On June 26, 2011, Governor Chafee signed into law the “Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act.”  The bill had passed both houses of the General Assembly unanimously. The “distributed generation” in the title of the law refers to small, local renewable energy projects.

The new law was designed to do three things: (1) increase the number of small renewable energy projects that are built in Rhode Island; by (2) making it easier, quicker, and cheaper for developers of these projects to get contracts to sell their electricity to Rhode Island’s dominant utility, National Grid; and (3) get those renewable energy projects distributed into more of Rhode Island’s cities and towns.

Not every law passed by the General Assembly works out the way it was meant to, but the Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act has been phenomenally successful in accomplishing each of its three goals.

Previous renewable energy laws in Rhode Island have worked the way they were intended: to get National Grid to buy more and more of its electricity each year from clean, renewable energy sources. But Rhode Island’s previous renewable energy laws also had a significant flaw: they worked very well for big projects, like Deepwater Wind’s proposed offshore wind farm, but they worked less well for small projects (like a town that wants to set up a single wind turbine at its town hall, as Portsmouth did). That is because under the prior laws, developers would have to hire a small army of lawyers to negotiate an excruciatingly long, detailed contract with Grid, setting forth everything from the price of the electricity to delivery schedule. (For example, the contract that Deepwater filed with the Public Utilities Commission on December 10, 2009 ran 62 pages in length!)  Hiring lawyers to negotiate a 62-page contract was just too time-consuming and expensive for a developer who had a small project.

The new law fixed that problem. As the name of the law suggests, it provided for a “standard contract” for developers of small projects. The standard contract was short, written in plain English, and easy to understand. In addition, the law provided for a standard price to be paid, and established a mechanism for setting a fair price for each different type of project – wind, solar, and so forth. These prices were designed to be high enough to get projects actually built, but low enough to protect electricity rate-payers.

And that is exactly how the new law has worked. In the 15 months since the bill was signed into law, National Grid has held three separate sign-up periods. To date, 18 separate projects have been signed up.  Each of these 18 separate projects will be built right here in Rhode Island. Thus, Rhode Islanders will directly enjoy the environmental and economic-development benefits of these projects. The main purpose of the new law, to get more local renewable energy projects built, has been accomplished – in spades.

The developer of each of these 18 projects got a simple, standard contract to sign, and will receive a set price for the electricity produced.  Thus, another one of the law’s purposes has been accomplished.

The projects themselves are located in Providence, East Providence, Portsmouth, Lincoln, Westerly, Bristol, West Greenwich, East Greenwich, Hopkinton, Middletown, Cumberland, North Kingstown, North Smithfield, and West Warwick.  This geographical distribution of new renewable energy projects was a third purpose of the law.

Rhode Island’s new Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act has been so successful that it is becoming a model for the rest of the country. Renewable energy advocates in New York and Iowa are hoping to replicate the Rhode Island law in their states. The California Public Utilities Commission has circulated the Rhode Island law to its in-house legal staff. A group of Oregon legislators is poised to introduce a bill in the coming legislative session modeled after the successful Rhode Island law.

The Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act is a classic win-win. It addresses the problem of climate change by reducing the carbon emissions that cause climate change. And it helps the Rhode Island economy by facilitating local development of renewable energy projects.

This is a law that Rhode Islanders can be proud of. Its enactment reflects well on our legislators (who passed it unanimously) and on Governor Chafee (who signed it into law). The law has been administered carefully and diligently by our Office of Energy Resources. And National Grid, which receives an economic incentive when projects start producing power, has worked conscientiously with developers to help developers succeed.

On September 26, 2012 I posted a blog called Thune For Thought, in which I wrote:

“At 2 a.m. on September 22, 2012, the United States Senate voted by unanimous consent that   U.S. airlines could choose to ignore the European Union’s requirement that all airplanes landing in the EU reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming. Either climate change is happening or it isn’t. But, once you look at the data, once you subscribe to the opinion that it is happening, you have an affirmative obligation to take all reasonable steps to responsibly address the problem. I understand that this is election season, and some of the Senate races are tight, and airlines can be powerful lobbyists, but, it is 2012 and an anti-climate emissions control bill is passing via unanimous consent in the United States Senate? Either climate change is really happening or it isn’t.”

