history has served the environment well.  Over the last 40 years the great advances in clean air, clean water and toxics reduction have come from the states – with the Federal Government following along. Sometimes these efforts have been states going it alone and sometimes it has been coordinated action by a group of states.  Two key examples of that kind of collective action are the way that automobile emissions regulations were developed by California and then adopted by a range of states, led by the New England states and the development of a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by the states of the East Coast.

“The states as laboratories” does not have all the virtues of randomized trials like the experiments used in the pharmaceutical world but it does have the advantage of being very real.

In the wake of Dominion’s announcement that it would not be cost effective to continue to operate and invest additional capital for pollution controls at Salem Harbor Station, the Patrick Administration has sent a message to ISO-NE calling for action.  In a letter to the President of ISO-NE, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Ian Bowles, highlighted the need to invest in clean energy instead of propping up old, environmentally obsolete coal plants such as Salem Harbor Station.  Secretary Bowles urged ISO-NE to “quickly implement” a solution to allow Salem Harbor Station to retire.

Clean energy policy has been one of the centerpieces of the Patrick Administration, and this letter signals not only the Administration’s commitment to building clean, new energy infrastructure, but also the important role they have in hastening the retirement of the coal-fired power plants that cause significant damage to public health and the environment.

ISO-NE is responsible for finding an alternative that will remove any need for Salem Harbor Station; however, after 7 years of transmission upgrades and planning, ISO-NE rejected Dominion’s request to remove Salem Harbor Station from the market over concerns that the plant could be needed on the hottest days of the year.  CLF has been pushing ISO-NE to expedite its planning process so that ratepayers will not be forced to bear the costs of keeping this 60 year old coal and oil plant on line despite its continued struggles to meet environmental regulations. 

The Secretary’s letter is particularly timely given that ISO-NE will host meetings on December 15 and December 16 to discuss the planning process for replacing Salem Harbor Station.

Recent headlines over a strategically thinking Bald Eagle in Wiscasset brought a wry smile to my face because this bird somehow managed to undo what dozens of fiscally prudent Mainers have been unable to do for the last decade: stop the DOT.

It is only with a modicum of irony that it took the American Bald Eagle, our symbol of freedom, to loosen the shackles of an oppressive, fiscally irresponsible DOT plan to build the Wiscasset Bypass.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with Wiscasset’s seasonal traffic congestion, let me paint the scene:  let’s say you are “from away” and traveling to Midcoast Maine.  You are heading north on I-295 and you see a sign that says “Coastal Route”, doesn’t that sound charming?  “Let’s take that route!” exclaim the passengers in your car, and so you dutifully exit.  You are cruising along, everything is fine, and you soon approach the town of Wiscasset that declares itself to be “The Prettiest Little Village in Maine.”  Lovely!  You make a few winding turns, catch a glimpse of the water through some Victorian homes, your expectations soar and then suddenly you find yourself in a bit of traffic.  Maybe there was a fender bender, no one is moving.  You inch forward after a few minutes. 17 minutes and 43 seconds go by.  Still stuck.  You move agonizingly slow through this “Pretty Little Village” that seems uglier by the minute because all you can see is a line of brake lights a mile long.  You make one last turn and then the full scope of the traffic is revealed, and it is a brutal scene.  Idling cars are backed up for miles, for no apparent reason other than a bunch of flip-flop clad pedestrians scrambling to cross the road back and forth a zillion times so they can taste for themselves if the lobster rolls at Red’s Eats really are the best in Maine.  It is well known that the summer tourists queuing up for a lobster roll at this well-known eatery, located practically on Route 1 itself, is a significant contributor of the infamous start-and-go pile-ups along Route 1.  By the time you make it through this, everyone in the car is fighting, you have no idea why you thought a vacation to Maine would in any way constitute an “escape”, you are cranky, hungry (because there was no way you were going to contribute to the problem by actually eating at Red’s Eats), and you openly wonder why they don’t just build a pedestrian bridge for crying out loud!?

