Image courtesy of USDA @ flickr.

Last week, CLF filed a lawsuit against the EPA and Curtis Spalding, EPA Regional Administrator, Region 1. (You can find a copy of the suit here, and copy of the press release here.) I want to take a moment to explain why this lawsuit is important.

The alewife is a critical “keystone” species in marine and fresh waters – it is an important source of food for many fish and marine mammals and for numerous birds.  The alewife is a native fish to many Maine rivers and is anadromous, meaning it starts its life in freshwater ponds and lakes, migrates down river to the ocean where it spends most of its life and then returns to its native waters to spawn.

As on many Maine rivers, alewives on the St. Croix River were all but extirpated due to pollution and the damming of the river. However, in the early 1980’s, the population of alewives in the St. Croix River was restored, reaching more than 2.5 million a year due to cleaner water and effective fish passage at the dams on the river.  But in 1995 the Maine legislature passed a bill specifically designed to block alewife passage at the Woodland Dam and Grand Falls Dam on the St. Croix River, based on what turned out to be unsubstantiated claims that alewives were causing a decline in the non-native smallmouth bass population in the St. Croix watershed. In 2008, even after those claims were found to be without merit, the Maine legislature amended the law to allow alewives passage only at Woodland Dam, restoring only 2% of the natural habitat previously available to alewives – effectively preventing them from accessing 98% of their natural habitat in the St Croix above the Grand Falls Dam.

As a result of this change, as I said in my letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, “the Maine Legislature intentionally and effectively changed the water quality standards for that section of the St. Croix [from Class A] to Class B.” As we allege in our suit, this action obligated the EPA to review and reject that change pursuant to its non-discretionary duties under the Clean Water Act (or CWA).

Under the Clean Water Act, any change to an existing water quality standard must be consistent with the state’s anti-degradation policy and must be submitted to the EPA for review. The de facto change to the water quality standards of the St. Croix was not submitted to the EPA for review, nor did EPA review the change for approval or disapproval, as required.

As a result, Maine was allowed to circumvent its responsibilities, and the EPA failed to fulfill its legal obligations.

As I said in the press release, “The law is fundamentally at odds with the legal requirement that the St. Croix River provide natural habitat unaffected by human activity for these fish and EPA has a continuing obligation to review and reject this change in that requirement.”

I was joined in my statement by Bill Townsend, a longstanding member of CLF and one of the deans of Maine’s environmental community, who noted that when he served as President of Maine Rivers, it obtained the funding and data to support studies that alewives are not detrimental to small-mouth bass populations, the original basis for the law. “The failure of the Maine Legislature to change the law in the face of that evidence and of the EPA to take every possible step to address that wrong is unacceptable.”

For more, find copies of my letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson here, CLF’s filing here, and our press release here.

Stay tuned for more!

Until the last week or so, it’s been a dry spring here in Maine and so most of us have welcomed the recent spate of rain. But as I rode past the Back Cove and the East End Wastewater treatment plant in Portland this morning, it was hard not to think about the downside of all this rain–the runoff from streets, rooftops and other hard surfaces that overwhelms our sewer system and treatment facilities and washes untreated right into Back Cove and Casco Bay, carrying pollutants like oil, metals, waste and other accumulated debris along with it. It’s no surprise that these concerns might occur to me, given CLF’s long-standing involvement in tackling this issue, but it doesn’t take an advocate to see the need for action. For Chris Aceto, CLF’s landlord here at 47 Portland Street in Portland’s Bayside neighborhood, a recent article by Seth Koenig of the Bangor Daily News brought back some not so great memories of a dirtier Casco Bay and was a reminder that we still have a lot of work to do:

“I am 46. My mother used to take me to the East End Beach when I was 6 which would have been 1972. I can remember it so clearly because although I was 6, I thought, “This is not a beach!!” You could SEE the raw sewage like some kind of movie footage!  I think she wanted me to see the “beach” she went to when she was a little girl. My brother was the first lifeguard hired when that beach was opened up for swimming. It may have been 1979 or so. My cousins used to have a place at Peaks Island and NO ONE wanted to go there because the Ferry used to pull in to the docks on Commercial Street and you could not “see” water – it was brown, gross, stinky filth floating on top of the water.

