Since Governor Patrick proposed his plan to raise revenue for transportation and education, a lot of time has been spent on discussing the merits of the revenue sources he has chosen. In comparison, relatively little time has been devoted to how such money should be spent. The great American humorist Evan Esar once wisely said, “The mint makes it first, it is up to you to make it last.”

Transportation for Massachusetts has worked closely with Representatives Tricia Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield, Representative Carl Sciortino of Medford, Senator Katherine Clark of Melrose, and others to draft legislation that addresses this side of the coin. In addition, Transportation for Massachusetts helped develop a bill that could prepare Massachusetts for better ways to raise revenue for transportation in the future. In total there are currently three great bills pending that Transportation for Massachusetts helped develop.

Here they are:

An Act relative to transportation investment, regional fairness, and accountability to state policies (HD 3119 introduced by Rep. Farley-Bouvier, Rep. Sciortino, and S. 1670 by Senator Clark) will guide any transportation investments the legislature and the governor agree on to build a financially stable, safer and more modern transportation system in every corner of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This bill would:

• Eliminate the unsustainable practice of paying for day-to-day operational costs of our highway system by borrowing through state bonds (currently, MassDOT is spending roughly $1.75 for every $1.00 borrowed because of the interest on the bonds);
• Require that an equitable portion of transportation revenue benefit all regions throughout the Commonwealth;
• Set aside funding for Gateway Cities and environmental justice neighborhoods to plan and design projects that are eligible for federal transportation money. This would allow these communities to invest in projects that residents care most about—such as fixing roads and bridges, improving Regional Transit Authorities, and investing in sidewalks, bike lanes, and other projects that promote transit oriented development and affordable housing;
• Require that transportation projects comply with existing policy goals and objectives that reduce pollution, improve public health, improve land-use coordination and meet our mode shift goals;
• Require that transportation investments over $15 million be analyzed for their impact on our economy, environment, public health, low-income communities and communities of color, pedestrian and bike access, and cost of operations;
• Ensure that sufficient money is available for critical maintenance and safety investments; and
• Support the state’s existing mode shift goal to triple trips made on public transportation, biking and walking across the Commonwealth.

An Act relative to contract assistance for Central Artery debt of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (H. 3141 introduced by Rep. Sciortino) proposes a way to address the crippling debt load at the MBTA by paying down the debt related to the Central Artery Project. The legislation would require that the Commonwealth provide contract assistance from the Commonwealth Transportation Fund for the Big Dig debt held by the MBTA. This money couldn’t come out of funds that are already set to support investments at the MBTA or RTAs.

An Act relative to the establishment of a vehicle mileage user fee pilot program by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (H. 3142 introduced by Rep. Farley-Bouvier and Rep. Sciortino) proposes a voluntary vehicle miles traveled pilot program to identify alternatives and supplements to the gas tax. The pilot seeks 1000 volunteers from the entire Commonwealth to evaluate ways to protect data collected, ensure privacy, and vary pricing based on time of driving, type of road, proximity to transit and vehicle fuel in order to help Massachusetts prepare for the future of transportation revenue.

We are grateful to the legislative sponsors of these bills who share our commitment to creating and sustaining a 21st-century transportation system that serves all people in communities across thes state.

You can also find this post on the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) blog.

My son’s third grade class is looking for “juicy” adjectives, and I found one.  Again and again, journalists are describing the Massachusetts Governor’s 21st Century Transportation Plan, which proposes to raise revenue for our chronically underfunded transportation system, as “ambitious.” Not the kind of “ambitious” your mother admired in you when you were a college student, but the “ambitious” that implies hubris. As in asking for a lot. Maybe even too much. Insisting that the Governor’s plan is “ambitious” immediately gets people thinking about how they can cut it down to size. So before the knives come out, having carefully reviewed the plan and understanding the real needs of our transportation system well, let’s take a look at what’s really in there:

• The plan proposes to increase Chapter 90 funding for local street maintenance and associated projects from $200 to $300 million per year.  The Massachusetts Municipal Association, however, just recently estimated the actual need to be $562 million per year.
• Likewise, the Governor’s plan only dedicates 23% of the capital to strategic expansion projects, the rest is all maintenance of roads, bridges and transit infrastructure, replacement of old trains and buses, capacity upgrades, and other costs of the current system.
• More importantly, only 4% of the money set aside in the Governor’s plan for operations is related to strategic expansion projects.
• The plan also assumes that good and necessary transportation projects which have long been recommended by transportation planners and economists, such as the Red-Blue Connector and the Urban Ring, would be left unfunded over the next ten years.

