Mayor Menino at the 2nd year launch of Hubway. Photo Credit: City of Boston.

In a major city like Boston, the mayor plays a pivotal role in advancing transportation innovation and improvements. After all, few things show off a city better (or worse) than its transportation systems. To help the public understand where Boston’s mayoral candidates stand on this key campaign issue, CLF is co-sponsoring a free forum on Transportation and Livable Communities on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 from 6pm to 8pm at the Boston Public Library.

During Mayor Thomas Menino’s twenty years in office, the City of Boston has advanced many transportation projects, including the modernization of the Blue Line, the rehabilitation of old and opening of new stations on the Fairmount Line, the launch of the Hubway bike share system, and the completion of the Big Dig. Around the country, Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, Rahm Emanuel in Chicago, and Michael Bloomberg in New York all have successfully put new transportation ideas, policies and investments at the center of their administrations.

For CLF and everyone who lives and/or works in Boston, it matters that the next mayor of Boston, whoever it is, understands the importance of its transportation systems to the city: the ability to walk and bike safely and easily, the need to assure that public transit is affordable and accessible to all, and the foresight to consider how good transportation planning can help the city reduce greenhouse gas emissions and manage through the challenges presented by a changing climate. With the right mayor, Boston can and will continue to lead in this area.

Four Corners/Geneva Avenue Station on Fairmount Line. Photo Credit: Patrick D. Rosso, pdrosso @ flickr

The forum on Transportation and Livable Communities will give each of the candidates an opportunity to address the vital transportation issues impacting Boston’s communities. CLF is co-sponsoring the event with a group of non-profit organizations, planners, and advocates who have been working to make Boston, and other Massachusetts communities, more livable.  As a group, we have provided all of the candidates with extensive information on policies related to transportation and livable communities. Now, on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 from 6pm to 8pm,  you can learn how more about how each candidate will improve Boston’s streets and public transportation. The event is free and  open to the public and the media. Register here to get your free ticket. We hope to see you there.

In recent years, chickens have come home to roost in backyards across the country. While the numbers are hard to document, cities and towns all over the U.S. are taking up the issue and modifying their laws to allow backyard chickens. Nearly every week in the news, a story appears reporting another town or city considering amendments to local laws that would allow backyard chickens. Proponents in North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, and Nixa, Missouri have been working to amend the law; while just last week, local government in Hampton, Virginia and Howard County, Maryland, approved ordinance amendments to allow backyard chickens.

Seeing this trend as an extension of the local, urban food movement, people are realizing that chickens make great, productive pets. There’s evidence that eggs from backyard chickens have greater nutritional value than commercial eggs, and chickens eat pretty much anything – ticks, grasshoppers, kitchen scraps, weeds, you name it. They even have the added bonuses of being adorable and kids loving them. How could you not love that beak?

Photo Credit: stevenljohnson @ flickr

However, in 2012 an outbreak of salmonella that was traced back to several backyard flocks made at least one NPR blogger wary of the recent trend – dubbing backyard chickens “spreaders of salmonella.” A CDC report found that most of the people infected in this outbreak handled live chickens and that many of them had purchased chicks from one Ohio mail-order hatchery. A single hatchery, in this case, was responsible for the outbreak that affected 195 people in 27 states.

The story, unfortunately, focused on the chickens themselves when instead it should have focused on the bigger picture: when outbreaks can be pinpointed to a single source, it demonstrates the vulnerabilities of a large, global food economy. When there’s a problem, like an outbreak, it tends to spread faster, and farther in our interdependent, global economy. For example, in 2010, a salmonella outbreak that sickened hundreds across the country was traced back to one Iowa egg company and the company had to recall 380 million of its eggs.

And this blogger is not a lone voice in decrying backyard chickens. Alongside the stories of municipalities voting to change laws to allow backyard chickens, you will find stories of municipalities voting to ban backyard chickens, often in the name of public safety. It makes me wonder, how have we come so far as a society to be more skeptical of the food produced right before our eyes than food produced primarily behind closed doors and transported more than a thousand miles before reaching our plates?

