Foes of a planned PCB landfill make a new pitch to be heard by the Lee health board

Dick Lindsay | The Berkshire Eagle

"A leading opponent of the planned PCB disposal site in town wants the Lee Board of Health to intervene on the matter. The board doubts it holds the power to do so.

The Housatonic River Initiative has formally asked the three-person panel to hold a public hearing and eventually vote on whether to seek to block the Upland Disposal Facility from being built in a former quarry just south of Woods Pond. That facility is now planned to be the burial point for roughly a million cubic yards of soil and sediment with relatively lower levels of PCB contamination. The Housatonic River cleanup continues long efforts by environmental regulators to contend with the legacy of the General Electric Co.’s pollution of the water body. [...] The health board has yet to decide if it will hold a hearing, but has indicated it may lack the power to prevent the landfill from being part of the Rest of River cleanup, as spelled out by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. [...] The HRI is appealing the current cleanup plan through a filing with the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The nonprofit group has been fighting to stop the landfill since it was announced. The saga began in February 2020 when Lee and four other river communities approved a river cleanup deal with the EPA and GE that includes the installation of a lined, in-ground waste facility to accept some of the PCB-tainted sediment dredged from the river. [...] 'To act on your demand considering the EPA’s order, which ostensibly supersedes any action by the Lee Board of Health, please clarify and indicate the mechanism by which the [board] has authority to supersede the EPA order,' board Chairman Robert Wespiser wrote in a June 22 letter to the HRI. [...] For the Lee health board to consider a hearing, Wespiser asks, in his letter, for HRI to submit data on how the landfill will impact the health of Lee residents. 'This should include information regarding specific characteristics pertinent to the Lee proposal, including location and containment aspects,' he wrote." Read More

Most Massachusetts hospitals pledge net-zero emissions by 2050

Martha Bebinger | WBUR

"More than half of the hospitals in Massachusetts pledged this week to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. They're among 650 health care companies and organizations nationwide making the same commitment. The Biden administration launched the pledge on Earth Day to 'mobilize' the health care industry. [...] Boston Medical Center President and CEO Kate Walsh said hospitals need to take a leading role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gases because they generate nearly 10% of U.S. emissions. 'And for us, there’s a real obvious and distinct connection between the climate change events that we’re seeing in our country and the health of the people who are affected by them,' Walsh said. Changes made during the pandemic like the expanded reliance on telehealth and at-home treatment programs, will help hospitals meet their sustainability goals, Walsh said. 'The most efficient square-foot is the one you never build,' she said. But the pandemic has also increased the carbon footprint of some health care facilities because of increased use of masks and other disposable items. While some of the hospitals, health insurers, pharmaceutical firms and organizations signing on have already reduced their fossil fuel use substantially, this pledge includes zeroing out emissions tied to supplies, which increases the challenge. The other Massachusetts hospitals and networks joining the pledge include BayState Health, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, Mass General Brigham, Southcoast Health, Steward Health Care and Tufts Medicine." Read More

EPA retains tools to cut power sector GHG emissions despite Supreme Court curbing its authority: attorneys

Ethan Howland | Utility Dive

"The Environmental Protection Agency still has pathways for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday that took away one possible avenue, according to legal experts. The court ruled that the EPA cannot set up a program that uses 'generation shifting' among a broad fleet of power plants, such as the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. Under the program, states would have had to meet state-wide emissions reduction targets, potentially by replacing coal-fired power plants with lower- or non-emitting generating resources. 'The decision bars the expansive approach to carbon regulation adopted by the Clean Power Plan, which required "beyond the fence line" actions for compliance,' Peter Tomasi, of counsel and a business lawyer with Foley & Lardner, said in an email. 'As a practical matter, this opinion does not appear likely to substantially alter the current transition from fossil to renewable generation.' [...] The decision comes while the EPA is developing new greenhouse gas emissions standards for existing fossil-fueled power plants, with a proposal expected in March. [...] The EPA retains a broad range of options for reducing carbon emissions from individual power plants, according to Matthew Price, a Jenner & Block partner. 'EPA could still adopt technological standards and impose those on fossil fuel plants. The owners of those plants could comply in whatever way they want, whether that’s through generation shifting or otherwise, but the standard would be set based on something that the plant could do to reduce its emissions,' Price said. The court decision isn’t a 'major blow' to the EPA, according to Price, who noted the Clean Power Plan never took effect. 'This just means the EPA needs to approach its goals in a more conventional way, and it still has quite a broad range of options to do that,' Price said." Read More

Feds overturn Trump-era endangered species 'habitat' definition

Michael Doyle | E&E News - Greenwire

"The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries [...] rescinded a Trump-era definition of habitat, a crucial but sometimes nebulous Endangered Species Act term that’s incited an ongoing war of words. In a highly anticipated move, the agencies made final their decision to erase the Trump administration’s definition that had effectively kept “critical habitat” designations from including land or waters not currently occupied by a protected species. 'The Services should be able to designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat if those areas fit within any reasonable biological understanding of ‘habitat’ as established by the best available scientific data … and if such areas are essential for the recovery of the species,' the agencies stated. [...] 'Amidst an escalating global biodiversity crisis — the loss of species, destruction of ecosystems, and a weakening of the support system for all life — the U.S. should not be undermining the Endangered Species Act,' said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife. 'Thanks to the Biden administration for throwing out the previous administration’s harmful habitat definition.'" Read More

Is a solar energy project a farm? That's the question, as Lenox faces a legal challenge from a major developer