I don’t know whether “reasonable” or perhaps “conservative” would be juicy enough adjectives for my son and his friends, but they would surely be a more accurate description of the Governor’s transportation plan.

When Governor Deval Patrick stood before the Legislature and the people of Massachusetts last week to offer a bold proposal to raise $1 billion per year to fund critical investments in transportation, he struck a skillful balance between the pragmatic and the visionary, appealing to us as both taxpayers and investors in a thriving Commonwealth.  The Governor asked his constituents to “Imagine if you could depend on a bus or subway that came on time, was safe and comfortable… if the Green Line ran to Medford and the commuter rail ran to Springfield,” among other improvements. He made sure to emphasize that everyone would benefit from a 21^st century transportation system, whether they drive a car or take public transit, from one end of the state to the other. And he proposed that everyone pay their share, according to their ability.

It’s a good proposal and a badly needed one. The question now is how to get the buy-in we need to make it happen. Not surprisingly, it’s not too hard to find political opponents and citizens of the Commonwealth to speak out against the proposed tax increases. Who wants a tax increase? It’s like asking someone whether they want a root canal. But if you ask a person in that special dental pain whether she would be willing to pay a fair price to make it go away – indeed to be able to enjoy biting into a delicious crunchy apple —she would almost certainly agree that her investment would be worth it.

With Massachusetts’ transportation system so woefully underfunded for many decades, we are all in that special pain. Crumbling bridges, decaying train cars, vanishing bus routes and unfinished projects are daily reminders that we’ve got a problem that needs to be fixed. And we all have our own version of that delicious apple:  our mode of transportation that gets us where we need to go, when we need to go, safely, reliably and affordably. The problem is that people want the pain to go away – indeed, they want the apple! – but, politicians fear, they don’t want to pay for it.

In fact, a MassINC poll conducted last year showed that 62% of people surveyed said that they would be willing to pay more than they are paying now to improve the transportation system – up to a point. So, maybe we should be asking people not whether they agree with the Governor’s proposal to raise taxes, but rather, whether they agree that a working transportation system is a worthwhile investment. More frequent trains. Easy connections between distant parts of the state. Fast access to the airport. And why stop there? What about cleaner air, less congested roads and more vibrant communities with thriving businesses and the jobs they bring? Let’s talk about the benefits, like the Governor started to do, and help the savvy taxpayer see how her investment will pay off – now and in the future. Our legislators need to hear from the transit champions. C’mon…we know you’re out there.

Not a moment too soon, the Massachusetts Legislature has enacted important new clean energy legislation that will maintain the state’s momentum in advancing clean renewable energy solutions like wind and solar energy. We breathed a sigh of relief as the final favorable votes were taken on July 31 – the very last day of the Legislature’s formal 2-year session – sending to Governor Patrick’s desk An Act Relative to Competitively Priced Electricity. The legislation includes key provisions that are essential for ensuring Massachusetts reaches its renewable energy targets. And this highly welcome development comes in the nick of time, just as existing programs are hitting their limits.  This means we can avoid a solar slowdown and keep the wind blowing behind the state’s clean energy revolution.

CLF celebrates the new Massachusetts energy bill together with the Green Communities Act Coalition (GCA Coalition) – a diverse coalition of business, labor, environmental, clean energy, low-income and other stakeholders who advocate for strong clean energy policies in Massachusetts. The GCA Coalition, which is co-led by CLF and the New England Clean Energy Council, came together in Fall 2011 in the face of attacks by clean energy skeptics who wrongly suggested that Massachusetts cannot afford clean energy. Since then, the GCA Coalition has worked together to bring forward facts demonstrating that clean energy is one of the most promising areas of economic growth, and that it is delivering considerable economic benefits. (See here for a helpful myth v. fact sheet.)

The new energy legislation, which some have dubbed “Green Communities Act – Part II”, builds on the tremendous success of the 2008 Green Communities Act, which is delivering hundreds of millions of dollars of net economic benefits while dramatically boosting the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy. The new Energy Bill will ensure continued growth of the state’s renewable energy programs with an even greater focus on affordability. This is a win for the environment, public health, jobs and the economy.

So, what exactly will the new Massachusetts Energy Bill do?

