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.

The Vermont Statehouse

A bill nearing completion will soon give the public much more say in environmental enforcement actions in Vermont.

Historically in Vermont, agencies and violators of environmental laws have often negotiated resolutions behind closed doors without notice to affected members of the public. The results have often been weak penalties and ineffective remedial action by polluters, a problem which Conservation Law Foundation has long worked to correct.

Vermont’s exclusion of the public from environmental cases was not only bad policy, but contrary to the requirements of federal environmental law, as pointed out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Vermont Environmental Division Judge Thomas Durkin.

The issue is also part of CLF’s petition asking the EPA to revoke delegated authority for the state to administer the Clean Water Act unless shortcomings in the program are corrected.

Last year, CLF and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, which helped draft the bill co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, brought the issue before the Vermont Legislature. A long effort in the House, including many versions of the bill and testimony from a wide variety of interests in two committees, paid off in a 109-25 vote of support.

This year, the second of Vermont’s legislative biennium, the work was taken up in the Vermont Senate by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Another round of rigorous review by legislators resulted in broad support for the bill, which won final support on a voice vote Thursday after Tuesday’s roll call of 27-2.

If the bill moves on to be signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin as anticipated, Vermont will not only come into compliance with federal requirements, but it will help make sure that environmental cases are fairly and thoroughly dealt with, including consideration of evidence, where deemed worthwhile by a judge, from those affected by pollution.

The measure goes beyond federal programs like the Clean Water Act – it offers the same opportunity for public participation in state environmental cases as well.

CLF was helped in its work on the issue by the Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, by members of CLF’s Vermont Advisory Board and by fellow environmental organizations, in particular the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Furthermore, as the bill was worked on and considered, some companies and industry groups who originally opposed the measure came to support its passage, helping to secure support by wide margins in both houses of the Vermont Legislature.

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.

Controversy surrounding the proposed Juniper Ridge Landfill expansion and the state’s recent acquisition of the Dolby landfill have elevated the debate on proper management of Maine’s solid waste and reawakened the ire that Mainers feel toward policies that create incentives for the importation of out-of-state waste and the disposal of waste that could be reused or recycled.

Gov. Paul LePage, members of our Legislature and relevant state agencies should seize this opportunity to analyze where the solid waste policies of the past 30 years have left us and define a proper direction to take from here.

Never before has Maine been in a better position to positively influence the policies, practices and players associated with waste management. Consider these circumstances:

The two largest landfills in the state, Juniper Ridge and Crossroads, are currently seeking approvals from the state to expand their operations. A waste-to-energy facility in Biddeford is undertaking a major relicensing bid and the waste-to-energy plant in Orrington is renegotiating contracts with its supplier towns.

State government oversight of waste management is shifting from the State Planning Office to the Department of Environmental Protection. Waste-to-energy facilities are pushing legislation to re-designate them as renewable energy resources equivalent to hydropower and biomass plants. Add to all of this the fact that the state is now responsible for the operation and maintenance of another landfill in East Millinocket at a cost of at least $250,000 a year and has remaining obligations to help close numerous unsecured municipal dumps, and you have the makings of a solid waste perfect storm with no long-term plan to address it.

In the recent past, Maine has allowed events, such as the financial demise of two paper mills, to drive the direction of its solid waste policy. The negative consequences of these haphazard “policies of the moment” are many. A disproportionate amount of out-of-state waste continues to be disposed of in Maine landfills at below market costs and with no benefit accruing to Maine residents. Indeed, in 2009 we imported almost 600,000 tons of municipal solid waste, a substantial portion of which was construction and demolition debris that Massachusetts prohibits from its landfills and that cannot be legally burned in New Hampshire.

Our annual recycling rate has been stuck at just 38 percent for a decade in spite of a statewide goal of 50 percent. Nearly 40 percent of our in-state waste ends up in a landfill, even though by law land disposal is the solid waste option of last resort. Garbage trucks loaded with Maine waste drive past a Maine waste-to-energy plant to landfill their waste, while that same waste-to-energy plant is forced to import waste from out of state and buy woodchips to keep its burners fired.

We cannot afford to rush to solutions and perpetuate these flawed approaches. The confluence of events today affords the state the opportunity to immediately assess the value, role and future management of our state-owned landfills and the manner in which they interact with recycling, waste processing and waste-to-energy facilities.

