photo courtesy of Department of Energy @ flickr.com

In the past 25 years, our lives have become increasingly “plugged in.” We have an ever-increasing number of devices in our lives, our homes, and our offices that use electricity. What is amazing is that with our foresight and work during this same time period, our region now uses energy efficiently more than ever – reducing pollution, saving money, growing jobs, and cutting through partisan politics to succeed.

That’s a regional legacy to be proud of and one highlighted in the recent op-ed co-authored by former CLF President Douglas Foy. 

With the publication of “Power to Spare”  in 1987, CLF and others set forth the effective “out of the box” thinking that allows for reduced energy consumption while increasing economic growth. As the op-ed recounts:

“Our proposition was unique: To shift incentives that encouraged utilities to sell more power, to a new model that would reward them for promoting conservation. By putting efficiency on a level playing field with coal, gas, oil and nuclear, we would be able to lower demand, cut consumption, decrease total use and reduce pollution. We promised to boost the local economy at the same time through the job intensive investments in efficiency and by reaping the economic benefits of lower energy costs.”

And it’s been a success that continues.

Massachusetts passed the “Green Communities Act” and has grown energy efficiency jobs and lowered electric costs, with average rates for residential consumers dropping from the 4^th highest to 11^th highest place.

Rhode Island recently approved an aggressive efficiency budget and is expected to meet more than 100% of its anticipated load growth with energy efficiency, not through additional polluting electricity generation.

In New Hampshire, CLF Ventures recently managed a statewide project helping communities throughout the state identify ways to reduce energy consumption and costs through greater efficiency.

Vermont has its own efficiency utility that works statewide providing one-stop-shopping for businesses and residents to reduce costs and energy use with a budget designed to achieve over 2% annual savings.

Maine now has an independent energy efficiency authority which, in 2011, obtained state-wide energy savings equivalent to the output of a 110MW power plant by obtaining $3 of savings for every $1 invested by the program.

The transformation begun 25 years ago – that we are all a part of – continues. It provides a model for the country, and a model for further action to tackle climate change.

As the nation continues to move beyond coal as a fuel for electricity generation, PSNH continues to cling to its obsolete, uneconomic coal plants that need massive subsidies from ratepayers to operate. Conservation Law Foundation recently filed a brief with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission that blows the whistle on PSNH’s failure to meet its obligations under New Hampshire law to engage in responsible – or in some cases any — planning regarding the future operation of these plants.

New Hampshire requires that every electric utility file a biannual “least cost integrated resource plan,” which demonstrates that the utility has assessed its supply options and analyzed both the long and short term environmental, economic, and energy impacts it will have on the State. Instead, PSNH has filed a deficient plan that, by its own admission, has “very limited value” for decision-making purposes (Pg 115-116). CLF’s full brief in PDF format can be downloaded here. An excerpt:

PSNH’s business model is broken. PSNH’s energy supply cost structure is rapidly exceeding the ability and means of its ratepayers to pay, in what is now an intractable death spiral as customers migrate to competitive suppliers. The company over-relies on and has over invested in aging and uneconomic generating facilities at the expense of ratepayers and the environment. PSNH energy service customers are paying 40% or more above prevailing retail rates of other New Hampshire utility providers and the discrepancy is growing. The consequence is that hundreds of millions of dollars in above market payments are being extracted from New Hampshire ratepayers, while PSNH and its shareholders continue to benefit as if they are a low cost supplier, which the company clearly is not. The question before the Commission is whether the excessive costs being imposed by PSNH on its ratepayers and New Hampshire reflect, in some measure, the quality of PSNH’s 2010 least cost integrated resource plan (the “Plan”) and thus inform the adequacy of such planning as required by [New Hampshire law]. The Commission must decide whether lapses in PSNH’s planning materially contributed to adverse and avoidable ratepayer outcomes and the unsustainable rate spiral which will apparently require legislatively mandated cost shifting and/or lead to PSNH’s bankruptcy.