Industrial food-animal production is largely responsible for the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, while the lack of appropriate handling of waste at many of these facilities contaminates nearby air and waters with harmful nutrients and toxins. In addition, the focus on profits means animals are raised in as little space as possible and not surprisingly, these cramped, dirty conditions are fertile breeding grounds for diseases. On the other hand, a decentralized, local, scaled-down food economy offers numerous benefits. Local food significantly reduces these types of risks, makes us more resilient, and the food produced tends to be healthier too.

So do backyard chickens pose a public health risk? The facts just don’t bear this out. Consider this: salmonella causes about 1.2 million cases of food poisoning each year in the U.S. The outbreak that was traced back to the mail-order hatchery constitutes 0.01% of the total number of cases.

Photo Credit: edenpictures @ flickr

In addition, research suggests backyard chickens present no more of a health risk than other animals that may be kept as pets. If chickens are well-cared for and are kept in a clean environment, as with all pets, they are more likely to stay healthy. Very few poultry diseases are transmissible to man and salmonella is not an airborne disease (read: salmonella will not simply float from the chickens in your neighbor’s yard into your home). If you do decide to handle a chicken, simply wash your hands afterwards.

For the better part of mankind’s history, food was produced and consumed locally. Prior to World War II, nearly one-third of Americans lived on farms and even if you didn’t live on a farm, you probably bought your meat, milk, and eggs directly from your local farmer. During this time salmonella and avian flu certainly did not run rampant. These diseases that now make the news cycle on a near daily basis – and emerging concerns about antibiotic resistance and indiscriminate pesticide use – are products of our large, industrialized food system. Backyard chickens are a part of a solution that will strengthen our local food economy and at the same time, create foods that are both better for us and the environment.

Despite a long history of industrial pollution, the Lower Mystic continues to be fished by local residents. Although there is a fish advisory upstream, which suggests that fishermen catch and release only, the Lower Mystic doesn’t have its own fish advisory. Rather it falls under the general fish advisory for the Boston Harbor. However, contaminated sediment, combined with significant ongoing water pollution from sewage overflows and stormwater, raises serious doubt whether the Boston Harbor fish advisory, which was based on sampling in Quincy Bay and has not been updated since 1988, is adequate for this area. What this means is that residents can continue to fish in the Lower Mystic, although they lack the necessary information to determine whether or not the fish they catch are safe to eat.

Now, with the help of a grant from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET), CLF and its partners—Chelsea Collaborative, Mystic River Watershed Association, Neighborhood of Affordable Housing (NOAH), and the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMass-Boston)—will be able to work with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) to develop and provide clear, useful, and necessary public information that will help people to safely catch and consume fish from the waters in the Lower Mystic.

We suspect that a lack of specific, accurate, and reliable information for the residents of the Lower Mystic has likely resulted both in consumption of fish that is unsafe for human health and an overall underutilization of a valuable river resource. With this grant, we are excited to work closely with MDPH to improve this situation and provide clear guidance to the communities of the Mystic River and visitors in the form of an easy to read fish advisory.

As part of the grant, CLF and its partners will survey anglers about the current use of the Lower Mystic for fishing, develop an estimate of current consumption, conduct spot sampling of fish to help MDPH obtain the information it needs to assess the risks, and, if appropriate, seek issuance of a fish advisory specific for the area. CLF will also help MDPH in developing a user-friendly fish advisory and advocate for its translation into all languages spoken in the area.

Interestingly, it was CLF’s work to stop pollution of Boston Harbor that helped to establish the Massachusetts Environmental Trust. As part of the 1988 settlement of CLF’s and the federal government’s lawsuits which required the state to clean up Boston Harbor, the state legislature also established MET, which was initially funded with $2 million dollars.

