Latest news with #ConservationLawFoundation
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
States continue with bold efforts to force companies to clean up their mess: 'Not paying their fair share for the ... crisis that they've caused'
Nearly a dozen states have drafted legislation to hold dirty energy companies fiscally responsible for environmental harms and the impact of rising temperatures they've caused. In 2024, lawmakers in Vermont advanced legislation "modeled after the EPA's Superfund program." A year prior, residents experienced unprecedented, catastrophic flooding, a form of extreme weather the state later warned would likely become more common, including because of a warming climate. Vermont's first-of-its-kind legislation was passed in June 2024. At the time, Elena Mihaly of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill was not about "punishing" oil companies. "If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up," Mihaly told the Guardian. According to Grist, Vermont's novel Superfund bill "requires major oil and gas companies to pay for climate-related disaster and adaptation costs, based on their share of global greenhouse gas emissions over the past few decades." The state encountered predictable pushback from dirty fuel corporations and lobbyists, but that hasn't stopped other states from adopting the same approach. Lawmakers in New York passed similar legislation in June 2024, ultimately seeking $75 billion from oil companies. Efforts to make "polluters pay" were already underway in California when swaths of the broader Los Angeles area were devastated by another form of extreme weather — devastating wildfires that engulfed homes, caused chaotic evacuations, and killed 30 people. By March, costs associated with the January 2025 wildfires were estimated at between "$76 billion and $131 billion, with insured losses estimated [at] up to $45 billion." California's efforts to make polluters pay hit a roadblock in the form of a successful, $80 million lobbying effort to spike the bill — but as extreme weather becomes a "new norm" and disaster costs stack up, lawmakers persist in their attempts to hold oil companies accountable. "We realized that these big fossil fuel companies were, frankly, not paying their fair share for the climate crisis that they've caused," said Adrian Boafo, a Maryland state delegate and co-sponsor of a similar superfund bill. Big Oil's big pockets are infamous, and efforts to sabotage state-level Superfund bills are not unexpected. Nevertheless, the costs of a warming globe aren't going anywhere, and neither are the state lawmakers faced with ever-increasing cleanup costs. Do you think gas stoves should be banned nationwide? No way Let each state decide I'm not sure Definitely Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Columbia University climate law fellow Martin Lockman, who said advancing science has made it much easier to attribute emissions to specific companies, told Grist that state-level politicians can't ignore the issue at a budgetary level, due to "really serious questions about how our society is going to allocate the harms of climate change." "I suspect that the lawmakers who are advocating for these bills are in it for the long haul," Lockman observed. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Boston Globe
02-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Federal proposal puts $335m grant for realignment of Mass. Pike in Allston in jeopardy
But since President Trump began his second term, calling Advertisement The state agency declined to comment beyond a spokesperson saying it was 'aware of the proposal.' Advertisement As part of the Republican-led effort to advance Trump's agenda, the 'What we're seeing right now is the Trump administration and a cohort of followers making an extremely partisan play in the executive and legislative branches that would have drastic negative consequences across party lines, whether you look at Massachusetts or elsewhere in the country,' said Seth Gadbois, a clean transportation attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy organization. The move by lawmakers followed a Overall, the transportation agenda of the Trump administration seems geared toward pushing federal dollars toward rural areas, and infrastructure to support private vehicles, and away from mass transit in urban areas with more racially diverse populations, Advertisement 'It's deeply concerning to think that an agency that is meant to safely and accessibly move people and goods around in the best possible way to reduce harm is doing the exact opposite,' Muratore said. In the case of the ambitious proposal for Allston, which would stitch together a stretch of the neighborhood divided by the construction of the Mass. Pike in the 1960s, and has been Already, as state transportation officials have faced The loss of the federal funding would not be surprising given the protracted planning, Kane said, but it would 'speak to a bigger issue, which is the fact that we just can't seem to move big projects quickly around here.' Still, it is early in the complicated budget reconciliation process. The proposal could fail to clear both chambers of Congress — and if it does pass, the move to claw back the funds might end up being challenged in court. Advertisement 'We're kind of in the second inning here of a nine-inning game,' said Tom Glynn, one of the most prominent civic leaders in Boston. 'A lot of this is uncharted territory and needs to get sorted out.' Regardless of what happens, Gadbois, a fierce advocate of the Allston Multimodal Project, said they are confident 'there is still a path forward,' calling the development 'an unfortunate step backwards.' 'But I don't want to treat it like a foregone conclusion either,' Gadbois said. 'In a moment where the federal level of government is attacking these kinds of initiatives, I think it presents an even stronger moment for MassDOT to stand strong to the commitments it's making to the Allston community and build a project that does right by them today and for the future generations of community members that will live there.' Shannon Larson can be reached at
