Environment, Energy and Transportation
Clean Air Newsletter
A Quarterly Review of Mobile and Stationary Source Issues
March 2001
Vol. 5 No. 1
Contents
Supreme Court Upholds EPA Air Standards
Supreme Court: No Review of NOx SIP Call Challenge
Diesel Fuel Rule Advances
EPA to Regulate Mercury Emissions
STATE/LOCAL/TRIBAL
Wisconsin to Unveil New Mercury Rules
Colorado Begins Remote-Sensing Program
Arizona Court Denies AFV Tax Credit Review
Arizona Battle of the Brown Cloud
REPORTS
Zero-Emissions Mandate Benefits Questioned by Former DOE Official
Report Compiles Nationwide Smog Data
Government Groups Define Goals for National Air Program
LEGISLATION
Summaries of Selected 2001 Bills
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Feb. 27 that the Clean Air Act (CAA) prevents the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from considering costs in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The court additionally determined that the discretion EPA used in setting the standards does not amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an executive agency. The court rejected, however, EPA's plan for implementing the new ozone standard.
The court's decisions in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (No. 99-1257) and American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. Whitman (No. 99-1426) arose from actions taken by the EPA administrator on July 18, 1997, to revise the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter. American Trucking Associations, Inc., along with the states of Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia, challenged the new standards in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The petitioners alleged that the CAA unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to an executive agency because EPA had interpreted its standard-setting authority in such a broad manner as to provide no "intelligible principal" to guide it in setting the standards. The appellate court agreed in its decision, American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027 (1999). It rejected the petitioners' contentions, however, that EPA should consider the costs of implementing the standards when setting them.
In his opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the CAA requires EPA "to identify the maximum airborne concentration of a pollutant that the public health can tolerate, decrease the concentration to provide an 'adequate' margin of safety, and set the standard at that level. Nowhere are the costs of achieving such a standard made part of that initial calculation." Cost considerations may be considered in implementing the standards, and Justice Scalia pointed out that "it is to the states that the act assigns initial and primary responsibility for deciding what emissions reductions will be required from what sources." He concluded on this point that the CAA "unambiguously bars cost considerations from the NAAQS-setting process, and thus ends the matter for us as well as the EPA."
On the delegation issue, Justice Scalia noted that "the constitutional question is whether the statute has delegated legislative power to the agency," not whether the agency's interpretation of the statute confers unconstitutional authority. The opinion emphasized that the Supreme Court has "never demanded, as the Court of Appeals did here, that statutes provide a 'determinate criterion' for saying 'how much [of the regulated harm] is too much.'" Justice Scalia concluded on this point that "the CAA, which to repeat we interpret as requiring the EPA to set air quality standards at the level that is 'requisite'-that is, not lower or higher than is necessary-to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, fits comfortably within the scope of discretion permitted by our precedent."
The final issue concerned a challenge to EPA's implementation of the new ozone standard. The court ruled that the agency's policy was "unlawful" in its attempt to apply the revised standard to areas that had not yet come into compliance with the previous standard. Justice Scalia determined that EPA's interpretation of the CAA would allow it to require some areas "to meet the new, more stringent ozone standard in at most the same time that Subpart 2 [of the act] had allowed them to meet the old standard." He remanded the implementation policy to EPA "to develop a reasonable interpretation of the nonattainment implementation provisions insofar as they apply to revised ozone NAAQS."
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 5 denied without comment review of a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plan to enforce reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 19 states and the District of Columbia (Appalachian Power Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 00-445). The petitioner was joined by seven states-Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia-in challenging the method used by EPA to calculate the NOx budget-the maximum amount of allowable NOx emissions-for each state. The seven states were among those considered to be "upwind" states whose NOx emissions, primarily from electric utilities, were determined by EPA to contribute to the formation of smog in "downwind" states.
The petitioners were appealing a decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down on March 3, 2000-Michigan and West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-1497-that largely upheld EPA's State Implementation Plan (SIP) call for reductions in NOx emissions in 22 states and the District of Columbia. The appellate court reduced the number of states to which the SIP call would apply from 22 to 19 (Wisconsin, Georgia and Missouri were eliminated). The effect of the Supreme Court's denial is to leave in place EPA's plan to require the 19 states and the District of Columbia to implement measures to reduce NOx emissions by May 31, 2004, and achieve reductions in emissions to specific levels by 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman decided on February 28 to move forward with the agency's diesel fuel rule. The effective date of the rule had been delayed for 60 days pursuant to a January 20 memo written by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. The Bush Administration had decided to review all rules that had not gone into effect at the time it entered office.
