Dear Chairwoman Sosnowski and members of the Environment Committee:

This e-mail follows yesterday evening’s hearing on S-901, the Governor’s Energy Reform Act of 2013, with its provision for purchasing large quantities of Canadian hydropower; and S-938, Chairwoman Sosnowski’s proposal for extending and enlarging Rhode Island’s landmark Distributed Generation Standard Contracts program. For your reference, I attach a copy of the written submission that I provided at yesterday’s hearing, which you can see here.

It was significant at yesterday’s (very long) hearing that – except for the Governor’s Administration – every witness from every sector spoke against the Governor’s energy bill. In broad terms, these witnesses came from four different sectors: (1) the utility (National Grid); (2) the environmental community (including the Environment Council of Rhode Island, Conservation Law Foundation, and many others); (3) fossil-fuel generators (including Dominion, Exelon, and the New England Power Generators Association); (4) renewable energy developers (including People’s Power and Light, Heartwood Group, and many others). It is a rare issue indeed that sees these disparate sectors in such complete agreement. Last night, the Governor’s energy bill was opposed by National Grid; the Environment Council, representing every one of the 60-plus small, medium, and large environmental organizations in Rhode Island; the fossil fuel industry; and all the renewable energy developers working so hard to build real renewable projects in Rhode Island!

As I acknowledged in my testimony yesterday evening, these different sectors each have their own reasoning for opposing the Governor’s energy bill.

National Grid opposes S-901 because it would result in rate increases for ratepayers; and, as Mike Ryan of Grid put it last night, “We are the guys who send out the bills.”

On Senator Archambault’s question as to whether the bill provides an actual mandate, Mr. Ryan quite clearly said two things. First, yes, the bill provides a mandate that will have adverse consequences for ratepayers. Second, whatever you call it, the provisions of the bill act like a mandate and, thus, will have the consequences of a mandate.

The environmentalists oppose the Governor’s energy bill because it would eviscerate existing renewable energy laws.

For example, the bill changes the definition of “eligible renewable energy resources” in Rhode Island’s 2004 Renewable Energy Standard. (See ¶ 2 on the attached testimony). When the General Assembly enacted the RES, it carefully excluded large Canadian hydropower because the law was intended to help new renewable energy projects. Canada is in the middle of a 50-year plan to construct big dams. Many have already been built; the rest will be built anyway, and do not need help from the RES.

The Adminstration’s rebuttal on this point was extremely revealing. The response was that the bill does not grant Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs, to Canadian hydropower. This statement was completely correct. It was also completely irrelevant. The problem with the bill is not that it gives RECs to large hydropower (and last night no one suggested that it did). The problem with the bill is mis-using the RES to send money to projects that are built anyway.

CLF and the other environmental organizations also oppose the Governor’s energy bill because it misuses the 2009 Long-Term Contracting Statute to procure Canadian hydropower. The purpose of this statute was to facilitate projects that would not and could not have been built but for the statute. The purpose of the LTC Statute was not to give a sweetheart deal to already-existing projects.

Here, again, the Administration’s response was extremely revealing. The response was that the bill does not touch or eliminate the 90 megawatts of renewables provided for in Section 3 of the Long-Term Contracting Statute. Again, this is completely correct. Again, this is completely irrelevant. No one suggested that the problem with the Governor’s energy bill is that it takes away the 90 megawatt mandate in Section 3. Those megawatts are already under contract; there has been an entire series of PUC dockets examining the reasonableness of those contracts. The problem with the Governor’s energy ill is that it mis-uses the separate, additional 150 megawatts found in Section 8 of the Long-Term Contracting Statute that were intended to assist new development, in Rhode Island, that would not or could not have been built otherwise.

Simply put, it is bad public policy to mis-direct the 150 megawatts in Section 8 of the Statute to large, existing hydropower facilities in Canada when those 150 megawatts were meant for new projects in Rhode Island. And the Administration is simply wrong to conflate the 90 megawatts in Section 3 (that are already under contract) with the separate, additional 150 megawatts in Section 8 (that do not yet exist).

But the most important point from last night is this: there is today no law and no regulation that prevents National Grid from contracting for Canadian hydropower (see ¶ 4 of the attached sheet). As I explained last night, we litigate so-called “Standard Offer Service” dockets in the PUC every year. Standard Offer Service is the electricity that nearly every residential customer in Rhode Island uses every day. There is nothing whatever in the law right now preventing Grid from contracting for Canadian hydropower.