Our climate champions across the nation abandoned their science-based advocacy about the reality of climate change and the extreme price tag that comes with our collective failure to act. They abandoned that advocacy immediately prior to the election, and disappointingly, during the election. They abandoned that advocacy even in the aftermath of the one-two punch of Super Storm Sandy and Nor’easter Athena.

Not a single elected official in Rhode Island, from the Governor to the delegation, has uttered the words climate change in any of these contexts.

After the November 6, 2012 election, nothing much has changed in Rhode Island or for the country in terms of political representation. Our delegation in Rhode Island remained the same: Reed, Whitehouse, Langevin, and Cicciline; our Governor remained the same: Chafee; our President: the same; and, the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives remained the same: blue majority in the Senate, red majority in the House.

The take home message is simple: Averting the climate disaster can’t be about party politics. We all lose if that is where the battle lines are drawn on the single most important issue facing our country. Averting the climate disaster requires science and the courage to act on it.

Dear President Obama, start acting on climate change.
Dear Senator Reed, start acting on climate change.
Dear Senator Whitehouse, start acting on climate change.
Dear Representative Langevin, start acting on climate change.
Dear Representative Cicciline, start acting on climate change.
Dear Governor Chafee, start acting on climate change.
Dear Rhode Island House and Senate Leaders, start acting on climate change.

We need science and courage, not politics.

A cottage teeters on the shore at Roy Carpenter's Beach in South Kingstown, Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012. Credit: NBC News 10

What do the 2010 March Floods, Hurricane Irene, and Tropical Storm Sandy all have in common? These three 100-year events (meaning there is a 1% chance of this type of storm happening once a year) have all occurred within the past two and half years.

Failing to change how we view significant storm events (e.g., it’s just a fluke), affects how well and whether we plan for future storm events. Viewing these storms as “just a bad run,” or “ a freak storm” denies the reality of a changing climate and its effect on weather, precipitation and the severity of storms. In this way, our point of view can threaten our ability to change our approach to development and planning in a way that preserves our assets for future generations. Ultimately this short-sighted point of view is used to justify an unwillingness to move away from static planning concepts, like planning for a 100-year flood, which, to be sure, allows for more development short-term, but, is of little use when planning the life expectancy of coastal development or construction already along our river banks and in our flood plains.

After the March 2010 floods submerged and disabled three major municipal sewer treatment facilities for more than a week, wiped out dams and bridges, destroyed homes and business built along the banks of the Pawtuxet River, and pushed massive areas of pavement up with surges of water from swollen rivers, and, after incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, what did we do? We left our sewer treatment facilities where they were; continued to plan for and permit development for 100-year storms; rebuilt the bridges; repaved the parking lots that were built within the flood plains of major rivers; talked about how we could get environmental regulations out of the way of job creation and economic development, and; tried to get back to normal.

We did the same after Hurricane Irene (a category 1 storm that left half of state’s residents without power, many for more than a week, and which resulted mandatory evacuations for low-lying communities including Charlestown, Narragansett, South Kingstown, and Westerly over storm-surge related concerns. We fixed the roofs, removed the trees, restored power, and petitioned the coastal management agency for the construction of 202 foot seawall (price tag, about a million dollars) in Matunuck to guard against storm surge and erosion.

The goal always the same:  just try to get back to normal as quickly as possible.

Piles of sand plowed from Matunuck Beach Road, South Kingstown, Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012. Credit: NBC News 10

In the immediate aftermath of Tropical Storm Sandy, our third major storm event in less than three years, and a storm that resulted in more serious damage in some of our coastal communities than was experienced during the Hurricane of 1938 (portions of the seawall in Narragansett dislodged; homes and businesses shattered all along the coast; infrastructure, like the bath house and boardwalk in Galilee, washed away; mounds of sand covering roads throughout South County, and breakers compromised) – maybe we should start asking ourselves, “What is normal?”

Because to “get back to normal” under a planning regime and system-wide frame of mind that does not understand, appropriately consider, or strategically plan for the effects of climate change on our coastline, our natural resources, our communities and our economy; well, that is not  “normal” at all. If all we’ve learned as a result of these past three storms is to get milk and water, buy a generator, install a sump pump, get flood insurance, trim down branches and trees that might fall on power lines; and bring in more line and more contractors to assist with power outages, then we haven’t really learned anything at all.

