Environment, Energy and Transportation Program
Clean Air Newsletter
A Quarterly Review of Legislation and Air Quality Issues
October 2004
Vol. 8, No. 2
 (printer-friendly version)
To read portable document format (.pdf) files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.
IN THIS ISSUE
STATE ACTIONS
California Greenhouse Gas Reduction Rules
New Jersey Governor Proposes CO2 Regulations
Hybrid Carpool Lane Incentives Approved in California
Legislature Looks to Cap Port Pollution in Southern California
Los Angeles Mayor Attempts to Stabilize Port Emissions
Colorado Ozone Early Action Compact
FEDERAL ACTIONS
Truck-Stop Idling Focus of National Attention
Air Quality in National Park Subject of Scruntiny
Federal and State Officials Explore Options for CO2 Storage
MEETINGS
STATE LEGISLATION
STATE ACTIONS
In 2002, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1493 requiring the state Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks (see September 2002 Clean Air Newsletter for details). On September 24 of this year, ARB adopted regulations aimed at significantly reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons (gases linked to climate change) over the next 11 years.
While the regulations have not yet been approved (they need to undergo legislative review and final approval by the Office of Administrative Law), seven eastern states may also consider them. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont have consistently followed California’s lead on vehicle emission standards and may do so again. Including California, more than one-fourth of the U.S. car market could be affected by the new standards if they become law.
The proposed regulations would affect 2009 to 2016 model year vehicles. Automakers would be required to reduce tailpipe gases by an average of 29 percent. The rule outlines two fleet average emission standards: one for passenger cars and small sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and trucks, the other for heavier SUVs and trucks. Auto manufacturers may earn credits that may be banked and traded between the two emission categories for the early introduction of vehicles that achieve the standards and for vehicle air conditioning systems that result in lower levels of hydrofluorocarbons. Alternative compliance options are available, as long as the vehicles achieve equivalent reductions. ARB estimates that the additional cost per vehicle will range from $367 to $1,064 when the regulations are fully implemented. The auto industry may sue the state in federal court, claiming that the rules will require improvements in fuel economy that only Congress can regulate under federal law.
On September 16, outgoing New Jersey Governor James McGreevey announced the state’s intention to designate carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is now responsible for the inclusion of CO2 in several air pollution control rules. In addition, DEP will publish a proposed rule on October 18 determining that CO2 is responsible for significant adverse impacts on human health and the environment. Following publication there will be a 60-day public comment period. New Jersey is one of nine member states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that is working to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants through a cap and trade program.
The California Legislature approved, and the governor signed, a measure that will allow some hybrid vehicle drivers access to the state’s carpool lanes even when driving solo. Federal approval is necessary for Assembly Bill 2628 to take effect (carpool lanes are built using federal funds), but authorizing language is contained in pending federal transportation legislation. If federal approval is granted, hybrid vehicles that get at least 45 miles to the gallon will have access to the carpool lanes beginning next year.
Hybrid vehicles meeting the standards would be given a special identifying decal by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The number of decals would be capped at 75,000. The hybrid vehicle law would sunset in 2008.
The bill attracted national attention when Ford Motor Company CEO, William Clay Ford, Jr., lobbied against it, claiming the bill would benefit Japanese car makers over American companies because only Honda and Toyota currently meet the mileage standard. Supporters of the measure, however, called it a message to American car companies to manufacture cleaner running vehicles.
On August 25, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2042 that seeks to cap air emissions from ships, trucks and equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Little more than a month later, on September 29, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. The measure, which is believed to be the first in the nation, would have required the country’s largest seaport complex, and the biggest single emissions source in the Los Angeles region, to keep its air emissions at or below 2004 levels. The bill does not tell the ports how to control pollution, but requires emissions to be held steady as the ports expand. There are current plans at both ports to add hundreds of acres of container terminals due to an expanded amount of cargo expected by 2025.
The bill is drawing nationwide attention due to the rapid expansion of many ports on the East, West and Gulf coasts to accept an increasing amount of imports that are triggering public concerns about the health effects of diesel fumes and other port-related pollutants. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) conducted a study in 1999 that found the lifetime cancer risk from air pollution in the port areas to be higher than 2,000 cases per million people. Facilities are typically regulated by federal, state and local agencies with the goal of reducing the cancer risk to between 1 case and 100 cases per million.