Administrator Whitman announced in her press release that "the Bush Administration determined that this action not be delayed in order to protect public health and the environment." She noted that the rule is projected to cut nitrogen oxide (NOx, or smog) emissions in heavy-duty trucks and buses by 95 percent, and particulate matter (soot) by 90 percent, between 2007 and 2010. To achieve that objective, EPA is requiring a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content of diesel fuel from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15 ppm. Sulfur clogs catalytic converters, which reduces their effectiveness in cutting emissions. The rule is generally supported by motor vehicle manufacturers, but opposed by some petroleum companies who fear it will drive up the costs of diesel fuel and put many small refiners out of business.
Once fully implemented, EPA projects that the rule will reduce NOx emissions by 2.6 million tons annually, and particulate matter by 110,000 tons per year. The primary benefits should be seen in reduced asthma attacks, bronchitis cases and respiratory illnesses among children.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner announced on Dec. 14, 2000, that the federal agency will regulate emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants. The notice applies to emissions from coal-fired and oil-fired electric utility plants, not natural gas-fired power plants. EPA will propose regulations by Dec. 15, 2003, and finalize them one year later.
In making the announcement, Administrator Browner indicated that EPA studies, whose findings have been reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, had determined that mercury is the most hazardous air pollutant emitted from power plants, and that coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury air emissions. Exposure to mercury at high levels may cause neurological and developmental damage, especially to children and developing fetuses. Although not necessarily harmful in the air, mercury that is carried by winds and deposited in water can bioaccumulate in fish and increase its composition as it travels through the food chain, eventually reaching humans who eat fish.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) petitioned EPA on February 23 to withdraw its designation of coal-fired and oil-fired power plants as major sources of hazardous air pollutants. UARG is concerned that the designation will require new plants to install costly emission control equipment-maximum achievable control technology (MACT)-before the federal agency sets a standard in three years. UARG and the Edison Electric Institute also filed separate litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the designation.
STATE/LOCAL/TRIBAL
At their April 2001 board meeting, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) will unveil draft administrative rules to control mercury air emissions in the state. The action was initiated in response to a petition signed by state legislators, representatives of environmental organizations, conservation groups, sporting clubs and lake associations received by the WDNR in May 2000, and later amended in September 2000. In addition to the petitioners, Wisconsin electric utilities, independent power producers, the paper industry and industrial and commercial sources of mercury emissions are also involved in the issue.
The September 2000 petition requests that WDNR promulgate administrative rules requiring a 90 percent reduction in mercury air emissions by the year 2010, from utility and government-owned boilers with more than 10 pounds of annual mercury emissions; municipal and medical waste incinerators; chlor-alkali plants and other sources determined to be significant. The utility industry favors a phase-in schedule requiring a 50 percent reduction in ten years.
Since the 1970s, WDNR has monitored mercury in the environment including the sampling of mercury in the tissue of fish. WDNR has sampled over 1,000 water bodies in the state (there are approximately 15,000 total) and has found elevated levels of mercury in fish in one out of every three water bodies tested. To warn people about the related risks associated with mercury in fish, WDNR has issued fish consumption advisories for 341 contaminated water bodies in the state. As of November 2000, 40 states-including nearby Minnesota and Michigan-have fish consumption advisories in place as a result of mercury contamination.
WDNR's proposed mercury reduction strategy is an emissions cap and trading program-expected to be the first of its kind in the nation. Under this program, total allowable emissions will be capped at a specified level. The cap will be lowered every five years until the final target is reached. The department has stated publicly that it favors a market-based cap and trading approach over the traditional regulatory approach. WDNR says it provides sources with flexibility in how to achieve the emission reductions while ensuring that the desired environmental outcome is achieved. The department also supports a strategy that will allow sources to meet their emissions cap through activities that result in mercury emission reductions from "uncapped" sources. This includes small source reduction projects such as collecting mercury from dental offices and laboratories and "beyond compliance" reductions from large sources such as paper mills.
Specifically, WDNR staff will unveil specific measures in the draft rules according to the following:
• The percentage reductions and a phased schedule for achieving the reductions;
• A methodology for determining baseline emissions levels;
• An emissions trading and banking system;
• A provision that will allow WDNR to grant variances- provided that the variance does not result in undue harm to human health or the environment-such as deadline extensions or alternative emission limits, if it determines that compliance with the reduction requirements is not technologically feasible, jeopardizes electric reliability or causes unreasonable hardship.