Although there is nothing in the law preventing Grid from buying Canadian hydropower today, there are two very, very powerful reasons why Grid does not do so: (1) it is uneconomical; and (2) there is no transmission to bring the power here. And changing the law will not change those factors. You can change the law and Canadian hydropower will still be uneconomical. You can change the law, and there will still be no transmission available.

None of the environmentalists testifying last night are opposed to hydropower in principle. Indeed, hydropower done right could be an excellent component of an overall energy mix designed to lower carbon emissions. Environmental organization are opposed to eviscerating existing renewable energy laws that were designed to help new projects get up and running in order to subsidize already-existing Canadian projects.

In the end, there are many reasons to oppose the Governor’s energy bill. As National Grid said, it will have adverse impacts for ratepayers. As CLF said, it will eviscerate existing, successful renewable energy laws long supported by the General Assembly. And what is clear after last night is that there is unusual unity on the issue: National Grid; every small, medium, and large environmental organization; the fossil fuel generators; and every renewable energy developer all oppose the Governor’s energy bill.

CLF respectfully asks you to vote the Governor’s energy bill, S-901, down.

May 24 - Fish Talk in the News – Friday, May 24 - In this week’s Fish Talk in the News, Eric Schwaab is leaving NOAA; fisheries regulators ask fishermen not to take out frustration on at-sea observers; the ASMFC postpones a decision on the elver fishery; alewife counts in New England rivers are way up this year; a parasite may be affecting yellowtail flounder populations; Michael Conathan writes on fisheries and climate change; a local scientist testifies in a Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization hearing.

Photo: DWeller88 @ flickr

It is important to build bridges, but we need to make sure they get us where we need to go.

The proposed expansion of the Vermont Gas pipeline may be more a minefield than a bridge, as one recent Vermont weekly  and one recent national energy blog reported.

The project will cut through valuable wetlands and farmland in Addison County. Future plans include crossing Lake Champlain, moving Vermont closer to gas supplies from fracking that is ongoing now in New York and Pennsylvania.

Proponents of the project, including Middlebury College and Vermont Gas advance an overly simplistic evaluation suggesting more natural gas is needed in Vermont because it is cheaper and cleaner than the oil and propane it will replace. Others suggest natural gas is a bridge to cleaner supplies that are in our future.

All bridges are not created equal. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. The proposed gas pipeline will be in place for fifty to a hundred years. In that timeframe we need to solidly break our addiction to fossil fuels – including natural gas.

So what part of the project is in place to make sure natural gas is actually a valuable bridge and not a new addiction? Nothing. And that is sad.

We can do better than throw up our hands and blindly accept expensive and environmentally damaging new pipelines at a time when we should be moving away from fossil fuels.

Here are some ideas to start moving Vermont in a cleaner direction when it comes to new pipelines:

1. Provide a more sophisticated evaluation that answers where this pipeline is taking us in fifty years.
2. Stop providing unqualified support. If this is a cleaner solution, make sure it lives up to its promise. Sensitive and valuable environmental resources should be off the table.
3. Meet climate goals by dramatically increasing efficiency, prohibiting supplies from fracking and limiting the use and lifespan of any new pipeline.

If we build bridges, let’s make sure they get us to a place we want to be.

In two orders the Vermont Public Service Board issued a strong rebuke to Entergy.

The Board refused to amend its prior orders and confirmed that the conditions of Entergy’s permits remain intact. Those conditions include that Entergy will not operate Vermont Yankee past March 2012 without new approval from the Board.

Entergy brought this appeal to challenge those orders.

On Monday Conservation Law Foundation’s brief, filed jointly with New England Coalition and Vermont Public Interest Research Group challenged Entergy’s claims. Our brief noted:

Rather than comply with the conditions … and Board orders that were not appealed, Entergy instead seeks to ignore Vermont law and expand the application of this simple statute to sanction continued operation regardless of the current license requirements and prior commitments that were incorporated into the Board’s Order approving the sale of the plant to Entergy.

The State of Vermont also filed a brief opposing Entergy’s appeal.