Today, funding for MET is generated by proceeds from the sale of special environmental license plates. There are currently some 50,000 drivers with MET plates, generating roughly $1,000,000 annually for environmental projects. In addition, the trust continues to receive funding through settlements, judgments, civil actions, and administrative consent orders.

License plates like this one help fund MET.

The Lower Mystic is the part of the Mystic River Watershed closest to Boston Harbor. The watershed includes eight of the twenty most environmentally overburdened communities in Massachusetts. The environmental hazards in the Lower Mystic communities of Chelsea, Everett, East Boston alone include hazardous waste sites, landfills, transfer stations, incinerators, polluting industrial facilities, and power plants. The Mystic also has more parking lots, buildings, industrial sites and less green space than any other watershed in the Commonwealth. Residents of the Lower Mystic also have limited access to the waterfront.

CLF and its partners believe that, while we need to continue to work on addressing these environmental problems, it is also crucial that the access to the water that does exist is as beneficial and safe of a resource as it can be. A fish advisory for the Lower Mystic will go a long way toward helping us reach that goal. We’ll keep you posted on our progress.

For miles around Rhode Island’s Central Landfill, the air often smells like rotten eggs.  In the Landfill, garbage degrades and gives off a gas that is part hydrogen sulfide (which produces the rotten-egg smell), part volatile organic compounds (which can cause cancer), and part methane (a potent greenhouse gas).  At well-run landfills, collection systems capture enough of this gas to avoid creating health and environmental hazards.  Here in Rhode Island, though, something is wrong.

That’s why yesterday CLF’s Rhode Island office notified companies associated with the Landfill that we intend to sue for violations of the federal Clean Air Act.

After a thorough investigation, we figured out that two companies – Broadrock Gas Services and its subsidiary Rhode Island LFG Genco – are not collecting landfill gas like they are supposed to be doing.  Instead, they have allowed part of their gas collection system to become submerged in water.  The gas that is not and cannot be captured by these underwater collectors instead escapes to the air we breathe.  We can tell for sure that gas is escaping because federal regulations don’t allow the air at a landfill’s surface to contain more than 500 parts per million of methane (above background levels in the air), but readings at the Landfill have been as high as 72,900.  By failing to capture harmful landfill gas, the companies have violated the Clean Air Act.

Broadrock and Genco have also been in the news lately for venting landfill gas or some byproduct directly into the atmosphere from a pipe rigged with a broom handle and held together with duct tape.  By venting this gas directly from a pipe to the air, the companies have again violated the Clean Air Act.

As the owner of the Landfill, Rhode Island Resource Recovery is legally responsible for Broadrock and Genco’s violations.  CLF Rhode Island has also learned that Resource Recovery has been operating the Landfill for the last sixteen years without a federally required permit.  By requiring Resource Recovery to get this long-missing permit – which should apply to Broadrock and Genco’s operations too – we hope to bring comprehensive oversight and a clear division of responsibilities to the Landfill.

Now that we’ve notified Broadrock, Genco, and Resource Recovery that we intend to sue – a formal step required by the Clean Air Act before initiating a citizen suit – we have to wait sixty days before filing a complaint in federal court.  But we can start negotiating to fix the problem immediately.  The recent discovery that Broadrock and Genco have been venting raw landfill gas into the air – and the landfill gas explosion that happened a few days ago – let us know that the situation is truly urgent.  And CLF Rhode Island’s notices are a strong first step in getting landfill gas under control here in Rhode Island, stopping the release of harmful pollutants, and making that pervasive rotten-egg smell go away for good.

[Read CLF Rhode Island’s notice of intent to sue here.]

Kids playing in Boston’s Christian Science Plaza Fountain, by Mindy McAdams on Flickr

The heat is here!

Even though it’s technically still spring until late June, it feels as though summer has already come to stay in southern New England. While we New Englanders pride ourselves on being able to handle all kinds of weather, the health risks posed by poor air quality shouldn’t be ignored.

