At a time when both carbon emissions and fuel prices continue to rise, Vermont is poised to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable power – a good thing at the right time.

The legislature is considering a bill that would create a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), requiring that each electric utility acquire a percentage of its electricity from renewable sources. This is an important step in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; CLF has testified that the bill needs to be strong and ambitious.

There’s no doubt the climate needs this bill. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continue to shoot up, and global temperatures are rising. A warming global climate has led to increased evaporation, causing droughts and floods around the world. In his testimony before the committee considering the RPS bill, climate activist Bill McKibben described the rising worldwide occurrence of extreme weather events. Among these was Tropical Storm Irene, which devastated parts of Vermont at the end of last summer. McKibben urged the committee to act now, through measures such as an RPS, before our climate crisis gets worse.

The current version of the Vermont bill would require that by 2025 all electric utilities in Vermont get 30% of their power from renewable power plants commissioned after 2012. Whatever renewable sources are already generating power now (in 2012) would not count towards the 30% standard.

Currently Vermont only has voluntary goals for utilities to acquire a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources. A fundamental flaw of the existing program is that it allows utilities to sell renewable energy credits (RECs) from Vermont renewable projects to utilities in other states, yet still count that power as renewable in Vermont. This means that the renewable attributes of the power are counted twice. The bill currently in the legislature would correct this problem.

By enacting this bill, Vermont would not be alone. Twenty-nine other states already have an RPS, including all the other New England states, and other states as disparate as Texas and Hawaii. Their requirements vary widely. Maine has an ongoing 30% RPS; New Hampshire requires 23.8% by 2025; and Rhode Island requires 16% by 2020. Details of the requirements vary, but Vermont’s proposed program compares well with other states in the region.

Vermont needs a strong renewable standard. CLF continues to push for strong measures to tackle climate change and reduce pollution.

Entergy asked the Public Service Board today to just give it a new certificate of public good claiming no further review is needed. (Read the motion here.)

Judge Murtha’s decision was clear. The Vermont Public Service Board continues to have authority to review Entergy’s actions and determine if continued operation is beneficial to Vermont.

CLF opposed Entergy’s past efforts. This new request is premature. It is contrary to the Court’s order and ignores facts that are important for the Board to hear. Most notable is the fact that Entergy provided false information to the Board about buried pipes.

Entergy’s lack of trustworthiness cannot be ignored. It is an important matter that has bearing on whether Entergy should be allowed to continue to operate Vermont Yankee.

While Entergy might like to ignore these facts, Vermont won’t.

At a time when our governors and our President were preparing to address their constituents, CLF was (and is) making news – news that raises a series of enduring questions: In our country, where is the line between federal and state authority? How clear is it? Who gets to draw it? Why would you draw it in one place instead of another?

These questions are so challenging because they are so fundamental; Americans have wrestled with these same questions for over 200 years. You’ll recall that our first national government, under the Articles of Confederation, was too weak to do the job. The Constitution granted greater power to the national government, but had to be balanced by the Bill of Rights, securing the rights of individuals and of states. The rest of our efforts to get the federal/state balance right has been marked by long periods of contentious negotiation and flashbulb moments of fractious history –national banking, secession and the Civil War, the busting of industrial trusts, the New Deal, and civil rights for all.

Protecting our health and our environment has been a part of the national and regional negotiations for decades. Recent events have provoked further discussion.

By the 1960’s and ‘70’s, when Congress began to address environmental protection and energy in a serious way, its constitutional authority to do so was relatively clear. It exercised that authority boldly, for the great benefit of generations of people and other species. However, as in much of our federalist system, there’s still a sharing of power between national and state governments, both by design and by default. The zone between federal and state authority is sometimes gray. It’s in that messy, gray area that many of our most controversial environmental issues are being debated.

These debates continue to this day. Take two of CLF’s hot issues recently in the news: Vermont Yankee and Cape Cod nitrogen pollution.

Vermont Yankee

The first is the adverse federal court decision CLF (and the State of Vermont) received on Vermont Yankee, the aging nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. The decision affirmed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s broad authority over safety issues relating to nukes. It  preempted a role for states and handed a major victory to Entergy Corporation.