The evidence in this proceeding unequivocally demonstrates that PSNH’s planning failed to consider a multitude of material planning elements that are crucial to least cost planning. Without limitation, these include: 1) the Plan’s failure to include or consider forward price curves for natural gas which would dictate projected economic dispatch and margins; 2) the Plan’s failure to forecast customer migration which substantially informs the need for and cost-effectiveness of PSNH’s owned generation and entitlements; 3) the Plan’s failure to address or consider future environmental costs for PSNH’s generation fleet; and 4) the Plan’s failure to project forward energy service rates during the five year planning period. At the core of these planning lapses lies the question of whether and the extent to which it is in the ratepayers’ interests for PSNH to continue to own or operate its aging fossil fuel generation fleet, including the 1950’s vintage, small uneconomic coal units at Schiller Station. PSNH’s planning completely ignored the market trends which, beginning in 2008, reduced the capacity factors of Merrimack and Schiller Station to the point of being coal-fired peakers, notwithstanding the Plan’s assertion that they will remain baseload generators.

PSNH is continuing to ignore market realities, which is reflected by their failure to adequately plan for the future costs of continuing to operate its fleet of antiquated power plants. As we noted earlier this month, PSNH ratepayers are stuck subsidizing these uneconomic and dirty power plants through above-market energy costs.

Schiller Station, in Portsmouth, NH (photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond)

If you’re looking for the most egregious example of PSNH’s poor planning, look no further than the continued operation of the two coal units at Schiller Station in Portsmouth. These two 1950’s era units operated at a loss of over $40 million between 2009 and 2010. An analysis conducted by the consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics predicted that this grim trend will only continue, and likely worsen, in the foreseeable future. These units are operating less each year, yet the cost to PSNH customers for the limited power they do produce is increasing. The report concluded that the continued operation of these units will result in future net losses and PSNH ratepayers should not be forced to pay for these shortfalls. PSNH needs to engage in a rigorous review of continuing to operate the coal-fired units at Schiller Station, as “given their age, operating costs, low reliability, and high heat rates, there is not likely to be any economic future for these units” (Pg 14).  Similarly, Connecticut’s integrated resource plan has predicted that the Schiller coal units should retire by 2015 for economic reasons (Pg B-21). Furthermore ISO-NE, the regional energy overseer, is also planning for the retirement of antiquated coal power plants, noting that these resources are facing economic challenges (Pg 9-10).

The operation of uneconomic units, coupled with PSNH’s ongoing attempt to recoup the cost of installing a $422 million scrubber at its half-century-old coal-fired Merrimack Station, boils down to increasing the energy rates for PSNH customers – already the highest in New Hampshire. This cost recovery charge, along with charges for above-market supply contracts, has led PSNH to propose a rate structure that will exceed 10 cents per kWh! As other companies enter New Hampshire to provide lower cost alternatives, the migration away from PSNH’s above-market rates has continued, worsening PSNH’s economic “death spiral.”

Why is PSNH acting this way? It’s pretty clear – like other dinosaur fossil fuel companies that have failed to anticipate the contours of a clean energy future, PSNH wants to preserve its subsidies to boost near-term corporate profits, virtually all of which are the above-market costs of PSNH power plants (including the 10% rate of return that New Hampshire guarantees). The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission is taking note.  On June 27 it ordered PSNH “to undertake a systematic review of operation, materials and capital costs, including personnel costs, associated with the operations of its fossil fuel plants given the low capacity factors of these units.”

CLF is calling for PSNH to conduct a rigorous planning analysis to investigate whether continued operation of its antiquated coal units is in the best interests of New Hampshire. All the evidence suggests that, if credible, any such analysis would show, unequivocally, that it is (long past) time for PSNH to stop asking ratepayers to subsidize uneconomic and dirty coal power.

Northern Pass’s developer has a long track record of public statements attributing the deep New Hampshire opposition to the current proposal to the go-to developer bogeyman – “not in my backyard” obstructionism. Accusing critics of short-sighted “NIMBYism” is even part of Northern Pass’s expensive marketing campaign (which suffers from other deliberately false and misleading claims). Continuing this tradition, the CEO of the developer’s parent company recently derided opponents as “special interests.”

This is loaded, derogatory rhetoric, and exactly the wrong frame for having any constructive dialogue with the New Hampshire communities that face living with the project’s major new infrastructure, as I argued on NHPR last year. And on a personal level, after nearly a year and a half of advocacy on the Northern Pass project, I can say with certainty that the New Hampshire opponents of the current proposal don’t fit the caricature. Those with backyards that would be affected are indeed concerned about their homes, but also about the broader issues of whether the project will benefit their communities, New Hampshire, and the region. Like CLF, they aren’t seeing meaningful public benefits that would make the burdens of the project worth bearing.