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Massachusetts postpones rule requiring truck makers to sell electric vehicles
Truck driving on a road in New Mexico, one of 17 states that have adopted the California vehicle emissions standards. (Photo by Bhaamati Borkhetaria/CW Beacon) To the frustration of environmentalists who argue that states must take stronger action on climate in the absence of federal leadership, Massachusetts last week postponed enforcement of a rule requiring truck manufacturers to sell a minimum percentage of electric vehicles by two years. Representatives for the trucking industry applauded the move, arguing there isn't enough demand or infrastructure to support electric trucks. But, environmental advocates said that the state's decision will set Massachusetts back in its climate goals and prolong exposure to harmful emissions for the state's residents. 'We're very disappointed to see the state of Massachusetts, which is really considered a leader on climate, kowtowing to truck manufacturers in this instance,' said Emily Green, a senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation who works on climate change, clean energy, and transportation. 'The transportation sector is a huge contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, and delaying enforcement of this regulation will make it all the more difficult for Massachusetts to comply with its binding climate limits.' The Advanced Clean Trucks rule requires that manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty trucks sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission vehicles year over year starting in 2025, the year the state was to begin enforcing fines. Starting this year, Massachusetts would have required 7% of trucks and tractors sold in the state to be electric vehicles. (Pickup trucks are not included in the requirements.) The percentages must increase each year until more than half of the trucks sold in the state are electric. Massachusetts adopted California's vehicle emission standards, which are more strict than federal regulations, in 1990. Massachusetts announced on April 14 that it will not enforce percentage requirements for the model years 2025 and 2026 as long as manufacturers, who have been withholding diesel trucks unless dealers agree to buy a certain amount of electric trucks, supply trucks to dealerships in the state without restrictions. 'Some manufacturers are limiting…truck sales as a means to ensure their compliance with ACT sales requirements, reducing availability to a wide range of users,' said a memo from the state's Department of Environmental Protection. 'Further, the current federal administration has created significant uncertainty around [zero-emission vehicle] incentives, charging investments, manufacturing, and tariffs, each of which threatens a smooth transition to medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs.' The nation's leading truck manufacturers provided input when California developed the rule and agreed to meet the requirements. But now, they are arguing that the industry will not be able to meet the requirements because of high costs and a lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Kevin Weeks, executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, applauded the Healey administration's decision to delay the rule. 'Even if the manufacturers could provide the trucks, nobody would buy the trucks because you can't charge the trucks,' said Weeks. '[They have] range issues, battery issues, cost issues, and on and on. It's just not feasible for people to purchase medium and heavy-duty trucks that are electric at this point.' But, Green and other environmental advocates say that holding the line on climate policy at the state level has become more important as the Trump administration attempts to roll back key environmental protections designed to transition the country off of fossil fuels. 'At a time when the federal administration is shirking its responsibilities with respect to environment and climate and environmental justice and health and air pollution, it's more important than ever that states hold their ground and not over-comply and not bend to the will of the Trump administration until they are forced to do so,' said Green. Currently, the Trump administration is working on 'reconsidering' the clean trucks rule along with two other emissions waivers that Massachusetts has also adopted: the Heavy-duty Omnibus Regulation, which requires manufacturers to sell lower emissions engines for heavy-duty vehicles like trucks, and the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation, which has a goal of reaching 100% zero-emissions vehicle sales by 2035. 'This is a moment where the states should stand up to the federal government rather than doing their work for them,' said Anna Vanderspek, the electric vehicle program director at Green Energy Consumers Alliance. 