Tim Faulkner: The lessons of the long Cape Wind saga
Via ecoRI News (ecori.org)
NARRAGANSETT, R.I. — Cape Wind may be gone, but it’s still fresh on the minds of attendees and speakers at a two-day southern New England wind energy conference hosted by the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography.
Bill White, senior director of wind development for the Massachusetts state agency that advances renewable energy, said the demise of Cape Wind was a personal disappointment, but the 16-year saga offered several teachable moments for the offshore wind industry.
Those lessons, White said, include building further offshore, presumably away from popular recreation and fishing areas such as Nantucket Sound. To speed up permitting, environmental studies should be completed and regulations addressed earlier in the application process, he added.
Cape Wind also established offshore infrastructure that will benefit future projects. It led to construction hubs such as the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, and laid the groundwork for planning, staging, and construction of turbines and their transmission lines.
“Cape Wind in a way served as a catalyst not just for Massachusetts but in a way for the entire East Coast in educating us to the possibility of offshore wind,” White said.
Smaller is better, Deepwater Wind CEO Jeffrey Grybowski said. He noted that the 130-turbine Cape Wind project and other failed offshore wind farms suffered from a process that was pushed by developers rather than by a state-driven model, such as the one Rhode Island embraced for the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm.
Developers, inspired by large European wind projects, relied on analysis from engineers showing the maximum number of turbines that could be built in an offshore zone, Grybowski said. Large projects like Cape Wind and others off the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey and Long Island “were in essence drawn up on a white board in a developer’s office."
"They were engineered," Grybowski said. "An engineer said, ‘I can build this much in this area.’ They were mechanically engineered and financially engineered to those particular project sizes. And those projects failed.”
Grybowski praised Rhode Island’s ocean mapping plan for providing the locations and process for approving offshore wind projects. Through community and stakeholder involvement, the project was reduced from 100 turbines to eight and then five.
“When you are doing something for the first time going for the large size is not necessarily the right way to go, even though it may make financial sense,” Grybowski said.
Building 400 turbines is feasible and already happening in Europe, he said, “but starting small makes a lot of sense when you look at the long term.”
Starting small and moving slowly makes it easier to recover from mistakes that might derail a larger project. Grybowski didn’t mention specific errors, but the Block Island project encountered some safety and construction problems, along with minor public resistance, all of which were fixed or addressed with alternative plans.
Grybowski described the give-and-take as “enlightened self-interest.” He explained that the turbines benefited Block Island by fulfilling its dual goals of ending its reliance on diesel-fuel power, while connecting the island to the mainland power grid. As an inducement, the transmission line included a fiber-optic Internet connection.
“It means ... making the right concessions for the community and the project that maximizes everyone's goals at the end of the day,” Grybowski said.
The experience of building the Block Island Wind Farm set the course for new and much larger offshore wind projects that will be needed as the country transitions away from fossil fuels. Electrification of the transportation sector and advances in battery storage are escalating the demand for renewable energy and offshore wind is the most practical source of utility-scale power to meet that energy need, according to Grybowski.
Fake news
Science was the focus of the two-day conference (Dec. 11 and 12), with sessions on marine mammals, fish and fisheries, birds, and bats. Grybowski urged scientists to do more to promote their research. Climate-change deniers, Grybowski said, were given legitimacy because scientists didn't adequately “engage in that public conversation.”
“When there was pushback, fake news on the other side, the science community, they were comfortable with kind of putting their studies together," he said. “They weren’t really comfortable engaging in a real way out with people on the other side in the community. So I ask you to do that."
Grybowski pointed to news stories that circulated a dubious claim that noise from the Block Island Wind Farm killed a humpback whale that washed ashore on Jamestown earlier this year.
“When that sort of thing happens, it would be really great to have some researchers who were willing to step up and actually get engaged in that conversation and provide facts and help people make clear judgements about what is and what isn’t happening,” Grybowski said.
Tim Faulkner writes for ecoRI News.
Tim Faulkner: Solar-energy batteries and big storm outages
Many trick-or-treaters ventured through southern New England neighborhoods afflicted by the latest widescale power outages, caused by the big storm of Oct. 29-30. Some houses were lit by generators, others arbitrarily spared from the blackout. To grown-ups at least, the Halloween displays were far less scary than the darkened homes with spoiling food and a lack of heat.
After a string of blackouts in recent years, it’s hard to blame homeowners for wanting backup power such as portable generators. The noisy, gas engines are more common since storms such as Sandy and Nemo have hit the region during the past five years. Some homeowners have even installed large, permanent standby units fueled by a direct hookup to a natural-gas line.
Property owners have reason to look for backup energy. Extended power outages are more common, in part because of higher winds and more powerful storms fueled by climate change.
Generator choices and prices vary widely. Portables start at $150. Quieter, cleaner and more powerful models can be as much as $5,000 or more. Permanent, standby units are priced upwards of $4,000 to as much as $25,000.
Adding backup battery storage to a solar array costs about $12,000, or about $8,400 after a federal tax credit. That’s on top of the price of panels and equipment, which typically cost between $12,000 and $25,000 for the average home. Current rebates and incentives cut the expense by about 40 percent.
While the price may be high for the solar + storage, consumers are looking.
“There is huge interest for energy storage. We get calls all the time,” said Doug Sabetti, owner of Newport Solar, based in North Kingstown, R.I.
The first thing that residential customers want to know is whether they can go off the grid. Sabetti explained that cutting ties with the power grid is complicated and expensive. Several renewable incentives require a grid connection. So far, Sabetti has installed one solar + battery unit, but as incentives improve and hardware cost drop, the option of solar backup with grid connection will become more common.
Nationally, Tesla launched the solar + storage movement with the release of its Powerwall lithium battery storage pack in 2015. Sales have been slow and Tesla has shifted its focus to commercial customers, who use batteries to lower energy costs during peak demand. Tesla still offers solar + storage to residential customers through its SolarCity subsidiary. Other national installers such as Sunrun are expanding into the residential market using the Tesla Powerwall.
These systems are grid-connected, allowing for financial discounts and other benefits. In principal, the systems sell excess power back to the grid. And, of course, when the power goes out, the lights and refrigerator stay on.
However, not all states are prepared for permitting new solar + storage systems. Massachusetts and Rhode Island support the model and regulators are clarifying the rules.