Our colleagues at the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests recently produced a pair of videos that help bring to life some of New Hampshire’s very real concerns about the project, many of which are key parts of CLF’s Northern Pass advocacy.

In this video, Appalachian Mountain Club’s Susan Arnold explains our history of protecting the White Mountain National Forest and the problems with Northern Pass’s proposal to build new towers through this nationally treasured landscape:

(If impacts in the White Mountain National Forest are of interest to you, I’d also recommend a recently launched resource with lots of information on the details of Northern Pass’s current proposal and the unique permitting process that applies: ProtectWMNF.org.)

In this video, you’ll meet a Deerfield, NH family that would be directly affected by the project:

(In line with prior non-responses to criticism and strong-arm tactics, Northern Pass’s developer posted an odd rebuttal to this video on its website, attacking as “inaccurate” certain general statements and images showing towers close to the family’s house. Leaving aside that accuracy in communications hasn’t been its own priority, the developer has released no detailed mile-by-mile design of the project to back up its post, nor does it deny that its representatives told the family that towers could be built very close to their home. And if you watch the video, it’s clear that the “rebuttal” is more about trying to discredit the Forest Society than providing a meaningful response to the video’s substance.)

From the families who live along the proposed route, to the small businesspeople in the state’s tourist economy who are concerned about the effect of the project on their livelihoods and communities, to the New Hampshire residents and groups questioning the wisdom of erecting massive new towers through treasured landscapes like the White Mountain National Forest, New Hampshire’s many critical voices are focused on real, legitimate concerns about the impacts of Northern Pass on our state and beyond. We will not be marginalized, bullied, or deterred as we raise these issues in public forums and in the federal and state permitting processes to come.

CLF was not involved in the production or content of the videos above. They are posted here with the permission of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

For more information about Northern Pass, sign-up for our monthly newsletter Northern Pass Wire, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northern-pass), and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

The Great Bay estuary – often referred to as New Hampshire’s hidden coast – offers many opportunities for recreational and nature enthusiasts.  The subtle beauty of Great Bay is captivating, especially in early morning when the estuary is filled with the sounds of wildlife. So whether you enjoy kayaking, hiking, fishing, birding or nature photography, summer is the perfect time to explore the wonders of Great Bay.

Because of its shallow waters and strong tides, boating around the estuary gets tricky.  A safer way to explore its waters is by kayak and offers the best option for enjoying the bay’s diverse habitats. There are several easy water access points for car top boats which can be found here.

My favorite launch spot is Chapman’s Landing in Stratham on the Squamscott River (site 3 on map). From Chapman’s you can easily explore the vast salt marshes and tidal creeks found along the river or paddle all the way up to Exeter. Nesting osprey can be found down river from the boat ramp.

If you want to explore the Maine side of the estuary, I suggest putting in at the Salmon Falls River boat launch (site 15 on map). Serving as the border between NH and ME, paddling the Salmon Falls is like going back in time and you can easily imagine what attracted the early settlers to this area.

Only experienced kayakers should venture out into the middle of Great Bay and no matter where you go, always check the local tides. Or if you prefer to have a guided tour of the Portsmouth Harbor area, check out Portsmouth Kayak Adventures (they also offer rentals).

Anglers enjoy coming to the estuary to test their skill. You can visit the NH Fish and Game web site to learn more about the saltwater fishing regulations and to get your saltwater recreational fishing license (now required). Fishing for striped bass – or stripers – is especially popular.

If you prefer to hike the shorelines around the estuary, numerous land access points allow easy access to the vast conservation lands found throughout the estuary.  With over six miles of undeveloped shoreline, the Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge offers numerous trails and wildlife viewing areas.

If you strive for solitude, the Cy and Bobbie Sweet Trail crosses over some of the beautiful conserved land in the Seacoast.  Over four miles long running from Longmarsh Road in Durham to Great Bay in Newmarket, the Sweet Trail leads hikers through a remarkable array of upland forests, freshwater wetlands and tidal salt marsh. This area – once slated for an oil refinery in the 1970’s –  includes several wildlife viewing stations along the trail and three designated parking areas to choose from.