The bill would require AQMD to set a baseline for air quality that uses the 2004 level of emissions at the two ports. The established limit would go into effect by January 2006. AQMD, the ports and the state Air Resources Board would have to agree on how emissions would be stabilized or reduced. If the parties fail to reach agreement, the ports would have to develop their own baselines, to be approved by the air district.
Supporters of the bill included AQMD, the Coalition for Clean Air and the Los Angeles and Long Beach city councils. Those opposed included the Port of Long Beach, business groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and the California Department of Transportation and the Department of Finance. The Port of Los Angeles has maintained its neutrality on the issue.
Assembly Bill 2042 is not the first effort to limit port pollution. In 2001, Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn endorsed a policy of “no net increase” in emissions that would hold the Los Angeles port to its 2001 emission levels. A plan for reaching that goal was not submitted until July 2004, and was subsequently rejected by the mayor, who then ordered the port to prepare a new plan by the end of the year.
At the end of September, the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners voted to continue the implementation of the Port’s Air Studies Program. A year-long air quality monitoring program to collect and analyze emissions from ships and dockside operations at the port received $766,000 in funding. In November, one of the most intensive area-wide ambient air studies of any port in North America will commence. Air quality monitoring stations will measure ambient air levels in the port and local communities; specific focus will be on particulate matter and elemental carbon (often used as an indicator of diesel particulate matter). Daily on-shore and off-shore wind conditions will be measured to better understand levels and sources of particulate matter. ARB reviewed and approved the data collection work plan.
On April 15, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated all or parts of 474 counties in 31 states as violating its new 8-hour ozone standard, or contributing to another county’s failure to comply (see July 2004 Clean Air Newsletter for details). Nine of those counties are in Colorado, primarily in the Denver-metro area.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) recognized that it would have an ozone problem two years ago and decided to begin preparing an Early Action Compact (EAC). An EAC is an agreement with EPA that commits an area to reduce ozone sooner than required under the Clean Air Act. To qualify, a state must submit a strategy to EPA by the end of this year that lists control measures that will demonstrate compliance with the new standard by December 31, 2007.
Why go this route? Howard Roitman, director of environmental programs at CDPHE notes that “the EAC defers the effective date of nonattainment designation so long as the terms and milestones contained in the plan are met.” The plan contains a number of ozone-control measures, including a reduction in the gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) from 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi) to 8.1 psi. RVP is a measure of fuel volatility; the higher the volatility, the greater the amount of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions through evaporation when fuel is burned in motor vehicles. Colorado began using reformulated gasoline in June to achieve the RVP standard.
Another control strategy is the reduction in flash emissions of VOCs from oil and natural gas exploration and production activities. The EAC requires the installation of pollution control technology on such operations to achieve at least a 50-percent reduction in VOC emissions.
The department submitted its ozone-control plan to the Colorado General Assembly in April as House Bill 1435. The legislature approved it unanimously. State Representative Shawn Mitchell, the bill’s chief sponsor, chalks up its success to the early involvement of stakeholders. “We did the heavy lifting upfront,” Mitchell notes, “well before it came to the legislature.” And for Mitchell, the plan offers that “proverbial double-win scenario—we’re on our way to improving air quality without the federal government micromanaging the process.”
FEDERAL ACTIONS
A consortium of federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Transportation (DOT) are working together to recommend new policies to reduce idling at truck stops. Idling trucks waste fuel while pumping avoidable pollutants into the air. A national idling reduction plan is expected from the agencies in early 2005.
Truck idling is responsible for the annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), 180,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 5,000 tons of particulate matter. The ultimate goal of the SmartWay program is to eliminate 33 million to 66 million metric tons of CO2 emissions and up to 200,000 tons of NOx by 2012. These reductions are equivalent to removing 12 million cars from U.S. roads.
Because many truck drivers leave their engines running to provide basic amenities while at rest stops, as many as 20 states have already instituted idling restrictions. The diversity in these state restrictions has prompted action at the federal level with an attempt to outline a way for states to set uniform idling standards, perhaps through model regulation language.
The National Energy Policy issued in 2001 by the Bush Administration called for EPA and DOT to explore options for reducing long-duration truck idling. And states are under pressure to reduce emissions from idling trucks in order to comply with the new ozone and fine particulate matter standards recently issued by EPA (see July 2004 Clean Air Newsletter for details).