However, as Anthony Iarrapino points out in this blog post, the fight is far from over. There is a clear role for states in shaping our energy future; in the absence of federal action, states are leading the effort in promoting a clean energy future. Furthermore, as Anthony pointed out in his post, the court said:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

Even in the highly “federalized” area of nuclear power there is an undeniable role for states.

Cape Cod

The second is a settlement in principle of our litigation to clean up pollution from sewage on Cape Cod. This is a great step forward – one that  has attracted the focused attention of anti-environmentalists in Congress, as this article attests.

They preposterously allege collusion between environmentalists and the EPA in cases like this to expand federal jurisdiction beyond what Congress authorized in the Clean Water Act, thereby trumping state authority.  However, the federal/state line under the Clean Water Act is about as blurry as they come, in part because the facts relating to pollution and its impacts are extremely complex. As in all cases, the facts matter. Careful, dispassionate assessment of the scientific facts about discharges and pollution, and how the law applies to those facts – not political grandstanding by Members of Congress – is what’s necessary to achieve the visionary goal Congress as a whole committed to decades ago: the elimination of polluting discharges to United States waters, by 1985! It’s time we lived up to that commitment.

There is opportunity in messy, gray areas like the shifting federal/state interface: we can go forward or backward. That is, we can develop sensible allocations of authority between federal and state governments to achieve the public goals behind all of these public initiatives – a healthy environment and a healthy economy, or we can descend into politically motivated mudslinging that obscures the real issues and thwarts real progress.

At CLF we are committed to rational, fact-based discussion of the issues, and prudent forward motion that yields a thriving New England, for generations to come and for all. We know this terrain well. You can count on us to keep working it.

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court issued a decision on Vermont Yankee. We at CLF have been involved in and commenting on the trial and on related issues as they arise. Knowing it can sometimes be hard to track down these various resources, I wanted to take a moment to share a selection of them with you.

• CLF’s Statement in Response to the U.S. District Court’s Decision.
• A copy of the decision itself.
• Timeline of CLF Advocacy on Vermont Yankee

Trial commentary:

• Post-trial commentary, by Sandy Levine
• Post-trial commentary, by Anastasia Douglas
• Pre-trial, by Sandy Levine

Blog posts:

• Untrustworthy Again – Entergy Orders New Fuel for VT Yankee
• CLF, VPIRG support Vermont, oppose Entergy request to keep Vermont Yankee going
• Court blocks Vermont Yankee bid to stay open
• Cleanup Needed NOW at Vermont Yankee
• Conservation Matters cover story: “Vermont Yankee: The Costs of Nuclear” 

Breaking News: In response to today’s decision by the U.S. District Court that Vermont Yankee may continue operation beyond March 2012, Sandra Levine, a senior attorney in CLF’s Vermont office said, “This is a setback for Vermont and a setback for clean energy.  This decision forces Vermont to prop up an old, polluting nuclear reactor, and its untrustworthy owners. This matter will likely go back to the Vermont Public Service Board.  We hope they will confirm that Vermont Yankee has outlived its useful life and is ready to retire.  It is time to end Entergy’s legacy of broken promises and lackluster oversight.  Vermont is ready to join New England’s move away from obsolete, dirty, power plants and lead the region in its transition to clean, renewable energy. We hope the State will appeal the Court’s decision and seek to affirm its right to determine its energy future.”

A little background on a long-running case: By the terms of a Vermont law passed in 2006, as well as the 2002 approval of the sale of Vermont Yankee, and a 2002 express agreement with Entergy, approval by Vermont is needed for the plant to continue to operate after 2012. In 2002, the Vermont Public Service Board approved the sale of the Vermont Yankee facility to Entergy.  The sale included an agreement by Entergy not to operate the plant after 2012, when its license expires, without obtaining regulatory approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. Concerned about whether it would be good for Vermont if Vermont Yankee to operated past 2012, the Vermont Legislature passed a law in 2006 requiring approval of the Legislature before the Public Service Board could issue a new license. In 2008 and 2009 proceedings were underway at the Public Service Board to consider a license extension.  In an historic vote in 2010 the Vermont Senate declined approval.  In April 2011, Entergy filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging Vermont’s authority to regulate and license the power generation facilities operating in the state. Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Public Interest Group (VPIRG) later intervened on Vermont’s side in the lawsuit. For a complete timeline of the activities leading up to today’s decision on Vermont Yankee, click here.