The truth is, it is a valid question. A pedestrian bridge or tunnel to alleviate the bottleneck at Red’s Eats is such an obvious solution that you really do have to wonder why it doesn’t already exist.  Yes, there are some historical compatibility issues, but it is relatively inexpensive and logical solution.  Yet it was summarily dismissed by the DOT.  So what about the installation of traffic lights at both the intersection of Route 1 and 27?  How about the prohibition of left hand turns in the downtown area?  What about a reconfiguration of parking along Route 1?

Source: Maine DOT

Which of these solutions did the experts agree was a reasonable approach?  None of the above.  Rather, after a decades-long planning process, the alternatives flirted with three bypass options, N8C, N2F and N2A, noted in the diagram above.  All three are wildly expensive, in the $85-$100 million dollar range, (this in a state that lacks funds for even basic road maintenance), all have impacts on environmentally sensitive lands, and all, even the shortest option, double the route.  This will waste travel time, cost drivers more money and burn more dirty fossil fuels.  The negative impacts don’t stop there.  The existing Davey bridge will cease to become a priority and when limited state coffers must choose on repairs, it will be the sacrificial lamb, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.  In addition, let’s think about what the by-pass is actually “by-passing.”  It’s the entire commercial center of Wiscasset.  The charming antique shops: by-passed.  The funky art galleries: by-passed.  The gift shops, well, you get the idea.   All seasonal traffic will be diverted away from the hard working Mainers that rely on tourists for their yearly revenue.

In the wake of the eagle nest discovery, the DOT has indicated that it is “evaluating whether to resubmit an application to support one of remaining alternatives as the preferred option for a bypass.”  But perhaps the evaluation should take a step even further and not start with the assumption that a bypass to alleviate seasonal summer traffic is the only option.  Let’s go back to the drawing board on this one and come up with a solution that reflects our fiscal reality and that can actually be built in under a decade.  The Wiscasset Task Force will meet on December 15 at 6:30 to drill down into these issues and hopefully come up with a sound solution.

Yesterday’s decision by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to approve a 15-year contract for the sale of half of Cape Wind’s power to National Grid removed yet another major hurdle for the nation’s first offshore wind farm and confirmed what CLF and other project supporters have long known to be true: Cape Wind is a good deal for ratepayers.

In finding the contract “cost-effective” and “in the public interest,” the DPU overrode opponents’ most recent objections that the project supposedly is too expensive and will lead to huge profits for the developer.  In fact, the decision pointed out again – for those who chose to overlook the terms spelled out in black and white in the Cape Wind contract – that the developer will not reap windfall profits because the profits are capped and cost savings will flow back to the ratepayers.  And, the contract price is fixed and predictable over the entire 15-year term of the contract.

CLF is thrilled, if not entirely surprised, that the DPU found the project to be good for ratepayers.  As noted in the DPU’s decision, the estimated price impacts are very small and are significantly outweighed by the benefits. Customers will get some relief from the volatile fossil fuel price rollercoaster while Cape Wind takes a major bite out of global warming pollution and forces some of the most expensive and dirty fossil fuel-fired power plants to reduce their operation.  This is a major win for the environment and the emerging clean energy economy.

As an intervening party in the DPU proceeding, CLF took the lead working with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), NRDC and Clean Power Now to introduce extensive expert testimony, cross-examine one of the opponents’ principal witnesses (an avowed climate skeptic), and draft detailed legal briefs to make the case for approval of the Cape Wind contract.

John Rogers, senior energy analyst at UCS said, “With this decision, Massachusetts has taken a real step forward on behalf of the commonwealth and the country as a whole. We know that offshore wind represents a real opportunity for economic development and environmental progress.  This move means we’re ready to say yes to that opportunity.”

Over the past decade, Cape Wind has withstood exhaustive environmental and permitting reviews, demonstrating over and over that its benefits will far exceed its impacts.  Since the contract was so thoroughly vetted, we are confident that today’s decision paves the way for a much more streamlined review and approval of a contract for the second half of Cape Wind’s power, renewable energy credits and other output. With federal, state and local approvals, a lease and a long-term contract, Cape Wind is looking more and more like a sure thing.