Once the city showed some initiative to clean the water and build its first treatment plant, economically, Portland started to turn around. I am sure I am preaching here to the choir, but that article just brought back a ton of memories.” — Chris Aceto

Thanks to Chris for recounting that story that reminds us all about how important our continued vigilance is on finding short-term and long-term solutions to the problem of polluted runoff fouling our waterways, not just here in Portland, but around Maine and the country.

The City of Portland has made good progress in the past few years, but there remains a good deal of work to do.  CLF will continue to push for a solution that will allow us to stop sending untreated pollution and sewage to Casco Bay.

Passamaquoddy Bay. Courtesy of Jay Woodworth @ flickr. Creative Commons.

For some reason, the folks behind the last remaining proposed LNG import facility on the East Coast, Downeast LNG, are still pursuing their license from FERC to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay here in Maine. And even more perplexing, FERC is still willing to spend time and resources on a project that the energy market is clearly saying makes no sense, or cents for that matter.

As our friends at Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3 Nation Alliance point out, Downeast LNG has “just become the sole remaining LNG import terminal on the entire continent.” In light of the already overbuilt capacity for importing LNG, the significant amount of domestic natural gas now flooding the market and bringing prices to an all-time low, and the number of import facilities that are now reversing course to become export facilities, the logic for continuing this quixotic adventure eludes us. For that very reason, FERC dismissed the application of the Calais LNG project, also slated for Passamaquoddy Bay and opposed by CLF in 2010. (Find CLF blog posts on Calais LNG here.) If anything, Maine should focus on more infrastructure to deliver gas to businesses and residents but new sources of natural gas supply are not needed now nor for the next foreseeable 50 years.

Perhaps it is time for FERC and Downeast Energy to face the music and realize that while a decade ago, LNG terminals  may have been a bridge to a better energy future that used less polluting energy sources, they are now a bridge to nowhere and should meet the same fate as that famous Alaskan boondoggle.

On March 30, I testified before Maine’s Legislative Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources in opposition to LD 1853: An Act to Improve Environmental Oversight and Streamline Permitting for Mining in Maine.

In my testimony (which you can read below, or as a .pdf here) I outlined the reasoning for our opposition, including:

1) Open pit mining has a track record in Maine and elsewhere of causing significant harm to Maine’s waters and natural resources, and should be subject to the review of other models, new technologies, risks and benefits.

2) The bill in its original form was poorly drafted and overreaching in many respects. CLF has made numerous recommendations that if made in their entirety would significantly improve the bill.

3) Open pit mines have left unfunded environmental liabilities all over the world and as close as the Callahan mine on the Blue Hill peninsula.  Should open pit mining take place in Maine, every possible protection should be taken to prevent Maine taxpayers from footing the bill.

4) Because Maine has very limited experience with open pit mining and mineral mining in general, it is critical that the relevant agencies have adequate resources, frameworks and enforcement capacity, while the responsibility for the cleanup and closure of any mining operations falls squarely on the owner and operator of the mine.

To read my testimony in full, see below. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact me.

–

Testimony of Sean Mahoney

Conservation Law Foundation

In Opposition to LD 1853

An Act to Improve Environmental Oversight and Streamline Permitting for Mining in Maine

Before the Legislative Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

March 30, 2012

Senator Saviello, Representative Hamper and Members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee:

My name is Sean Mahoney and I am the director of the Conservation Law Foundation here in Maine. Prior to joining CLF in 2007, I represented a mining company that was involved with the copper and zinc mine in Blue Hill Maine under Second Pond.  Based on that experience, I have significant concerns with LD 1853.