'Let's force the federal government to go through the [rollback] process, which will likely end up in the courts, so that we don't weaken the Clean Air Act and its provisions for them.' Late last year, Massachusetts delayed enforcement of the Heavy-duty Omnibus rule for the model year 2025 and pushed enforcement back to 2026. Vehicle emissions from trucks have an outsize impact on public health, according to public health experts. An October analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that the delay in enforcing the Advanced Clean Trucks rule to 2027 will lead to a cost of somewhere between $97.2 and $127.8 million in health impacts from things like emergency room visits and school days lost to asthma in Massachusetts. The transportation sector accounts for the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions – about 40%– in Massachusetts. Medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses make up about 7% of the state's registered vehicles, but contribute a disproportionate 46% of nitrogen oxide, 40% of fine particulate matter, and 20% of global warming emissions, according to a 2021 analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Doug Brugge, the head of the public health sciences department at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said vehicle emissions from trucks that run on fossil fuels lead to many different adverse health outcomes, including respiratory ailments, cardiovascular conditions, and neurological harm. 'Airborne particulate matter is probably the most common and the most serious environmental health concern that we know of, especially for people who live near busy roadways or major highways,' said Brugge. 'They will have elevated exposure to these particles. Lower-income, racial or ethnic minorit[ies], and immigrant communities tend to be in areas where these exposures are higher.' Massachusetts's move to delay enforcement on Advanced Clean Trucks has environmentalists worried that other states will follow its example, and the benefits of the rule will be kicked back by two years. Initially, the Healey administration refused to back down and said the rule would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, but there was heavy pushback from the trucking industry. State and local agencies faced difficulties in purchasing new vehicles for snowplowing, snow removal, street sweeping, storm response, and other essential uses. Some flexibility was built into the Advanced Clean Trucks rule through a system of credits to help with compliance. There are ways that manufacturers can get credits for 'early-action' before 2025, swap credits with other businesses, or carry forward deficits for up to three years. 'The government is investing to support this market, and there are clearly scores of models of these vehicles that are working in the field today and are working really well,' said Jason Mathers, the associate vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund. 'It is illogical to think that the trucking manufacturers and dealers are so incompetent as to not be able to structure deals with customers who want to purchase these vehicles.' Mathers said that the minimum percentage of 7% or 11% is very achievable with the infrastructure and the technology that currently exists. Rules like Advanced Clean Trucks set the trajectory of the transportation sector market in the state, and delays inject uncertainty into the electric vehicle market, according to Green. 'Even if they continue to plow ahead with other supportive things, there will be something missing in terms of not [enforcing] this rule' for another two years, said Green. 'They're also…bending to the demands of the truck manufacturers and giving power over to the industry, which is not a great look. This will result in there being less zero-emission vehicles on the road at least in the short term.' This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
In New England, Canadian hydropower has slowed to an ominous trickle
On March 6, at the start of the still-simmering trade war between the U.S. and Canada, hydropower generator Hydro‑Québec quietly stopped exporting electricity to New England. At a time of year when Canadian hydropower typically supplies up to a tenth of New England's power, the region has instead gone almost a month with virtually no cross-border flow of electrons. Hydro‑Québec leaders say low prices in the New England market — not politics — are behind the decision to suspend sales. The disruption hasn't affected power costs or reliability in the region yet, but some experts say it could if the cutoff extends into the summer cooling season. The situation also highlights a potential risk to state clean energy plans that count on Canadian hydropower to help offset fossil fuels. 'This shows the potential for the region to be vulnerable to manipulations of the supply,' said Phelps Turner, director of clean grid for the Conservation Law Foundation. Hydro‑Québec's main transmission line into New England, known as the Phase II line, stopped exporting any meaningful amount of power two days after President Donald Trump's tariff on Canadian imports went into effect. Last March, by comparison, anywhere from a few hundred megawatts to more than 1,200 MW flowed along the line at any given time, making up between 5% and 10% of the region's electricity use on average, Turner estimated. The longer that New England needs to replace the absent hydropower, the more often it will call on natural gas or oil power plants to fill the gap with dirtier and more expensive electricity, particularly as demand increases in the summer and again next winter. 'Electrically, this is pretty much the most boring time of year, and certainly a much easier time of year to have a source go away or be on pause here,' said Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association. 