Central to the Energy Bill are provisions that will extend two critically important renewable energy programs: long-term renewable energy contracts and “net-metering”:

• The Energy Bill requires electric utilities to work together to sign additional long-term (10-20 year) contracts for the purchase of renewable energy to meet 4% of total customer demand.

 » This is in addition to the long-term renewable energy contracts the utilities already have signed under the existing 2008 Green Communities Act (which established a 3% minimum) — bringing the total amount of renewable energy long-term contracts to at least 7% of the electricity that is consumed in Massachusetts.

» Contrary to some confusing media reports, this requirement does not change the overall amount of new renewable energy that electric utilities must purchase each year (currently at 7% of all electricity consumed, and increasing by 1% per year). Instead, it only increases the extent to which utilities buy that energy using long-term contracts instead of spot-market purchases or alternative compliance payments.

» Long-term contracts are a win for renewable energy projects and customers alike.  Such contracts have become essential for getting new renewable energy projects built because the developers can show lenders that they will be able to re-pay their loans. This translates into lower financing costs, and those savings are passed on to electric customers.

» The Energy Bill generally requires utilities to jointly solicit and enter long-term renewable energy contracts, and competitive bidding will be required. Based on prior experience in Massachusetts, land-based wind energy projects are likely to be particularly successful in securing long-term contracts under the new law. In addition, the mechanism for joint solicitation should provide opportunities for larger projects to compete to sell their power to all Massachusetts customers.

» This expanded renewable energy long-term contracting program is likely to be an important complement to the agreement reached on July 30 by the New England Governors to work together to implement a regional renewable energy purchasing commitment.  Massachusetts already is ahead of the curve and well situated to help lead the region to success!

• The Energy Bill also will significantly expand existing renewable energy “net metering” programs, providing an important boost to smaller scale clean energy projects throughout Massachusetts:

»  “Net-metering” makes small-scale renewable energy installations more affordable by ensuring that homeowners and small businesses will be compensated fairly – at retail rates – for excess power that they deliver into the electric grid.

»  The Energy bill doubles the existing net-metering program limits, up to 6% of total electricity consumed in Massachusetts (3% from publicly owned facilities, 3% from privately owned).

»  The bill also allows anaerobic digestors – projects that convert organic waste to energy – to qualify for the program for the first time, together with small wind and solar projects.

These provisions are hallmarks of a critically important clean energy bill that will maintain clean energy momentum as we enter the summer doldrums.

The Energy Bill also is noteworthy for what it does not include:  e.g., significant clean energy program rollbacks that were championed by skeptics, and provisions that risked locking in new fossil fuel fired generation.  Whew!

So please join us in applauding the Massachusetts Legislature and the Patrick Administration for advancing an important and balanced Energy Bill that will keep clean energy growing!

This spring, clean energy is sprouting up all over Massachusetts. The Commonwealth is now in a terrific position to further solidify its promising trajectory and show the nation how it’s done – so long as we take a few critical actions.

By necessity, CLF and others continue to play serious defense. This includes directly confronting the region’s dirty and uneconomic coal plants, and partnering with local advocates to fend off new power generation facilities that would increase air pollution. This work continues to be an essential part of what we do.

But equally important is our work to advance clean energy solutions. This work is about “keeping the lights on” while reducing the pollution that contributes to climate change and worsens asthma attacks and other health impacts. In the wake of some energizing recent events, let’s take a moment to reflect on the progress we’re making in Massachusetts on the clean energy solutions side of the equation and what we need to do to keep it up.

Governor Patrick Fires Up the Troops

In a rousing and inspired clean energy address before over 200 clean energy leaders last week, Governor Patrick touted Massachusetts’s long list of recent clean energy achievements. It’s an impressive list, including a suite of forward-looking clean energy laws enacted in 2008: the aptly named MA Green Communities Act, Global Warming Solutions Act, and Green Jobs Act. These policies not only are reducing power plant pollution, they also helped spur the clean energy sector to become one of the few bright spots in the recent recession – with more than 60,000 new clean energy jobs in MA alone. At a time when families are struggling, this is indisputably good news.

Particularly inspiring was the Governor’s connecting of clean energy dots: as he noted, we can replace all of Massachusetts’ remaining dirty and uneconomic coal-fired power plants with clean offshore wind. This isn’t pie-in-the-sky futuristic thinking. We already have the tools we need to get the job done. With further contributions from other renewable energy resources, we can redirect the billions of dirty fossil fuel dollars Massachusetts currently sends out of state and instead re-power the Commonwealth with clean alternatives that promote local jobs and improve public health.

