For a question as big, complicated and important as what role new imports of Canadian hydropower should play in New England’s energy future, it takes more than two lines in a press release to answer it. Indeed, we at CLF have been working on this issue for years. So, it’s worth explaining in a little more depth how a new initiative announced this week could help the region come up with a sound answer that serves the public interest. The “could” is crucial, because the initiative follows in the wake of a series of poorly conceived transmission (Northern Pass) and subsidy (Connecticut and Rhode Island energy legislation) proposals that ignored key questions and advanced narrow interests.

What we know: the major Canadian utilities want to sell more power into our markets and have been executing plans to build massive new hydropower facilities and to develop new transmission corridors into and through New England.

What we don’t know: are new large-scale hydropower imports the right move for New England? In particular:

• Will new imports supply cost-effective power to the region – i.e., with economic benefits that exceed impacts?
• Will new imports actually help reduce the region’s greenhouse gas emissions?
• Will new imports diminish the impetus for renewable energy projects that are based in New England?
• Will new imports displace the dirtiest power on the regional grid?
• Will new imports drive more and more development of costly and environmentally damaging hydropower projects in Canada?
• How many and what kind of new transmission projects do we need (if any), and are the community and environmental burdens and benefits of those projects shared equitably?
• What are the energy alternatives to new imports and are they a better solution to the region’s energy needs?

On Monday, five New England states announced that they would be initiating a process that could lead to a large procurement of Canadian hydropower. Almost all the details remain to be worked out, with the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) – an organization that represents the shared interests of New England state governments in electric energy policy – managing the effort. NESCOE also is implementing the New England states’ initiative to procure renewable energy from qualifying sources, to satisfy the goals of the states’ Renewable Portfolio Standard programs.

As I indicated in the press release on the initiative, CLF is optimistic that NESCOE’s procurement process could help New England define the right role for new hydropower imports. In fact, if done well, the procurement process could provide a version of the regional assessment and strategic plan for hydropower imports that CLF and others have been advocating for more than two years. What would “done well” mean?

• The process must include, up front, a sound, technical analysis of the region’s long-term need for new hydropower imports in the context of the many alternatives, including renewable energy, distributed generation, and energy efficiency efforts that exist here in New England.
• The process must be carefully structured to assure a level playing field that properly values the most intelligent strategies to meet the states’ climate and economic goals, with no special preferences for particular companies and no ratepayer-financed windfalls.
• The process must honestly, rigorously, and credibly analyze the potential climate benefits of new imports, in light of the unequivocal science that large-scale hydropower projects and especially new facilities result in significant greenhouse gas emissions and that most net reductions will likely be over the long term, not the short term.
• The process must fairly and equitably allocate properly-accounted greenhouse gas emissions impacts among the participating states, as states like Massachusetts and Connecticut look to make good on their legal obligations under their Global Warming Solutions Acts to reduce emissions.
• The process must acknowledge and avoid rewarding the considerable environmental damage associated with large-scale hydropower development in Canada, especially the additional dam projects that new imports may facilitate.
• The process must disavow the early, troubling signs that it could be used as a vehicle specifically to promote Northeast Utilities’ current, fatally flawed Northern Pass proposal through New Hampshire.
• The process needs to bring New Hampshire to the table, as a willing and empowered participant.
• The process must assure that new imports complement, not undermine, renewable energy development in New England, in order to assist in the beneficial development of wind and other renewable projects and to help the states in meeting their existing renewable energy goals and mandates.
• If new transmission solutions are needed, it is essential that the process ensure that developers pursue the lowest-impact technologies and routing options.

As I said, it’s complicated. But there’s a real opportunity to get it right, and CLF is committed to ensuring we make that happen.

Since I last checked in, the comment period for Article 89 in Boston began and is now well underway. Article 89 is a proposed new section of the Boston zoning code that encourages and creates opportunities for commercial urban agriculture citywide. This is an important first step to expanding urban agriculture, and CLF is excited about the possibilities for our local food system. There are some aspects of Article 89, however, that we would like to see changed before implementation of the final version.  We’ll be at the neighborhood meeting in Jamaica Plain tonight to express these views, and hope to see you there!

If you are interested in urban agriculture in Boston, this is your moment to get involved. The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) is holding a series of public meetings throughout Boston’s neighborhoods to allow for residents and interested parties to express their opinions. The first public meeting, which was for the downtown neighborhood, was held two weeks ago at Suffolk Law School, and drew a great response from the community – urban farmers, residents, and other interested parties voiced a number of thoughtful questions, comments, and concerns.

While CLF is overall very supportive of Article 89, there are several areas we would like to see revised before the proposed language becomes final. In particular:

• Farm stands: The proposed guidelines on farm stands are too restrictive and prevent easy access to fresh, local fruits and vegetables in the city. The recommended rule prohibits farms in some sections of the city from dedicating space on their property to sell produce without going through a burdensome permitting process. This prevents neighbors from reaping the benefits of healthy food grown in their neighborhood.

• Composting: The BRA suggests limiting the area used for composting on urban farms to 5% of the farm’s area. This percentage is unrealistically small and restrictive.

• Comprehensive Farm Review (CFR) Process: The CFR process, which is a new permitting process designed just for larger urban farms, will be challenging for farmers and is difficult to understand. The draft states that the purpose of the CFR is to ensure that Urban Farms are designed in a way that takes into account the needs and concerns of the surrounding neighborhood – which we support. However, the BRA does not provide any guidance to farmers about how proposals will be evaluated. The BRA should consider modifying the CFR process to be less burdensome to farmers, and should issue agency guidance to clarify how the CFR process will work.

