Wouldn’t it be great if Maine law required that our power companies must save their customers money by investing in the cheapest form of energy, known as energy efficiency, while simultaneously ensuring that the sources of power sold in Maine increasingly come from clean, renewable energy sources?  If you agree, you are not alone. A coalition of Maine businesses, workers, health professionals, citizens and public interest groups, including CLF, feels the same way and we have initiated a referendum for next year’s election that will make it happen—with your help.

                To do so, our coalition will have to gather more than 70,000 signatures from Mainers seeking to place this issue on a ballot for state-wide vote in November 2012. This Election Day (tomorrow- November 8—VOTE!) keep an eye out at your polling place for folks collecting signatures on our petition and join our cause.

                What exactly are we proposing? To make changes to existing law that would require that a portion of our electricity bills fund cost-effective energy efficiency efforts throughout the state. Cost-effective energy efficiency means reducing the amount of electricity that we use, by investing in improvements to our industries, businesses and homes in a manner that saves more money than was spent on the improvements. On average, these kinds of investments save three times as much as they cost. If left untouched, Maine’s currently planned investment in energy efficiency will capture only 25% or so of the potential available savings. These are savings that will reduce everyone’s electricity bill, avoid the need for new expensive electricity lines and limit the amount of electricity that needs to be generated—let’s not squander them.

                We are also proposing that a requirement in Maine law, providing that at least 10% of electricity sold in the state must come from new renewable energy sources, should be increased so that 20% of our electricity comes from clean renewables. The effect of this requirement would be to increase the development of home-grown renewable energy projects that generate jobs in Maine while reducing our energy-related pollution. In combination, energy efficiency and increased renewables will mean Mainers pay less to the power company while doing more to preserve their quality of air and place.

                Why are we undertaking this? Governor LePage and the current leadership in the Legislature have made clear that, not only do they not support money-saving energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, but they are attempting to scale back both from their current levels. We don’t think that approach is good for Maine and we believe a majority of Maine people agree with us. This ballot initiative allows the people to decide this issue of critical importance for our economy and our environment.   

                If you are interested in helping us in this campaign, please contact the CLF Maine office.

Much of CLF‘s work these days is focused on the challenge of global warming and in particular reducing immediately, structurally and effectively the release into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and the other “greenhouse gases” causing the problem.

This is, of course, not all that we do.  But much of our work on this over-arching problem overlaps with other important work like reducing air pollution that directly harms the health and lives of people or providing good transit access to urban communities, thus providing access to jobs for residents of those communities while reducing automobile trips and emissions. Still other CLF work, like protecting and nurturing our fisheries and forests, ensures that management of those resources is mindful of the changing climate while preserving unique ecosystems both for their own benefit and to ensure that future generations will be able to use and enjoy special places and resources.

When we step up and assert the benefit to the climate of, for example, wind farms in Maine or in Nantucket Sound or energy efficient light bulbs or the need to consider the climate in considering a transmission line across New Hampshire or in a merger proposed between utilities the question comes back to us: is it worth the cost?  Often it is a cost measured in dollars but sometimes it is a “cost” in terms of a view from a house or a beach or a mountain changing.

Responding to this question presents us with two challenges: first we need to show that the result we are advocating in favor of will actually reduce emissions and then we need to show that the need for those emissions reductions outweighs the cost of taking the action we are advocating.

One good example of how we show that an action will actually reduce emissions comes from the world of wind farms.  In those cases we can present expert testimony about how deploying wind resources will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.  And that analysis isn’t just created by our experts, it draws upon reports done by the planners and operators of New England’s wholesale electricity system – work that is sometimes summed up in official summaries and nice presentations that include informative charts like this one showing how when the system gets 9% of its power from wind that emissions drop by 9% but when it gets 20% of its power from wind the emissions drop by 24% for reasons explained in the report:

And then we turn to the question of showing that this all matters and the cost of taking action outweighs the price of that action.  In our cases, again using the wind farm example, we use expert testimony.

But the bottom line is that we as a society are getting to the point where the cost of global warming is no longer a horrible possibility- it is an immediate reality, all around the world from Russia to Texas and points in between like New England.  And what we are experiencing is only a preview of what is to come and a strong reminder of the need to take action.