The first steps in the right direction would be to deny Juniper Ridge a public benefit determination and refrain from acting on legislation to expand the Crossroads landfill until and unless the assessment identifies appropriate public roles for them in the overall state waste management regime.

Such an assessment is critical to producing policies that motivate individual and market behavior that will reduce waste disposal costs for taxpayers and retool the solid waste machine to render an efficient and effective system that reduces the amount of waste that we generate, maximizes the beneficial reuse of our waste to create compost, road surfacing and other products, increases our rate of recycling, turns waste into energy and that results in landfilled waste only after we have squeezed as much value out of that waste as we can.

Now is the time to act, not re-act.

A copy of this article was originally published in the Bangor Daily News on January 30, 2012.

Mares  said, “The MBTA has backed transit users against a wall, asking them to choose between two unacceptable scenarios. A fare increase may seem like the lesser of two evils to those who have a choice. But, what about those who can’t afford the increases and won’t be able to get to their jobs, or school, or a doctor’s appointment because they rely on public transportation? The MBTA has created a false choice between draconian service cuts and drastic fare increases. The reality is it’s a lose-lose situation for transit users and Massachusetts. If Secretary Davey is hearing a chorus of ‘I would rather pay more but not cut the service,’ it wasn’t singing at any of the hearings we’ve been attending.”

Mares continued, “The proposed fare increases and service cuts are unfair and only a band-aid. The MBTA’s proposals give the legislature a free pass, balancing the books solely on the backs of the riders. These proposed measures will push people off the T and into their cars, or leave them without any transportation at all. We need long-term solutions that share the burden of a working transportation system among everyone who benefits from it, which is to say everyone in Massachusetts. T4MA is calling on the legislature and the administration to immediately identify funds to reduce the T’s projected deficit and develop adequate, sustainable funding for transportation so we’re not repeating this conversation again next year.”

To read a copy of the original statement, click here.

The ZBA declared the building permits unlawful because, in an attempt to avoid City Council review of the project, PRE had not obtained a special permit that is required for the proposed plant. Responding to convincing presentations from Ms. Bewsee and Attorney Pat Markey, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that because the facility will engage in incineration, the Springfield Zoning Ordinance requires a special permit from the City Council before building permits can issue. CLF has worked closely with Ms. Bewsee, her organization, Arise for Social Justice, Toxics Action Center and the community group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, to protest this proposed power plant, which would bring additional harmful air pollution to Springfield. Siting this project in this location would be particularly inequitable, as Springfield is already a grossly overburdened environmental justice community that suffers disproportionately from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases because of exposure to air pollution.

CLF warmly congratulates the community on this victory, and thanks the Springfield City Council for the important role it played in upholding the integrity of their Zoning Ordinance.

Photo courtesy of John Walkey, Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA)

State law requires the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to balance its budget. The transit authority is facing a budget gap of $161 million for FY2013. In an attempt to address this problem, the MBTA is currently proposing huge fare increases (35% or 43%) and draconian service cuts (including the elimination of 101 weekday bus routes and all commuter rail service after 10pm and on the weekends) as we have described in previous blog entries. This would be a devastating blow to transit in the region, which is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emssions from the transporation sector, improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and provide mobility to people who may not be able to get around in any other way.

State Representative Carl Sciortino recently wrote an excellent article on WickedLocal Somerville calling for a comprehensive solution to our state’s transportation funding problem rather than putting a band-aid on this crisis and making public transportation users suffer.  In his article he encouraged residents to voice their views and we can only second that. “There will be a number of public hearings around the region in the coming weeks. Attend. Speak up. Encourage friends and co-workers to do the same,” he said.

See below for a full list of public meetings. For the MBTA website, and a for more info, click here.

Public Meetings:

Photo Credit: zeldablue/flickr

The MBTA is broke – and, for that matter, broken. According to the MBTA, it is facing a $161 million dollar budget gap. So bad is the MBTA’s financial situation that, last year, it resorted to using hairnets to protect subway motors.

Last week, the MBTA demonstrated its commitment to addressing a chronic lack of funding for public transportation by proposing two scenarios that are as narrow as they are unfair. In its attempt to close its funding gap, the MBTA has painted a bleak future for transportation users – especially bus riders. The public is justifiably upset by this news. Not only is the agency proposing to increase fares, but cut service all around.