One problem: solar regulations don’t state whether battery storage can be coupled with net metering, the process of taking and sending electricity to the grid at the regular retail price for power. Utilities such as National Grid don’t want customers charging their batteries off the grid when prices are low and selling the electricity back to the grid when prices are higher.
In September, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities issued a temporary ruling allowing net metering solar + storage systems while it further investigates the implications of those systems.
Sunrun and Tesla have a petition before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that limits the size of eligible solar + storage systems to 25 kilowatts or smaller and batteries can only be charged by the sun and not from the power grid. The docket is supported by the Office of Energy Resources and the Northeast Clean Energy Council. National Grid generally favors the concept but wants the rules clarified. The PUC may rule on the petition at its Nov. 27 meeting.
Another approach to ensuring that the power stays on is to create municipally owned electric utilities. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that public utilities have fewer power outages. National Grid, a for-profit company, was criticized for its response to the recent lengthy power outages in the region.
Rhode Island state Rep. Aaron Regunberg (D.-Providence) plans to introduce legislation when the General Assembly convenes in January that would allow more public, nonprofit utilities to operate in the state. Currently, the Pascoag Utility District is the only municipal electric utility in Rhode Island. Massachusetts has 41 municipally owned electric utilities. None have been created since the 1920s, and bills allowing new ones to form have stalled for years in the Legislature.
Proponents of public utilities say they invest in community projects, including renewable energy.
Tim Faulkner reports and writes for ecoRI News.
Tim Faulkner: Future looks bright for New England offshore windpower
Via ecoRI.org
The future looks promising for the local and regional offshore wind business. Three recent reports project up to 36,000 new jobs and 8,000 megawatts of offshore wind power between New Jersey and Maine by 2030.
Released by the Clean Energy States Alliance, a coalition of state energy agencies, the reports examine and aggregate information about offshore locations, state policies, interconnection infrastructure, and job potential.
The main findings identify 109 different occupations and electricity output for nearly 4 million homes. By comparison, Rhode Island has 462,000 housing units and Massachusetts 2.7 million.
Of the the seven states in the reports, Massachusetts has the greatest resources for offshore wind energy, with 82,704 megawatts of potential power. Maine is next with 56,503 megawatts, but currently has no wind projects proposed. Rhode Island has 8,364 megawatts of wind potential. Rhode Island and Massachusetts share a federally designated wind-lease area south of Martha’s Vineyard.
The reports are part of a regional effort to promote renewable-energy planning called A Roadmap for Multi-State Cooperation on Offshore Wind Development. They were partially funded by a U.S Department of Energy grant of $592,683 given to the New York State Energy Research Development Authority. The reports were also done for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, and the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources (OER).
“As host to the nation's very first offshore wind farm, currently generating 30 megawatts off the southern coast of Block Island, we see these reports as key to laying the foundation for this growing industry,” OER administrator Carol Grant said. “The states in the region have individually taken important steps to advance offshore wind. The release of the new reports exemplifies how the states are also working together to advance offshore wind deployment and supply-chain development.”
Report one, the Northeast Offshore Wind Regional Market Characterization, looks at federal lease opportunities, state policies, regional energy needs, existing electricity generation and planned retirements, and transmission capacity through 2030.
Report two, U.S. Job Creation in Offshore Wind, looks at job potential. The majority of jobs are in project development and management, supply and installation of electrical substations and subsea cable, wind farm operation and maintenance, and possibly some in manufacturing.
Report three, U.S. Jones Act Compliant Offshore Wind Turbine Installation Vessel Study, examines the federal rule that requires all vessels transporting cargo between domestic ports to be built in the United States. The report concludes that the budding offshore wind industry would need a turbine installation vessel and a feeder barge. Shipyards have already been sent information on cost estimates. The installation vessel would cost about $222 million and some $87 million for the feeder barge.
Webinars on the reports are scheduled to held Nov. 20 and Dec. 7.
Tim Faulkner is on the staff of ecoRI News (ecori.org).
Tim Faulkner: How a new economy might work in Rhode Island
Via ecoRI news (ecori.org)
PROVIDENCE
Ever hear a politician brag about how much open space she protected? Or how much food scrap he wants to divert from the landfill? Or how they both made a neighborhood healthier by shutting down a polluter? Probably not often.
Instead, the words and acts of most elected officials focus on top-down economic development, such as lowering taxes and offering big corporations massive financial incentives to relocate.
That kind of outdated thinking is driving the spread of an altered economy, one that reduces the emphasis on unbridled profit-making and gives priority to health, nature and economic equality. Models vary, but most advocates and practitioners call for a shift to a shared economy, one that relies on local resources and networks and shuns outside ownership.
Statistics show that the current economic system isn’t working. The United States is doing poorly in creating economic equality and providing health care. Success stories abound, as do data, supporting the benefits of spending local. The grassroots-economy movement has been led by networks of artists, environmentalists and social entrepreneurs.
Specific solutions vary. Some say it’s as simple as having consumers, the government and institutions buy locally made products from locally owned businesses. Everything from food to furniture should made using local raw materials and labor and sold in locally owned shops. Bartering is also common, especially for items that can't be produced locally.
This modified capitalism has also fostered a more minimalist lifestyle. Less stuff and smaller homes reduces environmental harm. It also leads to greater contentment. Houses are smaller while the role of nature and open space is greater.
Partisan gridlock and corporate-funded opposition are stalling favorable policies at the legislative level, so the movement so far has adapted through tweaks to existing rules and systems.
Local environmentalist Greg Gerritt and social-enterprise advocate and impact-investor Dan Levinson, of Main Street Resources, recently discussed the issue and policies around a new economic movement.
Gerritt’s economic platform of ecological healing focuses on addressing climate change, ending fossil-fuel use and protecting forests.
Levinson believes that Rhode Island can prosper from a food-based economy and greater simplicity. Solutions include asking large food users such as universities to exclusively buy local; shifting out-of-state tourism marketing funds into attracting locals to local destinations; government injecting money into the local economy by paying premiums to local companies that bid on local projects.
Rather than politicians, local small-business owners should decide where economic stimulus money goes, Levinson said. “Ask these guys where to put it," he said. "They are not going to want to pollute. They treat people fairly. They are not going to ship all over the world."
