EBC Breakfast ProgramMEPA Director Alicia McDevitt

Thank you to Our Sponsors

Thank you to our Hosts

New EBC MembersNew EBC Members

Agresource, Inc. - NSTAR Green Street Systems - Pierce Atwood LLP

Mirant - Techlaw, Inc.- McCauley Lyman LLC ReEnergy Holdings LLC - CLF Ventures, Inc.

Environmental Risk Sciences, LLP

E.L. Harvey & Sons, Inc. - Clean Power Now

P.J. Keating Company – Trident EnvironmentalCostello Dismantling Co., Inc

Upcoming EBC Programs

June 30: DEP Southeast Regional MeetingJune 30: DEP Southeast Regional Meeting

July 10: Ocean Management ConferenceJuly 10: Ocean Management Conference

July 17: Dam Program: Dam RemovalJuly 17: Dam Program: Dam Removal

July 23: RI Networking Cruise July 23: RI Networking Cruise

July 28: NH Chapter Portsmouth Harbor CruiseJuly 28: NH Chapter Portsmouth Harbor Cruise

August 20: 15th Annual Summer Garden PartyAugust 20: 15th Annual Summer Garden PartySeptember 18: Best Places to Work TributeSeptember 18: Best Places to Work Tribute

The Evolving Role of MEPA

Alicia McDevitt, DirectorMassachusetts Environmental Policy Act OfficeAssistant Secretary for Environmental Review

Executive Office of Energy and Environment Affairs

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) June 2009 Update

for the Environmental Business Council

Alicia McDevittAssistant Secretary and MEPA Director

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

June 26, 2009

Reference InformationFor copies of all reference materials (GHG Policy,

Integrated Review Policy, etc.), visit the MEPA website:

http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/

For a copy of this presentation, contact:

Alicia McDevittAssistant Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs and MEPA Director617-626-1132alicia.mcdevitt@state.ma.us

OVERVIEW

• Snapshot of the Office in June 2009

• Update on last year’s initiatives

• Where is MEPA going in 2009/10?

• GHG Policy and Protocol

MEPA Office June ‘09 Snapshot• MEPA as barometer of economic activity:

– ENF filing numbers year to date 2009 are approximately 25% below recent averages

• 2006 - ytd June = 116 (236 total for the year)• 2007 – ytd June = 103 (217 total for the year)• 2008 – ytd June = 105 (195 total for the year)• 2009 – ytd June = 75

– This only accounts for new project filings (new ENFs)– Many projects completing ongoing review– Fluctuates a great deal month to month

Major Private Projects Under Review• Major projects proposed this year:

– Plymouth Rock Studios– Patriot’s Place expansion– Prudential Center expansion– Government Center Garage redevelopment– Boston Harbor Garage redevelopment

• Ongoing projects continuing/completing review in 2009:– The Commons at Prospect Hill, Waltham– Waterfront Square at Revere Beach– Seaport Square– Pioneer Valley Energy Center– Others to be mentioned

Major Public Projects Undergoing Review

• State and Federal funding sources have led to an uptick in public projects:– Funding sources include 2008 Transportation Bond Bill;

Accelerated Bridge Repair Bill; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Federal Stimulus)

• Major public projects under review in ‘09– Public Transit Projects: South Coast Rail, Urban Ring, Green

Line Extension, Roxbury-Dot-Mattapan BRT proposal (ARRA)– Accel. Bridge Projects: Longfellow Bridge repairs; Whittier

Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project– Numerous MHD Roadway Projects

Other Projects in Litigation or in the News

• Stoneham Executive Center/Langwood Commons

• Weaver’s Cove Offshore LNG

• Westwood Station

• Greenfield Biomass

• Russell Biomass

• Cape Wind

• Lantana Art. 97 Land Swap, Randolph

Update on Last Year’s Policy Announcements

• Public Benefit Reviews

• Integrated MEPA Review/Permitting Policy

• E-MEPA

• GHG Policy and Protocol

Public Benefit Regulations: 301 CMR 13.00

• Following “An Act Relative to the Licensing Requirements for Certain Tidelands” (Ch. 168 of Acts of 2007), EEA and MEPA developed regulations to implement the Public Benefit Review procedures

• Final regulations became effective December 28, 2008

• Guiding philosophy: Honor mandate to consider public benefit, but don’t make it a new burdensome permitting process