On a hot summer day, I know I make sure to check the weather in the morning before leaving to see how hot it might get and if there’s a chance of rain. Weather reports and weather websites are good at giving us lots of data about the day’s weather in general (hourly temperatures, chance of rain, and radar maps tracking storms), but don’t always give a detailed explanation when there’s an air quality alert (like there is this weekend).

What does an Air Quality Alert really mean?

The Air Quality Index combines measurements of ground level ozone and particulate matter to determine when levels of those pollutants might be harmful to humans.

EPA’s Air Quality Index

Ground level ozone forms when pollution from cars, construction equipment, factories, and power plants containing oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic chemicals mix in sunlight. While lots of ground level ozone is formed in urban areas on hot days, it can also be blown over long distances by wind. Particulate matter is just what it sounds like, particles from construction dust and pollen down to heavy metals and toxic pollutants. Both ground level ozone and particulate matter can be inhaled and cause serious respiratory problems. Southern New England and the mid-Atlantic seaboard are at special risk for ground level ozone and particulate pollution due to the combination of big cities and winds blowing east.

Ground level ozone and particulate matter at levels that commonly occur here in the summer can cause some very unpleasant health problems for even healthy adults (coughing and wheezing isn’t a lot of fun), but can be dangerous and even life-threatening for kids with asthma or other breathing problems, adults with chronic conditions, and the elderly. And some studies suggest that ground-level ozone can actually cause asthma and breathing problems in kids. Adults at risk and parents of kids at risk probably know more about all of this than the average person, but hearing that there’s an Air Quality Alert on the weather can still leave anyone with a lot of questions.

As you can see from the AQI scale, a score of 50 would be labeled “good” and 51 would be “moderate,” so more precise data is essential. That information isn’t always available on a weather report, which is where the EnviroFlash website comes in. They plot the hourly Air Quality Index measurements on maps, so you can check out the forecast and close to real-time information about local air quality:

What can I do about bad air quality in the summer?

While there are of course steps that people at risk from elevated ground level ozone and particulate levels can take to protect themselves from dangerous breathing events, the good news is that there are simple and very important things we can all do to help prevent elevated air quality:

• Prevent your car from contributing to vehicle emissions: try to limit driving trips and take public transportation if possible.
• Reduce the amount of electricity that your household uses, keeping the worst-emitting fossil fuel fired power plants from being pressed into service: Keep your air conditioner a few degrees higher, and make sure to turn lights and electronics off when you’re not using them.

Photo courtesy of Curt MacNeill, Boulder Health Revolution

Each year contaminated food sickens 48 million Americans and causes 3,000 deaths.  As the recent federal sequester highlights, Americans depend on programs that inspect food to ensure a safe food supply.  Unfortunately for those who run small farms in New England, the costs of complying with the confusing jumble of federal and state food safety laws can be daunting.

In Maine, nine towns — Brooksville, Sedgwick, Penobscot, Blue Hill, Trenton, Hope, Plymouth, Livermore and Appleton —have passed ordinances allowing food producers and processors to sell their goods directly to consumers without state or federal oversight, exempting them from licensing and inspection laws. These ordinances have created controversy and have landed at least one Maine farmer in court.

The legal issue arises from the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States. Congress has long used this authority to regulate the safety of food products placed into inter-state sales. The states can separately regulate food safety of products produced and sold solely within state borders. Maine’s Constitution similarly provides that state laws take precedence over local ordinances that frustrate the purpose of a state law.

Photo courtesy of Foods U chose 2 Eat, UK Website

Recently the State of Maine sued a farmer from Blue Hill Maine. The farmer had been selling unlabeled, unlicensed raw milk at his farm stand under a town ordinance, the Local Food and Community Self Governance Ordinance. Under state law, however, the farmer could not sell his milk without a license and without labeling the raw milk as unpasteurized; he also could not operate a food establishment without a license. The farmer maintained that his sales were legal under the Blue Hill ordinance, which exempts local food vendors from state licensure and inspection, provided they sell their products directly to consumers.