• A provision requiring that WDNR, by the end of 2007, submit a report to the board that evaluates the mercury reduction requirements in relation to electric reliability, scientific and technological developments, and federal regulatory activity. Based on this review, WDNR staff will recommend adjustments to the reduction requirements, if appropriate. At that time, WDNR will also evaluate the impacts of emissions trading on local water quality and if necessary, take corrective action.
At their April 24-25 meeting, the WDNR board will decide whether to authorize the proposed rule to go on to a public hearing. The draft rule will be posted on their website prior to the board meeting, at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/air/reg/mercury/rule.htm.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is beginning a roadside emissions check program for motor vehicles in two northern Colorado counties-Weld and Larimer. The RapidScreen program uses remote sensing to analyze carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. The results are tied to the vehicle's license plate and sent out to the vehicle's owner. If a vehicle passes the test twice, the department will send a notice in the mail along with a bill for $15.00. Motorists can take the test as many times as they want by locating the RapidScreen trucks and driving past them. Environmental Systems Products, a Connecticut company, operates the tests.
Pending legislation before the Colorado General Assembly-House Bill 1091-would extend the clean screen testing program to the Denver Metro area in January 2002, at a cost to motor vehicle owners of no more than $25.00 (the current fee for the centralized vehicle inspection/maintenance program is $24.25).
On March 20, the Arizona Supreme Court refused, without comment, a petition by motor vehicle owners to overturn amendments to the state's 2000 legislation-Senate Bill 1504-that provided a tax credit equal to the full cost of converting a vehicle to run on alternative fuels, plus an additional rebate of 30 percent of the entire vehicle's value (see story in NCSL's Clean Air Newsletter, vol. 4, no. 4, November 2000). The changes, enacted during a December special session, limit the credit and rebate to owners who have contractual obligations for the purchase of a vehicle. Originally tabbed to cost the state between $3 million and $10 million, the program ballooned to a potential cost of $700 million in October. The loss in revenue to the state as a result of the amendments is now projected to be $170 million. It will be made up from revenue in the state's rainy day fund, which will in turn be reimbursed by general fund appropriations over the next several years.
In March 2000, Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull formed a group of 32 stakeholders to consider and provide recommendations on improving visibility in the "Valley of the Sun"-or the Phoenix metropolitan area. The "Brown Cloud Summit," which included Arizona Senators Linda Aguirre and Rusty Bowers, and Representatives Carolyn Allen and Leah Landrum, studied what the brown cloud is, its health effects, its trends over the last several years, and examples of relevant pollution control efforts from around the country. A draft report of recommendations was released for public comment and a final report was released on January 16.
The summit found that the brown cloud, caused by emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, vehicle and off-road mobile sources, dust and wildfires, has indeed become worse. It examined health studies that attribute between 250 and 1,000 additional deaths per year in the Phoenix area to these emissions.
The summit's recommendations, many of which would require legislative activity, include three tracks. First, a survey in the winter of 2001-2002 of citizens and visitors to establish what level of haze is acceptable would result in a visibility index. Haze could then be reported daily and measured against the index, publicized, and trends could be measured.
Second, a voluntary emissions banking program for stationary sources could provide a long-term market-driven strategy to assist in alleviating the brown cloud. As part of this recommendation, the group suggests that legislation establish a board of stakeholders to design and oversee the project, and provide funding and authority for the Department of Environmental Quality to operate the program.
Finally, the summit recommended several voluntary and mandatory short-term control measures to battle the brown cloud and improve public health. One suggested voluntary measure is to add visibility pollutants to the county air quality alert system. Many others relate to diesel vehicle repairs and upgrades. Several suggested mandatory measures would necessitate legislative action, including: a ban on leaf blowers, diesel truck idling restrictions and roadside testing, and expansion of the legislatively defined "high growth" area that is already subject to air quality measures that would improve visibility and public health.
REPORTS
Resources for the Future published an article in the Winter 2001 issue of its magazine Resources-"Zero-Emission Vehicles: A Dirty Little Secret"-that questions the benefits of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) recent decision to stick to its 2003 mandate that 10 percent of motor vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) or clean enough to be considered "partial" ZEVs. Written by Howard Gruenspecht, a resident scholar at Resources for the Future and former director of Economic, Electricity, and Natural Gas Analysis at the U.S. Department of Energy, the analysis concludes that "the mandate will make the air in California dirtier rather than cleaner for the foreseeable future."