Process:• Public Benefit Reviews conducted by MEPA

Office on behalf of the Secretary• Public comment solicited through the MEPA

process• Public Benefit Determination (PBD) mandatory

for EIR/Waiver projects• For ENF-only projects, Secretary has discretion

to require a Public Benefit Review– Discretionary review expected to be rare

Standards:• A Public Benefit is presumed for water

dependent uses• For non-water dependent uses, Secretary will

apply the statutory criteria: • PURPOSE AND EFFECT• IMPACT• ENHANCEMENT• PUBLIC TRUST RIGHTS• COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION• PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

• Secretary will apply a preference for on-site amenities

Integrated MEPA/Permitting

• Final Policy Issued June 2008 for Pilot Program

• Outgrowth of Patrick Administration Permit Streamlining Efforts

• Participation is Voluntary

• Goal is to Incorporate Permitting Level Detail Into MEPA Review Process to Shorten Overall Permitting Time

Eligibility:

• Reserved for Projects that are Consistent with Public Policy Goals

• Examples:– Transit-Oriented Developments– Public Infrastructure Projects– Brownfields Redevelopments– Renewable Energy Projects– Projects in 40R Districts or EOHED “Growth

Districts”– Projects with Significant GHG-Reduction

Commitments

Process:

• Apply for determination of eligibility• Inter-agency pre-filing meeting• File ENF for public review and comment• Certificate on ENF to set forth scope of

EIR/permitting information• Interagency/public coordination during DEIR review• FEIR to contain high level detail sufficient for

permitting decisions • FEIR Certificate to contain detailed Section 61

Findings to be used as permit conditions• Project proceeds to final permitting

Experience To Date:• Hamilton Canal District

– 1.8 million square feet of development: residential (767,000 sf, 623 units),  commercial (424,000 sf), retail (54,000 sf), parking garage (627,000 sf – 980 spaces)

– Master Plan development to occur over years– Requires permits and review/approvals from:

MassHighway, MassDEP, MHC, DHCD, and for Article 97 disposition, from DCR, DCAM and legislature

– Subject to MEPA GHG Policy and Protocol– MEPA filings: EENF - April 2008, DEIR -December 2008,

FEIR – March 2009 (FEIR Certificate – May 15 th, 2009)

• Other projects may go forward

• Considering whether to continue the pilot

E-MEPAMEPA enters the 21st Century!

… slowly.

Major components:

1. Updated/revised website

2. Electronic submission of MEPA review documents (ENFs, EIRs, NPCs)

3. On-line document review

4. Electronic submission of comments

Where is MEPA Going in 2009/2010?

• Project Review in the New Green Economy– Biomass, Wind, and other controversial green

projects• Wind Siting Reform• Oceans Planning

– Projects receiving federal stimulus funds under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)

– Green Building Initiatives (next slide)

Other Patrick Administration Green Building Initiatives

• Large Scale Retail Solar and Efficiency Measures Task Force

• State Building Code upgraded to IECC as of March 2009

• BBRS adoption of a “Stretch” Building Code (municipal opt-in)

• Green Communities Program• Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force

Global Warming Solutions Act• Chapter 298 of the Acts of 2008 (effective 11/5/08)• Creates the new Chapter 21N: The Climate

Protection and Green Economy Act• Requires GHG Emissions reductions:

– 10% to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020– 80% below 1990 levels by 2050

• Establishes greenhouse gas registry and reporting for large emitters and retail sellers of electricity

• EOEEA Secretary to establish a 2020 statewide emissions limit and plan by January 1, 2011

• Climate Protection and Green Economy Advisory Committee recently established

Global Warming Solutions Act• Act also amended the MEPA Statute, effective 11/5/08

• Section 7 of the Act amends Section 61 of Chapter 30 of the General Laws to provide that:

• In considering and issuing permits, licenses and other administrative approvals and decisions, the respective agency, department, board, commission or authority shall also consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts, including additional greenhouse gas emissions, and effects, such as predicted sea level rise.

Evolution of GHG Policy– Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol:

• GHG Policy first issued in draft in mid 2007• “…’damage to the environment’ as used in MEPA

includes the emission of greenhouse gases caused by Projects subject to MEPA review.”