The court recently ruled against the farmer, finding that he was not protected under the Blue Hill ordinance.  The court reasoned that state dairy law pre-empted the local ordinance because the state laws in question were clearly designed to protect consumers from illness caused by improperly handled or unpasteurized milk.  The court wrote that: “It is axiomatic that a municipality may only add to the requirements of the statute, it may not take away from those requirements unless permitted to do so otherwise.”

The court’s ruling makes sense in terms of following constitutional law principles and the existing food safety legal regime. The bigger policy issue not addressed by the legal decision is whether the current food safety regulatory structure is one that prices small scale farmers focused on local markets out of  business. We think this is an important issue to address and are actively working on it as part of CLF’s Farm and Food Initiative.

We’d like to hear from you.

On April 13, the Massachusetts Senate voted in favor of a $600 million per year transportation funding plan. But can that plan fund all of the challenges facing the Bay State’s transportation system? It’s a question many are asking, and few have the tools to answer.

That’s why we built the Transportation Budget Calculator. Follow this link to see how short this funding falls in the face of the state’s overwhelming transportation needs.

The plan that the Senate approved directs an average of $600 million per year to transportation. While the Senate bill is similar to the proposal previously approved by the House, it added roughly $100 million per year on average in revenue. This additional amount does not require raising any new taxes. Rather, the Senate bill redirects 2.5 cents per gallon from the gas tax that is currently committed to underground storage tank removal to the transportation sector. The Senate bill also calls for new revenues from the leasing of MBTA and MassDOT land to utilities.

A conference committee has formed to try and merge the House and Senate bills. There has been a lot of interest in understanding how much of its transportation challenges the Commonwealth would be able to tackle should legislation emerge that is consistent with the revenue that the Senate bill raises.

The Senate bill raises sufficient revenue to correct some of the Commonwealth’s most egregious financial practices born out of the necessity to fill budget holes created by chronic underfunding. This includes ending the terrible practice of paying for costs associated with the operation of our transportation system with bonds.

The bill also includes about $100 million per year on average for capital projects. This number could be significantly lower depending on two factors: first, whether the bill’s growth projections for payroll and benefits come to pass or not; and second, whether it is realistic for the MBTA to be able to meet the bill’s underlying projections about how much money the agency can raise on its own. Regardless, this amount, unfortunately, cannot resolve all of the infrastructure challenges of our transportation system.

To get a sense of the challenge facing the committee, try our new Transportation Budget Calculator. Using the revenue provided by the Senate bill, the calculator allows you to pick state of good repair and expansion projects off of a project list and will inform you if you can afford the projects you have selected or not.

It’s may not be as exciting as your favorite video game, but you can still enjoy the ride (if you can afford to build the road or the track)!

As an avid cyclist, it is pretty clear to me that Massachusetts is not realizing its true “bikeability” potential. The desire is palpable. The funding, however, remains remote.

Every time I ride along the Minuteman Trail through Arlington, the Shining Sea Trail to Woods Hole, along the Charles, or on the Cape Cod Rail Trail towards Provincetown, I am reminded of how utterly inundated these popular trails are with other bikers, runners and joggers, walkers, and the occasional roller-bladers. Every so often, I find myself so fatigued from maneuvering around the congestion that I vow to stay far away, at least on any given weekend in spring, summer or early fall. But I have to roll my eyes at myself for this attitude and realize the actual significance: there are so few scenic, well-maintained paths spanning substantial distances that exist for walkers and riders that everyone and their brother (and kids, and dogs) are flocking to a handful of recreational paths and trails. The demand for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is there. The funding, however, has never been there.

Keith Brofsky Photography, Seattle.

Now, I recognize that not everyone is a self-described “avid cyclist”. Nevertheless, I think most will agree that being active and spending time outdoors is something many aspire to do more. An active lifestyle is healthier than a sedentary one, but thanks to myriad modern-day conveniences in combination with bad habits, we have to really go out of the way to achieve this goal.

