There are many things about Governor LePage regulatory “reform” proposals that could impact the quality of my family’s life here in Maine, from developing the North Woods to loosening restrictions on dirty air emissions.  But a couple of proposals in particular really frustrated me as a parent.  LePage’s proposal to repeal the BPA ban and the toxic flame retardant ban. The BPA ban phased out the toxic chemical in consumer products such as baby bottles and sippy cups.  The bill had strong support and there wasn’t a single Maine based business that testified against the bill.  But it received plenty of opposition from deep pocketed chemical industries, such as Dow Chemical.

While Washington based groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council have supported a repeal of the ban, local grocers, including the Maine Grocers Association have not taken an active role and have not taken a stance on the ban.

I am the mother of two young boys, ages 17 months and 2 and a half.

My boys on the shore of Moosehead Lake

I spend a considerable amount of time combing through labels on baby products to make sure that the materials aren’t toxic.  It is time consuming to ground truth the harmful effects of chemicals.  What are the hormone disrupting effects of Bispehnol-A (BPA)?  Will that stain resistant/flame resistant perfluorinated synthetic chemical (PFC) on that couch give my boys bladder cancer?  So my attitude is to err on the side of being safe by buying products with as few chemicals as possible.  You would be surprised at how challenging  it is to achieve even that tepid goal.  But last year, Maine lawmakers took considerable strides towards making my decision making easier and safer by enacting bans on known toxic chemicals in kids products, through the Kids Safe Products Law.

Why are we trying so hard to appease out-of-state chemical companies?  Dan Demeritt, LePage’s communication director, dryly pointed out that BPA-free products are available on the market, parents don’t have to choose to buy products that contain the chemical.  This is the “people before politics” response?  As a parent that is constantly pressed for time (aren’t we all?) who frequently does shopping with 2 kids piled into a shopping cart where 5 minutes too long can spell “melt-down”, I don’t have time to read through all the product disclaimers.  Why should any parent have to take that extra step to protect their children when a simple solution is already in place?

I was pleased to see that Republican Senator Dana Dow took a stand on this issue.  He works in the furniture industry and relayed a story of a simple blood test revealed soaring high toxicity levels for PFCs.  Take a look at the link, Senator Dow testifies at around 8 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlc5urnzB50

This issue impacts all of us.  Will Maine choose to protect our children over out of state chemical companies?  Next time you are barreling down a grocery aisle trying to read the label, remember to call your representative and help them figure this one out.

Any doubts that Maine’s new Governor Paul LePage is intent on rolling back decades of environmental protections were put to rest this week with the release of Phase 1 of the governor’s regulatory “reform” (rollback) proposals. The proposals are sweeping in nature, including:

• Requiring at least  3 million acres in the North Woods be zoned for development without any of the current protections against sprawl;
• Weakening the legal standard for reviewing decisions by agency professionals;
• Repealing the requirement that used hypodermic needles be shredded before disposal.

CLF has decried the proposals, as have the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Environment Maine and the Maine League of Conservation Voters, who called them “reckless and appalling.” The Bangor Daily News summed it up well in the title of its January 25 editorial, “Moving Maine Backward.”

The proposals focus extensively on the Department of Environmental Protection and the laws and regulations it is responsible for implementing. For instance, the governor proposes to abolish sound recycling policies, reverse a ban on the toxic, cancer-causing chemical BPA, remove a minimum penalty amount for violators of environmental laws, allow construction in sensitive sand dunes, and weaken water quality measures.

As the Environmental Roundtable should have made clear to the governor last week, a healthy environment protected by science-based rules and regulation is treasured by the people of Maine and essential to the state’s economic future.  But apparently this governor has not yet figured out that he governs for all the people of Maine (and not just the 38% of the voting population who supported him) and that he certainly has not been given a mandate to dismantle four decades  of sound environmental regulations.  The proposals are clearly the wish list of a few select special interest groups that have dominated  this new administration.

The proposals will be the foundation for the series of public meetings being held by the Legislature’s Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform, the first of which was held earlier this week in Presque Isle, and will be the basis for the first bill of the session, LD1, “An Act to Ensure Regulatory Fairness and Reform.”

People who care about Maine’s environment, who understand that a strong and healthy environment is necessary for a strong and healthy economy, need to stand up and make their voices heard by the governor.  Phone calls, letters, emails to the governor’s office and to legislative leaders are critical, as is a strong turnout at the remainder of the regulatory reform hearings.  Before this train leaves the station, we need to do all we can to try and keep it from going off the rails.

The Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation (MAST), the statewide coalition of which CLF is a steering committee member, has submitted a proposal to increase commuter transit options, reduce household expenditures on gasoline and diesel, increase employment opportunities and productivity and reduce government expenditures by expanding the routes of the highly-successful ZOOM Turnpike Express bus services along the Maine Turnpike corridor. The program would also establish a fund for the improved maintenance of Maine’s roadways.