There is a saying that as goes Maine, so goes the nation. That is proving to be true, with one slight twist: As goes New England, so goes the nation’s environmental policy.

If you look at a wind map of the United States you’ll see that all prevailing winds east of the Mississippi eventually converge right here, in New England. That helps make New England the place so many of us love – warm summers, stunning falls, and cold, snowy winters – but it also makes New England the tailpipe of the nation.

Beginning in the mid-20^th century, researchers began documenting evidence of the effect of acid rain on Camel’s Hump in Vermont’s Green Mountains. They documented dramatic decreases in biomass, forest reproduction, seed germination, and other damaging effects among such species as red spruce, mountain maple, sugar maple, and beech – some of the trees whose brilliant fall colors draw millions of tourists to New England each fall. The cause? Acid rain.

Today, the problem continues, though in different ways. Antiquated coal plants built before 1970 have long enjoyed loopholes in the Clean Air Act that allowed them to emit toxic pollutants without modern controls. They have spewed a mix of mercury, arsenic, lead, and soot that harms all Americans by degrading our air and water quality, as well as our public health by increasing the rates of lung disease and causing asthma attacks, among other ailments. Even though many New England states have imposed modern controls on their plants, winds continue to carry pollution from the rest of the country that harms New England’s environment and its people.

That’s why today’s ruling from the EPA on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) is so laudable. As my colleague Jonathan Peress said in a press statement, these standards “amount to one of the most significant public health and environmental measures in years.” They are also similar to standards we adopted here in New England years ago.

According to EPA estimates, these standards will prevent 11,000 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks annually among Americans by 2016. The standards will also save at least $59 billion measured as a reduction in premature deaths, lower health care costs, and fewer absences from work or school. That is undoubtedly a good thing. It is also undoubtedly long overdue.

The affected coal plants are toxic dinosaurs. According to an AP survey, the average age of the plants is 51 years – some of them were even built when Harry S Truman was president. EPA’s new standards will finally allow the public health protections, signed into law by George H.W. Bush as a part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, to do their job. As Ilan Levin, associate director of Environmental Integrity Project, said in a piece on Climate Progress, “The only thing more shocking than the large amounts of toxic chemicals released into the air each year … is the fact that these emissions have been allowed for so many years.”

Here in New England, we have long understood the importance of controlling harmful pollution. CLF together with a close coalition pushed for strict state air pollution standards to clean up the dirtiest plants in Massachusetts. In 2001, the Department of Environmental Protection adopted regulations known as “The Filthy Five” that went beyond the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, and tackled the issues of mercury and carbon dioxide. From our experience with stringent state standards in Massachusetts and Connecticut, we know the substantial benefits to public health and the environment that will result from these rules.

Concern that these standards will directly shut down plants is misguided. According to an AP survey, “not a single plant operator said the EPA rules were solely to blame for a closure.” Instead, a confluence of factors have already initiated a broad technology shift we’re already seeing here in New England: coal prices are rising and natural gas prices are declining against a background of strict state clean air rules. Given this, many (but not all) of New England’s plants have either already installed modern pollution controls, or are actively planning for retirement, in ways that will keep the lights on.

I applaud the EPA, and Administrator Jackson, for their good work on these standards. We will continue to support them, and they’ll need our help.

And in any event, how long are people to suffer while clean air requirements on the books go unenforced? 21 years (since 1990) is too long. The time has come. Finally.

There are some things that you cannot capture adequately in words alone. The impact of nutrient pollution on fresh water bodies like Lake Champlain is one.

A nutrient overload fuels a toxic algae bloom on the surface of Mississquoi Bay making the water unsafe for swimming and unpleasant to be around.

Photo by Lake Champlain Lakekeeper Louis Porter

That is why the Emmy-award winning film “Bloom: The Plight of Lake Champlain” was such an important development in the effort to raise awareness of the Lake’s problems and the urgent need for action. Christopher Kilian, Director of CLF’s Vermont office and its regional Clean Waters and Healthy Forest program, was featured in that documentary, which was narrated by Academy Award-winning actor Chris Cooper. You can watch a clip with Chris Kilian from the first Bloom here.