In case you needed it, here is some extra motivation:

- Between 1966 and 2009, the number of American children who walked or biked to school each day plummeted by 75%. In fact, about 25% of the traffic you encounter on your morning commute is related to parents dropping kids off at school.

- Not surprisingly, our kids’ decreasing engagement in outdoor activities coincides with soaring levels of child-obesity. Less than fifty years ago, our nation’s youth were a staggering 276% less fat.

- The same consequences are apparent in adults, too. In states where people are walking and cycling the most, you also find significantly better health. The incidence of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes falls dramatically in populations engaged in regular physical activity. Even a brief 30 minutes of aerobic activity each day can have a positive impact on health, and is easily achieved by people who commute to and from work the old fashioned way – using their own two legs.

Recently, commuting by bike has been catching on in the Commonwealth. Yet bike and pedestrian infrastructure continues to suffer from chronic underfunding, as it has for decades. Greater Boston’s bikeways are crumbling and congested, and its “network” of bike lanes is utterly fragmented because many were never funded to completion. The Greater Boston Area has witnessed hundreds of squandered opportunities to enhance infrastructure in recent years, leaving cyclists stranded on paths that funnel into dangerous intersections, or end in physical impasses or narrow bridges with no bike lanes. While rebuilding the BU Bridge, for example, excavators removed and then filled in a section underneath the bridge which, with forethought, might have served as a pedestrian/cyclist underpass and significantly enhanced the safety of non-drivers crossing between Boston and Cambridge. Moreover, of the existing paths that don’t dead-end, many instead lead to vast sections of pavement in shameful disrepair, as is the case along much of the Memorial Drive side of the Charles.

The Boston area is not alone when it comes to poor bike/ped infrastructure. Central Massachusetts could also benefit from a serious cycling-friendly overhaul. There are virtually no biking lanes painted on roads throughout Worcester. Commuting by any means other than by car in this hub and surrounding areas is daunting enough to discourage all but the most hearty. Across the state, projects to improve infrastructure and connect communities are underway, yet still lack the resources necessary to realize these plans. Over $400 million in funding is required to complete each of the 47 bicycle and pedestrian projects scattered across Massachusetts. Once completed, the Blackstone River Bikeway project would connect 15 communities spanning the 48 miles between Worcester and Providence, Rhode Island. Similarly, the East Coast Greenway project will eventually stretch for 146 miles uninterrupted from Boston through Worcester. Only about 20% of trail for either of these bikeways have been completed. Based on the funds currently dedicated to transportation as a whole, funding for bike/ped infrastructure won’t even come close to what is actually needed.

The BU Bridge, a notoriously dangerous area for Boston Cyclists. Photo Credit: nd-nʎ @ Flickr

Certainly, Massachusetts has begun to make some progress over the past few years. The GreenDOT initiative was inaugurated by MassDOT in 2010, and has set a statewide goal to triple the share of travel by any mode other than driving. The City of Boston is also part of a national movement to redesign municipal transportation, known as “complete streets” planning. The concept was developed to improve poorly-designed streets, sidewalks and congested intersections in a way that encompasses safe use by multimodal commuters, integrating the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities, and public transit users.

The complete streets movement is catching on in the Bay State, though much of this progress has so far only amounted to elusive policy that lacks funding and is far from set in stone. The creation of pedestrian and bike-friendly areas has the potential to revitalize commercial centers, or make a neighborhood more livable and improve overall quality of life. Furthermore, choosing to walk or peddle to work is not just healthier for our bodies, but also improves the environment. By opting to drive less, you are using less petroleum and helping to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. In order for complete streets to truly be set into motion, Massachusetts must earnestly invest in infrastructure.