The lawyers who drafted this proposed legislation for the Irving Corporation have stated that it is in part modeled on legislation recently passed in Michigan.  Unfortunately they have adopted only the end product and not the process used in Michigan.  In Michigan, that process took more than a year to review other models, new technologies, risks and benefits and ended up with legislation supported by mining companies, fisherman, guides, environmental groups and county and municipal officials.  That legislation was adopted unanimously by the Michigan Legislature followed by regulations developed by the analog to our DEP and also unanimously approved a year later.  I know how hard this Committee has worked to gather information and understand the ramifications of the proposed testimony.  But open pit mining is more than just a potential economic development – it has a track record in Maine and elsewhere of causing significant harm to Maine’s waters and natural resources – and before new setting statutory requirements are set, a process like that in Michigan should be followed.

LD 1853 itself in its original form was poorly drafted and overreaching in many respects.  I recognize that the version before you now is an improvement and appreciate and commend the work that you and Committee staff have done in that regard.  CLF remains opposed to the bill nonetheless for a number of reasons.  Working with other organizations who share our concerns, we have provided specific changes that if made in their entirety would significantly improve the bill.   I attach those comments again for ease of reference and would be happy discuss them in detail should you like.  I would like to focus on three areas in particular.

Financial Assurance – The current regulations require that financial assurance be accomplished through a trust instrument.  As I noted in testimony during a work session, a trust provides the most protection against the State being left with an abandoned mine site that is contaminating land and water resources.  There has been no testimony to the contrary that I am aware of.  Open pit mines have left unfunded environmental liabilities all over the world and as close as the Callahan mine on the Blue Hill peninsula.  Should open pit mining take place in Maine, every possible protection should be taken to prevent Maine taxpayers from footing the bill.

Public Notice/Participation – As with any development, notice of a proposed mining operation should be provided not just to municipalities or counties but also to abutting landowners, existing users of the resource and other interested parties.  That includes notice not just of the initial application but also any significant modifications to the scope or nature of mining operations, changes in ownership and suspension of operations.

DEP/LURC resources – Because Maine has very limited experience with open pit mining and mineral mining in general, it is critical that the agencies tasked with governing and regulating the location, development, operation, reclamation and closure of mine operations have adequate resources to develop the necessary regulatory framework, implement and enforce the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and to ensure that responsibility for the cleanup and closure of any mining operations falls squarely on the owner and operator of the mine.

Open pit mining is an inherently risky activity regardless of technological advances.  We do and should use our natural resources to provide economic opportunity for our communities but we must do so in a way that doesn’t sacrifice those natural resources over the long term.  In its current form, LD 1853 fails to achieve that balance.

Earlier this week the Maine Department of Environmental Protection made a formal determination that Maine would benefit from an expansion of the state-owned Juniper Ridge Landfill located in Old Town. In doing so, it cut in half what the State and Juniper’s private manager Casella Waste Systems Inc.’s subsidiary NEWSME had asked for, authorizing an expansion that would increase capacity of the landfill by up to 9.35 million cubic yards, thereby adding ten-plus years of capacity. By cutting the proposal down to size, the DEP sent the clear message that it doesn’t want Maine to continue to be the dumping ground for New England’s waste. That relatively conservative approach is a good start but more work needs to be done to define the role of Juniper and other landfills and to fully address other flaws in Maine’s waste management system.

CLF opposed the Juniper expansion largely because an approval of the 20 years of landfill capacity proposed would have amounted to a surrender to the forces that are keeping Maine’s recycling rate down, limiting our reuse of waste as compost or for other beneficial purposes and driving (literally) Maine and out-of state waste to be disposed of in Juniper and other landfills in the state. So did this decision have the State only half capitulating to Casella and its waste partners?

The answer to that question is complicated and it is still too early to know for certain, but some things are clear at this point. There is no doubt that this decision indicates that the Maine DEP is willing to continue to make landfills a centerpiece of its waste management regime. However, that does not necessarily mean that it intends for Juniper and other landfills to be the option of first resort for our trash. Indeed, the DEP decision justifies its reduction in the expansion size by citing to the potential negative impacts that a fully expanded Juniper Ridge would have had on initiatives to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling. To its credit, DEP also implies that it will seek to eliminate disincentives in the tipping fees charged by Juniper that have the effect of making landfill disposal less costly than processing or composting waste as well as to limit the practice of disposing of massive quantities of construction and demolition debris processing residues at Juniper. DEP should be encouraged to aggressively pursue these efforts.