Clarence Fanto | The Berkshire Eagle

"A major developer is threatening to escalate a legal confrontation with Lenox, as it lays groundwork for a bid to install solar panels on land mostly in a residential area. So far, it’s been hot words at municipal meetings and filings in local court. Several Lenox officials want an end to 'bombastic' statements by the developer and suggest they are not getting the whole truth about whether land adjacent to Lenox Dale will be used for farming or a large photovoltaic solar array. The developer says the town is blocking a property owner’s use of its land for agricultural purposes — and the company will do what it takes to prevail. [...] Alarm bells might have sounded, since the buyer was listed as PLH Vineyard Sky LLC. That’s the real estate partner of Ecos Energy, based in Minneapolis, which operates 37 solar projects across the nation for its parent company, Allco Renewable Energy LTD, headquartered in New Haven, Conn. In 2018, the Housatonic Street property had been targeted for a $10 million commercial solar project by Sustainable Strategies 2020 and its partner, Syncarpha Capital of New York City. But local opposition doomed the project. [...] The current Lenox zoning bylaw for ground-mounted solar installations allows them 'by right' only in industrial zones. While a small slice of the Housatonic property adjoining Willow Creek Road is zoned industrial, most of the land is in the residential zone. Last March, on behalf of Ecos, PLH Vineyard Sky filed a variance application with the town’s Zoning Board seeking a second curb cut on the property. A month earlier, the Lenox Planning Board had declined to exempt the company from approval requirements for a site plan that included adding a parcel to the property along Willow Creek Road. [...] In his application, he said a curb cut from Willow Creek Road was needed to reach the property’s agricultural fields on the eastern section of the land. He explained his company could not access those fields from Housatonic Street because of wetlands concerns raised by the town’s Conservation Commission. Galton wrote that 'it is our plan to utilize the access to support farming activities.' He acknowledged 'it is our intention to utilize the agricultural fields to support other divisions of our company.' He did not offer details nor specify a potential solar array. [...] Since the proposed access road is from an industrial area on Willow Creek Road, Melone declared that the curb cut would have no effect on the town. 'The only effect here is what the town is trying to do to us, which is to block our use of the land,' Melone said at the meeting. [...] Town officials say local boards are following the law, including the Wetlands Protection Act. Land Use Director and Town Planner Gwen Miller said the company must show proof that the land in dispute is being used for agricultural purposes. [...] As for potential development of the land for a commercial solar complex, ZBA Chairman Robert Fuster, Jr., commented that any approval of Melone’s application could be conditioned on barring use of the property for anything other than farming, specifically for haying to be used as feed for sheep used by Ecos Energy in Connecticut to mow lawns at its solar installations. Melone contended during the session that no such condition would apply, since the land could be used for any agricultural purpose and that haying is the intended use 'for the foreseeable future.' That remark prompted Miller to ask the key question: 'Is solar an agricultural use?' 'No, solar is not an agricultural use,' Melone answered. But solar is a separate 'protected use' under state law, he claimed." Read More

Supreme Court restricts the EPA's authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions

Nina Totenberg | NPR

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate carbon emissions that cause climate change. The decision by the conservative court majority sets the stage for further limitations on the regulatory power of other agencies as well. By a vote of 6 to 3, the court said that any time an agency does something big and new – in this case addressing climate change – the regulation is presumptively invalid, unless Congress has specifically authorized regulating in this sphere. 'That's a very big deal because they're not going to get it from Congress because Congress is essentially dysfunctional,' said Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, an expert on environmental law. 'This could not have come at a worse time' because 'the consequences of climate change are increasingly dire and we're running out of time to address it.' [...] ...an agency 'can't simply retrofit an old statute to create new tools or new mechanisms' to address a problem that is generally within the agency's jurisdiction. [...] The issue before the court was how the EPA can regulate coal-fired power plants, which in this country are the single largest source of carbon emissions that cause climate challenge. [...] Bringing to life what the court has called 'the major questions doctrine,' the court said that neither the EPA nor any other agency may adopt rules that are transformational to the economy--unless Congress has specifically authorized such a rule to address a specific problem, like climate change."  Read More

What Climate Justice Looks Like

Elizabeth Cripps | Yes! Magazine

"...We have seen what climate injustice looks like: Human rights are undermined, the prospects of future generations are erased. People of color, women, Indigenous communities, and other species pay a terrible price for a way of life from which a rich elite reap the benefits. But what would climate justice look like? [...] Let’s begin with some ideas that might masquerade as climate justice, but aren’t. Justice doesn’t mean allowing those who have historically produced the most greenhouse gas emissions to carry on emitting the most. (Yes, this is an actual proposal. It’s called “grandfathering”: a term borrowed from policies denying the vote to African Americans at the turn of the 20th century.) [...] Another proposal is this. Everyone gets an equal share of any greenhouse gases that can still be emitted while avoiding “dangerous” climate change. (In other words, a share of not very much. At the start of 2018, the global “carbon budget” was less than 580 billion tonnes, and that, according to the IPCC, still only gives us an even chance of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius.) [...] Climate change does terrible damage: to today’s children and their descendants; to millions of already vulnerable people, the world over. Climate justice requires preventing that harm, making up for it as far as possible. That takes mitigation, adaptation, and compensation. Mitigation means curbing global temperature rises. It means cutting greenhouse gases. [...] Mitigation can also mean removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage is mitigation. Reforestation is mitigation. But mitigation, now, won’t be enough to protect human lives (never mind non-human ones). [...] We need to adapt. Adaptation means adjusting systems and institutions to protect lives and livelihoods from climate change. [...] Just adaptation is—or should be—about prioritizing vulnerable communities. Adaptation, too, can only go so far. [...] Then there’s compensation, for loss and damage, and other harms. A last resort, but a morally necessary one." Read More