Tim Faulkner writes for ecoRI News.
Tim Faulkner: On the edge in Narragansett Bay
Narragansett Bay.
Via ecoRI News (ecori.org)
This year’s Watershed Counts report again describes a bay and shoreline under duress and facing an uncertain future. The causes aren't new, but the overarching threat to the Narragansett Bay region is climate change. To illustrate the current and future perils, the report analyzes three topics: oysters, saltwater marshes and waterfront homes. The three make for an ideal summer setting in Rhode Island, but from an ecological perspective they are on the cusp of significant change.
Marshes
The report's profile of saltwater marshes is compelling for its clear illustrations and concise description of one of Narragansett Bay’s most underappreciated resources. Marshes teem with ecological diversity and provide important functions such as sequestering carbon, filtering pollution, and protecting the shoreline from floods and erosion.
Yet, sea-level rise is submerging these habitats faster than they can naturally elevate themselves. Since 1999, the water level in the bay has risen 3 inches, compared to a 1.125-inch accretion rate for marshes. As water becomes trapped atop marshes, the grasses turn to mudflats and eventually open water. According to the report, if sea-level rise increases 5 feet, as projected, the bay will lose 87 percent of its remaining marshes.
Experimental marsh preservation projects are underway in Middletown, Charlestown and Narragansett, R.I. To elevate marshes, sediment from dredged navigation channels and breachways is sprayed on top of the grasses. But the report acknowledges the it will be a challenge to keep up with the inevitable.
“Even if emissions were halted today, it could be at least a hundred years for ocean temperatures and seal level rise to change course," according to the report.
Oysters
Oyster farming is a re-emerging industry that reached its peak in 1922, when farms covered 22 percent of Narragansett Bay. Although oyster farming is a fraction of the size today, they are the state’s largest source of shellfishing revenue. The industry is projected to grow, thanks to strong oversight and management plans from state agencies such as the Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) and Department of Health. But warming water impacts spawning, alters the taste of oysters and escalates the likelihood for diseases. Climate change also increase stormwater runoff, which pollutes the bay and leads to shellfish closures.
Even with these threats, however, the report concludes that oyster farming can grow and thrive.
“Rhode Island is well positioned to identify and manage current and future impacts of climate change to the oyster aquaculture industry," according to the report.
North Kingstown, for one, has partnered with state institutions to map and assess the town’s vulnerability to projected sea-level rise. (CRMC)
Waterfront homes
The pursuit of waterfront property is coming back to haunt Rhode Islanders. The development of the coast has destroyed marshes and hardened the shoreline with manmade barriers such as seawalls.
Since the 1970s restrictions have slowed building on marshes and construction of artificial barriers. But with 30 percent of the the bay's shoreline “hardened” by development and rising seas there isn’t much room for nature to adapt or help lessen the force of more powerful storms and erosion wrought by climate change.
Waterfront property owners have to make expensive decisions. Retreat, elevate their homes, or install natural buffers to protect against the inevitable damage expected from the encroaching ocean.
CRMC will initiate the transition to these options with its Shoreline Special Area Management Plan, or Beach SAMP. The guide for coastal property owners about hazards is still being written, but the website offers maps and information about at-risk neighborhoods. Other tools and information about coastal climate risks are available for municipal planners, property owners and the public, such as the recently launched PREP-RI learning site.
The Watershed Counts report warns that shoreline property owners should act soon, as the likelihood of a 100-year storm battering Rhode Island increases. Otherwise, 4,853 coastal homes will be underwater by 2100 thanks to sea-level rise, according to projections.
Watershed Counts is facilitated and paid for by the University of Rhode Island Coastal Institute and the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Tim Faulkner writes for ecoRi News.
Tim Faulkner: Senate rejects Trump cuts to coastal environmental projects
The Sakonnet River, a saltwater strait that forms part of Narragansett Bay.
Via eco RI News (ecori.org)
On the same night that the U.S. Senate rejected the latest effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, it also come out forcefully against President Trump’s effort to eliminate funding for key coastal programs.
In its funding bill for the departments of Commerce, Justice and Science, the Senate approved funding for the Coastal Resources Management Council, Sea Grant and the National Estuarine Research Reserves.
Instead of level funding, the Senate increased by $2 million to $76.5 million for the Sea Grant program, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
“The Committee flatly rejects the [Trump] administration’s proposed elimination of NOAA's Sea Grant program,” the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote in a statement regarding the 2018 funding bill.
The Sea Grant program at the University of Rhode Island is one of 33 nationwide affiliated with universities located near salt water and the Great Lakes. New England has eight Sea Grant offices that focus on coastal hazards, sustainable coastal development, and seafood safety.
Rhode Island Sea Grant receives $2 million from the federal government annually to run its research center at URI’s Bay Campus, in Narragansett. Another $1 million is provided by the state and other sources. Its research includes studies of algal blooms, oyster farming, and lobster diseases.
Had Trump’s budget passed, nine positions would have been lost between the URI research center and a laboratory at Roger William University, in Bristol.
“We are very pleased that the House and Senate have rejected the president’s request to terminate the program,” said Dennis Nixon, director of Rhode Island Sea Grant.
Nixon said Sea Grant has no critics in Congress and that it seen as a valuable institution for advancing timely research.
Trump has been accused of using a broad brush to eliminate any program with the word “grant” in it, to increase defense spending and pay for a border wall with Mexico.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and other Washington insiders maintain that the president’s budget holds little influence on spending and that Congress ultimately decides how money is appropriated. Soon after Trump released his proposed budget in March, Whitehouse downplayed major funding cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and other environmental programs such as Sea Grant.
“Do not be dissuaded or dismayed by the cuts to EPA, the elimination of Sea Grant and other such efforts,” Whitehouse said on March 11. “It is an act of political theater; it is not an act of budgeting.”
Some $85 million was also restored for coastal management grants. The funds pay for about 60 percent of the budget for the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC), a state agency based in Wakefield. CRMC is responsible for permitting coastal development such as docks and seawalls. The 46-year-old agency also creates planning guidelines for offshore wind development and climate-change adaptation. Its Ocean Special Area Management Plan is considered one of the most advanced coastal planning documents in the country.