There are also positive indications in the DEP decision that it would like to change the 10-year solid waste status quo in Maine. The Department’s findings seem to encourage statutory changes that would limit the landfilling of waste from other states by redefining what is considered out-of-state waste. It also gives implied support for a statutory waste fee structure that would serve as an incentive to limit imported waste and to increase our beneficial reuse and recycling of garbage. Finally, DEP uses its authority in this decision to place some specific limitations on the manner in which Juniper in managed, by limiting the amount of both unprocessed waste and construction and demolition debris that can be disposed of each year at Juniper and by requiring audits designed to keep Casella honest and operating more for the benefit of Mainers than its own bottom line. These are needed improvements.

So despite the DEP’s decision to allow NEWSME to pursue an expansion of Juniper Ridge, there is some reason for hope in addressing the many remaining issues on the solid waste to-do list of the DEP, the Legislature and the Governor. At a minimum, the list contained in the DEP’s decision should be expanded to include: a meaningful increase in fees charged by the state for waste disposal at any landfill to fund recycling programs and disincent land disposal; re-establish and invigorate municipal recycling programs that create jobs, save towns money and reduce our waste; and, establish caps on the amount of solid waste that can be disposed of annually in Maine landfills to limit disposal and avoid the importation of waste by our waste to energy facilities, the residues of which fill our landfills. These actions would sufficiently counterbalance an expansion of Juniper Ridge to ensure that it is only one piece of a larger and more forward thinking strategy.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Northeast Region @ flickr. Creative Commons.

There could not be a more perfect time for a Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper. Working with CLF, I view one of my key roles as rallying citizens and communities around one purpose, cleaning up the estuary. Everyone living here has an impact on the estuary in one way or another.  It is our responsibility to limit that impact and become better stewards of our environment. Whether you live near the Squamscott River in Newfields or Stratham, or near Spinney Creek on the Maine side, we all need be more involved in the decisions that will determine the future of this wonderful natural resource.

Last Friday, I attended a meeting that was designed to foster improved communication among those who care about the future of the estuary. Convened by the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership, the meeting was part of an ongoing series of discussions known as the Great Bay Dialogue.  There are many individuals, groups and town officials concerned about the future health of the estuary, but a lack of coordination has always derailed past attempts to act as a single voice.

Twenty plus people attended this meeting representing state agencies, local government, land trusts and a mix of non-profits. In a large group, there are always differences on how to move forward. As Manager of the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for twenty-two years, I have participated in countless meetings on the management and protection of New Hampshire’s most important coastal ecosystem. So why was this one any different?

Everyone there made a commitment to work towards a cleaner and healthier estuary for one simple reason – the risk is too high if we wait any longer to act. The estuary is nearing a tipping point and once crossed, we may never be able to recover the ecosystem. The goal is to come up with solutions now that, in the long run, will cost far less than if we delay and allow the estuary to crash.

Achieving this goal will not be easy, but the more stakeholders we have involved, the greater chance of success. Clean water improves our quality of life and helps to promote a sustainable economy. From big fixes to small ones, we all have a role to play.

As Reserve manager, I helped to create the Great Bay Resource Protection Partnership. The group, to date, has invested over 62 million dollars in federal and private funds to protect and conserve land throughout the Great Bay region. Now is the time to protect that investment by increasing our efforts to improve water quality in the estuary.

Join the dialogue and help me in the fight to save the estuary from reaching that tipping point.  I can be reached at 603.498.3545 or pwellenberger@clf.org.

Sometimes, the failure to act is as harmful as an act itself.

Yesterday, I sent a letter to Patricia Aho, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, whose recent failure to act on water certification standards for Flagstaff Lake has resulted in the state losing its ability to have any say in the matter for the next 25 years. You can access a copy of that letter here, or read it in full below.

