FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

Friends Of The Earth

May/June 1977

Friends of the Earth is one of the most effective environmental groups in the world today. Although FOE publishes its own journal-a monthly tabloid called Not Man Apart ?far too few of MOTHER's readers regularly see a copy of NMA . . . which is why we've agreed to publish this column, written by the FOE/ NMA staff.

BIG APPLE GETS CLEAN AIR

The city of New York has discovered that no amount of whining over its financial problems can sway the determination of concerned citizens to have clean air. In two landmark decisions-handed down recently after more than a year of legal challenges and appeals-the Second Circuit Court of Appeals told the city in no uncertain terms that it must begin immediate enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

Friends of the Earth was a major plaintiff in one of the cases, Friends of the Earth v. Hugh Carey (Governor of New York State). The aim of FOE's suit was to get New York City to carry out the provisions of the Transportation Control Plan, an air cleanup program which city and state agencies had proposed as their own vehicle for complying with the Clean Air Act of 1973.

In the three years of the Transportation Control Plan's existence, city officials had done nothing but try to back out of their commitments. It would have been legally OK for New York City to revise the Plan . . . but instead, Mayor Beame fought enforcement of the measure and cried that his financially beleaguered city was being forced to accept impractical environmental priorities.

In reality, the Transportation Control Plan is anything but impractical: implementation of it is expected to bring the city annual revenues of $140 million. The Plan calls for [1] a partial ban on taxi cruising, [2] a curb on parking in the central business district, [3] a study of after hours goods delivery, and [4] the placing of toll booths on currently toll free bridges over the East and Harlem rivers (the money from which would go to subsidize mass transit).

FOE originally got into the act back in 1974, with the help of attorneys from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Early court decisions had held that citizens' groups couldn't take governments to task over this sort of thing, but FOE and other groups appealed and the court finally accepted the plaintiffs as "welcomed participants in the vindication of environmental interests".

VOLTAGE REDUCTION SAVES ENERGY

Northern California's Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced recently-with surprisingly little fanfare-that it would reduce its service voltage levels by approximately three percent . . . a move that is expected to result in the savings of a whopping one million barrels of oil per year. (Best of all, this energy savings required no technological breakthroughs, large investments of capital, or federal grants to achieve . . . just a little workaday tinkering with substation equipment to bring line voltages down from 126 to 122 volts, or thereabouts.)

The strategy behind voltage reduction isn't difficult to understand. Household appliances, light bulbs, and small electric motors are (at least in this country) designed to operate on electricity that falls within a standard range of 114 to 126 volts. The electric companies-for reasons of their own-have traditionally kept their line voltage at the top of this range . . . but it turns out that if the upper limit is lowered from 126 to 122 volts, a three-percent energy savings is effected. (If it's lowered to 120 volts, the saving is five percent.) Because the voltage is never allowed to drop below 114 volts, however, all household equipment continues to work normally . . . in some cases, better than normal! (For example, a 60-watt light bulb will last 1,000 hours at 120 volts, or 1,700 hours at 115 volts . . . but only 600 hours at 125 volts.)

What's hard to understand is why the concept of voltage reduction has-to date-received almost total neglect by the electric power industry. Only after years of prodding by two California Public Utilities Commission engineers and a show of support from a local consumer group (Toward Utility Rate Normalization) did PG & E decide to put the concept to the test and prove its amazing effectiveness.

VERMONT TOWNSHIPS REJECT NUCLEAR POWER

Vermont's time-honored political institution, the town meeting, has helped unite the state's residents in their rejection of nuclear power. Last March 1, voters in 35 towns throughout the Green Mountain State adopted Town Meeting Day resolutions banning nuclear power plants within their townships and forbidding the transportation, storage, or disposal of radioactive wastes within township limits. Leaders of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), which sponsored the resolutions, see the election results as an indication of broad public opposition to further nuclear development in Vermont.

VPIRG supported its own resolution (a model for the many different measures adopted by the individual townships) with direct-mail and radio advertising campaigns. Officials of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation-which operates the state's one existing nuclear facility-countered VPIRG's efforts with scare stories of a plant shutdown, raised rates, and possible jeopardization of the state's energy supply.

Although the VPIRG resolution was intended to serve primarily as a test of public sentiment, the town of Brattleboro may soon put the resolution to a real test. At present, all truck shipments to the Vermont Yankee plant pass through Brattleboro . . . but as this is being written Brattleboro is considering the adoption of an ordinance that would forbid the transportation of nuclear wastes through the town. If the ordinance passes, Vermont Yankee may challenge the legality of the Town Meeting Day resolutions.

Vermont's single state Representative, James Jeffords, has been moved by the controversy to investigate the possibility of introducing federal legislation that would give town resolutions greater clout. Vermont governor Richard Snelling, however, doesn't like the idea of individual communities interfering with state energy plans. Nor does he favor a proposed bill that would forbid the storing or reprocessing of nuclear wastes in Vermont without the state legislature's approval. "I would oppose that portion of the bill that gives Vermont the right to say it will not accept its share of the consequences of a national energy policy," Snelling said.

BRIEF NOTES

The Tennessee Valley Authority is running out of domestic uranium sources. TVA Chairman Aubrey Wagner admits that the TVA has only enough uranium to last three or four years once all 17 planned nuclear generating stations are operating . . . . FOE and six other groups have filed suit to block funding for the B-1 bomber. The suit alleges that the U.S. Air Force-in blatant contravention of the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act-prepared an environmental impact statement that failed to consider alternatives to the controversial bomber . . . . The Iranian parliament has decreed that anyone who uproots a tree greater than ten centimeters (four inches) in diameter will be put in jail for three years. No word yet on how many violators have been caught.

To become a member of Friends of the Earth-and receive their excellent publication, Not Man Apart, year round-remit $20 to FOE at 124 Spear, San Francisco, Calif. 94105.-MOTHER.