A few weeks ago I attended a conference in Washington, DC that brought together environmental groups from all over the country. In speaking with my colleagues, I was reminded of how this country is a patchwork quilt: each of us brought a unique set of challenges, a strong independent sense of identity, and solutions to regional challenges – solutions that are sometimes adopted at the national level. This certainly is true of New England.

Over the last year, two events have emphasized the importance of interregional coordination. In the process, they have reminded me of New England’s long history of regional cooperation to advance nation leading clean energy projects, and of the way in which those have been adopted on the national stage.

The first of these issues is FERC Order 1,000 – a significant reform to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s position on “electric transmission planning and cost allocation requirements for public utility transmission providers” issued in June of 2010. That Order, and material explaining it, can be found on the FERC website. The new rules announced in that Order mandate that utilities operating wholesale electricity systems across the country engage in a process of regional planning. Here in New England, we have been doing that for as long, if not longer, than anywhere else in the country, so that part of the order will prompt new regional innovations largely elsewhere in the country. Another part of the order instructs regional operators of the electric grid to consider the public policy mandates of the states in their region in the planning they do for their part of the grid. The New England states have a variety of innovative policies intended to bring about a clean energy future. How our regional grid operator accounts for those in its planning is very likely to break ground for the rest of the country.

Similarly, the recent breakthrough settlement agreement by the Patrick Administration in the proposed merger between NStar and Northeast Utilities also reminded me of the need for regional coordination. Consider the scale of the proposed utility: As The Boston Globe reported, “the proposed $17.5 billion merger… would create the largest utility in the region, [and serve] nearly 3.5 million electric and gas customers from Westport, Conn., to Pittsburg, N.H., near the Canadian border.”

With a reach extending from southern Connecticut to Northern New Hampshire by way of Boston, the resulting utility has obligations under a variety of critical state policies intended to protect the environment and build a resilient clean energy economy. The right to operate as a state-sanctioned monopoly is conditioned on the utility meeting those obligations. The initial terms of the proposed merger did not meet those requirements; the merger as revised by the settlement, as my colleague Sue Reid said, “ensures that this powerful new utility will be in lockstep with Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy policies and propel the state forward instead of backwards in implementing them.”

This cases highlight the need for advocacy groups to be able to field their teams  on a scale and in a manner that that rises to the challenge of the moment. The NU/NStar merger required us to play on a regional scale; FERC Order 1,000 provides a chance to use the federally regulated planning process to advance critical state policies that are designed to build a cleaner and thriving New England. The challenges we face, and the institutions we engage (like utilities), are large and extend across our region and beyond, not respecting traditional boundaries. CLF must meet this challenge with size, scale, intentions, goals, and strategies that are appropriately sized to meet those challenges.

Given New England’s strong tradition of leadership on energy and environmental issues, I have confidence we have the tools required. However, as my conversations in DC emphasized, what is appropriate here in New England is not appropriate for every region.

Given the differences between the various regions of the country, and various areas within those regions, I wonder: To what extent can we successfully plot a common future? These questions are as relevant within New England as between regions.

Driving south from Acadia National Park in Maine or Hanover, New Hampshire, or east from Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT the scenery changes, the weather warms and the population becomes more dense. Though each place is in New England, each feels very different – and, if you ask someone on the street, chances are they’ll tell you just how unique and independent their town or city is. The same is true as you travel north from Atlanta or NYC to Boston, or east from Chicago or San Francisco. Within New England, as within our country, our differences can be easier to see than our shared future, but it is the latter that requires our attention.

More and more, we have the tools. That puts us in a good position to work together, town by town, region by region, for a thriving New England, and a thriving country.

More and more, studies are recognizing the positive benefits of environmental improvements to communities. Now, potential changes to IRS non-profit reporting rules would allow nonprofit hospitals to report the cost of the environmental improvements they make.

IRS Schedule H is a mandatory reporting form introduced by the IRS in 2008. Its purpose is to quantify, in a way that is comparable across institutions, how nonprofit hospitals meet their community benefit obligations and therefore document their tax-exempt status. Schedule H requires hospitals to report on total community benefit and charity care expenses as well as proportion of total institutional spending on these categories. Changes to the reporting rules, released in draft form on December 15, 2011, will allow hospitals to report on costs associated with their community-building activities, such as activities to protect/improve the community’s health or safety.