Documents obtained through a Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) request now lead us to conclude one thing: we believe Aho’s failure to act was intentional. Consider the following two points, outlined in the letter:

• Aho had been briefed on the status of the water quality certification application for the Flagstaff Storage Project by the applicant and its attorney and had met with Mr. Mullen, the head of the lead bureau on that application;
• Aho and her staff were aware of the options available to the State with respect to the application.

As stated in the letter, “this makes Ms. DePoy-Warren’s statements of December 9, 2011 that the failure to act on the application in a timely manner was due to reorganization efforts and changed assignments at best completely uninformed and at worst deliberately false… Even more troubling is the conclusion one can logically draw” that Aho “made the decision to not act on the application and thereby waive the State’s rights to certify whether the Flagstaff Storage Project’s new license meets our water quality standards.”

This deliberate inaction is troubling. As I said in a recent joint statement, it not only hurts Maine people who use Flagstaff Lake, but also “raises real concerns about the DEP’s ability and willingness to exercise Maine’s rights to control, manage and protect our natural resources.”

For the full letter, keep reading.

January 3rd, 2011

Patricia Aho, Commissioner January 3, 2012
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0017

Re: Flagstaff Storage Project #L-19313-32-G-N

Dear Commissioner Aho:

We have finished a review of records provided by your Department pursuant to a December 9, 2011, Freedom of Access Act request from our organization, the Conservation Law Foundation.  That review leads us to conclude that the Department, under your direction, intentionally waived the State’s rights under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a), to certify that the relicensing of Florida Power & Light’s Flagstaff Storage Project meets Maine’s water quality standards.  That conclusion is contrary to the assertions of the Department’s spokeswoman, Ms. DePoy-Warren, who publicly stated that the failure to act in a timely manner on the FPL application was neither intentional nor insidious.  While we will never definitively know about the latter, as set forth below, we believe the failure to act was certainly intentional.

As you know, for the past several years, a new license for the Flagstaff Storage Project, #L-19313-32-G-N, had been stayed by FERC based on the denial of the Section 401 water quality certification by the Board of Environmental Protection in 2004, a decision appealed and upheld by the Maine Law Court in 2007. Since then, FPL had filed an application for a water quality certification for the Flagstaff Storage Project as a placeholder while it worked with the Department staff to identify a means to meet the water quality standards identified by the Board in its original order.  The Clean Water Act provides that if an application for water quality certification is not acted upon within a year of its submittal, the State is deemed to waive its right to make or to withhold such a certification. To avoid such a waiver, the Department’s practice had been to request FPL to withdraw and refile the application. Failing that, the Department would deny the application.  FPL, as it had with its other hydroelectric projects, would withdraw its application for this project and then re-file, thereby “re-starting the clock.”  (This is a practice followed not just by FPL but by most other owners of hydropower projects seeking water quality certification from Maine.)  Thus, FPL filed its water quality certification application for the Flagstaff Storage Project with the Department on November 15, 2009, then withdrew and re-filed its application on November 16, 2010.

As you also know, action by the Department on water quality certifications applications had for many years been coordinated by a longtime Department employee, Dana Murch.  Mr. Murch announced that he would retire at the end of the summer in 2011 and documents produced in response to our FOAA request establish that he began preparing for the transfer of his responsibilities to other employees at the Department in early summer.  Specifically, in June, Mr. Murch and senior managers at the Department, including Michael Mullen, current head of the Department’s Land and Water Bureau, scheduled a series of meetings to discuss the transition of his work load. These meetings specifically included discussion of the Flagstaff Storage Project water quality certification application. Indeed, Mr Murch prepared a memorandum to the file dated July 13, 2011, concerning the history and status of the Flagstaff Storage Project and specifically noting that “Unless DEP acts to approve or deny the pending application for water quality certification on or before November 15, 2011, certification will be deemed waived by operation of law.”