The Narragansett Bay Estuarine Reserve, based on Prudence Island, had its 70 percent of federal funding restored. The research reserve has eight employees and an $850,000 annual budget. It's one of 28 research reserves nationwide. The Rhode Island facility conducts research and monitoring of shoreline habitat. Recent projects have focused on eelgrass and the Asian shore crab.
The U.S. House of Representatives already passed similar funding for these coastal programs. The two budgets are expected to be modified slightly to match before they are fully approved for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
“It’s good news that both the House and Senate are funding the coastal programs,” said Grover Fugate, CRMC's executive director.
Tim Faulkner writes frequently for ecoRI News.
Tim Faulkner: Right-wing and anti-wind types blame wind farm for whale's death -- without proof
A humpback whale breaching.
Via ecoRI News (ecori.org)
JAMESTOWN, R.I.
There is nothing yet linking the Block Island Wind Farm to the death of humpback whales, but that hasn't stopped anti-wind and conservative groups from making the connection.
The recent stranding and death of a 32-foot juvenile humpback whale in Jamestown triggered speculation, and in some cases unsubstantiated assertions, that noise from the first U.S. offshore wind farm caused this and other whales to die. As the HuffPost recounts, the claim was first made by the conservative Web site Daily Caller and through a conservative news wire has been republished and rewritten in various forms by national new outlets such as The Blaze and through local anti-wind groups and press reports that inferred the link. The Newport Buzz names the five-turbine wind farm as the prime suspect.
None of the anti-wind articles offer a scientist as a source for their claims or research that deduces that the wind farm, owned by Providence-based Deepwater Wind, caused the whale to beach itself. Only the HuffPost quoted a marine biologist, at Cornell University, who said wind turbines contribute to the cacophony of underwater noise from boats, ships and barges, and that this mix of manmade noise — which can also include sonar, fossil-fuel drilling and military exercises and testing — can disorient but isn't likely to kill marine life.
Jeff Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater Wind, told ecoRI News that the five turbines are simply not to blame. "There is absolutely no evidence that the wind farm is in any way connected to this whale," he said. "The wind farm does not create any special risks to marine life. In fact, marine life is thriving near the project.”
As part of its approval process, the wind farm and its transmission system received a finding of no significant impact for acoustic impacts by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
Deepwater Wind has a lot riding on the emerging offshore wind industry. The wind and solar developer has several wind farms in the works between New York and Massachusetts. The wind-rich region has also attracted developers from Norway, Denmark and other countries with established wind industries.
Here's what is known about the death of the Jamestown humpback whale:
A necropsy was performed by Mystic Aquarium at the site of the stranding at Beavertail State Park. Tests to determine the case of death were sent to a laboratory and aren't expected for weeks.
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) won’t say where the carcass was buried. In 2005, a 50-foot finback whale found dead on Newport’s Brenton Point State Park was buried at the Great Swamp Management Area in West Kingston.
There has been a spike in humpback whale deaths along the East Coast between North Carolina and Maine. Since January, 48 humpbacks deaths have been reported. Although ship strikes and entanglements with fishing gear are the main killers of humpback whales, the recent increase in humpback deaths has been classified as an unusual mortality event by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). An investigative team will review data, study samples from future strandings and decide what, if any, action to take.
NOAA also lists sonar, military testing, resort development and increased boat traffic as threats to humpback whales and their habitat.
The Jamestown whale death coincides with a surge in humpback whale sightings between mainland Rhode Island and Block Island, according to DEM. The whales are likely drawn to a growing food supply — the small, eel-like forage fish, called the American sand lance — DEM said.
Humpback whales are protected under the federal Endangered Species and Marine Mammal Protection acts. They grow to about 60 feet in length and have a lifespan of about 50 years. They are the most popular marine mammal for whale watching in New England, because of their habit of breaching and slapping the water surface with their tails.
Tim Faulkner writes frequently for ecoRI News. {Editor's note from Robert Whitcomb, co-author of Cape Wind: Whales and other marine mammals are primarily threatened by boats running into them, fishing nets, human overfishing of fish eaten by some marine mammals, fossil-fuel and other manmade pollution, and acidification and other seawater changes caused by a human-caused increase in greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels. Offshore wind turbines are not implicated in whale deaths. Many conservative and anti-wind people have close economic ties to the oil, natural gas and coal industries.}
Tim Faulkner: Will hurricanes imperil wind turbines off the Northeast?
Via ecoRI.org
As new offshore wind farms are built off the Northeast coast, a new report suggests that the current models of wind turbines may not withstand the most powerful of hurricanes. The study, by the University of Colorado Boulder, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the U.S. Department of Energy, is intended to help the budding offshore wind industry as it expands into hurricane-prone regions, such as the East Coast.
“We wanted to understand the worst-case scenario for offshore wind turbines, and for hurricanes, that’s a Category 5,” said Rochelle Worsnop, lead author and a graduate researcher in the University of Colorado's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC).
Current design standards require offshore wind turbines be built to withstand 112-mph winds. Using computer-generated simulations, researchers found that portions of Category 5 hurricanes can reach up to 200 mph. Turbine blades also can be stressed by sudden and powerful shifts in wind direction, called veer.
Offshore wind turbines are typically larger than land-based turbines because components can be shipped over water instead of along size-restrictive railways and roads. The structures are therefore exposed to greater harm over their 20- to 30-year life, according to the report.
“Success could mean either building turbines that can survive these extreme conditions, or by understanding the overall risk so that risks can be mitigated, perhaps with financial instruments like insurance,” said Julie Lundquist, a co-author of the study and a professor at ATOC and the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute.
A subsequent study by the same group will look at the long-term effects of hurricanes on offshore wind farms built off the Atlantic Coast.
Rhode Island holds the honor of building the country’s first offshore wind farm, with the completion of the Block Island Wind Farm last November. The developer of the five-turbine, 30-megawatt wind farm, Providence-based Deepwater Wind, says the University of Colorado study is more relevant to the Southeast, where hurricane are more common and more powerful.
“Current offshore wind turbine designs are suitable for the wind conditions expected in the Northeast, where the strongest hurricane to make landfall in recorded history was a Category 3," Deepwater Wind spokeswoman Meaghan Wims said.