EPA’s efforts to promote universal standards for truck stop electrification would allow trucks to access electricity at a truck stop outlet so they can turn off their engines and connect. In addition, EPA is the federal lead agency on the SmartWay Transport Partnership, a collaborative program between EPA and the freight industry to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. The Partnership works with companies shipping and delivering products to update technology, improve vehicle gas mileage and create idle-free truck stops.
The Climate Trust, an Oregon non-profit that provides greenhouse gas offset projects, committed to spending $2.2 million to implement innovative idle reduction technology at truck stops in Oregon and Washington. The anticipated reductions in CO2, CO, NOx, hydrocarbons and particulate matter are expected to translate to a public health and environmental benefit of at least $6.6 million per year.
Environmentalists and an outdoor recreation group filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) demanding a range of federal and state regulatory actions after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated a portion of Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado as failing to meet strict new ozone standards. The September 1, 2004 petition requested that DOI issue a “declaration of adverse impact” on air quality in the park. If the petition is granted, EPA and the state would have to reduce pollution to a level considered acceptable by DOI.
The basis for the petition included evidence that nitrogen levels in the park are 15-times higher than their natural level, threatening to acidify lakes and jeopardize fish populations. Visibility in the park is 30 percent worse than natural conditions, while ozone pollution not only threatens the park’s ecosystem, but human health as well.
Colorado officials have decided to work voluntarily with the DOI National Park Service to examine the impacts of pending federal pollution standards—including regional haze requirements, Tier II regulations for diesel and the Colorado Early Action Compact (EAC) passed by the legislature in April (see related story in this newsletter)—on air quality in the park. The EAC focuses on controlling volatile organic compounds, not nitrogen oxide emissions that impact air quality in the park. The September petition requested a review of the compact and stricter federal regional haze standards.
An adverse impact declaration only requires consultation between a state and the park service. Colorado is in the process of determining the sources of air pollution affecting the park and may then establish baselines for pollution that will guide how much needs to be reduced. A DOI official has indicated that the agency is still reviewing the petition, and will continue discussions with the state on how to improve air quality in the park.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing a workgroup on carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration, while energy-producing states are developing recommendations on potential state regulatory changes. Research on the issue is fairly new, but government-sponsored projects are working toward injecting small quantities of the greenhouse gas underground to study its possible effects and the ability of scientists to track it.
There is an interest at all levels of government to study how regulations may affect research and what potential sequestration measures might look like. Because different aspects of CO2 sequestration are being evaluated, including capturing, transporting, injecting and storing it, there are numerous potential impacts on the existing regulatory and physical infrastructure. For example, air pollution regulations may be impacted by CO2 capture, while transportation of the gas could require the construction of new pipelines, as well as access to existing pipelines.
The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission—a group that represents governors of oil and gas producing states—plans to develop guidance documents for states with an interest in augmenting their policymaking structure to accommodate carbon sequestration. Numerous opportunities exist to sequester carbon in tandem with oil and gas projects; many currently use CO2 to improve resource recovery. A permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act is required to inject CO2 underground.
Questions surrounding the technology of sequestration involve the extent to which CO2 will remain where it is injected and any indirect effects the gas may have on the environment where it is stored. There are specific concerns that CO2 might move into freshwater aquifers, acidifying the water and leaching pollutants such as lead and arsenic. There also are legal and definitional questions because CO2 is not defined as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. If states define CO2 as a commodity, the gas could be regulated under storage rules, but if it is defined as a waste, then sequestration could become expensive.
National Conference of State Legislatures Fall Forum
Savannah, Georgia
December 7-10, 2004
The National Conference of State Legislatures will hold its Fall Forum, December 7-10, in Savannah, Georgia, at the Westin Savannah Harbor Resort & Spa (see NCSL's Web site at www.ncsl.org/programs/seminars/forum/Index.htm for details). As part of that meeting, NCSL's Environment and Natural Resources Committee will hold two sessions on air quality issues. The committee will review recent state actions on December 8, from 12:00 - 12:30 p.m., and then have a discussion about the status of new source review rules and litigation from 12:30 - 2:30 p.m. For more information about the agenda, visit the committee's Web site at www.ncsl.org/standcomm/scenvir/scenvir.htm, or contact Michael Bird or Tamra Spielvogel in NCSL's Washington, D.C. office at (202) 624-5400, or Larry Morandi in NCSL's Denver office at (303) 364-7700.
 Cleanair newsletter page
Visitor counts for this page.
|