“Financially, this bill just makes a lot of sense for a fiscally-strapped state like Maine,” said CLF Maine Staff Attorney Jane West. “Instead of spending $56 million on a tollbooth or $150 million to widen a couple of miles of highway, this bill will serve thousands of commuters, reduce traffic congestion and provide a much-needed alternative to paying three dollars and more per gallon at the pump, for a fraction of the cost of any other solution.” More >

Let’s say you are a state agency tasked with making a tough choice on how to spend your money.  Your options are:

a.      Spend $150 million on widening 9 miles of highway despite the fact that volume has waned;

b.      Spend $56 million on building another toll booth;

c.       Spend $3.8 million on expanding an existing, highly successful bus service that will benefit thousands of commuters.

Did I mention that you have to do this all while complying with a state law that requires you to give preference to existing systems and other transportation modes (such as bus transit) prior to increasing highway capacity through road building activities?   The obvious answer here is (c), expanding bus service, specifically the ZOOM bus service that is operated by the Maine Turnpike Authority.

Currently, the ZOOM bus runs a limited service between Portland, Biddeford and Saco.  The primary hubs are Park & Ride lots, if you’ve driven by those lots, you will see they are chock full.  Those crammed lots are a glowing testament to the resounding success of the ZOOM.

In an effort to build on that success, last year the Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation approached the Authority to see if it would consider expanding the bus service up to Lewiston and Augusta.  Along the way, West Falmouth, Gray, Sabbatus and Auburn would finally get much needed access to public transit.  But the Authority remained convinced that answers (a) and (b) were right.   After all, highway widening remains a popular solution to just about any transportation problem, despite the fact that, time after time, massive multi-million dollar widening projects only result in more traffic and more congestion. [the fact is, these roads never pay for themselves via tolls or otherwise.]

Does Portland really need another highway widening?

No, and the numbers prove it:

But transit advocates, CLF among them, were not dissuaded.   We found a savvy supporter in Representative Bradley Moulton, a newly elected Republican, who decided to sponsor the ZOOM bus bill, known formally as “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service.”

And fiscally responsible it is.  Not only for the average commuter struggling with rising gas prices, but in the broader context of how Maine decides to spend money on transportation.  The days of subsidized highway widening projects are over.  With the fiscal belt tightening, now is a good time to make some smart decisions on transit.  The ZOOM bus goes a long way towards accomplishing that goal.

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.

Sea Change.  Tsunami. Maelstrom.  Take your pick but the results of the mid-term election from an environmental perspective will bring an even more extreme and hostile approach to restoring, protecting and preserving our natural resources.  The change in Maine will be staggering – not once since the first comprehensive environmental statutes were passed in the 1970’s has there been a Republican governor and a Republican controlled Legislature.  And unlike the past leaders of the Republican party in Maine like US Senators Margaret Chase Smith and Bill Cohen or State legislators Horace Hildreth and Harry Richardson, today’s leaders of the Republican party have attempted to revive the old and false dichotomy of “jobs vs. the environment.”  At stake is the work of 40 years to provide a framework that allows Maine’s people and communities to thrive and protects Maine’s natural resources. We are in unchartered territory.

Governor-elect Paul LePage’s rhetoric on the campaign trail was alarmingly anti-environmental.  Beyond staking his election on dismantling Maine’s agencies tasked with safeguarding our environment, he has bluntly expressed support for offshore oil drilling in the wake of the worst oil spill ever experienced by our country.  He supports building wildly expensive new nuclear power plants.  Rather mind-numbing is the fact that he considers climate change to be at the least, subject to scientific debate if not outright denying it.  And he opposes sustainable  wind development.  Even more problematic is a pervasive sense that he simply doesn’t “get it” – doesn’t get the concept of sustainability, doesn’t get the economic value of a strong and vibrant environment and doesn’t get Mainers abiding conviction that ours is a unique state that merits strong efforts to maintain.

Willful ignorance may be trending in Augusta, but thoughtfulness  has a firm place in Maine’s culture. Those who are committed to a sustainable approach to managing our resources to benefit our people must now put the election behind us and focus on holding the line.  Open and active collaboration among Maine’s environmental community will be necessary to that effort.  We need to recognize that a majority of Maine people voted for two candidates who have long and distinguished records as environmental leaders and stewards.  Just as a majority of voters supported additional funding for the Land for Maine’s Future program, a clear sign that we continue to be willing to invest in safeguarding our environment.

The Conservation Law Foundation has always believed that a thriving Maine is the result of strong environmental protections and sound economic principles.  That belief – and CLF’s unique ability to translate it into practical, effective and results-oriented advocacy – will be more important than ever as a new administration attempts to dismantle the environmental protections of the last four decades.  We hope you join us in our collaborative effort to tackle the challenges that lay ahead.