On June 17, 2011, you were named acting Commissioner of the Department, subsequently nominated to take that position permanently on September 9, 2011 and confirmed on September 28, 2011 by the Senate. The documents produced by the Department in response to our FOAA request establish that shortly after you were named acting Commissioner, Pierce Atwood’s Matt Manahan, a partner at your former law firm and FPL’s attorney, contacted you to discuss FPL’s Flagstaff and Brassua Storage Projects and requested a meeting with you, Mr. Murch and representatives of FPL.  A meeting that you organized was set for August 5, 2011 at your office. On the following Monday, August 8, 2011, you sent an email to Mr. Mullen (delivered at 8:11 a.m. and read at 8:40 a.m.) stating the following – “Hi Mike – We need to talk about Flagstaff and Brassawa [sic] when you get a chance.  Thanks!  Pattie.”

A subsequent memorandum from Mr. Murch dated August 12, 2011 to DEP staff, including Mr. Mullen (who was by then overseeing all staffing of hydropower projects for the Department) attached a spreadsheet that listed the staff that would be overseeing the various hydropower projects in the state.  Ms. Dawn Hallowell was listed as being responsible for the Flagstaff Storage Project but it is our understanding that, at the direction of the Commissioner’s office, Ms. Hallowell never received that file.

Thus, by the time that Mr. Murch retired on August 31, 2011, the documents strongly support the following: you had been briefed on the status of the water quality certification application for the Flagstaff Storage Project by the applicant and its attorney and had met with Mr. Mullen, the head of the lead bureau on that application; and that you and your staff were aware of the options available to the State with respect to the application.  This makes Ms. DuPoy-Warren’s statements of December 9, 2011 that the failure to act on the application in a timely manner was due to reorganization efforts and changed assignments at best completely uninformed and at worst deliberately false.

Even more troubling is the conclusion one can logically draw that after you met with the FPL and its attorney, you made the decision to not act on the application and thereby waive the State’s rights to certify whether the Flagstaff Storage Project’s new license meets our water quality standards.  While the Department is legally authorized to make such a decision under the Clean Water Act, the manner in which this decision was made, particularly after the State had invested significant resources over the last 7 years in defending the right to determine when a project does or does not meet our water quality standards, and the subsequent response by the Department when the waiver came to light, is unacceptable.

We feel strongly that the documents we have seen to date support our conclusion.  If, however, we have not reviewed all of the relevant documents or there are other facts we are not aware of, we would be most interested in meeting with you to discuss them.  If we are wrong and this was indeed a case of a blown deadline, then the Department should be aggressively acting to ensure that FERC condition the license for the Flagstaff Storage Project to ensure that Maine’s water quality standards are met and instituting procedures to prevent such failures in the future.  If our current understanding of the situation does not change, we believe that at a minimum you should clarify that the Department decision to waive its rights to determine if the Flagstaff Storage Project met Maine’s water quality standards was in fact intentional and should include an apology to the stakeholders who were counting on the State to exercise its rights under the Clean Water Act.

Respectfully,
Sean Mahoney
Vice President and Director
CLF Maine

cc: Peter J. Carney

Maine has a new motto: We can get there from here.

As Washington has failed to advance clean energy legislation, and Governor LePage has expressed open hostility to the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS), I am reminded of that famous quip from Bert and I: “You can’t get they-ah from he-ah.” For Mainers concerned about Maine’s dependence on expensive, dirty fuels, and sincere in their interest in building a sustainable economy for the years to come, this quip has become a frustrating reality – a reality we can change, with your help.

CLF is a part of a coalition of groups from the private and nonprofit sectors, the Maine Citizens For Clean Energy, www.cleaneenergymaine.org,  that is working to enact a law by public referendum that would increase the amount of renewable energy generated in the state and increase our ability to implement energy efficiency measures that would reduce our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels, saving us money and helping our environment at the same time.

To do this, we need to get the referendum  on the ballot for state-wide vote in November 2012 by gathering more than 70,000 signatures from Maine voters by January 2012. The signs are strong: we have met with considerable early success, are ahead of our goals, and see evidence of strong support from Maine residents.