Reinforcing that everyone can and should be part of the solution, Boston Bruin Andrew Ference joined the Governor in touting the Massachusetts green revolution. Ference leads by example: he conserves energy by riding a bike, walking or taking the “T” to get around, recycling and composting. All of these simple and healthy alternatives reduce energy waste and associated energy impacts. And the Commonwealth must continue to bring the same dedication and ferocity to the fight for clean energy as Ference does to the rink.

Toughest environmentalist around Andrew Ference May 30, 2012

Cape Wind Hearings Reflect Major Shift

Further evidence of the clean energy revolution in Massachusetts came through a series of Department of Public Utilities (DPU) public hearings in May. The hearings provided opportunities for the public to comment on a 15-year contract for the sale of some of the Cape Wind offshore wind energy project’s output to NSTAR electric. Even at the hearing on Cape Cod, where some opposition long has simmered, Cape Wind supporters vastly outnumbered opponents. The shift more strongly in favor of clean energy was palpable. Dozens of people lined up, often waiting for hours to say that they are willing to pay a modest premium for clean energy from Cape Wind.

One notable dynamic that was not reflected in media reports: an overwhelming number of young people and parents spoke in support of purchasing Cape Wind’s clean power. It’s about choosing a thriving future.

Massachusetts is on a roll. But we cannot afford to stall out just as we’re on the crest of the clean energy wave. Here’s what we need to do now:

• Enact MA Green Communities Act Part II. The 2008 MA Green Communities Act has been a resounding success, propelling Massachusetts to the head of the nation with respect to reducing energy waste, saving Massachusetts hundreds of millions of dollars (and counting), and giving a much-needed boost to the deployment of clean, locally available renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. But some of the Act’s modest programs soon will be maxed out. Fortunately, the MA Senate recently took action through Senate Bill 2214 to build upon the 2008 Act’s key renewable energy programs. Now, we look to the MA House of Representatives to take action to advance these key clean energy measures to the Governor’s desk by July 31.

• Fully implement the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act, including the adoption of regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act requires Massachusetts DEP to adopt regulations to keep Massachusetts on track to meet its clean energy and climate objectives. Among other advantages, such regulations will provide clear signals to the burgeoning market for clean energy alternatives, and will ensure that global warming pollution is reduced gradually over time. Despite the law’s clear mandate, DEP blew the January 1, 2012 deadline for adopting these critically important regulations. To ensure MA stays on track to meet its 2020 target, it’s essential that DEP take action to adopt smart, effective regulations without further delay.

• Get Cape Wind over the finish wire. More than a decade in the permitting and environmental review process, this project is primed to go forward and begin delivering huge amounts of clean power. CLF will continue to advocate before the Massachusetts DPU for approval of a 15-year contract for Cape Wind to deliver 27.5% of its output to NSTAR Electric customers.

There’s no question that Massachusetts has made tremendous progress on clean energy in the past few years. But as the Governor wisely noted in his clean energy address last week, “winners don’t stand still.” So, Massachusetts, let’s keep moving!

Catch up with the latest news from TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. TalkingFish.org aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• November 30: “There’s something wrong with this picture” – CLF’s Peter Shelley blogs about Governor Patrick’s recent request for $21 million in federal fisheries disaster assistance for Massachusetts and how that request not only lacks sufficient evidence to show a $21 million loss, but also threatens to divert attention and scarce funding from the real problems – and opportunities for improvement – in the region’s fisheries.
• December 2: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, December 2″ – A roundup of the latest news that will interest TalkingFish.org readers. This week: more opinions on stability and groundfish management, a funding request for acoustic-based fish stock assessments, oyster die-off from ocean acidification, and the Nature Conservancy’s work to create sustainable fisheries in the Pacific.

CLF praised the Patrick Administration today for announcing its new regulations on biomass energy for Massachusetts. CLF has been instrumentally involved in the state’s  debate over biomass, helping to bridge the gap between environmental interests, forest advocates and policymakers in the state. CLF and others have fought for science-based rulemaking that would allow certain biomass projects to receive state subsidies only if they contribute to the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals while ensuring protection of its valuable forestry resources. Read the proposed regulations in their entirety here.