If you were listening to Maine Public Radio yesterday (whether because you are on vacation or because you live there) you might have caught this piece about plans to develop a sub-sea cable from Maine to Boston.

Bottom line: In order to meet the climate and energy goals that science and sound policy dictate we will need to build thousands of megawatts of clean renewable generation (as well as becoming much more efficient and many other key steps) and the infrastructure to support it.  And a sub-sea cable could be part of that solution, if it is done right.

After months of political and legal muscle flexing to bully the Board of Environmental Protection into setting an extremely aggressive hearing schedule, the proponents of a liquefied natural gas import and regasification industrial facility on the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay sought and obtained a last minute postponement.  Why? The official story is that the BEP didn’t want to make their decision without certain information that Calais LNG failed to submit in response to comments they received three months earlier from two state agencies concerning impacts on wetlands and fisheries. We think there’s something else going on.  Perhaps the project’s financial backers, a shapeless subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, got tired of wasting money.  Or perhaps Calais LNG recognized the significant weaknesses and impacts of the project as set forth in testimony by CLF and others. Regardless, the request for a delay and the granting of that request only favors the applicant, giving it more time to address flaws, and disfavors the citizens and organizations who were forced to meet the expedited schedule that Calais LNG so stridently sought.

A whale in Passamaquoddy Bay, the proposed site of the Calais LNG Facility.

Why is CLF opposed to building a LNG facility in Passamaquoddy Bay in the first place?  Well, to begin with, there is no need for a project of Calais LNG’s size anywhere in New England, and there is certainly no reason to put one in the pristine coastal area of Passamaquoddy Bay.  The annual increase in natural gas consumption in the Northeast region through the year 2035 across all energy use sectors is projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to be under one percent. EIA estimates all natural gas needs can be met from the region’s existing LNG terminals, never mind the huge potential of domestic gas in the Northeast from tight shale formations.

But if there is so much natural gas in the area, then why does New England remain so dependent on heating oil as a fuel source?  The quick answer is that there is a lack of infrastructure for natural gas, especially in Maine, and that many users are hesitant to pay the upfront costs associated with switching to natural gas.  But despite promises by Calais LNG that its project will help to make this switch, this project will at best increase the supply of natural gas for a market already over-supplied.  It will do nothing to help Mainers switch from oil to natural gas to heat their homes, not even in Calais.

And while the energy benefits of building Calais LNG would be minimal, the environmental costs would be huge.  The proposed $1 billion project would include a 67-acre terminal site with two LNG storage tanks, a two acre pier, and a 20-mile natural gas pipeline connecting to the Maritimes&Northeast Pipeline. Although Calais LNG convinced the BEP to ignore the issue, if the project were built it would also require that a new pipeline run parallel to the existing M&NE pipeline, all 254 miles of it, with attendant impacts as well.  The construction and operation of the facility would result in the industrialization of Passamaquoddy Bay and would have permanent environmental impacts on the area’s wetlands, fisheries, wildlife and scenic character.

And since this is Maine…what about the lobstermen?  The development would significantly harm the area’s aquaculture, lobster, and fishing industries; three of the few viable industries left in Washington County.  Calais LNG will try to argue that they’ve come up with an ingenious solution to avoiding fishing impacts.  During the American lobster season, LNG carriers will only transit in Canadian waters, thereby avoiding any delays and gear loss.  Unfortunately for Calais LNG, Canada has continued to state, as recently as June, that they will not allow American LNG tankers in Canadian water.

So, while we are frustrated that the hearing has been delayed, we’re confident that Calais LNG will be just as bad of a proposal in the fall when the hearing is rescheduled as it is in the summer.

If nothing else, this week’s debacle should make the Board question the merits of deciding proposals of this magnitude on such a frenzied schedule.  This isn’t the first time the state has spent considerable resources on potential LNG projects only to have the applicants withdraw unannounced.  Two years ago, Downeast LNG, who plans to re-file this summer, withdrew their permit application right after a week-long BEP hearing.  As is often said, fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Learn more:
Read news coverage on the issue in the Portland Press Herald,  Bangor Daily News, and MPBN.net

CLF Flatbread Pizza Night
Tuesday, February 23
5-9pm
72 Commercial Street
Portland, ME

Join us at Flatbread Company in Portland, ME for a pizza night to benefit Conservation Law Foundation. Putting your money where your mouth is couldn’t be easier: $3.50 of each pizza purchased between 5 – 9 PM will go directly to CLF, benefiting New England’s environment.

So grab your family and friends, and enjoy Flatbread’s famous pizza – topped with organic produce, free-range chicken and nitrate-free meats.

We hope to see you there!

Click here to RSVP on Facebook (RSVP not required) – and please help us spread word far and wide!