Local Activists from Salem Alliance for the Environment (SAFE) and HealthLink are hosting a Forum this Sunday that will expose the true costs of burning coal at plants like Salem Harbor Station.  The heat is on Dominion Energy to shut down Salem Harbor Station to allow the City of Salem and Massachusetts to usher in a clean energy economy that will provide sustainable and equitable jobs without jeopardizing public health or the environment.  Anyone who is interested in moving us towards a Coal Free Massachusetts should attend this event to find out more about the toll coal fired power plants take on communities from mining through burning and finally the disposal of ash.

For more information on how you can get involved check out the SAFE and HealthLink websites  CLF’s take action webpage.

Hotter Temperatures More than Doubled Smog Days in New England

On October 1, the EPA announced that the number of bad air quality days increased from 11 last year to 28 in 2010.  These are also known as “high ozone days” and are triggered when ozone levels exceed the standards EPA has set to protect public health. Excessive ozone, more commonly known as smog, results from a combination of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and heat and sunlight. Even short-term exposure to smog has been shown to shorten lives and cause other severe health impacts, including shortness of breath, chest pain, asthma attacks, and increased hospitalization for vulnerable populations such as the very young, elderly, and those already suffering from lung or heart disease. In children, smog can also result in dramatic long-term impacts such as reduced lung development and function.

The hotter the day, the worse the smog—and that smog is intensified by the increased use of electricity from coal and other fossil fuel-fired power plants when we crank up our air conditioners.  Emissions from cars and trucks add to the dangerous mix, and as climate change progresses, the temperatures continue to rise.

Until now, the greater Boston area had experienced an average of 14 days of 90 degrees or more per year. In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists had estimated that climate change would result in no more than 15-18 days of 90+ degree weather from 2010-2039.

But in 2010, Boston endured 23 days of 90+ degree weather, far outstripping both the annual average and predictions of what that number would be in the future.  Although EPA has proposed stronger emissions limitations for power plants and cars and trucks, the rapid rise in 90+ degree days is a side effect of climate change that has already been set in motion, and it will continue and worsen unless we take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal-fired power plants rank as one of the primary culprits when it comes to emitting climate change pollutants and nitrogen oxides.  Across the nation, coal-fired power plants are the second largest source of nitrogen oxide emissions, and here in New England alone, eight coal-fired power plants churn out 10,515 tons of nitrogen oxide a year and millions of tons of carbon dioxide.  By contributing to climate change and increasing smog-forming pollutants, coal-fired power plants pose a major threat to New England’s air quality.  Creating a healthier future for New England means creating a Coal Free New England.  CLF is committed to shutting down each one of these polluting plants by 2020.  Work with CLF to create a thriving, healthy New England.

Recent industry legal action to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is an eye-opener suggesting a slash and burn strategy that threatens to undo years of successful regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.  Various industry trade groups including the American Chemistry Council, National Association of Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute are waging a full scale war to prevent regulation of GHG emissions and recently initiated a coordinated, broad and covert legal attack (with no press or public outreach) on EPA’s permitting authority.

On July 6, the coalition of industry groups filed 12 similar legal petitions challenging not only EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, but also the fundamental underpinnings of EPA’s 30 year old permitting program for large emitting facilities.  These appeals present a clear and unequivocal message to EPA and the public: try to impose reductions in GHG emissions and we will attack the core of the greenhouse gas regulations adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in MA v. EPA and EPA’s ability to regulate large emitters through its preconstruction (PSD) permitting program in the first instance.   With a key message like that—tone deaf to public awareness and concern about climate change—no wonder the industry trade group petitioners did not seek publicity.

Recent statements from Senator Murkowski suggest that she and her allied colleagues have been briefed and support this strategy.  According to Politico.com,

Key coal-state Democrats and nearly all Republicans are also unified in their bid to slow down the EPA via legislation – and they’re determined to force a series of votes on the issue before the next big suite of rules start kicking in next January.