The basis for Gruenspecht's conclusion is found in economics-the costs of producing ZEVs are much higher than the price of conventional cars. He expects Californians to hold on to their older cars much longer as a result, and "while the consumer response [to higher prices] is small in terms of numbers of vehicles, the emissions impacts will be substantial, because old cars have much higher emission rates than new ones." Gruenspecht criticizes CARB for "focusing exclusively on emissions from new vehicles and ignoring emissions due to the market response" of higher prices. He contends that the gain of lower emissions from new cars (post-2003) will be offset by a loss in greater emissions from older (pre-2003) motor vehicles. To help consumers deal with higher costs and the state to achieve its emission-control objectives, Gruenspecht suggests that California "could provide increased tax subsidies to the purchasers of electric cars, an action that could reduce emissions increases by moderating price impacts in new car markets and the resulting shift away from new cars."
A recent report compiles and summarizes smog data for 2000 from across the nation. Smog is created by two pollutants-nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which come from power plants and other industry, and vehicles. Health risks of smog may be potentially severe, and-citing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-crop damages from ground level ozone in the Southeast and Midwest cost farmers as much as $1 billion annually.
The report, written by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Energy Foundation and the Nathan Cummings Foundation.
Data was collected from the state air pollution control agencies themselves, for both the one-hour standard as well as the new eight-hour standard (consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's February 27 opinion-see article on page 1-EPA is going ahead with the new standard and is directed to reconsider its implementation plan).
According to the data, there were at least 4,006 exceedances of the eight-hour standard for smog in 39 states and the District of Columbia, with at least 388 of the one-hour standard in 26 states. The states with the highest number of exceedances of the eight-hour standard were California, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. States with the highest number of exceedances of the one-hour standard were Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey and Texas. Measured another way, the states with the most "unhealthy days"-days when at least one monitor recorded an exceedance-were California, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Arizona and South Carolina.
The report's recommendations for reducing smog include cleaning up power plants; exploring advanced technologies for cars, trucks and buses; and encouraging the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.
Many states offer ozone reporting and forecasting on their web sites, generally through their departments of environmental protection, or go to EPA's "AIRNOW" page at http://www.epa.gov/airnow/.
The "Joint Statement on Vision and Goals" for the National Air Program was recently issued, in recognition that "a shared vision is essential so that the different governments can work together efficiently to achieve common ends, communicate easily and without misunderstandings, and present a consistent set of priorities and objectives to the public, stakeholders, and federal and state lawmakers."
Groups involved in developing the statement were the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA), the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC), the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
While strides have been made in air quality improvement over the last several decades, more work-perhaps even harder work-is still necessary. There is a greater need for public involvement as well as increased intergovernmental collaboration, the report states. Also, increases in tribal government assumption of air quality authority on tribal lands requires extra efforts on the part of state and federal governments to work with tribal governments to maintain some cohesiveness in the national air program.
Of primary importance, shared goals will need the support of legislatures, stakeholders and the public. The goals revolve around several themes. First, air quality management systems should be based on effectively measured results-using resources to address the most significant problems first-and assigning "responsibility and accountability to the level of government best suited for the job." Second, innovative, more holistic approaches will be necessary to address small, diverse sources for which traditional regulation is ineffective. Strategies will be needed to influence behaviors and lifestyles, particularly relating to transportation and growth. Multi-pollutant, public education, voluntary and incentive-based strategies are included in this goal.
Third, sound research and comprehensive information (monitoring and long-term data collection) are imperative to effective air quality management, particularly as this information is increasingly available to stakeholders and the public through the internet. Fourth, the capacity to respond to new challenges will be required of all the governmental partners. Such challenges include pollution from small sources, indoor air quality, international cooperation on global issues, regional impacts and the development of successful tribal air programs.
Finally, a stronger intergovernmental partnership is crucial to the success of the national air program. The report lists the components of this goal: mutual respect and the importance and role of each government, including understanding the uniqueness of tribal cultures; early involvement of all governments in EPA's planning stages; clearly defined roles and responsibilities-based on priorities, capabilities and resources-for each government; and "clear rules of engagement" for dealing with conflict.
The report concludes with the proclamation that a set of "high-priority implementation actions" have been developed by the partners to signal their commitment to working towards these goals. Through a Clean Air Partnership Committee, "senior managers" will continue the dialogue consistent with this report and formalize their role in steering this multi-government process.