This year, on November 8^th, 28,000 Maine voters registered their interest in putting a citizen’s initiative on next year’s ballot to expand clean energy in Maine. The coalition, as Environment Maine said in their press release, had set a goal of 20,000 only two weeks before. In our current effort to collect 70,000 signatures, we are well ahead of our goals.

This should not be surprising, as polls of Maine residents have consistently shown strong support for energy efficiency. One poll, conducted by NRDC, showed “Nearly 80% of voters back the use and expansion of energy efficiency technologies.” Another, conducted by Portland-based Critical Insights and discussed by NRCM, “shows that Maine voters overwhelming oppose specific environmental rollback proposals now before the Maine Legislature.”

Groups in Maine have heard and are working to promote the interest of Maine voters. Already, CLF is working with a coalition of Maine businesses, workers, health professionals, citizens and public interest groups. We are joined by – Reed & Reed, general contractor, NRCM, and the Maine Renewable Energy Association, among others.

The message Maine voters have delivered so far is clear: We can get there from here.  We need your help.  Please sign a petition supporting the referendum or better yet, volunteer to gather signatures in your community.

This ballot initiative comes at a crucial time and allows for a broad discussion by the people of Maine as to the value of renewable and energy efficiency. If successful, the ballot measure would require that the current RPS be increased by 20 percent by 2020 and would ensure adequate funding from utilities for all cost-effective efficiency measures.

If you’d like to help ensure the passage of this ballot initiative, you can do two things.

First, help us gather signatures. If you haven’t signed the petition, please do so now.

And, secondly, if you’re willing to volunteer – more than willing to provide you with all you’ll need. Simply get in touch with us here at our Portland, Maine, office.

Help us, and our broad coalition, to deliver to Maine what voters want: expanded energy efficiency and, with it, a clean, clear path forward.

Millinocket, Maine – a town struggling to reshape its economy – deserves good jobs. Here at CLF, we watch and hope for the success of the East Millinocket mill and the eventual opening of the Millinocket mill.  However, at a closing price of $17 million, and at $250,000 for annual operations, the state’s recent acquisition of the Dolby landfill in East Millinocket has delivered these jobs at a price that is too high and set a precedent that is too dangerous to accept.

In an Op/Ed that appeared recently in the Bangor Daily News, I argued the importance of understanding all of the costs associated with the Dolby landfill. Let’s quickly review those costs.

First, a majority of the costs will be borne by all Maine taxpayers, regardless of the success of the mills. The Dolby landfill costs $250,000 per year to operate and $17 million to close. The state is now the sole entity legally obligated to cover those costs. While the Legislature appears poised to appropriate the necessary fund for operations (after a local town balked), no funds have been set aside for the $17 million in closure costs, nor is there any clear plan to raise those funds.

Secondly, acquisition of the Dolby landfill and its liabilities came at the cost of ignoring the Maine Constitution. Article IX of the state’s Constitution, a provision that has been in place for two centuries and is intended to keep state government from making rash decisions, was inconvenient to the timing of this particular deal. As a consequence, the administration did not even address the issue. Inconvenience is not an acceptable reason for ignoring those constitutional requirements.

Thirdly, this acquisition – the state’s second in the past few years – further challenges the state’s solid waste policy. The state has a statutory goal of reducing, reusing or recycling waste. The recent acquisition of another landfill in Old Town has created a new conflict between the landfills themselves, which must compete for solid waste to generate revenue to pay for operating and closure costs.

This either means that the administration’s claim that the Dolby landfill would be expanded to help pay for costs is highly unlikely — why would anyone pay to truck garbage to Millinocket if there is capacity in Old Town? — or it means that the application of the Old Town landfill needs to be re-examined.

Finally, as each of these arguments suggests, there is no strategy or vision for reducing the amount of solid waste we landfill in Maine, which would save all of us money.

For more a more extensive review of the costs of the Dolby mill, read my Op/Ed in the Bangor Daily News in full. You can also read some of my other blogs on this topic:

• LePage Forges Ahead in Quest for Troubled Landfill
• What’s next for the Dolby landfill?
• Maine’s Acquisition of Dolby Landfill Sets Dangerous Precedent