The rule change now allows hospitals to include activities related to “environmental improvements” if the activity:

1) is provided for the primary purpose of improving community health;

2) addresses an environmental issue known to affect community health; and

3) is subsidized by the organization at a net loss.

The potential implications of this rule change could see a great positive benefit for communities since hospitals would now have additional incentive to implement activities with environmental and community health benefits. CLF Ventures, the market-based strategy consulting arm of Conservation Law Foundation, is encouraged by this rule change.

Working to support local sustainable agriculture by buying local produce, increasing recycling which reduces landfill burdens, or promoting carpooling or public transit to reduce emissions are all potential items that could be documented under these new rules as they support a hospital’s community mission and would be considered environmental improvements. At the same time, the IRS rule change explicitly forbids inclusion of environmental improvement expenses that are “primarily for marketing purposes,” so ostensibly, nonprofit hospitals will have to implement meaningful environmental improvements in order to receive credit for them.

As nonprofit institutions’ tax-exempt status come under increased scrutiny, both in and outside of Massachusetts, nonprofit hospitals will have an interest in augmenting the share of their total expenses that count as “community benefits.” The Affordable Care Act requires nonprofit hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments every three years. The proposed changes to the IRS nonprofit reporting rules provide nonprofit hospitals a new opportunity to include within these needs assessments information about potential improvements to air quality, water, energy systems, etc.—and a new incentive to implement measures that can benefit both the environment and local community health.

Courtesy of bradlee9119@flickr. Creative Commons.

The triple bottom line has become both a catch phrase and, increasingly, a realistic goal for everyone from investors to activists and urban developers. But in Massachusetts, aging MBTA trains and infrastructure coupled with proposed fare hikes and service cuts stand in the way of achieving the triple-bottom-line promise of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).

TOD projects are generally comprised of mixed-use or mixed-income developments that are situated within a half-mile of a mass transit station. They provide residents with easy access to the places they want to go (jobs, doctors, movie theaters, etc.) and place businesses within reach of employees and consumers along the mass transit system.

One of the advantages of TOD projects is their potential to achieve triple-bottom-line returns, providing economic, environmental, and community benefits simultaneously. By encouraging people to use mass transit and rely less on automobiles, TOD projects help to reduce both noxious auto emissions and climate-altering greenhouse gases. In fact, people in highly walkable neighborhoods drive nearly 40% fewer miles than their counterparts in the least walkable neighborhoods, which can reduce traffic-related emissions by as much as 2,000 grams of CO₂ per person per day. Furthermore, the increased walking (at least 10 minutes daily on average) reduces the risk of obesity, regardless of age, income, or gender.

So TOD opens up new opportunities for growth without requiring the costly, carbon-intensive infrastructure needed for cars, and contributes to healthful, walkable neighborhoods that attract both businesses and residents. Sounds great, right?

Unfortunately, there’s a hitch. TOD projects rely on the assumption that the transit system is capable of supporting them. Here in Massachusetts, proposed MBTA fare increases and service cuts, as well as our aging transportation infrastructure, may prevent TOD projects from delivering on their promise. This is a bad thing for Massachusetts residents, for our economy, and for our environment.

The MBTA is old. After putting off badly needed maintenance on the Red Line for several years, an entire section has been shut down on weekends for emergency repairs, cutting off access for parts of Cambridge, Somerville, and beyond. And faced with a $161 million budget deficit, the T is now considering drastic fare increases and draconian service cuts, including potential elimination of over 100 bus routes as well as weekend service on the commuter rail and some subway lines.

The MBTA’s proposed fare increases and service cuts are unacceptable for MBTA riders and could prove disastrous for TOD projects, past, present, and future. Discouraging people from taking public transportation—either by eliminating MBTA service or making that service prohibitively expensive for riders—undermines the triple-bottom line goals of TOD. It may sound obvious, but TOD requires a healthy, functioning, financially accessible transit system to realize its full potential.

CLF is asking the state legislature and the governor to find a comprehensive solution to the MBTA’s funding problems, not just a band-aid for the coming year’s operating budget. And CLF Ventures is committed to finding triple-bottom-line solutions, like TOD, where profitable developments can also yield environmental and community benefits. Without continued investments in our transportation infrastructure in Massachusetts and a comprehensive solution to the T’s funding problems, TOD could become a triple-bottom loss for the economy, the environment, and for MBTA riders.