Other popular hiking and birding areas include Adams Point in Durham and Sandy Point in Greenland.  Both of these sites are owned by NH Fish and Game and maintained by the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. On the Maine side of the estuary, I would suggest visiting Vaughan Woods State Park in South Berwick.

A listing of access points including maps to all of the conserved lands around Great Bay can be found at the Great Bay Resource Protection Partnership website.  The Partnership is led by The Nature Conservancy and is actively protecting conservation lands throughout the estuary.

The Great Bay Research Reserve also operates the Great Bay Discovery Center in Greenland, a great place for families to learn about the estuary. If modern technology is more your thing, ask for a copy of their Passport to Great Bay.  It provides information and directions to numerous conserved properties around Great Bay as well as coordinates to their popular geocache program.

Once you visit Great Bay, you cannot help but be inspired by its natural beauty.  Unfortunately, the health of Great Bay is in decline.  Please join me and others in protecting this national treasure.  Click here and support our efforts to clean up and save from harm the estuary for future generations.

– For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

photo credit: flickr/brianjmatis

This week, the New England Power Generators Association (the trade group for most of the region’s power plant companies, also known as NEPGA) released a new study analyzing the potential effect of the Northern Pass project on New England’s energy market – the first independent study addressing this issue. More than two years after the deeply flawed energy study that Northern Pass’s developer commissioned and has cited unrelentingly since, NEPGA’s study is an important, credible contribution to the public discussion surrounding the Northern Pass project.

The new study’s conclusion: the supposed energy benefits of the project – that it will lower the region’s energy costs and diversify the region’s power supply – won’t materialize. The study also shows that the economic merits of the current proposal are much weaker today than they were when the proposal was formulated two years ago, due to reductions in the cost of natural gas.

You can read NEPGA’s press release about the study (PDF) here and the full study (PDF) here. You’ll find press coverage of the study in the Union Leader here, in the Concord Monitor here, on WMUR-TV here, and on New Hampshire Public Radio here.

A few key takeaways:

• The study’s finding that natural gas prices have declined is not news to Hydro-Québec or to Northern Pass’s developer, which is trumpeting new domestic natural gas supplies as a “game-changer.” What this means, in practical terms, is that the project will not put much downward pressure on the already-low regional market price of power. That’s a problem for Northern Pass: reducing regional energy costs is at the heart of the Northern Pass sales pitch. (As we’ve pointed out before, this “benefit” in fact perversely would put upward pressure on – rather than lower – the rates that most New Hampshire consumers pay.)
• With the economics of the project so tenuous, there is a clear risk that the proponents will seek to qualify Northern Pass power for the benefits afforded to new renewable energy sources under state clean energy laws, a legal change that would unfairly undermine the market for renewable energy development in New England. (The risk that hydropower imports will need subsidies to cover new transmission costs has also recently been cited by critics of the Champlain Hudson Power Express project in New York.) If it’s true, as proponents insist, that Northern Pass doesn’t need subsidies, New England should accept nothing less than a binding legal commitment from Hydro-Québec and Northern Pass’s developer not to seek or accept them.
• NEPGA’s study suggests that Northern Pass would shift Québec hydropower exports from New York and Ontario to New England. This effect may completely offset the supposed carbon emissions reductions from Northern Pass (which are inherently dubious for other reasons) because it is extremely likely that New York or Ontario would ramp up natural gas power plants to make up any deficit. In this regard, the study shows yet again that a rigorous big-picture regional analysis – of the kind that could be provided in the comprehensive regional assessment of our energy needs and the role, if any, for more Canadian imports that CLF and others have sought and Northern Pass’s developer has opposed – is essential to making a well-informed decision on a proposal like Northern Pass.
• The developer’s hair-trigger response – to question the credibility of the sponsors of the study and not the study’s actual findings, a classic Bulverism – speaks volumes. At every turn, the developer has refused to acknowledge or address the problems with its current proposal, even in the face of unequivocal facts that debunk the supposed benefits. Sadly, we can expect the potential rollout of the “new route” for a piece of the project later this summer to follow a similar script.