Does it makes sense to rebuild infrastructure, at a significant cost to the taxpayers, in areas that we know will continue to be vulnerable? Should we seize the opportunity to undo a past planning decision that undermined the ability of a natural system to absorb flooding or protect against storm surge and erosion, like removing parking lots that were paved over marshes, and wetlands, or removing hard shoreline structures that accelerate erosion along the beaches? Should we be planning for 500-year or 1,000 floods (the Netherlands and Japan protect their residents against a 10,000-year flood)?

We cannot continue to plan and build according to standards that don’t contemplate climate change and its effects on our built and natural environment. Ignoring the policy and economic conversations that need to happen about the costs of coastal protection versus costs of land-use relocation as well as the potential for movement of populations and infrastructure is irresponsible and will come at a great price.

Recently, Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation attempted to make recycling easier for Rhode Islanders by creating “single-stream recycling.” Now households do not have to separate paper from plastic – everything can go in the same bin and other items can also now be recycled, such as plastic cups, tissue paper and just about any plastic container 2 gallons or less in volume. Sounds simple and great, right? Sadly, it hasn’t caught on yet.

The state’s recycling rate is still only at 15.9 percent. And the state’s largest city, Providence, is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to recycling at all. With the lowest rate of diverting materials from the Central Landfill (18.2%), Providence is bringing down the state’s overall recycling rate. To see how your city or town is doing visit this website.

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras has stepped up to the plate by launching the Neighborhood Recycling Challenge (running until September 7) to get more neighborhoods to recycle.  Five “teams” or neighborhoods will be competing for five new trees and a neighborhood barbeque if they improve their recycling rate by the largest margin. The goal is to get the recycling rate up to 25 percent.  It’s not only better for the environment; the city saves $250,000 in recycling costs.

For those living in Rhode Island: help your neighborhood, your city, and your environment. Get your recycle game on.

Last week the development of wind energy offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts moved one step closer with the publication of an environmental assessment (EA) by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) regarding commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The purpose of the EA is to determine whether or not issuance of leases and approval of site assessment plans within a designated area offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts would lead to reasonably foreseeable and significant impacts on the environment. The EA is available online here.

BOEM will accept public comments on the EA and then will determine whether or not to issue a finding of No Significant Impact or conduct additional analysis under NEPA. The deadline for public comments is August 2.  CLF is reviewing the 379-page EA, with a particular focus on the impact to sensitive marine habitats, fish populations and fishing activities, water quality, and marine mammals – particularly the endangered right whale – and sea turtles. CLF will submit comments. CLF believes that offshore wind deployment is a critical clean energy supply resource which must be deployed expeditiously and in significant quantities, in a manner that protects ocean wildlife and sensitive seafloor habitats.

BOEM is hosting two public information sessions to provide an overview of the EA and the next steps in the leasing process. At these sessions, BOEM will accept comments and address questions, so CLF encourages interested members to attend.

Public Information Sessions:

Monday, July 16, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
University of Rhode Island
Coastal Institute – Hazard’s Room
218 South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02874

Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
Fairfield Inn & Suites
185 MacArthur Drive
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740

The Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding met on Friday, June 1, for what may prove to be its last meeting for this legislative session. (I sit on the Study Commission as a full voting member.) At the June 1 meeting, the Study Commission approved four separate recommendations; each separate recommendation was approved by a vote of 9 members in favor, 1 member opposed. All four recommendations were deeply disappointing.

Unfortunately, the gist of all four recommendations is that the Study Commission recommends waiting until after RIPTA completes its anticipated Comprehensive Operations Assessment (COA) before the Study Commission recommends any new, significant, sustainable funding for RIPTA. The fourth recommendation sums up the gist of all four: “Upon completion of the COA and pricing analysis [that is, zone fares], develop a comprehensive, sustainable funding approach for inclusion in the FY 2014 budget.”

In other words: nothing meaningful should happen now; let’s wait until after the COA is done; and then (maybe) recommend something in the future. The inevitable result will be that RIPTA will face major service cuts as early as the end of this calendar year. This will directly hurt Rhode Islanders who depend on RIPTA to get to jobs, school, medical appointments, or recreation. And it will hurt the environment, because expanding public transit is a major way to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution.