The most recent Category 3 hurricane to make landfall in New England was Hurricane Carol on Aug. 31, 1954. The storm had a sustained wind of 110 mph.
Deepwater Wind designs its turbines to withstand a 100-year storm, which has top wind speeds of 134 mph.
In the coming the decades, the company is planning to erect wind farms in the waters between Maryland and Maine.
“We don’t expect offshore wind energy to be deployed in the Southeast in the near term for other reasons — namely, a lower offshore wind resource than the Northeast,” Wims said.
Deepwater Wind and other developers have proposed multiple projects off of the wind-rich Northeast coast. Deepwater Wind is advancing a 15-turbine project, called South Fork Wind Farm, off eastern Long Island. Its Deepwater ONE project is slated for thousands of acres of federal waters between Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Vineyard Wind and DONG Energy, both based in Denmark, are also planning projects in the region. Bay State Wind, owned by DONG and Eversource Energy, intends to build several wind farms in the region.
But it’s only a matter of time before these wind turbines are tested by hurricanes. A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists says climate change, and warming oceans in particular, are making coastal storms more intense. Since the 1970s, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled. Category 5 hurricanes have winds exceeding 157 mph; Category 4 winds blow between 130 and 156 mph; Category 3 winds are between 111 and 129 mph.
Tim Faulkner writes for ecoRI News.
Culling turkeys with crossbows?
By TIM FAULKNER
For ecoRI News (ecori.org)
Wild turkeys can be found just about anywhere these days. Since the 1980s, these short-distance flyers have migrated from rural western Rhode Island to urban and suburban neighborhoods, where they dine from bird feeders and on handouts from humans.
“They get used to being fed by people, and they don’t fear people and then they don’t leave,” said Josh Beuth, wildlife biologist and head of the turkey program at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM).
Many of these well-fed birds feel comfortable around humans, as they roam backyards in Barrington and parking lots on Reservoir Avenue in Cranston.
Despite regular sightings, the number of wild turkeys in Rhode Island has fallen from its peak of about 6,000 in 2001 to some 3,000 today. Beuth said the drop-off isn’t likely due to hunting or development but an influx of predators such as coyotes, foxes and hawks that eat turkey chicks, called poults.
Eastern wild turkeys were reintroduced to Exeter in the early 1980s, as part of a DEM swap with Pennsylvania for snowshoe hare rabbits. Their numbers increased steadily as they discovered new territory with few predators. Predators, though, soon followed, so turkeys migrated to eastern Rhode Island. Today, wild turkeys can be found across the state, except on Block Island and Prudence Island. Tiverton currently has the highest wild turkey population, according to surveys and public sightings.
Hunters now want to expand turkey hunting to include crossbows. Currently, seasonal hunting is allowed with a shotgun or bow and arrow. For the second year, a bill was introduced in the General Assembly to allow hunting by crossbow. The bill changes state hunting laws to allow hunting of wild birds with a crossbow. If passed, the law would amend state hunting regulations to designate wild turkeys as the only wild bird to be hunted by crossbow.
Hunting-safety instructor Jack Peters of Riverside noted that crossbows are safer than shotguns, because they require less space than a firearm requires for discharging. Crossbows also allow elderly and disabled hunters greater access to hunting, he said.
“The crossbow is the ideal device for harvesting a turkey,” Peters said.
Despite the state's reduced turkey population, Beuth said the turkey broods are healthy and could withstand a loss of 200 birds in each of the two annual hunting seasons. Currently, only mature male turkeys can be hunted. In 2016, 122 turkeys were taken by hunters in Rhode Island.
New Hampshire is the only state in New England that allows wild turkey hunting by crossbow. Peters said crossbow hunting of turkey would draw more hunters, just as it did with deer hunting. Deer hunting with crossbows was approved four years ago to cull populations and curb the transmission of Lyme disease. While turkeys feed on some insects, but research is not conclusive that they eat Lyme-carrying ticks.
Peters said proceeds from hunting licenses support buying and protecting wildlife habitat. Hunting also brings in hundreds of million of dollars to the local economy, he said.
“A lot of people have become frustrated in the last few years because they can hunt deer with a crossbow but not turkey,” Peters said.
Stop the theft from stone walls
By TIM FAULKNER for ecoRI News
Via ecori.org
PROVIDENCE
Preserved open space in Rhode Island needs additional protections, because poachers steal rocks from stone walls and nearby residents cut down trees to improve their views.
Currently, there is no deterrent or penalty for intentionally damaging or building on land protected from development. If caught, the thief or vandal simply has to pay a portion of the value of the damaged or stolen items, such as the timber value of a cut tree.
Rupert Friday, director of the Rhode Island Land Trust Council, testified at the Rhode Island General Assembly on Jan. 18 in favor of a bill that would make such offenses a civil violation.
“The current penalties are little more than a hand slap,” Friday said. “The current penalty if you steal a stone wall and you get caught and convicted is you have to put the stone wall back. It’s pretty lucrative if you don’t get caught.”
Meg Kerr, senior director of policy for the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, said such legislation would help protect 9,500 acres of open space and wildlife habitat that Audubon owns and manages. Kerr said it’s common for landowners living near protected coastal areas to cut down trees on protected land to improve their views of the water.
“This legislation will provide a greater deterrence and keep people from blatantly damaging our communities’ open space and our significant investment to protect these special place,” Kerr said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
The bill was held for further study and will likely have another hearing on Jan. 24. It's the third year in a row that the bill has been introduced. Last year, the bill passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.
The bill is modeled after a bill passed in Connecticut in 2006 that was intended to address the same problems faced by land trusts, municipalities, the state, environmental groups, and other owners and managers of open space.
In the legislation, open space is defined as any park, forest, wildlife management area, refuge, preserve, sanctuary or green area owned by one of those entities. Damage, called encroachment, is defined as intentionally erecting structures, roads, driveways or trails. It includes destroying or moving walls, cutting trees and vegetation, removing boundary markers, installing lawns or utilities, and storing vehicles, materials and debris.
The civil fine for a violation could amount to five times the cost of the damage up to $5,000.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Cale Keable (D.-Burrillville).
Tim Faulkner: Mass., R.I. seek to patch natural-gas leaks from mains and service lines
Via ecoRI.News (ecori.org)
Beneath our streets and front yards lie miles of leak-prone natural-gas pipes. Most are decades-old cast-iron and steel pipes. How much gas is escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change is hard to calculate.