Pedestrians and cyclists pass undisturbed by motorists over a busy boulevard in Portland, Oregon; the bridge is part of the Springwater Corridor Trail. Photo Credit: By Finetooth via Wikimedia Commons

The great biking city of Portland, Oregon, is light-years ahead of us – they began investing in cycling infrastructure in the 1990’s and never stopped. Portland boasts about 6 percent of commuters regularly biking to work, as compared to under 2 percent in Boston, and has set a goal for cycling to make up a quarter of all commuting trips by 2030. In order to get there, Portland has focused on building infrastructure that promotes safety and encourages an ever-increasing number of bikes on the roads. Cycle tracks, for instance, are bike lanes that are removed from automobile lanes by distinct physical barriers serving to shelter cyclists. By investing in improvements which promote safe riding for all ages and abilities, Portland increasingly attracts more cyclists, and this in turn fosters a growing acceptance of bicycles. Over time, the culture of the city has changed as once-predominant motorists have been eclipsed by riders on two wheels.

Here in Massachusetts, we still have a lot of work to do, and the urgency of this work is particularly apparent when we look at how underfunding and poor infrastructure affect safety in Massachusetts. Pedestrians make up about 16.8% of all traffic fatalities in the Commonwealth, and 2.4% are cyclists. All too often, the inferior design and lack of maintenance of roads and bike lanes is the principal culprit at the crux of these accidents. With the proper funds and planning, we can help bikers and walkers to safely navigate the hazards spawned by neglect and underinvestment.

By investing in infrastructure that is designed to accommodate growing numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, we are improving overall health and safety in the Commonwealth. Someday soon, Bay-Staters may not have to risk life and limb to live active and more fulfilling lifestyles. For now, though, we still have a long way to peddle.

MA DOER Commissioner Sylvia, Chelmsford Town Manager Paul Cohen, MA EOEEA Secretary Sullivan, and MA DEP Commissioner Kimmell at the Earth Day announcement in Chelmsford. (Photo credit: Emily Norton)

Today the Patrick Administration took an important step toward meaningful deployment of electric vehicles (EVs) in Massachusetts. Building on momentum from the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Roundtable that CLF co-hosted with the Administration in March, the Patrick Administration launched a new incentive program yesterday: the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Incentive Program for Municipalities. The Administration announced this new program on Earth Day at events in Greenfield and Chelmsford. CLF attended the announcement, and you can watch a video clip of MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Kimmell and MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Sullivan announcing the new program in Chelmsford here and here (pardon the occasional wind!).

Following the MA EV Roundtable in March, the Administration created the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Initiative to promote EVs in the Commonwealth. The new incentive program, focused on helping increase use and visibility of EVs in Massachusetts towns, is a noteworthy first step for the MA EV Initiative. This program will help municipalities purchase EVs as well as fund installation of charging stations. The program offers $7,500 grants per EV and $15,000 per publicly accessible charging station to eligible communities. The program, which is administered by the MA DEP,  has $2.5 million available for these grants.

At yesterday’s Earth Day launch for this program, Secretary Sullivan noted that increased deployment of EVs is an essential step toward meeting the climate commitments contained in the MA Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). Increased EV deployment is indeed an important step if the Commonwealth is to meet its mandatory greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction targets, and CLF is pleased to see the Commonwealth taking initiative with this measure. At the same time, the big picture for GHG reductions in Massachusetts still requires significant progress that can only be achieved through markedly stepped up action. The Administration has not met the GWSA’s deadlines for adopting and implementing regulations to reduce GHGs commensurate with the requirements of the GWSA across all sectors – including transportation. While steps to promote EVs will help move the needle, the newly announced Initiative must complement, rather than serve as a substitute for, much more expansive action that is urgently needed across the transportation sector and beyond.

The Commonwealth’s press release following the launch indicated that this program “is the first of what the state plans will be other state incentive programs to increase electric vehicle deployment and ease their use.” CLF is pleased that the Patrick Administration is taking its commitment to fostering meaningful deployment of EVs in Massachusetts seriously, applauds the Commonwealth for this important first effort, and is optimistic for meaningful next steps for the MA EV Initiative. We hope that the successful launch of this program will help fuel a broader effort to reduce GHGs and ‘green up’ all of our transportation options!