I was the sole Study Commission member to oppose the four recommendations. I explained that there is no reason to wait until after the COA is done to recommend new, sustainable funding for RIPTA, because the COA will not provide any relevant, new information. We know why RIPTA experiences perennial budget shortfalls; it is due to two major factors:

• Declining yield on the gas tax, which is RIPTA’s largest single source of revenue; this yield declined 12.9% in just four recent years; and

• Rising diesel prices for RIPTA busses. Diesel fuel is RIPTA’s second largest expense (after personnel); and diesel prices have increased 100% since 2005.

The fact is that the COA will not add any new, relevant information about these critical issues.

We also know the options for new funding; again, the COA will not add any new, relevant information there, either. At the June 1 meeting, I suggested that the Commission endorse the O’Grady Bill, H-7581, as an alternative to the four pre-written recommendations.

Each of the four proposed recommendations was moved separately and voted on separately. All four of the proposed recommendations passed by votes of 9 in favor, one opposed. I was the sole dissenter in each case. After I had lost on all four proposals, I made a proposal for a fifth recommendation.

I proposed that the Study Commission re-convene in September, rather than in March/April, as it has in the past, in order to be ready earlier in the next General Assembly session with new funding recommendations for RIPTA. In effect, my proposal was a challenge to the Study Commission. I was saying: If you insist on waiting until after the COA to recommend more funding for RIPTA (despite my objection to the delay), then, at least, move quickly after the summer and be ready with recommendations early in the next legislative session. My proposal was approved unanimously.

All in all, this was a disappointing end to this year’s meetings of the Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding.

However, CLF will remain engaged on the transportation front. Here in Rhode Island, the transportation sector is both the largest source of carbon emissions and the fastest growing – so we must address transportation if we are to address climate change. When the Study Commission re-convenes after the summer we shall re-double our efforts to have the General Assembly revamp the broken and inadequate ways that RIPTA is funded.

On Wednesday, May 9, House Bill 7581 (the O’Grady Bill) will be heard in the House Finance Committee of the Rhode Island General Assembly. The O’Grady Bill is a key legislative priority of Rhode Island’s environmental movement. The hearing is at 1:00 PM in Room 35 of the State House (Room 35 is in the basement). The O’Grady Bill would provide vitally needed funding for public transit in Rhode Island.

CLF members and friends are invited to attend the May 9 hearing on the O’Grady bill in order to show support for it.

Here in Rhode Island, as in the rest of New England, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – and the fastest growing. The simple fact is that the climate change emergency cannot (and will not) be addressed until and unless we address transportation emissions. By funding public transit in Rhode Island, the O’Grady Bill would provide an effective means of reducing vehicle miles traveled in private automobiles and an effective means of reducing overall carbon emissions.

That is why the Environment Council of Rhode Island, the coalition of over 80 Rhode Island environmental organizations has made the O’Grady Bill one of its top legislative priorities for 2012.

Another broad coalition, the Coalition for Transportation Choices (CTC) is also supporting the O’Grady Bill. CLF was instrumental in creating the CTC, and, in my capacity as a CLF Staff Attorney, I serve as CTC’s Co-Chair. At the May 9 hearing, I will be presenting to the House Finance Committee letters of support for the O’Grady Bill from a wide range of community organizations, ranging from the Providence Chamber of Commerce to the Transit Workers Union. We are hoping that this broad range of support will translate to legislative support.

Environmentalists in Rhode Island can take a concrete step to address carbon emissions in Rhode Island by coming to the May 9 House Finance Committee hearing (1:00 PM, Room 35) to testify in favor of the O’Grady Bill.

I’ll be there, and I’d be delighted to see you there, too.

Image courtesy girl_named_fred @ flickr. Creative Commons.

One of the most cherished natural resources Rhode Islanders have is miles and miles of coastline. Rhode Islanders take significant pride in the fact that while the State is small, people travel from all over the world to walk along our beaches. But, the beaches are in trouble.

One serious coastal erosion issue in Matunuck village in South Kingstown is leading the State’s coastal resources management agency down a slippery policy slope and it doesn’t bode well for the state’s coastline. Matunuck is essentially falling into the ocean, or the ocean is coming to take Matunuck. However you look at it, the rates of coastal erosion are accelerating.