A 2015 Harvard University-led study estimated that nearly 3 percent of natural gas is lost as it moves through gas mains and service lines that connect to homes and businesses across southern New England. It may not sound like much, but depending on the season, the leaking gas accounts for between 60 percent and 100 percent of methane emissions in the region. Natural gas, of course, is about 90 percent methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island are looking to patch these errant emissions to meet their long-term emission-reduction goals to address climate change.
Fortunately, these old and leaking pipes are getting replaced, albeit slowly. Rhode Island is currently on pace to replace 1,237 miles of leak-prone pipes — about 39 percent of all gas pipes in the state — by 2035. Massachusetts has an estimated 20,000 gas leaks, but only those that pose an immediate health hazard are being fixed.
To speed up and expand the process, Massachusetts passed a law in 2016 to repair leaks that pose a low threat for explosion but still cause a significant environmental impact. As a result of the law, the state Department of Public Utilities (DPU) is exploring ways for utilities to quickly and affordably spot and fix the leaks, known as fugitive emissions.
As part of its efforts to curb climate emissions, the DPU released new rules in December that set emission caps for gas-distribution companies such as National Grid and Eversource Energy based on the miles of pipeline they own. The caps are expected to cut emissions by 10 percent by 2020.
Natural gas, of course, isn't a liquid but an invisible and mostly odorless gas. Leaks therefore seep undetected into the ground and percolate up into the atmosphere. In addition to causing explosions, leaky gas pipes increase ground-level ozone and reduce oxygen. They also kill vegetation, such as trees. In Massachusetts, Brookline, Hingham, Milton and Saugus have filed lawsuits against National Grid for not fixing leaky pipes that killed trees in their communities.
National Grid, the largest distributor of natural gas in the Northeast, is gradually replacing these gas lines. In 2015, they replaced 75.3 miles of gas lines in Rhode Island. In 2016, 64.6 miles were replaced. They plan to replace another 65 miles this year.
The improvements are part of a $445 million upgrade to pipes and natural-gas infrastructure in the state. Ratepayers pay those costs. Environmental advocates claim repairing leaks and replacing old pipelines reduces the need for new, interstate gas pipelines and other fossil-fuel infrastructure, such as power plants.
The Conservation Law Foundation estimates that gas customers in Massachusetts pay $38.8 million annually for gas that is lost from leaks.
“It's consumers that pay the price for a perpetually leaking gas system. The end consumer pays for all of the gas that local distribution companies purchase from producers, regardless of how much of that gas is lost to leaks (or other causes) on the way to consumers’ homes and businesses,” CLF said in a report it did on gas leaks.
Distribution pipelines are the “mains” that run under the street and can be 2 inches to 2 feet in diameter. Service pipelines are the gas pipes that connect from the main to homes and businesses. They are about 2 inches in diameter.
Transmission lines are the large pipelines that carry natural gas from the well, such as a fracking field, to a regional distribution center.
Prior to the 1950s, many of the mains and service pipes were made of cast iron. In the 1950s, the pipes switched to steel. Since the 1980s, plastic composite tubes have become the primary material for pipelines and now account for more than half of distribution and service pipes.
National Grid says that the age of a service line or a gas main doesn’t necessarily mean that it leaks. According to the company, third-party incursions caused by construction close to the lines by contractors or homeowners causes most leaks.
The new plastic pipelines are flexible and lighter than the cast-iron and steel mains, some of which date back to the late 1800s. Cast-iron and steel sections were mostly welded together. The plastic sections are fused to one another with a heat-producing device. This eliminates the joints between sections, which are the source of many leaks.
Wood pipes were first used when gas pipelines began in the mid-1800s. They were eventually abandoned for cast iron and steel. Some wood pipes remain in the ground but are unused.
The advocacy group HEET Home Energy Efficiency Team of Cambridge, Mass., says the public can help patch leaky pipes by supporting state bills and municipal endorsements of efforts to speed up repairs.
The public can also help by reporting suspected leaks to their utility. Patches of dead vegetation are a sign of leaks. A sulfur-like smell is another. A substance called mercaptan is added to natural gas, which is odorless, to give it its distinctive rotten-egg smell.
Tim Faulkner writes for ecoRI News.
Tim Faulkner: Trump vs. the biosphere?
The day after Donald Trump’s surprise election win, the mood among environmentalists was, as expected, glum.
During his campaign, Trump, a climate-change denier and fossil-fuel proponent, vowed to withdraw from global climate treaties and neuter the Environmental Protection Agency. All told, his candidacy was considered a colossal threat to the biosphere.
Now that he’s two months away from taking office, it’s mostly guesswork as to which of Trump’s grand proclamations of environmental ruin will become reality.
Nationally, environmentalists expect that, at least, the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees is a lost cause, as is limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide to less than 400 parts per million.
To deal with their anxiety, environmental groups such as 350.org are encouraging environmentalists to partake in peaceful protesting. The National Resources Defense Council hosted a conference call for the aggrieved Nov. 10 titled “Defending Our Environment from the Trump Presidency.”
The consensus response from local government officials is to embrace autonomy.
“(Trump's win) puts an even greater burden on states to take action and be creative,” Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo said during a Nov. 9 meeting of the Rhode Island climate council.
Raimondo received an update on Rhode Island’s long-term emissions-reduction plan. She and agency and department officials gave no indication of changing course on climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
Raimondo said it's not known what Trump will do with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. But Trump’s unexpected victory creates urgency to move forward with local initiatives, she added.
“Norms change in times of crisis, and I do believe we are facing a climate-change crisis, so we do have to get people to take action,” Raimondo said.
The governor confirmed that she isn't changing her neutral-to-favorable position on the proposed fossil-fuel power plant in Burrillville, a project that would be the state’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
Janet Coit, director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, told ecoRI News that Trump’s victory was sobering. “It means we have to work all the harder.”
Fortunately, Rhode Island is surrounded by states with shared regional and local environmental goals, Coit said.
If federal support and guidance declines, she said, “Now we have to stop, regroup and guess that the leadership will have to come from the state level. I guess we have to look to ourselves more.”