LEGISLATION
Summaries of Selected 2001 Bills
|
State |
Bill Number |
Status |
Category |
Description |
|
Arizona |
HB 2123 |
Passed House, In Senate |
Alt Fuel |
Allows public sector fleets to meet 100 percent of their alternative fuel/clean burning fuel mandates requirements with biodiesel, up from the previous 50 percent. The bill defines Biodiesel as a mono-alkyl ester-based oxygenated fuel that meets the standards for California diesel fuel as adopted by the California Air Resources Board. |
|
Arizona |
SB 1249 |
Passed Senate, In House |
Alt Fuel |
Continues, for five years, the program to grant monies from the Arizona Clean Air Fund (ACAF) for the conversion of heavy-duty diesel vehicles to operate on an alternative fuel and increases the amount of money available from the ACAF for these grants. Eliminates all other uses of monies in the ACAF except for specified grants for constructing natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas refueling systems at gas stations around the state and to reduce the emissions test fees paid by motorists in certain areas. Repeals the ACAF and the in lieu emissions test fee from and after June 30, 2006. |
|
Connecticut |
SB 833 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Reduces consumer dependency on fossil fuels by exempting low-emissions, high-mileage per gallon hybrid and alternative-fuel powered vehicles from the sales and use tax. |
|
Georgia |
HB 261 |
Passed Both Houses |
Alt Fuel |
Provides a $2,500 tax credit for the purchase or lease of a new low-emission vehicle (that uses an alternative fuel) and a $5,000 tax credit for the purchase or lease of a zero emission vehicle that is registered in the State of Georgia. A tax credit of up to $2,500 or the cost of conversion is also allowed for the conversion of a conventionally fueled vehicle to a converted vehicle that is registered in the State of Georgia. An 'Alternative fuel' is methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures containing 85 percent or more by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal derived liquid fuels; fuels other than alcohol derived from biological materials; and electricity, including electricity from solar energy. |
|
Georgia |
SB 109 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Requires local boards of education in certain counties (pop. greater than 100,000) to develop a motor vehicle fleet plan which encourages the use of alternative fuels in school district owned vehicles. The timetable shall reflect a graduated schedule with at least 75 percent of the total fleet operating on alternative fuels by December 31, 2012, and each year thereafter; Allows owners of alternative fuel vehicle stickers to drive in high occupancy vehicle lanes at any time, regardless of occupancy level, without penalty. |
|
Hawaii |
HB 1345 |
Passed House, In Senate |
Alt Fuel |
Encourages use of alternative fuels by adjusting the fuel tax to reflect the energy content of alternative fuels and reducing the fuel tax rate of alternative fuels for several years. The legislature finds that vehicles, which operate on fuels with less energy per gallon, must use more gallons of fuel to travel the same distance; therefore, several alternative fuels are put at a disadvantage on a cost-per-mile basis and would bear a disproportionate share of the highway tax burden. |
|
Illinois |
HB 0002 |
Passed House |
Alt Fuel |
Amends the Motor Fuel Tax Law by providing that, beginning on July 1, 2001, no tax shall be imposed on alternative fuels used in motor vehicles operating on the public highways as well as recreational type watercraft operating on the waters of Illinois. Creates the Alternate Fuel Infrastructure Advisory Board, which will develop procedures for the awarding of grants for the building of E85 blend, propane, and compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facilities within a specified area. |
|
Massachusetts |
HB 2273 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Provides certain tax incentives to encourage the use of alternatively fueled vehicles. |
|
Massachusetts |
HB 3651 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Exempts from the sales tax the sales of motor vehicles with zero emissions. |
|
Massachusetts |
SB 1680 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Provides tax incentives for the purchase and use of clean, alternative transportation fuels; a credit shall be allowed against the tax imposed in an amount equal to fifty percent of the incremental cost of purchasing a new alternative fuel vehicle and fifty percent of the cost of converting a petroleum fueled motor vehicle to an alternative fuel vehicle. The bill also allows a tax credit for an owner of a facility in an amount equal to forty percent of the cost of constructing any alternative-fuel refueling facility in Massachusetts, including the cost of purchasing fueling equipment, charging equipment and other materials necessary for the facility to fuel alternative fuel vehicles and the labor costs associated with constructing the facility and installing such equipment. The allowable credits shall not exceed $5,000 per vehicle or $50,000 for a single alternative fuel facility or $100,000 for a facility dispensing multiple alternative fuels. |
|
Missouri |
HB 423 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Creates a state income tax credit for taxpayers who purchase zero emissions vehicles and super-ultra-low emissions vehicles; for tax years 2002 to 2008, this bill establishes an income tax credit for eligible taxpayers (based on address) of the lesser of $3,000 or 25% of the cost of purchasing or leasing a certified super ultra low or zero emissions vehicle. The bill places a $5 million dollar cap on the program. |