Sleep is a wonderful thing, and it’s necessary for good health. As someone who doesn’t always get enough, I understand people’s concern that wind turbines are disturbing their sleep, or if built, will. Yet the report this week from  the state’s expert review on the science did not find sufficient scientific evidence that wind turbine noise impacts are loud enough or have the right characteristics to physically disturb people’s sleep.

The panel did find limited evidence that some people are annoyed by noise from wind turbines, due to a combination of “the sound itself, the sight of the turbine, and attitude toward the wind turbine project.” In other words, if you are annoyed by the presence of wind turbines, you might also be annoyed by the noise from them. Still, the report disavows claims that wind turbines are associated with adverse health effects.

But, if you are one of the 44% of Americans who have trouble sleeping (according to a Consumer Reports 2008 survey) and you are annoyed by nearby wind turbines, it’s not hard to see how you would link the two together and associate sleep problems with the sound from the turbines. The value of a scientific review is to sort out whether there is sufficient evidence to support claims that the cause (i.e., noise from wind turbines) resulted in the effect (sleep disturbance or health problems). The review by the state’s expert panel did not find sufficient evidence to support the causal link between noise from wind turbines and health problems or disease, debunking the claims of “wind turbine syndrome.”  “Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically.”

The story is a bit more complicated for sleep disturbance. The report states, “A very loud wind turbine could cause disrupted sleep, particularly in vulnerable populations, at a certain distance, while a very quiet wind turbine would not likely disrupt even the lightest of sleepers at that same distance.” The question becomes, how loud is loud enough? or what is the threshold at which disturbance occurs?, and that answer doesn’t definitively exist.The science tells us some of what we need to know, but still leaves uncertainty about how to ensure that wind turbines don’t disturb poor sleepers. For example, if the disturbance is a function of one’s attitude about wind turbines, it might not be possible to avoid disturbance for some people.

The key question is, what do we do with this information? How does the science help us make sound decisions about siting wind energy? The data do not suggest we stop all development of wind energy facilities because they pose unacceptable health risks. The evidence does not support that. Regardless of how uncomfortable we may be about making decisions under uncertainty, the reality is that we always operate under uncertainty – and there is no avoiding that. We can never be certain about the future. An appropriate path forward for wind energy decision-making is to use the best available information to make siting decisions that address abutters’ concerns, such as incorporating good design principles to minimize any annoying effects. In fact, that is what the expert panel recommends.

The good news is that having a wind turbine in your back yard will not make you sick. The bad news is you might be disturbed by it, and that is an important consideration for decision makers. Those directly impacted by wind siting decisions should have the opportunity to participate in them, to minimize the potential for disturbance. CLF Ventures’ Wind Siting Guide offers guidance on how to engage stakeholders in such decision processes.

Renewable wind energy offers many benefits, including energy independence, reliable pricing, and no ongoing emissions. As we strive to achieve a cleaner energy future, which necessarily includes wind turbines, we will need to take measures to minimize the annoyance impacts of living near them, since they will always be in somebody’s back yard. Robust community processes will help us make better design decisions and minimize the impacts.

Leaves are falling, autumn has arrived – and so has a new look for CLF Ventures, CLF’s non-profit strategy-consulting arm. CLF Ventures bridges the public and private sectors to advance innovative, market-based solutions that benefit the environment, society, and our clients’ bottom line. With a new logo and a newly redesigned website, CLF Ventures is taking our message of “Environmental Gain – Economic Advantage” to the next level.

The new CLF Ventures logo was designed to complement the CLF logo while capturing the unique mission and value that CLF Ventures brings to our clients. The two overlapping leaves in the new CLF Ventures logo embody our message that the environment and the economy are interconnected, not mutually exclusive, and that we need to pay attention to both to have a truly thriving and sustainable economy. “If you really look closely,” says CLF Ventures CEO Jo Anne Shatkin, “you see the “V” inside the leaves – that’s the “V” for Ventures, but it’s also a check mark, which says ‘yes, we know how to make things happen.’ CLF Ventures is like those two overlapping leaves. We’re uniquely positioned to help our clients because we’re part of the environmental community and we understand what businesses and innovators need to operate and thrive.”