• Community Input: Some communities have expressed concerns about bringing farming to their neighborhoods. The community meetings this summer are a useful tool for gathering feedback, and the BRA should be sure to respond to concerns from affected communities. However, this comment period should not be a one-off – the BRA should ensure that community input is heard and addressed on an on-going basis.

We appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge our concerns regarding draft Article 89 and hope that affected communities continue to engage in thoughtful discussion at neighborhood meetings. A list of neighborhood meetings dates and locations can be found here. We hope to see you there!

Shanice Wallace is a Posse Scholar working at CLF as a summer intern. 

As more people are aware and involved in addressing environmental issues, the fight for a greener Boston becomes a shared Bostonian concern. Mayor Menino soon will be leaving Boston after 20 years. More than my entire lifetime!  During that time, he has done a lot to turn Beantown into Greentown, as he likes to say. Now, Boston has the opportunity to build on existing programs to reduce our environmental impact and become a greener city. Boston’s next mayor will have the opportunity to lead the next phase of Boston’s environmental revolution. The new mayor must take this opportunity to improve our neighborhoods by addressing climate change, clean energy and the environment.

Please save the date and plan to join Conservation Law Foundation and other environmental, clean energy, sustainability and innovation leaders for a Boston Mayoral Candidates Forum on Energy, the Environment and the Innovation Economy on July 9th at 12 pm at Suffolk University Law School. At this forum, the mayoral candidates will be given a chance explore a variety of topics related to community, development, jobs, sustainability, and livability in our city.

Urban agriculture is taking off in Boston, from neighborhood gardens and markets to City Hall. Since January 2012, staff from Boston Mayor Menino’s office, along with a number of farming advocates, urban agriculture experts, and neighborhood representatives have met monthly to draft a new section of the Boston Zoning Code, Article 89.  Article 89 addresses the growing interest in urban agriculture – and specifically commercial urban agriculture – by expanding opportunities and reducing local regulatory barriers in Boston.

A comprehensive draft of the proposed rezoning has been completed, and Article 89 is now available for review.  The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) has arranged a series of neighborhood meetings in the city to discuss the draft Article.  A list of neighborhood meeting times and dates can be found here.  The first meeting is tonight at Suffolk Law School  (120 Tremont Street, Boston) from 6-8 PM.  Please join CLF in coming to this meeting, or another meeting in your neighborhood, to show your support for urban agriculture in Boston!

Urban agriculture increases access to affordable, healthy food, builds community connections, and fortifies our ties to the local environment.  At CLF, we are excited about the opportunity to help improve urban agriculture in the city of Boston, and thus support moving Article 89 forward.  We do have some concerns with specific provisions in the Article and appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge these concerns at neighborhood meetings.  We will post more regarding Article 89 here, including more detail on our concerns, as the summer community process moves forward – we encourage you to check back here for more information in the coming months.

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!

Earth Day, which coincides with the blossoming of Spring across New England, is an opportunity for us to heal.  Image: timsackton @ flickr

In the Boston area we are grieving, and we are rattled. The shocking events of last week have taken their toll on all of us. They have been devastating for the families and friends of those killed and injured.  We are relieved and grateful, but underneath we are in some pain. We all need to heal.

Today is Earth Day – a day to appreciate the marvelous planet that sustains us. In some years, my attention on Earth Day has focused on what our planet needs from us – in the form of activism, problem-solving, and protection. In fact, that’s my focus almost every day.

But this Earth Day, this year, I for one will focus on what the Earth does for us – emotionally – because we in the Boston area need it badly. In New England, Earth Day coincides with the full blossoming of Spring – the extraordinary annual resurgence of the irrepressible and wonderful life force embedded in our world. Trees, shrubs and plants come into full bloom, songbirds trill magically, and animals of many species respond to the call. If we stop and look, it amazes and rejuvenates us. If we pause and touch, breathe in the wonderful earthy smells of Spring, and deeply appreciate our planet, it heals us.

Today, in the greater Boston area – and across New England – I highly recommend we all stop, look, touch, smell and appreciate the remarkable planet that is our home. It’s a very natural and easy thing to do. It will help us heal.

And we all need to be healed, and to be strong, to meet the challenges – all of the challenges – that we face. And we shall meet them. Count on it. Just like Spring.

At a time when our legislators are facing critical decisions on transportation financing, their ability to properly assess the plans on the table is being hampered by confusion about the different plans’ price tags and where the money is going to come from.

Factions are forming around inaccurate characterizations of the different transportation plans, so before the Senate begins its debate tomorrow and key decisions get made, we thought it would be helpful to lay it out apples to apples.

Following is a simple way to keep the numbers organized. For each plan, we added up the amount to be spent on transportation over the next five years and divided it by five. This gives annualized numbers that are comparable. Here are the average amounts per year for the first five years of the three plans:

• Governor Patrick’s Plan: $858M/year
• House Transportation Bill: $504M/year
• Senate Transportation Bill: $602M/year

There are still significant differences on how these amounts would be raised and the assumptions about growth underlying them. Still, to the extent that the public, the press and the legislature chooses to focus on the size of the plans as a matter of debate, it’s important to be sure we’ve at least got that part straight.

Our bottom line? Bigger is better if we want a working transportation system for all of Massachusetts. Underfunding transportation again is the worst possible outcome. It will still cost taxpayers money; they just won’t have anything to show for it. If you are one of the majority of Massachusetts voters who believe a working transportation system is worth paying for, please call your state senator today.