“You attack it at all fronts,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a leading advocate for stopping the EPA, told POLITICO. “You go the judicial route. You go the legislative route. I think this is important to make sure we are looking at all avenues.”

CLF is intervening (co-represented by attorneys from the Clean Air Task Force) along with other environmental groups in these recent challenges as well as several prior challenges to EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs. The vehemence of these positions, and the obvious coordination among a broad cross section of industries to prevent regulation of GHGs, unfortunately suggest that US policy on climate change will not be advanced through bottom up, traditional legislative initiatives in Congress.

As Bill McKibben asserted in Tomdispatch.com,

If we’re going to get any of this done, we’re going to need a movement, the one thing we haven’t had. For 20 years environmentalists have operated on the notion that we’d get action if we simply had scientists explain to politicians and CEOs that our current ways were ending the Holocene, the current geological epoch. That turns out, quite conclusively, not to work. We need to be able to explain that their current ways will end something they actually care about, i.e. their careers. And since we’ll never have the cash to compete with Exxon, we better work in the currencies we can muster: bodies, spirit, passion.

The time has come to knock the halo off of the heads of the obstacles to progress and quality of life.  While the old way of making power, combusting decomposed carbon–based life forms (i.e., fossil fuels) contributed to prosperity and improvement to quality of life through 20^th century industrialization; we are facing a much different earth and atmosphere.  Unchecked burning of fossil fuels and emissions of GHGs are detracting from our quality of life and will continue to do so for decades after they are emitted.   The coal-fired power plant near you is not your friend; its day to day activities are undercutting your health, environment, economy and well-being for no good reason except for its tenacity in resisting beneficial change.

On June 29, 2010 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a series of petitions for reconsideration of the “Endangerment Finding”, the official determination that emissions of carbon dioxide and other types of global warming pollution are causing harm to the public health, the environment and the climate.

That EPA website provides good links to the very best science like the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , the U.S. National Academy of Sciences , and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

And the science is telling us not just that humanity is causing a future change in our climate – but also that the change is already in progress – that the damage is already clear and before us.

As one news article put it:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s just-released 2009 State of the Climate report bears few surprises for those who follow climate science–the past decade was the warmest on record, and the Earth has slowly been heating up for the past 50 years.

The difference between this and every other climate report, however, is that NOAA gathered research from 300 scientists in 48 countries to produce a compelling document that covers every aspect of our planet’s climate. The report is, according to NOAA, the first to bring together “multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean.”

The facts are just lying there in front of us.  June 2010 was the hottest June on record and the April-June and January June periods this year was the hottest such periods on record.

But what really matters is not what happens in any given month or any specific six month period.  It is all about the long term trends – kind of like this.

And while near term impacts, like more frequent heat waves, are visible just over the horizon and possibly unavoidable due to the damage we have already done to our climate.  But the real damage if we don’t take action like capping our greenhouse gas emissions and changing how we generated and use energy will be far more extreme.

Amazingly, the science showing that we now appear to be on a trajectory to make half the Earth uninhabitable by 2300 has received very little attention in the press.   Really, that is what respectable scientists are saying in the most rigorous of forums with peer review and everything.  Go ahead, look at it, I will wait here.   And bear in mind that this is not a conversation about the distant Year 2300 – it is about the painful journey into that future as we damn our children, grand-children and future generations to pain as the globe warms.

So lets go back to the beginning of this post.  Some folks petitioned the EPA to reconsider its determination that the pollution causing global warming is causing harm, or is in danger of causing harm, to the public health, the environment or the climate.   Are you really surprised that EPA stood with science and rejected those challenges?

The really incredible thing is that despite the science, despite the reality of what is starting to unfold around us that U.S. Senate and large swaths of our society indulge in the expensive luxury of denial and refuse to take action.

There is so much to be done as we fight to cap global warming pollution, to make our society, homes and buildings more energy efficient, to build walkable and livable communities with good transit where gasoline is not the lubricant of our lives, and make the move to renewable clean energy . . . and the hour is getting late.