|
New Mexico |
SB 18 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Exempts dedicated alternative fuel vehicles and gas-electric hybrid vehicles from the motor vehicle excise tax; lowers alternative fuel excise tax rates for certain periods; sets requirements for the purchase by state agencies and post-secondary education. |
|
New York |
AB 1400 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Provides for an exemption from the sales and use tax for the retail sale of zero-emitting vehicles, flexible fuel vehicles and alternative fuel vehicles |
|
New York |
AB 1755 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Provides for a deduction for increased depreciation for alternative fuel vehicles powered by electricity, electric vehicle charging stations and related facilities |
|
Oregon |
SB 520 |
Passed Senate, In House |
Alt Fuel |
Eliminates sunset dates on alternative energy system property tax exemptions and alternative energy devices, energy efficient appliances, alternative fuel vehicles, alternative fuel devices and energy conservation loan tax credits. Exempts fuel cells from property tax for tax years beginning on or after 7/1/02. |
|
Vermont |
HB 151 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Exempts alternative fuel vehicles from the motor vehicle purchase and use tax, and encourages the development of infrastructure for these vehicles. |
|
Vermont |
SB 21 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Exempts alternative fuel vehicles from the motor vehicle purchase and use tax, and encourages the development of infrastructure for these vehicles. |
|
Washington |
HB 1030 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Provides incentives to reduce air pollution through the use of clean alternative fuel vehicles; Employers who are taxable shall be allowed a credit for the purchase or lease of new clean alternative fuel vehicles as defined if the vehicles are used in connection with business operations. The credit shall be based upon vehicle tonnage (i.e. Less than 12,000 pounds gross: 25 percent of cost or $5,000, whichever is less. Over 12,000 pounds gross: 25 percent of cost or $20,000,whichever is less.) |
|
Washington |
SB 5492 |
In Committee |
Alt Fuel |
Provides incentives to reduce air pollution through the use of clean alternative fuel vehicles. |
|
Illinois |
HB 0885 |
In Committee |
Electric Generation |
Amends the Environmental Protection Act. Makes legislative findings and declarations concerning air pollution levels from fossil fuel-fired electric generating plants. Requires by 12/2/02, promulgation of rules establishing a schedule of limits on the quantity of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions and caps on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide emissions each year for fossil fuel-fired plants. |
|
Illinois |
SB 106 |
In Committee |
Electric Generation |
Creates the Illinois Clean Air Standards Act. Provides air emission standards for coal-fired generating units on or after January 1, 2006. Total annual sulfur dioxide emissions shall not exceed 3.0 pounds per megawatt hour, and total annual sulfur dioxide emissions shall not exceed 3.0 pounds multiplied by the average annual megawatt hours generated by the units in the calendar years 1996 through 1998. Nitrogen oxide emissions shall not exceed 1.5 pounds multiplied by the average annual megawatt hours generated by the units in the calendar years 1996 through 1998. |
|
Illinois |
HB 603 |
In Committee |
Electric Generation |
Creates the Illinois Clean Air Standards Act. Provides air emission standards for coal-fired generating units on or after January 1, 2006. Total annual sulfur dioxide emissions shall not exceed 3.0 pounds per megawatt hour, and total annual sulfur dioxide emissions shall not exceed 3.0 pounds multiplied by the average annual megawatt hours generated by the units in the calendar years 1996 through 1998. Nitrogen oxide emissions shall not exceed 1.5 pounds multiplied by the average annual megawatt hours generated by the units in the calendar years 1996 through 1998. |
|
Kansas |
HB 2010 |
Passed House, In Senate |
Electric Generation |
Imposes a time limit of ten years on the property tax exemption for all real and personal property that is used predominantly to produce and generate electricity or heat energy in a given tax year through the use of renewable energy resources or technologies. The definition of "renewable energy resources or technologies" includes waste incineration. Also provides a ten-year property tax exemption for property used exclusively in the production by a Kansas producer of agricultural ethyl alcohol. |
|
Missouri |
SB 374 |
Waiting for 3rd Reading |
Electric Generation |
Establishes a program of air pollution emissions banking and trading. |
|
New Hampshire |
HB 284 |
In Committee |
Electric Generation |
Establishes caps for emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and carbon dioxide by existing fossil fuel burning steam electric power plants and permits the banking and trading of emissions reductions to achieve compliance with the caps. |
|
New York |
AB 3778 |
In Committee |
Electric Generation |
Requires submission of evidence of approved plan for emissions reduction of existing major electric generating facilities in the pre-application construction process. |
|