It seems obvious that Entergy should be held to its commitments. We gave the Vermont Supreme Court some good arguments to encourage it to agree with us. Entergy will file a reply brief next month and a decision is expected within a year.

Do you want to help shape the future of New England’s ocean and our coastal economy? New England leads the nation in regional ocean planning and now is the time for your thoughts on healthy oceans and coasts to be heard. A series of ten public meetings are being held in from late May through June to get your questions and ideas. Why should this matter to you? If you enjoy fishing, going to the beach, surfing, boating, or are interested in offshore renewable energy, these are all reasons to get involved in ocean use planning.

Starting next Thursday in Portland, ME, then continuing on through all New England’s coastal states, members of the Northeast Regional Planning Body (convened pursuant to the National Ocean Policy – which President Obama signed in June, 2010) which represents federal agencies, states and tribes will be holding public meetings to start a conversation about how our ocean waters should be used, conserved, better understood, and more effectively managed in the future.

At each meeting there will be presentations from Regional Planning Body (RPB) representatives about what regional ocean planning is, and how we might accomplish it in New England.

There will be a focus on a set of 3 draft goals, each of which has a series of potential outcomes and possible actions that could be taken to achieve these outcomes. The goals are in three broad categories – effective decision making, healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems, and compatibility among past, current, and future uses. The goals have been framed around the following principles:

1. The ocean and its resources are managed for the benefit of the public, now and in the future.

2. The historic, cultural, and spiritual importance of the ocean are important to consider.

3. The present and past connection between communities, watersheds, and ocean is important.

4. New ocean uses are emerging and existing ocean uses are changing.

5. There is concern about changing ocean “health” and ecosystem conditions.

6. Better data and information, including traditional knowledge, will lead to better understanding and decision making.

7. There is a need for improved government efficiencies and transparency.

8. We need to adapt as environmental, social and economic conditions change.

9. Importantly, regional ocean planning outcomes must be implemented through existing authorities and regulations. Neither the National Ocean Policy nor regional ocean planning create or change existing authorities.

After the RPB’s presentations, there will be significant time for public comment and discussion at each meeting.

So, find a meeting close to you, learn about the planning process, and help shape New England’s first ever regional ocean plan.

May 16 - Setting the Record Straight on Forage Fish - The Thursday, May 9, piece from Saving Seafood, titled “Pew’s recommendations and assumptions in calling for conservation of forage fish questioned,” contained a flat-out falsehood about the peer review of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force’s findings.

May 17 - Fish Talk in the News – Friday, May 17 - In this week’s Fish Talk in the News, a new study focuses on fisheries and climate change; alewives return to the St. Croix River; stakeholders discuss ecosystem-based fisheries management; Canadian lobstermen again protest low prices; Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization hearings continue; the mayor of Gloucester publishes a plan for responding to the groundfishing crisis; a lucrative elver fishery is a symptom of struggling eel populations.

Photo courtesy of Curt MacNeill, Boulder Health Revolution

Each year contaminated food sickens 48 million Americans and causes 3,000 deaths.  As the recent federal sequester highlights, Americans depend on programs that inspect food to ensure a safe food supply.  Unfortunately for those who run small farms in New England, the costs of complying with the confusing jumble of federal and state food safety laws can be daunting.

In Maine, nine towns — Brooksville, Sedgwick, Penobscot, Blue Hill, Trenton, Hope, Plymouth, Livermore and Appleton —have passed ordinances allowing food producers and processors to sell their goods directly to consumers without state or federal oversight, exempting them from licensing and inspection laws. These ordinances have created controversy and have landed at least one Maine farmer in court.

The legal issue arises from the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States. Congress has long used this authority to regulate the safety of food products placed into inter-state sales. The states can separately regulate food safety of products produced and sold solely within state borders. Maine’s Constitution similarly provides that state laws take precedence over local ordinances that frustrate the purpose of a state law.

Photo courtesy of Foods U chose 2 Eat, UK Website

Recently the State of Maine sued a farmer from Blue Hill Maine. The farmer had been selling unlabeled, unlicensed raw milk at his farm stand under a town ordinance, the Local Food and Community Self Governance Ordinance. Under state law, however, the farmer could not sell his milk without a license and without labeling the raw milk as unpasteurized; he also could not operate a food establishment without a license. The farmer maintained that his sales were legal under the Blue Hill ordinance, which exempts local food vendors from state licensure and inspection, provided they sell their products directly to consumers.