The Land Use Regulatory Commission has begun deliberations on the Bowers Mountain Wind project, which CLF supported as an intervener.  Sean Mahoney presented a closing statement in support of the project  (Sean Mahoney Closing Statement 10-5-11) which built upon the testimony of Abigail Krich (Abigail Krich Direct Testimony 6-10-11 and Dr. Cameron Wake (Dr. Cameron Wake Direct Testimony 6-10-11).  As with many wind power projects in Maine today, the biggest issue for LURC to resolve is the project’s impact on scenic resources in the area.  The testimony of Roger Milliken (Roger Milliken Direct Testimony 6-10-11) spoke to the push and pull of that issue eloquently.  A decision from LURC on the project is expected sometime in early November.

1. Register your materials – You must first fill out a form indicating what materials you would like to dispose of and return it to the Maine Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) by September 30, 2011.
2. Wait for your disposal date – After the BPC processes your registration form, they will send you a date (during the month of October 2011) and a location (one of four sites) for you to bring your materials. BPC notification documents should arrive to you at least 10 days prior to your drop-off date. 
3. Bring your notification papers – Don’t forget to bring your BPC paperwork with you when you drop off your materials on your designated disposal date.
4. For those of you who want to do the right thing with your old pesticides but just need a little help in finding the right way to go about it, you can find this and other information at: http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/pesticides/public/obsolete.htm

Perhaps the only good thing about tight financial times is that it forces us to carefully examine our priorities.  For the Maine DOT, that financial reality resulted in the practical and smart decision to shelve the Wiscasset Bypass project.  The preferred bypass route, meant to alleviate traffic on Route 1 in Wiscasset, ME, was shaping up to be expensive– upwards of $100 million. In addition, it would have taken decades to complete, and circumvented the charming downtown of Wiscasset, displaced over 30 homes and businesses and taken land from over 70 landowners in the process.  It would also have ended up being the second longest bridge in Maine.  All of this to alleviate the area’s traffic volume, which has actually been decreasing since 2000.

The summer crowds at the popular Red's Eats are a major contributor to the traffic congestion along Route 1 in Wiscasset, ME. (Photo credit: TripAdvisor)

The writing was on the wall in December 2010, when during a Midcoast Bypass Task Force meeting the DOT laid out the financial reality of what the Department was facing. They reported a $3.3 billion shortfall over the next 10 years and major competing needs for existing infrastructure, such as the Kittery Bridge (which requires $200-$300 million in immediate funding) and immediate repairs needed for arterial and collector highways, all competing against the sobering reality of dwindling fuel tax revenues, a lack of political will to increase fuel taxes or generate other funding mechanisms and a big unknown hanging over the federal funding program.

Yesterday, the Maine DOT Commissioner David Bernhardt announced that the ongoing studies examining a bypass route would be cancelled.  This is the second major transportation planning effort to be cancelled by the LePage Administration– the first was the Gateway 1 project that examined land use and transportation plans for 110 miles of Route 1 from Brunswick to Prospect, ME.

The cancellation of the Wiscasset Bypass may be pegged on the Bald Eagle that decided to build a nest right smack in the middle of the preferred corridor (referred to as N8c) for the bypass; but the truth is that the nest merely provided the Department an opportunity to take a step back and carefully evaluate the wisdom of spending upwards of $100 million on a bypass that would alleviate traffic congestion for a mere 6-8 weeks in the summer.  A significant amount of that congestion can be directly attributable to pedestrian and vehicle crossings in lower downtown Wiscasset.  And yet, dating far back as 1958, when the Wiscasset Master Plan– which included a call for a bypass– was first developed, proposals for a major expenditure of funds for highway expansion have been seen as the only way to solve the congestion problem.

Tighter purse strings provide us with a great opportunity here.  Budget conscious alternatives, such as a traffic signal, a pedestrian bridge over Route 1 or a tunnel under Route 1, reconfiguration of parking in Wiscasset’s downtown business community or a traffic control officer directing the flow of pedestrians and cars can now be given the common sense consideration they deserve.

Last week I had the honor of teaching a group of summer camp students enrolled in the University of Maine’s unique Maine Summer Transportation Institute, a two week program for Bangor-area middle school students.

The event is co-sponsored by the Maine Department of Transportation, the UMaine College of Engineering, and the Federal Highway Administration. It is designed to introduce students at an early age to jobs and careers available in Maine’s transportation industry.

I had 20 students in the class. We started off talking about transit options, different ways of getting around and the pros and cons of each option. Who knew that riding a Galapagos tortoise was a form of transportation?  Well, at least the carbon footprint was low on that option, compared to taking a rocket to the mall.