Oklahoma |
SB 440 |
Introduced |
Electric Generation |
Provides certain tax credits for construction, operation and production of electricity from certain zero-emission facilities (those that utilize renewable resources and such production results in no pollution or emissions that are or may be harmful to the environment, as certified by the Department of Environmental Quality). |
|
Virginia |
HB 2759 |
Passed House, In Senate |
Electric Generation |
Requires the State Corporation Commission to consider the impact of nitrogen oxide emissions, if any, from any proposed electric facility when approving construction of electric facilities. |
|
Virginia |
SB 1030 |
In Committee |
Electric Generation |
Provides that any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a one-mile radius of each other that (i) generate, transmit, or distribute electric services and (ii) emit or have the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxides shall be considered a "major stationary air pollution source" for the purposes of the Board's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program and the Board's operating permit program established pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. The bill also requires that applicants for a permit to modify or construct a major stationary source demonstrate that they have obtained nitrogen oxides emission reduction credits, allowances or offsets in a ratio of 1:2:1 from a source within the Commonwealth prior to the issuance of a permit. |
|
Virginia |
SB 1386 |
Passed Both Houses |
Electric Generation |
Requires that the Air Pollution Control Board's banking and trading credits or allowances regulations applicable to the electric power industry foster competition in the industry, encourage construction of clean, new generating facilities, provide set-asides for new sources of emissions of five percent for the first five years and two percent per year thereafter, and provide an initial allocation period of five years. |
|
New Hampshire |
HB 758 |
In Committee |
General Fuel |
Requires that regular grade gasoline sold in this state shall not exceed one percent total ethers by volume as of October 1, 2001, that mid-grade gasoline sold in this state shall not exceed 3 percent total ethers by volume as of October 1, 2001, that premium gasoline sold in this state shall not exceed 5 percent total ethers by volume as of October 1, 2001, and that all gasoline sold in this state shall not contain more than 0.3 percent total ethers by volume as of January 1, 2003. |
|
Connecticut |
HB 6197 |
In Committee |
Mercury |
Reduces mercury from the environment by requiring the disclosure of mercury content in products, phasing-out certain mercury products, banning the disposal and requiring the recycling of mercury and mercury-added products, requiring the labeling of mercury products, creating a separation and collection system for mercury products, restricting the use and the sale of elemental mercury, reducing mercury emissions, and other measures. |
|
Hawaii |
HB 1254 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Requires that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline be no greater than 0.15 volume per cent by January 1, 2004, with the phased-in reduction commencing July 1, 2001, at no greater than 0.4 volume per cent. |
|
Illinois |
HB 0059 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Phases-out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to protect Illinois groundwater; provides that after January 1, 2002, motor fuel may be sold or offered for sale only if no MTBE has been introduced on or after 1/1/02 into the retailer's storage tank from which the motor fuel is dispensed. |
|
Illinois |
HB 0171 |
Passed House, In Senate |
MTBE |
Creates the MTBE Elimination Act. Provides that the General Assembly finds that MTBE presents substantial environmental risks, while ethanol provides a reasonable alternative as a fuel additive. Provides that beginning 3 years after the effective date of the Act, no person shall use, manufacture, or sell MTBE as a fuel additive or transport fuel containing MTBE in Illinois. |
|
Kentucky |
HB 134 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Amends the Kentucky Statutes to ban the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline. |
|
Massachusetts |
HB 2647 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Prohibits the sale of motor fuels containing methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). |
|
New Hampshire |
HB 755 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Requires the department of environmental services to undertake a groundwater investigation, including testing of public water supplies for MTBE and other ethers. Requires the department of environmental services to conduct a sampling program of gasoline being sold within the state, and prohibits the commissioner and department of environmental services from permitting the use of MTBE or other ethers when administering any federal program. |
|
New Jersey |
AB 1667 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Phases-out of methyl tertiary butyl ether as a component of any gasoline sold in the State. |
|
New Jersey |
AB 1923 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Prohibits the sale of any gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether or other ether oxygenates. |
|
New Jersey |
SB 527 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Prohibits the sale of any gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether or other ether oxygenates. |