Above all, NEPGA’s new study underscores that that no one should rely on the stale, incomplete, and misleading information that Northern Pass’s developer is using to sell the project to the public and to government agencies. We need a much deeper, clear-eyed understanding of what Northern Pass would mean for the region’s energy consumers, New Hampshire communities, and the environment on both sides of the border.

For more information about Northern Pass, sign-up for our monthly newsletter Northern Pass Wire, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northern-pass), and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

The recent Congressional hearing entitled “EPA Overreach and the Impact on New Hampshire Communities” accomplished one thing – it proved that to some, politics are more important than cleaning up the Great Bay estuary.

Congressmen Guinta (R-NH) and his colleague from California, Congressman Issa (who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) came to Exeter on June 4 for one reason – to seek confirmation of what they already believed: that EPA is somehow engaging in “overzealous” regulation or “overreach” in taking action required by the Clean Water Act to reduce nitrogen pollution in Great Bay. The only invited speakers were four representatives of the Municipal Coalition – a small group of vocal municipalities doing everything in their power to delay EPA’s permitting process – and EPA Region 1 Administrator, Curt Spalding. Notwithstanding a packed room, the public was not allowed to speak.

Despite numerous claims by the Municipal Coalition that the science is flawed, not a single scientist was asked to testify about the real pollution threats to the Great Bay estuary. Instead we had a Congressman from California listening to a paid consultant from Washington, DC whose only apparent objective was to bash EPA.  Hardly a sound or non-biased approach to determine what action needs to be taken to save our estuary.

The mere title of the hearing made it clear that Congressmen Guinta and Issa had their minds made up before the hearing even began, and that they had one goal in mind – to undermine EPA’s approach to reducing nitrogen pollution in the estuary.  In fact, EPA is proceeding on sound science – based on years of analysis – and doing exactly what is required to restore and protect the estuary before it reaches a tipping point.

At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it’s disturbing to see such a concerted effort to denounce the science that clearly documents the estuary’s continuing decline and the need for meaningful action. While other Great Bay communities are willing to move constructively toward solutions, it’s especially sad to see the small handful of communities comprising the Municipal Coalition resort to raw politics and attempt to capitalize on anti-environment, anti-EPA currents in D.C.

Rather than playing politics with the estuary in an effort to disrupt the permitting process, we would better served by Rep. Guinta if he helped communities secure funding to help with upgrades to wastewater treatment plants. Those sorts of solutions – not obfuscation – are what I expect from my government officials.  And we certainly don’t need someone from California telling us in New Hampshire how to clean up our waters.

In the end, the only real outcome from Monday’s hearing was another day wasted. EPA staff had to invest time defending themselves in a hostile and politically motivated environment rather than proceeding with real solutions required to restore and protect the Great Bay estuary.  Enough is enough. The time has come to take real action and support EPA in its efforts.

This Sunday, an Op-ed of mine appeared in The Portsmouth Herald. Below find a copy of the original text. You can find a copy of the original story here.

The nation and New Hampshire are relying less and less on coal — our dirtiest, least efficient fuel — to meet our electric power needs. PSNH recently announced it is not operating its flagship coal plant, Merrimack Station in Bow; the plant will sit completely idle for six months of 2012. The two coal boilers at PSNH’s Schiller Station in Portsmouth will operate even less. Yet, PSNH customers continue to pay a premium to keep PSNH’s coal plants on life support, thanks to a regulatory system that protects PSNH’s interests over those of ratepayers.

Coal-fired power plants — expensive new facilities and decades-old dinosaurs like PSNH’s plants alike — can’t compete in today’s marketplace. Investors and customers are moving toward cleaner, cheaper alternatives, principally natural gas, but also renewables (especially wind) and high-tech ways of reducing energy use. Northeast Utilities — PSNH’s parent company — admits that this reality is not going away anytime soon.

Indeed, the trend is accelerating. In the first quarter of 2012, coal power accounted for only 36 percent of the nation’s total electric output — the smallest role for coal in a generation and down almost 9 percent from the first quarter of 2011. Regionally, a new milestone came in April, when the New England regional electric grid operator announced that, during the previous month, the entire New England coal fleet was uneconomic — meaning there was not a single hour when a coal plant was able to compete with other energy sources. Despite coal’s downward trajectory, PSNH made big bets that the market for coal-fired power will exist for years to come. Exhibit A: PSNH’s investment — over vigorous opposition from the Conservation Law Foundation, ratepayer advocates and others — in a $422 million life extension project for Merrimack Station. If PSNH gets its way, ratepayers will foot the whole bill, plus a 10 percent guaranteed profit for PSNH’s sole shareholder, Northeast Utilities.