Ken Payne, chair of state renewable energy committee, as well as food and farm programs, said the election means that progress on these issues will not only have to come from the state, but from communities and neighborhoods. Before the election, he and Brown University Prof. J. Timmons Roberts announced plans to launch a new, non-government affiliated group to advance green initiatives.
Roberts wasn't at the recent climate council meeting; he's in Morocco with students researching the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations.
In an article for Climate Home, he echoed the wait-and-see refrain put forth by environmental experts who wonder if the country and climate policy will be governed by Trump the negotiator or Trump the tyrant.
“So which Trump will govern? There is cause for both hope and fear,” Roberts wrote.
To others, fear caused by the election affirms reality. Morgan Victor of the Pawtucket-based environmental activist group The FANG Collective, said Trump’s win is evidence of American ongoing legacy of colonialism and slavery.
“It’s a reality that white supremacy runs in this country both overtly and covertly,” Victor said.
The Providence resident and member of the Wampanoag tribe participated in the ongoing Standing Rock Sioux pipeline protests taking place in North Dakota.
Having Trump in office will justify more attacks against indigenous groups and their land, Victor said.
“It’s scary. I hope it wakes people up, especially white people, to take care of the ones they love,” she said.
Tim Faulkner writes for ecoRI News.
Tim Faulkner: Nature is a lousy 'bridge fuel'
By TIM FAULKNER, for ecoRI News (ecori.org)
A new report concludes what has long been suspected about natural gas: Leaks of methane during the extraction and transportation process eliminate any climate benefits from the supposed low-carbon fuel.
“These findings should lead policymakers to reject natural gas as a ‘bridge fuel’ and instead to redouble America’s efforts to repower with truly clean energy from the sun, the wind and other sources of renewable energy,” according to the report “Natural Gas and Global Warming” compiled by the environmental advocacy groups Environment America and the Toxics Action Center.
Their research analyzed studies of both fracking and traditional extraction of natural gas from mining sites across the country. Aircraft-based sampling across Colorado's Front Range found a 4.1 percent leakage rate. Production sites in southwestern Pennsylvania had a 7 percent leakage rate, according to the report.
The report also questions previous studies of leakage by the Environmental Protection Agency and the University of Texas for underestimating natural-gas leakage. The 22-page report also calls into doubt the claim that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy, by producing less carbon than oil and coal. Both Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker support natural gas a bridge fuel.
Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide when burned, it generates higher carbon emissions than traditional fossil fuels when the full life cycle of natural gas is considered. Leaks during extraction, storage and transportation of natural gas release greenhouse-gas emissions that equal some 250 new coal-fired power plants, according to the report.
Methane, the primary gas in natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas, and the report emphasizes the near-term impacts of methane leaks that can occur from 29 different activities and equipment that natural gas goes through during its life as a fuel.
“Temperature increases over the next few decades have the potential to push the climate past ‘tipping points’ — such as the release of methane deposits in the ocean or Arctic permafrost — that could further trigger warming,” according to the report.
Environment America suggests that the rapid growth of the wind and solar industries presents an opportunity for a rapid shift away from natural gas. The advocacy group points to the wave of new natural-gas infrastructure projects as a threat to a low-carbon energy future.
“New fracked gas infrastructure proposed across the region threatens our climate future, our health and our neighborhoods,” Ben Weilerstein, of the Toxics Action Center, said during a July 27 press conference outside the Rhode Island Statehouse.
The event was one of seven held recently across southern New England to protest natural-gas pipeline and infrastructure projects. At another press event on July 27, this one in Massachusetts at the New Bedford Harbor Walk, Sylvia Broude, executive director of Toxics Action Center, said, “For years, communities on the frontlines of proposed pipelines, power plants, compressor stations and LNG terminals have been told by the fossil-fuel lobby and politicians that gas is a low-carbon bridge to a clean energy future. Today, it’s clearer than ever that this is not the case. New fracked-gas infrastructure proposed across the region threatens our climate future, our health, and our neighborhoods. It’s time to double down on clean local renewable-energy sources right here in New England."
In Rhode Island, new fossil-fuel projects include a natural-gas power plant and the expansion of a pipeline compressor station, both in Burrillville, and a liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing facility on the Providence waterfront. Rehoboth, Mass., is being asked to host a new compressor station. A new LNG storage facility is proposed for Acushnet, Mass.
“These new fracked-gas proposals on the South Coast are nothing more than a money-making scheme for the fossil-fuel industry,” said Rachel Mulroy, an organizer with the Fall River, Mass.-based Coalition for Social Justice and a board member for South Coast Neighbors United, which formed out of concerns about Spectra Energy’s LNG proposal in Acushnet.
Tim Faulkner: Turning a coal plant into a renewable-energy hub
By TIM FAULKNER
SOMERSET, Mass.
The Brayton Point coal-fired power plant has drawn the ire of environmentalists for decades. Now, as it nears its last days, there is an effort to transform the dirtiest of utilities into a renewable-energy oasis.
“Reimagining Brayton Point,” a report by a Cambridge, Mass.-based economics firm and endorsed by three Massachusetts-based environmental groups, envisions changing the 53-year-old facility into a renewable-energy hub and public park. Gone are the smokestacks; in their place are solar arrays, a food-scrap digester and a shipping port that serves offshore wind farms.
The hope is that the concept will deter a possible conversion into a new natural-gas power plant. That prospect seems likely given the high number of natural-gas pipeline and infrastructure expansion projects in southern New England, as well as support for these projects from politicians. The coal-fired power station in Salem, Mass., is currently undergoing a conversion to a natural-gas plant.
Brayton Point burns more than 1.2 million tons of coal annually.
To avoid the same end here, renewable-energy advocates commissioned the 35-page study by Synapse Energy Economics Inc. According to the report, the existing high-voltage transmission infrastructure at Brayton Point can be upgraded to deliver wind energy to the grid. It's estimated $20 million cost is significantly less than the $1.3 billion to convert it to a large-scale natural-gas plant, according to the report.
The switch to a natural-gas plant would increase the likelihood of higher energy costs for consumers, according to the report. As the most dominant fuel for generating electricity in southern New England, natural gas-price spikes could cause costly price swings.
Revenue for the proposed idea could come from generating renewable electricity, payments from offshore wind developers, and other commercial and retail uses.