|
New York |
AB 4172 |
In Committee |
MTBE |
Creates the MTBE Public Health and Environmental Protection Act of 2001; creates a temporary task force on the assessment of the human health and environmental risks and benefits, if any, associated with the use of MTBE, as compared to ETBE, TAME, and ethanol; appropriates five hundred thousand dollars for such commission; enacts provisions in the public service law relating to public water systems and MTBE. |
|
South Dakota |
SB 161 |
Signed by Governor |
MTBE |
This law prohibits the sale, offering for sale, or storing of petroleum products containing or treated with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). |
|
Washington |
HB 1015 |
Passed House, In Senate |
MTBE |
Prohibits methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a gasoline additive. |
|
Arizona |
SB 1317 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Eliminates "in lieu of emissions inspection" fees in two Arizona counties, as well as any emissions test for vehicles that are 5 years old or newer. Currently, owners of vehicles that are 5 years old or newer have the option of either completing the required emissions test or paying an "in-lieu" fee. Under current statute the in-lieu fee is $25 in Maricopa County and $9 in Pima County. These fees are paid with the vehicle registration and are deposited in the Arizona Clean Air Fund (ACAF). |
|
Colorado |
HB 1091 |
Passed House, In Senate |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Authorizes operation of the Clean Screen Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection Program (the use of remote sensing technology for monitoring vehicle emissions) in designated areas of the state. Such implementation will enhance Colorado's ability to claim credits in the state implementation plan for the reduction of pollutants achieved as a result of the clean screen program. |
|
Connecticut |
HB 5227 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Repeal and otherwise eliminate the existing motor vehicle emissions testing program. |
|
Connecticut |
HB 5340 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Requires a current emissions inspection for a motor vehicle registration. |
|
Connecticut |
HB 6329 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Requires that emissions testing be done once every four years for cars manufactured in or after 1998. |
|
Connecticut |
HB 6468 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Saves "needless consumer expense" by exempting newer motor vehicles (not more than five years old) from the state's emissions inspection program. |
|
Connecticut |
HB 6480 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Exempts motor vehicles that are not more than two years old from the state's emissions inspection, to save drivers money, to reduce the lines at emissions stations and to reduce pollution around emission stations. |
|
Connecticut |
SB 188 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Exempts newer motor vehicles (not more than four years old) from the state's emissions inspection program when the state's emissions testing contract is renegotiated, effective July 1, 2002. |
|
Connecticut |
SB 955 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Exempts motor vehicles not more than five years old from the state's emissions inspection program, in order to create a more efficient emissions system by exempting motor vehicles that are not more than five years old from the emissions inspection program. |
|
Kentucky |
HB 2759 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Amends Kentucky Statutes relating to definitions governing vehicle emission testing, to define a vehicle as a car or truck five (5) model years and older for the purpose of exempting cars and trucks four (4) model years and newer from being required to undergo emission testing; provide that a car or truck four (4) model years and newer is exempt from emission testing regardless of the number of times legal title and registration to the car or truck have been transferred within that four (4) year period. |
|
Kentucky |
SB 48 |
Passed Senate, In House |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Amends various sections of the Kentucky Statutes to prohibit the use of vehicle emission control programs; makes conforming changes; repeals Kentucky Statutes relating to a state authorized comprehensive vehicle emission control program; repeals Kentucky Statutes relating to compliance with a vehicle emission control program when registering a motor vehicle. |
|
New Jersey |
AB 1893 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Repeals the "Federal Clean Air Mandate Compliance Act," thereby eliminating the statutory authority for implementing the enhanced inspection and maintenance program for motor vehicles. |
|
Ohio |
HB 63 |
In Committee |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing |
Prohibits the renewal of all existing contracts for the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, and prohibits the entrance of the state into any new contracts for automobile emissions inspection programs upon the expiration of the existing contracts for that program. |
|
Wyoming |
HB 25 |
In Committee |
SIP |
Provides for the submission to the legislature of a state implementation plan or similar commitment; provides for circumstances under which a state implementation plan or similar commitment may be submitted to the federal government; and provides for an effective date. |
 Cleanair newsletter page
Visitor counts for this page.
|