Why has PSNH been so richly rewarded for bad economic decisions? Put simply, New Hampshire’s relic of a regulatory system still protects PSNH and its coal plants from the market. Remarkably, ratepayers continue to pay for upkeep and staffing at PSNH power plants, even when they sit idle, and also pay that same 10 percent profit on the book value of all PSNH assets. No other power plant owner in New England gets such special treatment. Yet PSNH continues to sidestep scrutiny.

Earlier this year, following a massive lobbying effort orchestrated by PSNH, the New Hampshire House voted to table a bill that would have forced a hard look at PSNH’s continued ownership of these obsolete power plants.

In the meantime, PSNH remains in an economic “death spiral” with few large business customers to cover its costs and its remaining customers — homeowners and small businesses — now paying as much as 50 percent more for power than customers of other utilities, which get their power from the competitive market. Under the status quo, PSNH will siphon more than a $100 million in above-market costs out of the New Hampshire economy this year.

For the environment, the climate, and the long-term public and fiscal health of the communities surrounding these plants, coal’s demise is encouraging news. The market is providing an unprecedented opportunity to relegate coal power to the history books for good. New Hampshire should seize it.

On Monday, June 4, Congressman Darrell Issa of California and Congressman Frank Guinta of New Hampshire are hosting a hearing in Exeter entitled “EPA Overreach and the Impact on New Hampshire Communities.”

Based on the title of the hearing, it appears Congressmen Issa and Guinta already have made up their minds, before the hearing even begins, that EPA is somehow ‘overreaching’ in its approach to reducing nitrogen pollution in the estuary. This is simply not the case. EPA is proceeding on sound science and doing exactly what is required to restore and protect the estuary before it’s too late. At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it’s disturbing to see such a biased and overtly political response.

If you care about the future of the Great Bay estuary, I urge you to attend this politically motivated hearing. But don’t expect to be allowed to speak – only invited guests are given that right.  Would it surprise you to learn that four of the five invited speakers represent the Municipal Coalition, the very group of communities – Exeter, Newmarket, Dover, Rochester and Portsmouth – that have brought suit against the NH Department of Environmental Services and are doing everything in their power to delay action on cleaning up the Bay?  The sole person testifying on behalf of the EPA will be Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding.  Not exactly a balanced panel.

In a prepared statement issued on Thursday, Rep. Guinta said that he’s concerned with “over-zealous regulation.”  We cannot escape the need for immediate action.  Further delays will only lead to more pollution, further degradation, and higher costs. The science continues to tell us that the health of the estuary is in decline and asking communities clean up their act is hardly over-zealous regulation.

I urge you to join at the hearing and silently voice your support for EPA and the need to take immediate action for a clean and healthy estuary. The hearing will be held at the Exeter Town Offices, 10 Front Street, beginning at 9 am. If you would like more information, please contact me to learn how you can help save Great Bay.

– For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter

I am pleased to announce the launch of our new e-newsletter – Great Bay Currents. As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, my goal is to build a stronger public voice for protecting the Great Bay estuary and for meaningful and immediate actions to address the threats facing this remarkable natural treasure.

To accomplish this goal, I need your help.

The health of the Great Bay estuary is intractably linked to our quality of life on the Seacoast – in New Hampshire and southern Maine.  It’s key to our local economy, to the recreational opportunities we enjoy, and to the health of the marine environment. Unfortunately, the estuary is approaching a tipping point, and time is of the essence in solving the water pollution problems that threaten it.

I hope you’ll sign up for Great Bay Currents to keep informed, and that you’ll join me in the effort to save this critical resource. Help us build a stronger voice for the estuary. Encourage your friends to stay informed by forwarding them this message or sending them this link to sign up for Great Bay Currents.

If you would like to know how you can become more personally involved, please email me. The Great Bay estuary needs you, and I hope you, too, are inspired to make a difference.

For additional information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, visit us on our website or Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.