Tonight marks the premiere of the Bloom sequels–a series of three related short programs also narrated by Chris Cooper under the title “The Emergence of Ecological Design.” Each film focuses on one of the major causes of pollution to the Lake—agricultural discharges, urban runoff (aka stormwater), and sewage treatment—and highlights emerging solutions for each.  Because CLF’s Clean Water and Healthy Forest program is driving solutions to all of those problems, CLF clean water advocate Anthony Iarrapino (that’s me) appears in all three.

Tonight’s premiere screening is free and open to the public starting at 7:00 p.m. at the Palace 9 Theaters in South Burlington.  If you can’t make the show on the big screen, look for Bloom: The Emergence of Ecological Design on Vermont Public Television over the coming months.  You can also buy DVDs from the producers at BrightBlue Media at their website www.bloomthemovie.org where you will find clips of the new films.

All of those who love the peace and quiet, clean water, clean air, and abundant wildlife in the Vermont back-country are applauding the decision by Vermont Agency of Natural Resources officials to reverse course on an agency rule that would have allowed ATV clubs to crisscross and fragment Vermont state lands with ATV trails.  This decision should help protect state forests and wildlife preserves from often-destructive, high-impact motorized activity and maintain Vermont’s longstanding tradition of sound public land management.

ATVs are powerful machines that can churn up sensitive wetlands, destroy wildlife habitat, and create noise, air, and water pollution in sensitive forest environments

Since the previous administration of Governor James Douglas moved forward with this flawed rule that would have opened all state lands to ATV trail construction, CLF has been working with a coalition of organizations and concerned citizens to prevent the rule from taking effect.  CLF offered testimony that helped sway a legislative committee to unanimously object to the rule.  When the Douglas Administration moved forward with the rule over legislative objection, CLF filed a lawsuit challenging the rule’s validity.  In the Agency’s press release announcing the decision to abandon the ATV rule, Secretary Markowitz specifically referenced CLF’s lawsuit as a factor in the decision not to move forward:

“Markowitz said ‘in 2009, [Vermont's] Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules voted unanimously to object to the ATV rule. They strongly believed that ANR did not have the power to adopt the regulation. Because we cannot point to clear authority to adopt this rule, the regulation is vulnerable to legal attack, with little likelihood of prevailing in court.’ The rule has been challenged in the Washington County Superior Court by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF). Markowitz states, ‘it does not make sense to try to defend the ATV rule in court given that LCAR has already determined that no authority to adopt the rule exists.’ 

CLF knows that this important victory is not the end of the struggle to protect our public lands from being overrun with ATVs. The ATV clubs are well-organized and well-funded by manufacturers who push hard to open up public lands to ATV use so that they can expand the recreational market for these gas-guzzling machines.  Agency officials are also hinting that some limited access might be granted in the future. With your support, we will keep working to keep our forests free of the pollution and habitat fragmentation that ATVs bring in their wake.

The initial short-range solutions are in.  Quick, effective and clean.  Unanimous agreement on a suite of projects to move forward to help people get around in Chittenden County. 

When Vermont’s Governor, Peter Shumlin announced in May that the “Circ Highway” - an expensive, polluting and outdated ring-road around Burlington – would not be built as planned, he set in motion a Task Force to develop short, medium and long range solutions.  Since the summer the Task Force has been meeting and working.  Despite bumps, potholes and diversions in the form of more limited time and money because of the need to address problems that arose from managing the chaos Hurricane Irene left Vermont, the Task Force forged ahead.  

Last week we agreed unanimously on 5 short-term projects to get started in the coming year.  They include some innovative and out-of-the-box projects like expanding park & ride opportunities for commuters by leasing spaces in key locations, as well as more traditional projects of bus shelters and intersection imprrovements.  One very exciting project would re-work the street grid in Essex Junction, turning a parking lot into a downtown street, converting “five corners” into “four corners,” enhancing the streetscape and improving commerce and living opportunities in this New England downtown. 

Conservation Law Foundation is excited to be working with Chittenden County communities, businesses and state officials to get people, goods and ideas moving.  We are off to a great start. 

You can learn more about the Circ Task Force’s work at its website. 

A Public Meeting to discuss and learn more about these projects will be held on Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 7:00 p.m. at the  Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Colchester.