The state road that provides the only evacuation route to our fellow Rhode Islanders that live in Matunuck is being undermined and will be lost to the sea without action from the coastal agency. Homes and businesses are also in jeopardy. The challenge, however, isn’t in identifying the problem. The challenge is in identifying a solution.

Climate change is causing more significant storm events and increasing wave energy along certain segments of our coastline. Irresponsible and short-sighted permitting decisions have allowed hardened structures to be placed on Matunuck’s coastal features, structures that only increase and accelerate erosion. The past five decades of science has allowed coastal managers to evolve in their thinking about the best beach management practices, and time and again, experienced coastal managers tell us that allowing hardended shoreline protection (like sheet pile walls) to be built on coastal features seriously undermines the ability of the beach to re-nourish and restore the sand, and exacerbates erosion. Indeed, the State of Rhode Island’s coastal plan strictly prohibits hardened structures or other shoreline protection devices to be used for the purpose of regaining what has been lost to historical erosion.

Despite this prohibition in the state’s plan, and despite what the science tells us, the state’s coastal agency is considering changes to the coastal program that will allow the long-term continued maintenance of hardened structures without a public dialogue about whether those structures should be removed. And, on April 24th the coastal agency will consider a petition to allow Matunuck and several private property owners to build a seawall around the village, wiping out what little there is left of the beach and the public’s right to access it.

This issue isn’t just about Matunuck. It’s about how we will manage our environment in the face of climate change. And, it’s about the coastline and the need to protect the policies that were established to protect it – for today and the future.

As climate change continues to advance, these are the kinds of issues that we will continue to be faced with, both in our coastal and river communities. We will have an opportunity to make the right policy choices, but they won’t be easy choices to make. Will we have the courage to base our choices on science?

RIPTA bus. Source: Wikimedia commons.

The Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding held its second meeting of the year today. I sit on the Commission, having been appointed to the position by Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed (D-Newport). Other Commission members include three senators, RIDOT Director Michael Lewis, and RIPTA CEO Charles Odimgbe.

CLF is interested in public transit because of our concern about climate change. Here in Rhode Island, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and the fastest growing sector. Thus, any serious effort to address climate change must include a focus on transportation.

I am afraid that the Study Commission members are getting bogged down in the minutiae of how RIPTA runs. There was plenty of discussion at today’s session about small matters, such as whether RIPTA made a mistake seven years ago in cancelling one run of the weekend route between Providence and Newport.

At the end of today’s session, I tried to bring Study Commission members back to what the main points are that we need to remember. There are five main points.

First, RIPTA has the highest fares of any comparable transit agency in the country.

Second, we live in a country in which every public transit service is heavily dependent on government subsidies. Every transit system in small cities gets subsidized. Every medium-sized transit system (like RIPTA) gets subsidies. Every big-city transit system (like New York and San Francisco) gets subsidies. But RIPTA gets the lowest subsidies of any peer transit system in the country.

Third, RIPTA has seen substantial ridership increases in every category of rider in every recent year. Part of the reason for this is that gas prices are going up; part of the reason is that RIPTA is getting better. The bottom line is that RIPTA is taking more passengers on more rides than ever before.

Fourth, RIPTA is heavily dependent on the proceeds of the gasoline tax. RIPTA gets about $40 million annually from this source, and this is the largest single source of RIPTA revenue. But gas tax revenue is declining – in fact, the yield per penny of the gas tax decreased by almost 13% in just four years recently.

The fifth point is the most important. The purpose of the Senate Study Commission is to devise new, additional ways to fund transportation in Rhode Island – including RIPTA – sustainably. Our purpose is not to second-guess the agency about the minutiae of internal agency decisions. The Senate leadership charged us with the task of developing new, sustainable funding sources for RIPTA.

That task is especially timely right now. Three years ago the General Assembly charged RIPTA with developing a Five-Year Strategic Plan for service expansions and improvements. RIPTA did a superb job developing that plan – the plan includes new bus rapid transit on RIPTA’s two busiest routes, the #11 (Broad Street) and the # 99 (North Main Street); increasing the number of park-and-rides; and adding new buses on busy routes.

The Senate Study Commission needs to keep in mind why it was created. We were not created to get lost in the weeds and tiny details of a complex agency. We were created to recommend to the General Assembly new, sustainable funding sources for transportation funding in Rhode Island, including RIPTA.