The redesigned CLF Ventures website highlights the breadth of our services and the wide variety of partners we help. Our new homepage features a revolving showcase of the “Four I’s” – Innovate, Incubate, Integrate, and Initiate – which captures CLF Ventures’ mission to bring about positive environmental change through the marketplace. Many people are familiar with CLF Ventures’ work to help facilities integrate their operations with sound environmental principles and operate both sustainably and profitably. But CLF Ventures also helps entrepreneurs and clean technology leaders innovate their products and technologies and bring them to market. We incubate replicable, new businesses that create shared value and improve the environment. And we initiate opportunities that propel new investment models toward the triple bottom line. Our redesigned website allows us to share our story – and our mission – with a broader audience. We hope you’ll check out www.clfventures.org and let us know what you think.

CLF President John Kassel (right) accepts check for a Clean Diesel project from EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding

CLF Ventures, Conservation Law Foundation’s non-profit consulting affiliate, has been awarded an EPA grant to help two New England charter fishing vessels reduce their diesel emissions. The project will repower four “tier 0″ marine engines on the vessels The Atlantic Queen, out of Rye, NH and The Captain’s Lady II, out of Newburyport, MA. Jo Anne Shatkin, PhD, CEO of CLF Ventures, said the funding will allow CLF to work with the two vessels to reduce their impacts on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce fuel costs.

EPA’s Clean Diesel projects help create and retain jobs, as well as reduce premature deaths, asthma attacks and other respiratory ailments, lost work days and other health impacts associated with air pollution from diesel engines. John Kassel, CLF president, accepted a check for $391,500 from EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding at a ceremony today in Boston. Read EPA’s press release here.

(L-R) Tim Harwood, VP for Development, CLF; Deb Cary, Director of Central Sanctuaries, Mass Audubon; and Liz Carver, Managing Director, EIA at the July 16 Discovery Day at Broad Meadow Brook in Worcester. (Photo credit: Malene Christensen, Mass Audubon)

On Saturday, July 16, the Environmental Insurance Agency (EIA) joined about 200 adults and children for a free day of guided walks, raptor demonstrations, and wildlife crafts at Mass Audubon’s Broad Meadow Brook in Worcester, MA. Since 2010, EIA has been the exclusive sponsor of Mass Audubon’s Discovery Days, a series of free, activity-filled open houses at wildlife sanctuaries across the state. Join EIA at the next Discovery Day at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln on August 6, and at upcoming Discovery Days in Milton’s Great Blue Hills, Attleboro Springs, and Wellfleet Bay this fall. View the full Mass Audubon Discovery Day schedule here.

EIA is a unique kind of insurance agency that helps policyholders save money and protect the environment through its auto or homeowners insurance products. A subsidiary of Conservation Law Foundation, EIA rewards policyholders who “go green” by driving less than the average in their community. With EIA, the less you drive, the more you save — and a portion of every EIA policy helps fund CLF’s efforts to fight air pollution and climate change, reduce gas consumption, and promote accessible, affordable transportation choices throughout New England. EIA and CLF are actively working to establish mileage-based, or Pay-as-You-Drive (PAYD) auto insurance in New England. A 2010 study commissioned by CLF and EIA suggests that the PAYD approach would significantly reduce miles driven, auto accident losses, insurance costs, and greenhouse gas emissions, creating a win-win-win situation for insurers, consumers, and the environment. Learn how you can protect your car, protect your planet, and save money with EIA at http://eiainsurance.com/.

In partnership with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), CLF Ventures recently released Land-based Wind Energy: A Guide to Understanding the Issues and Making Informed Decisions. (PDF, 1.6MB)

Wind energy has the potential to play a significant and beneficial role in an energy economy that seeks to rely less heavily on fossil-fuel based electricity production. For this reason, many communities are currently trying to learn more about wind energy development and determine whether it makes sense in their city or town.  Land-based Wind Energy provides municipal officials and other local decision-makers with clear overviews of wind energy siting issues as well as best practices for community engagement.

Specifically, the guide includes:

• Guidelines for how to assess the quality of available information and how to resolve conflicting points;
• Overviews, contextual information, and recommended reading on important topics like wind turbine sound, shadow flicker, health, property values, and energy project economics; and
• Recommendations on how to structure a robust local review process when siting wind energy projects. By this we mean a process with full participation by relevant stakeholders, transparent decision-making, and durable outcomes with public support.

Download the guide, and learn more about CLF Ventures.