• Final Effective Date of the Policy October 31, 2007• Policy revised again in February 2009 in response

to statutory change under GWSA• Now applies to ALL projects that require an

Environmental Impact Report, unless emissions are considered de minimis

Policy Requirements

– Requires consideration of feasible measures to “avoid, minimize or mitigate” GHG emissions, as required by MEPA statute

– Requires quantification of:• Emissions

– Direct emissions from stationary sources i.e., boilers, heaters, combustion turbines, generators, etc.

– Indirect emissions from energy consumption i.e., purchase and consumption of electricity, steam, or cooling

– Indirect emissions from transportation i.e., travel by employees, vendors, customers and others

• Impact of Mitigation on Emissions

Policy Requirements

– For Stationary Sources:• “Baseline” building=code compliant

– Note, Massachusetts State Building Code recently revised to meet incorporate the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)

• Preferred Alternative• “Lower” GHG Building

– For Mobile Sources:• include workers, deliveries, customers

Policy Requirements

– What It Does Not Do…Create new thresholds for reviewCreate numerical limits on GHG emissionsCreate numerical targets on GHG reductionsExpect absolutely accurate projections

– Commitments to emissions-reduction mitigation to be enforceable through Section 61 Findings and self-certification requirements

– Analysis focused on CO2

Projects Reviewed to Date

• 45 projects have been reviewed in accordance with the GHG policy

• 13 projects subject to a quantitative GHG analysis in accordance with the policy have completed MEPA review

• Stationary source GHG reductions have ranged from 1% to 33%

• Mobile source GHG reductions have ranged from 0% to 22%

Breakdown of Project Types

• 20 mixed-use projects• 9 large-scale, “big-box type” retail projects• 4 Comprehensive Wastewater

Management Plans (CWMPs)• 3 energy-related projects (power plants &

pipelines)• 3 transportation-related projects• 3 residential (condominium and single-

family dwellings) projects• 3 miscellaneous projects

Standard Mitigation Measures• Roof and wall insulation• Energy-efficient windows (glazing, insulated)• Energy-efficient HVAC systems, boilers, generators• Day lighting, cool roof design, building orientation• Energy efficient lighting; motion-sensor activated• EnergyStar appliances• Water efficient fixtures, minimal irrigation• Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

measures– Intersection improvements– Transportation managers, form or join a Transportation

Management Association (TMA)– Provide on-site services (ATM, food services, etc.)– Pedestrian and bicycle improvements

“Next Step” Mitigation Measures

• Construct rooftop or on-site solar photovoltaic (PV) systems

• Incorporate combined heat and power (CHP) technologies

• Purchase of renewable/green power

• Third-Party building commissioning

• Building energy management systems

• Preparation of a tenant manual to promote sustainable practices (operations, transportation, etc.)

• Use of transit subsidies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips

• Expand access to public transportation from project site

Lessons Learned/Advice to Practitioners

• Integrate GHG reduction planning at early stage of project design

• Do the analysis! – Show your work– Do not dismiss mitigation alternatives out of

hand

• Meet with the MEPA Office

• Be creative

Lessons Learned/Challenges In Implementation

• MEPA conceptual/planning review vs. need for building design details

• Projects other than commercial real estate

• Developer/Landlord/Tenant issues– How to allocate responsibilities

• Mitigating mobile source emissions– TDM, siting review challenges

• Financial Feasibility as a MEPA Issue

Where Do We Go From Here?• In light of:

– (a) change to MEPA’s statutory authority via the Global Warming Solutions Act and

– (b) feedback from the regulated community expressing concerns about the GHG review process,

• GHG Policy revisions now under consideration• Work Group convened in February ’09• Goals/Objectives of the GHG Policy remain

unchanged

Topics Discussed

• Case-by-case analysis vs. emissions/reduction target or performance standard

• Project baseline

• 3rd mitigation case analysis requirement

• Methodology

• Categories of emissions to be quantified

Topics Discussed, cont’d.

• Enforceability of commitments/ self-certification/

permit requirements

• Revisions to the review thresholds

• How MEPA should review projects in light of predicted effects of climate change

Response Panel

Panel Moderator: Peggy Briggs, Managing Partner, Epsilon Associates

Panel Members:

Douglas McGarrah, Foley Hoag, LLP

Leo Pierre Roy, VHB

Barry Fogel, Keegan Werlin, LLP

EBC Breakfast Program

MEPA Director Alicia McDevitt