One scenario, dubbed Scenario 2, proposes a fare increase of 35% (compared to 43% in Scenario 1) and is accompanied by drastic service cuts to all modes of transportation. (Scenario 1 also involves service cuts, though less drastic.) All ferry routes will be eliminated. Commuter rail service after 10 pm and weekend service will be eliminated. The E line (on the Green line) and Mattapan Trolley will both cease to run on the weekends. The most severe cuts, however, affect bus services.

Richard Davey, Secretary of MassDOT, explains that they “are looking at some underutilized service. [They] have some suburban bus carriers that are not well utilized.” In reality, however, Scenario 2 completely eliminates 101 bus routes. Not just during off-peak hours. These bus routes will cease to exist!

I’m not sure “some” is the best word to describe 101 bus routes, listed and illustrated on the map here from a CTPS Report produced for the MBTA. The routes depicted in red will no longer be served if Scenario 2 is passed. The blue routes, which are sparse in comparison, will be maintained. The bus routes to be eliminated are urban and suburban.

I am shocked to see how many bus routes are proposed to be cut and how pervasive the cuts are.

To be fair, the MBTA’s situation is difficult. As CLF and Transportation for Massachusetts said in a statement last week, “any fare increase should be part of a comprehensive financial plan that addresses not only the MBTA’s operating deficit for at least the next several years, but also provides the funds needed to address the T’s maintenance and capital needs without further driving up debt service costs.” Last year, CLF convened a group of national and local transportation finance experts and they came up with a menu of solutions, the Governor and the Legislature could pick from. We need a plan that solves the whole problem, not one that makes it impossible for people to get to work, school, or the doctor.

Under the current proposals, millions of riders will be forced to drive to work or drive to the nearest transit stop. Others who depend on the bus may be less fortunate. Scenario 2 is predicted to impact 38.1 million riders. Will you be one of them?

The announcement of a fare increase is never welcome news for transportation users, and Tuesday’s bombshell from the MBTA that it is proposing a hike of between 35% and 43% across the board come July, accompanied by drastic service cuts, made it a very unhappy New Year around the Commonwealth. CLF, along with our fellow members of Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) — a diverse coalition of Massachusetts organizations working for an environmentally sustainable, reliable and affordable transportation system — oppose a fare increase that by itself can’t begin to fix the T’s financial problems and is inherently unfair.

T4MA objects to the MBTA’s proposal because it attempts to solve a much larger problem of insufficient funding for public transportation exclusively on the back of transit riders, who are traveling in ways that reduce traffic and benefit the environment. Any fare increase should be part of a comprehensive financial plan that addresses not only the MBTA’s operating deficit for at least the next several years, but also provides the funds needed to address the T’s maintenance and capital needs without further driving up debt service costs.

Moreover, a blanket fare increase affecting the bus, subway, and commuter rail system at the same rate takes into account neither the different needs of different transit users nor the varied costs of providing transit for buses, the subway, and commuter rail. The result would be to disproportionately burden the transit users who can least afford it, particularly bus riders.

And it’s not just public transportation that’s chronically underfunded and nearing collapse. It’s our roads and bridges and the entire transportation system in Massachusetts. Likewise, it is not just public transportation that is supported by state and federal government — the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges is heavily subsidized. As both drivers and public transportation users share the benefits of a working transportation system–from easier access to where we need to go to reduced congestion to cleaner air–so must they share the burden of  financing it. Any fare increases must be paired with other revenue-generating mechanisms with a goal of funding a transportation system that works for everyone.

At a MassDOT Board of Directors meeting Wednesday, board members expressed deep concern about the MBTA’s proposal. T and MassDOT officials said that the public’s input will be key in finalizing a plan.

The public will have an opportunity to comment on the MBTA’s proposals in a series of hearings that will be held  around the state from mid-January through March. CLF and other T4MA members will be filing comments and testifying at the hearings to ensure that the interests of our various memberships are addressed in crafting the final proposal. We encourage you to attend a hearing and join us in calling for a plan that pairs any proposed increase with other revenue-generating mechanisms and fairly shares the burden of maintaining and improving our transportation system.

For more on the fare increase and how people are responding, check out some of the media coverage:

Proposed T Service Cuts, Fare Hikes: ‘Not An Easy Choice’ (WBUR)

MBTA Riders Could Face Steep Fare Hikes (AP)

“T” Faces Service Cuts, Fare Hikes (State House News Service)

MBTA Riders Face Fare Hikes as High as 43% (Fox 25 News)