“We are encouraged that the state has looked to the latest science and public input to craft these nation-leading regulations and to identify more responsible policies for biomass energy in Massachusetts,” said CLF Massachusetts Director Sue Reid. More >

The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the New England Fisheries Management Council met yesterday and today in Boston to review the report developed by the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI) in support of Governor Patrick’s request to the U.S. Department of Commerce for emergency relief for Massachusetts fishermen. The MFI report concluded that recent fishery management actions had produced losses on the order of $21 million dollars for Massachusetts fishermen and that catch limits could be raised without compromising the health of the fish populations or the conservation objectives of the management plan.

The SSC is a distinguished, international panel of scientists, some of whom have been assessing fish populations in New England for decades. Specifically, the SSC was asked to review several positions taken by the MFI report:

1.      Whether the methodologies used to calculate the biological reference points and the catch limits represented the best available science;

2.      Whether the methodology chosen to set catch limits resulted in an overly conservative approach because of “double counting” of scientific uncertainty;

3.      Whether there were other aspects of the fish modeling, such as the presence of so-called “retrospective patterns” in the models,  that resulted in overly cautious adjustments of the catch recommendations;

4.      Whether there were any recommendations for additional information that could be used in the future to improve the assessment process.

The SSC did not agree with any of the science-related assertions in the MFI report. In their discussion, they noted a number of places where the conclusions were based on faulty premises or ignored widely recognized issues that the scientists who had developed the original catch limit recommendations had addressed when they set the limits.

They concluded that the stock assessment and catch specification process was fully consistent with best scientific practices, that there was no “double counting” of uncertainty or risk, and that the annual catch limits could not be increased without increasing, in some cases significantly, the risk of meeting the conservation objectives of the New England Council and the federal statute that controls harvest, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In their brief economic review, the SSC rejected the analysis and conclusions from the MFI report. Aside from noting that it was questionable to draw economic or social conclusions from a new management plan that had only been in effect for six months, the SSC noted that the report misrepresented $21 million of theoretical losses as actual losses and did not account for the revenues from the numerous other species that groundfishermen pursue in addition to the groundfish species. A number of SSC members also indicated that comparisons to the 2009 fishing year were not proper since the scientists had all concluded that the 2009 catch limits were set significantly too high for many species. The SSC agreed by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year, and provided no evidence of an economic crisis.

The SSC did acknowledge that there was always room for improvement in fish stock assessments and that additional research on both the assessment methodologies and a range of social and economic effects should be considered in the future.

The MFI report has now been rejected as a basis for emergency action or even immediate reconsideration of existing harvest levels by the Department of Commerce, a national scientific meeting of fisheries experts, and by the New England SSC.  It is time to move on and focus on continuing to improve the management system in New England so that we can restore healthy fish populations that support thriving and diverse regional fishing communities as quickly as practicable.

In New England the issue of fisheries management is a serious topic as it involves serious questions of science, economics, healthy ecosystems, an iconic part of New England’s culture and the very real issue of many people’s livelihoods. Still, the public debate around fishing and fisheries management in New England can often be a lot like arguing baseball – the home team is usually deemed more virtuous than the rest of the league and many facts, figures, data and theories are promoted to defend that assertion. These debates can happen between any combination of folks with an opinion or a perceived stake in the issue – trawlers and gillnetters, one port versus another, one state versus another, commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen, fishermen and regulators, and fishermen and conservationists, among others. While baseball rivalries can be pretty heated, the overwhelmingly vast majority of fans are able to understand that, after all, it’s just a baseball game. Most times.

The thing is, fishermen, regulators or conservationists involved in fisheries issues in regions outside of here often consider the debate and behavior in New England to be much more contentious. For some reason we seem to treat each other more rudely and with such a lack of civility that it is noted across the country. The public debate and political hyperbole over the implementation of the most recent groundfish management plan is a clear example. Despite years of hard work and robust debate by the New England Fishery Management Council and a near unanimous vote to approve the “sectors” plan (final vote 16-1) for managing species like cod, haddock and flounder, the current public debate resembles a fist fight over the results of last year’s World Series. Working the refs, rallying the crowd and harassing the other team’s fans has become a larger part of the story than the game, as it were.

So, when federal Commerce Secretary Gary Locke issued a plain, legal, factual and well reasoned response to deny Gov. Patrick’s request to raise the catch limits through “emergency action” we felt the Secretary deserved an honest “thank you.” CLF and nine other conservation groups sent him a  letter saying so. Thank you Secretary Locke. We think you made an important, rational and sober decision that will help move New England forward.