'There is going to be both a cost and environmental consequence if we see this be a really durable situation.' In an email from a company spokesperson, Hydro‑Québec attributed its lack of exports to market conditions, saying milder spring weather has lowered demand and thus prices. Others have theorized the move is also a show of power aimed at the Trump administration. Hydro‑Québec has been sending signals for a while that it might be moving away from delivering power to New England at its historic levels. Last year, 5,560 gigawatt-hours of power traveled into the region over the Phase II line, less than half the amount exported in 2022. And in the last two forward capacity auctions run by grid operator ISO New England, Hydro‑Québec did not take on any obligation to provide power for 20 of the 24 months covered. This pullback is likely due, at least in part, to ongoing abnormally dry and drought conditions in much of Quebec, which mean less water flow to power the company's generators. Hydro-Québec, therefore, faces choices about what to do with the power it can generate, whether that means holding out for higher prices on the New England market or selling it domestically to meet the province's own growing demand as it too electrifies in pursuit of climate goals. 'Hydro-Québec is proactively managing its energy reserves in the context of low runoff and, as such, will continue to limit its exports as it did in 2024,' said company spokesperson Lynn St-Laurent. The lack of exports from Hydro-Québec coupled with the specter of fluctuating tariffs and counter-tariffs brings into focus the need for the New England grid to develop more stateside power resources and expand the infrastructure required to get energy where it's needed, experts said. 'We're going to need all the supply we can find, and part of that is going to come from Canadian hydro,' said Jeremy McDiarmid, managing director and general counsel at clean energy industry association Advanced Energy United. 'We also need to be building things: We need to build transmission lines. We need to build new generation.' Some are also concerned that ISO New England is not properly accounting for the declines in Canadian hydro supply. The grid operator's planning process still uses the assumption that neighboring regions — mostly Quebec, Dolan said — will be willing and able to send 2,000 MW into New England at moments of exceptionally high demand, an expectation Dolan said 'doesn't strike me as responsible or appropriate reliability planning,' given the trend in the Canadian firm's exports. The situation has also raised questions about the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line, a 145-mile project designed to import 1,200 MW of Hydro-Québec power into New England as part of a 20-year power purchase agreement with Massachusetts utilities. The line is expected to be operational starting in 2026, and a Hydro-Québec spokesperson said the company plans to deliver the power promised. Recent circumstances, however, have those in the industry combing over the contracts to determine how solid Hydro-Québec's commitment to deliver that power actually is and how tariffs might affect the terms of the deal. One promising sign, they said: The company is still sending electricity into the U.S. over a second, smaller transmission line that ends in Vermont, which has an agreement to buy power from Hydro-Québec until 2038. 'That does seem to suggest that [Hydro-Québec] is performing under existing contracts,' Turner said. 'But every contract in every situation is different.' In the meantime, the region will just have to wait and see what Hydro-Québec does next, without much information to go on. 'It's hard to say what's motivating the decision' to cut power flow, Turner said. 'We just know it's happening, but we don't know why it's happening.'
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers consider groundbreaking program that could slash home heating costs: 'We're starting to see some new momentum'
Connecticut environmentalists say a bill that could revolutionize the way homes are heated and cooled is looking up. Canary Media reported that HB 6929 would create grant and loan programs to support the development of geothermal networks. These networks act similarly to traditional heat pumps, except that instead of harnessing heat from the outside air, they harness heat from the earth. "We're starting to see some new momentum with this bill," Shannon Laun, the Conservation Law Foundation's vice president for Connecticut, told Canary Media. A handful of other states have passed legislation in favor of geothermal energy projects, starting with Massachusetts in 2021. And the country's first utility-run geothermal network project has been commissioned in Framingham, Massachusetts. This type of heat pump offers many potential advantages. "Relative to air-source heat pumps, they are quieter, more efficient, last longer, need little maintenance, and do not rely on the temperature of the outside air, which is more variable than the ground temperature in most climates," the U.S. Department of Energy noted. A more efficient heating source means it's better not only for the environment but also for your wallet. The only emissions involved with geothermal networks are from the electricity used to run the heat pumps, which is less than other heating systems. And although these networks can be expensive to set up, they can also heat entire neighborhoods while saving individuals up to 75% on their heating and cooling costs, experts say. Despite some broad appeal for Connecticut's proposed bill, plenty of questions remain. Some advocates told Canary that the bill should require utilities to propose geothermal pilot projects. But the biggest question regarding the bill is its funding. The bill does not propose a budget for the program or specify a funding source. Connor Yakaitis, deputy director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, told Canary that he'd like to see a $20 million budget for the program. "It's a one-time capital investment that would yield long-term environmental and economic benefits," Yakaitis said. Do you think all new homes should use heat pump technology? Definitely Let each state decide Let homeowners decide No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