Then, I divided the kids into five teams. They had 10 seconds to give themselves a name, and soon we were off with the “Chickadees,” the “Destructive 4,” the “No Name 4,” “Team 1/Won” and my personal favorite, the “Guinea Pig Ninjas.”  Each team of four got a huge map of the Bangor area, which they huddled around with pieces of string measuring the distance from their school to their neighborhood. Some kids knew right off the bat: “0.8 miles– I know because I have to walk it” and others were surprised (and a little embarrassed) that their parents drove them when they discovered that other kids were biking the same distance. The team that had the overall shortest distance to school and the smallest carbon footprint in the mode of transportation used to get to school won.  Team No Name took first place with an average distance of 1 mile and three of the kids either walking or biking to school.

At the whiteboard. (Photo credit: Sheila Pendse, UMaine)

Then, in a questionable move on my part, I distributed colorful little Sharpie markers (yes, the permanent kind).  The assignment: design a trolley route that will be of most benefit to the residents of Bangor. The airport and urban areas were big factors. The result (after some creative tattoo work with the markers) ranged from a highly efficient four-mile loop to a 22-mile spiral. One route managed to extend 10 miles out of the way. When I dared to question the wisdom of that route, I was set straight with an exasperated, “because we need to pick up my best friend who lives on that street!”  Duh!

It is fantastic that the state can offer this program to generate interest in an area that continues to pose extreme challenges. Just take a gander at Rep. Mica’s federal Transportation Reauthorization Proposal, which seeks to slash 20% from already underfunded programs, including a 25% cut to the Amtrak subsidy that will severely undermine the flow of revenue into Maine.

Overall, this camp is a gem. The students are smart, polite and bursting with enthusiasm. I wish I could have told those kids that by the time they were working adults, they wouldn’t need to spend huge amounts of their income on gas for their cars, because they would have transit options. The fact of the matter is, given the challenges we continue to face in securing decent transportation options for Mainers, we’ll really need some of these kids– and a lot of adults, too– to commit to creating innovative solutions to move past these setbacks so we can give Mainers the transportation future that they need and deserve.

Learn more about CLF’s work to modernize transportation.

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: DOT

The nation’s debt crisis has been captivating lawmakers in recent weeks, and they are grasping at anything that will help their respective positions, including last month’s bleak jobs report that reflected a creeping rise in unemployment to 9.2%.  Yet against that sobering backdrop is a positive trend that reflects where employers are steadily heading: the green economy.  The green jobs sector is faring better than most nationwide, and Maine in particular is ahead of the growth curve, according to a new report released today by the Brookings Institution.

Governor LePage has been outright dismissive of “green” or “clean” jobs, claiming in May that “The majority of these ‘green jobs’ are temporary.” But the data collected by the Brookings Institution spanned over seven years.  Between 2003 and 2010, Maine added 2,914 clean jobs for a total of 12,212 clean economy jobs in the state, a rate that reflects a 4% annual growth rate in this sector compared to the 3.4% national average.  The average annual wage of a green job in Maine was $36,460, and sample clean economy employers included Ocean Renewable Power Co., LLC, Tom’s of Maine, Inc., Cianbro Corp., Woodard & Curran, Inc., and Hancock Lumber Co., Inc.

Some of the largest segments in the state include jobs related to conservation, waste management and treatment, public mass transit, sustainable forestry products and energy-saving building materials.  The green economy is an important element of the state’s future financial well-being, and the economic activity includes a broad swath of products from wind turbines and solar photovoltiacs to services such as mass transit and regulation.

The trend here in Maine reflects what is happening on a national scale: while almost every other job sector is ratcheting back and waiting for some break in the recession, positions tied to sustainability and renewable energy are taking off.  Nationally, the clean economy employs 2.7 million people, double the 1.2 employed by the fossil fuel industry according to the Pew Center.

Entirely new positions, such as “Chief Sustainability Officers” are being created to ensure that companies are not only environmentally responsible but take advantage of cost-saving mechanisms through energy efficiency.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of job postings containing the keyword “sustainability” more than quadrupled in May of this year.  The number containing “wind” and “solar” more than doubled in the same time period.

For a country that consumes 19 million barrels of oil per day, it is refreshing to see a trend that reflects a critical acknowledgement: business as usual leaves us vulnerable.  A paradigm shift in hiring priorities and business practice gives us hope for economic and environmental sustainability.  And a big “attaboy” to Maine for fiercely trudging along and outpacing the national growth trends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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