The project must also raise tax revenue. At its peak, the plant raised $12 million a year in property taxes for Somerset. The money has declined considerably as the facility reduced energy production and nears retirement. In 2014, the owner of Brayton Point announced it would close the plant by June 2017, because of high operating costs, lower costs for other fuels and the facility's need for upgrades. For now, Brayton Point is the last coal-fired power plant in Massachusetts and the largest in New England.
There is debate about how much new electric generation is needed to replace the 1,530-meagwatt power capacity generated by the plant and supplied to the regional power grid. Last year, the 680-megawatt Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., announced it was shutting down because of poor market conditions and decreased revenue.
Advocates for a renewable-energy hub say new fossil-fuel plants aren’t necessary and will complicate the state’s greenhouse gas-reduction goals. In addition to supporting solar, wind and anaerobic digestion, the 234-acre Brayton Point site could foster research and development of new energy technologies, such as large-scale battery storage. A portion of the waterfront land could also generate jobs, tax-revenue and public use by building homes, schools, parks, stores and offices.
“The site could be cleaned up, re- zoned, and re-vitalized into a safer, more accessible space for a multitude of non-energy uses,” according to the report.
Town officials have been working with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), a state agency that promotes renewable energy, to consider alternatives for the site. Last December, the center released areport on how to close the site and consider new uses for it. The 53-page report says the presence of waste storage sites and fuel spills require remediation of contaminated property before redevelopment can commence. A wetland buffer must also be restored.
The state report says suitable new uses include a 9-megawatt solar array, a 500-kilowatt anaerobic digester, and offshore wind interconnection. Conversion to a 400-500-megawatt natural gas plant also is an option, as one of the three generators at the existing plant already runs on natural gas. The MassCEC report says a new pipeline would be needed to increase natural-gas output. An industrial marine hub is another option. Wind turbines aren't currently allowed for the site.
MassCEC has met with town officials and held three public workshops. The agency says it can further guide a public process to determine the most suitable use for the property on Mount Hope Bay. The final decision, however, is up to the property owner, Houston-based Dynegy Inc. The company has, so far, not announced its intentions for the Brayton Point site after shutting down coal operations.
The Coalition for Clean Air South Coast, Clean Water Action Massachusetts and the don’t fully support the MassCEC report. The groups say a focus on renewable energy creates more jobs and a healthier and more diversified space.
Tim Faulkner: Big money, confusion confront bottle-bill backers
By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff Expanding Massachusetts' existing bottle-redemption law to include bottled water, juices and other noncarbonated drinks seems like a simple proposition. But interviews with voters and business owners reveal that there is considerable confusion about what Question 2 will and won’t do.
The intent of Question 2 is to expand the 5-cent deposit program to include beverages that weren't around when the state's bottle bill began 32 years ago. This includes bottled water, fruit juices, teas and sports drinks. If approved by voters on Nov. 4, an expanded bottle bill would still exempt all milk containers and wine and liquor bottles. Juice boxes, juice pouches and infant formula also would be exempt.
Every five years, the 5-cent deposit would be indexed to inflation so that the financial incentive remains. A greater share of the deposit (3.5 cents) would go to redemption centers. The fee bottlers pay distributors and dealers for empties would increase to 3.5 cents. These fees would also be reviewed every five years to reflect inflation and the cost of doing business.
The expanded bill would restart the state's Clean Environmental Fund, which supports parks, air, water and forest programs.
What it doesn’t do. Question 2 will not change existing municipal recycling programs. If voters reject Question 2, the bottle bill stays the same.
Who supports the question? If there is an environmental group in the state that doesn’t support Question 2, ecoRI News didn't find it. Of the state's 351 municipalities, 209 have endorsed the referendum. Massachusetts Sierra Club is heavily involved, and MassPIRG is canvassing and making phone calls to voters.
The supporters' main argument is that an expanded bottle bill would reduce litter, send less waste to landfills, and generate funding for parks and clean-up projects. They estimate that 1.25 billion more bottles and cans will be recycled each year.
Proponents are framing the debate as a choice between “lies” from big soda companies and the people of Massachusetts who know better. They note that 80 percent of bottles and cans in the current deposit system get recycled, while only 23 percent of containers without a deposit are recycled, according to the Container Recycling Institute. They point to a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) study that says an expanded program would save cities and towns $7 million annually in clean-up costs.
Who is against it? The “No” camp includes industry groups, grocery stores and big beverage corporations, all of which typically oppose new environmental regulations. Opponents include 7-Eleven, Coca-Cola, Nestlé Waters, Ocean Spray, Stop & Shop, the makers of Nantucket Nectars, the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, 21 chambers of commerce and 14 craft brewers.
The big money has come from the American Beverage Association, which represents small- and major-brand beverages, as well as bottlers and distributors. The association recently pumped $5 million into TV ads; Stop & Shop donated $300,000 to fight the question.
The opponents' main argument is that costs would go up for the entire beverage industry and the amount of red tape would increase.
Opponents are using antagonistic terms such as "forced deposit” and “forced redemption” to imply that changes would be a financial burden and an inconvenience foisted on them by government. One of the most controversial statements from the No on Question 2 campaign implies that 90 percent of the state already has municipal curbside recycling. Opponents claim an expanded program would be an expensive hassle, requiring new curbside containers at a cost of $60 million to cities and towns.
No on Question 2 didn't respond to repeated inquiries to verify these claims. According to the DEP, 47 percent of cities and towns offer curbside recycling, serving 64 percent of state residents.
Opponents also state that "Question 2 would raise your nickel deposit and additional fees every five years—without your vote." In reality, the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs would review the 5-cent deposit every five years and adjust it to stay current with inflation. Using the current inflation rate, the deposit would reach 10 cents in 2050.
In all, the claims that multinational beverage companies are behind the No on Question 2 initiative appear accurate, as most of the $8 million raised to stop the measure has come from outside the state. Proponents have raised $300,000, most of which came from the Massachusetts Sierra Club.
Mass. bottle use* 3.5 billion beverages are sold annually in Massachusetts.
Of those, 39 percent are non-carbonated and not covered by the bottle bill.
Water bottles account for 72 percent of the noncarbonated bottles.
983 million water bottles are sold in Massachusetts every year.
*Source: Container Recycling Institute.