The court recently ruled against the farmer, finding that he was not protected under the Blue Hill ordinance.  The court reasoned that state dairy law pre-empted the local ordinance because the state laws in question were clearly designed to protect consumers from illness caused by improperly handled or unpasteurized milk.  The court wrote that: “It is axiomatic that a municipality may only add to the requirements of the statute, it may not take away from those requirements unless permitted to do so otherwise.”

The court’s ruling makes sense in terms of following constitutional law principles and the existing food safety legal regime. The bigger policy issue not addressed by the legal decision is whether the current food safety regulatory structure is one that prices small scale farmers focused on local markets out of  business. We think this is an important issue to address and are actively working on it as part of CLF’s Farm and Food Initiative.  We’d like to hear from you.

On April 13, the Massachusetts Senate voted in favor of a $600 million per year transportation funding plan. But can that plan fund all of the challenges facing the Bay State’s transportation system? It’s a question many are asking, and few have the tools to answer.

That’s why we built the Transportation Budget Calculator. Follow this link to see how short this funding falls in the face of the state’s overwhelming transportation needs.

The plan that the Senate approved directs an average of $600 million per year to transportation. While the Senate bill is similar to the proposal previously approved by the House, it added roughly $100 million per year on average in revenue. This additional amount does not require raising any new taxes. Rather, the Senate bill redirects 2.5 cents per gallon from the gas tax that is currently committed to underground storage tank removal to the transportation sector. The Senate bill also calls for new revenues from the leasing of MBTA and MassDOT land to utilities.

A conference committee has formed to try and merge the House and Senate bills. There has been a lot of interest in understanding how much of its transportation challenges the Commonwealth would be able to tackle should legislation emerge that is consistent with the revenue that the Senate bill raises.

The Senate bill raises sufficient revenue to correct some of the Commonwealth’s most egregious financial practices born out of the necessity to fill budget holes created by chronic underfunding. This includes ending the terrible practice of paying for costs associated with the operation of our transportation system with bonds.

The bill also includes about $100 million per year on average for capital projects. This number could be significantly lower depending on two factors: first, whether the bill’s growth projections for payroll and benefits come to pass or not; and second, whether it is realistic for the MBTA to be able to meet the bill’s underlying projections about how much money the agency can raise on its own. Regardless, this amount, unfortunately, cannot resolve all of the infrastructure challenges of our transportation system.

To get a sense of the challenge facing the committee, try our new Transportation Budget Calculator. Using the revenue provided by the Senate bill, the calculator allows you to pick state of good repair and expansion projects off of a project list and will inform you if you can afford the projects you have selected or not.

It’s may not be as exciting as your favorite video game, but you can still enjoy the ride (if you can afford to build the road or the track)!

With warming seas and ocean acidification putting unprecedented pressure on our already heavily fished, shipped, and polluted coastal areas, adding the extreme pressures of seismic testing and offshore oil drilling, which we keep hearing are supposed to be safe and foolproof, but never really are, seems like a foolhardy move.

There are plenty of other options for developing offshore energy that will not put us at such high risk of horrible toxic spills and deadly-to-wildlife noise. We don’t want dead or deformed fish, whales, and dolphins in our ocean, and tar balls on beaches where our kids build sand castles. We have some of America’s most beautiful coastal areas and amazing ocean life here in New England, and we need to keep them that way.

What can you do to help? Be part of a global campaign by joining one of your local Hands Across the Sand events this Saturday, May 18^th, 12 PM local time, to say “No” to dirty fossil fuels and “Yes” to clean, renewable energy. Hands Across the Sand started in Florida in 2010, and has rapidly grown into a major global campaign. The idea is simple – join your fellow ocean champions on the beach, lock hands, and unite in opposition to dirty energy.

Have someone take a picture and post it to the Hands Across the Sands Flickr page (and, if you’re in New England, please share your photos with us, too!), and send it to your elected officials for even greater impact. Visit the Hands Across the Sand page to find a local even or organize your own.

Fishermen, beach-goers, surfers, and conservation groups agree – oil drilling has no place in New England’s ocean. So take a stand and put your Hands Across the Sand!

This was originally posted on New England Ocean Odyssey on May 14th, 2013.