California's EPA Waiver: Does it Still Matter?
Deja vu all over again. Photo: Craig Miller
Today the federal Environmental Protection Agency formally granted the waiver that California has sought since 2002, allowing the state to set its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars.
But wait–didn't this already happen for practical purposes, last month? That's when the Obama administration announced its intent to essentially put California's proposed standards in place nationwide.
Well, yes–and no. Bernadette Del Chiaro, who represents the group Environment California, says that having the waiver is more than a legal technicality. She says it means that the state can get started sooner, cleaning up tailpipe emissions. Del Chiaro explains that: "California's standards kick in now, through 2016. The federal program that President Obama has extended throughout the entire country, starts in 2013 (also through 2016)."
That gives the states, in effect, a three-year jump-start. In 2013, everybody should be on the same page.
California's chief air regulator, Mary Nichols said, in a written statement:
"The waiver affirms California’s authority to set the standards for the cleanest cars in the nation and recognizes the ability of forward-thinking states to continue to adopt them. Now we can begin to work with the manufacturers to make a new generation of cars that deliver all the comfort and power we have come to expect but with improved efficiency and far fewer greenhouse gas emissions. "
Thirteen other states had also pursued the waiver and can now proceed with their own programs.
While automakers have long argued that the tighter regs will make cars more expensive, Environment California calculates that they'll "save consumers $36 billion at the pump by 2020." That projection assumed that gasoline would would average about $2 per gallon over that period. Higher pump prices (which seem a lot more likely) would in turn, increase expected savings, as the underlying premise is that we'll be driving cars that get better gas mileage.
But of course those cars will cost more than the clunkers we're wheeling around in now. The state Air Resources Board estimates that the clean car regulations will tack an average of $1,000 onto the price of a new car by 2016. Obviously that would offset some of the pump savings.
Transportation's Tricky Carbon Footprint
Kristine Wong is our Climate Watch intern for the current term. She's a student at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism.
Study comparing environmental impact of transportation modes yields surprising results
By Kristine Wong
You may not believe that during peak commute hours, Boston’s light rail system generates more greenhouse gases (GHGs) per person than a gas-powered, fully occupied SUV–or a commercial airliner filled to capacity, traveling the same distance.
Yet this is what UC Berkeley researchers found in a study released this week. Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath compared the environmental impacts of cars, buses, planes, and rail after adding up all the energy costs and emissions (both GHGs and local air pollutants) over their entire life cycle–not just by what came out of the tailpipe. The authors say no such comprehensive study had been done before.
The researchers developed a method that evaluated each transportation mode based on the energy inputs needed for production and maintenance of the vehicle itself. They also looked at the infrastructure for each mode, such as construction of supporting components like rail station platforms and airport runways, bus and rail station lighting and parking, and the source of power for each mode (e.g. gasoline, jet fuel, diesel or electric–and the costs of distributing and producing these inputs).
In total, Chester and Horvath compared 79 components across all transportation modes. Within each they also selected a few variations to represent differences, depending on factors such as vehicle make and mileage, passenger occupancy, and size.
The results were both logical and surprising. Most of the energy consumed and GHG emissions from auto, bus and air travel originated from the operational period, not from the materials needed to produce and maintain the vehicles. Rail produced the greatest amount of GHGs compared to all other modes over their life cycle. But Chester and Horvath point out that there is a big difference in GHG emissions from light rail systems in the Bay Area versus, say, Boston due to the portion of fossil fuel-based electricity used. Boston's fuel mix is 82% fossil, while the Bay Area’s BART system clocks in at just 49% fossil fuel–a major factor in efficiency and GHG emission rates.
Finally, passenger occupancy was a key factor influencing efficiency. Not surprisingly, each mode was most efficient when used to capacity. But the researchers caution that boosting passenger occupancy is not a magic bullet. They say minimizing fossil fuel inputs and adding pollution filters and controls would have a greater effect on efficiency.
Chester and Horvath say that they hope their results will provide a framework for more comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of transportation, and to assess the impact of hybrid or electric vehicles and alternative energy sources such as biofuels, solar power, and wind power, none of which were included in the study.
There are more details of the study posted at the websites for Green Car Congress and Sustainable Transportation.
New Tailpipe Regs are an "Alternate Reality"
Amy Standen specializes in science and environmental reporting for Quest. She's among the guests today on KQED's Forum program. Listen to the archived program here.
Hazy day in L.A. Photo: Craig Miller
Yesterday afternoon, as I started working on my news spot about the new federal standard for tailpipe emissions, I dug up my notes from over a year ago, the last time I covered this story in any depth.
The contrast in tone between then and now amazed me. Back then, I was describing accusations of outright lying, government actions that California enviros called "completely illegal," and California officials "sharpening their knives" as they marched into battle with EPA former Administrator Stephen Johnson. It was September, 2007, and Democratic lawmakers, led by Henry Waxman (D-CA), were accusing the White House of strong-arming the EPA into denying California its "waiver," or permission to regulate auto tailpipe emissions. The mood between California environmentalists, many of the state's elected officials, and the Bush administration couldn't have been more hostile.
Today, it's as if we've landed in an alternate reality. Not only has California been given its more fuel-efficient cars, but those same laws are taking effect nationwide. The new rules actually exceed anything that California–traditionally the most ambitious state in the union, when it comes to greenhouse gas regulation–could have asked for.
Instead of knives being sharpened, California enviros are singing the praises of "an historic blueprint to carry out rigorous greenhouse gas emission standards," to quote one email I received today. Another group told the New York Times: “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” Compared to the fall of '07–actually make that since '05, when California first asked for the waiver and the EPA first started stalling–it's like night and day.
Still, listening in to the White House background press briefing on Monday afternoon, you could hear the seeds of criticism taking root in a few reporters' questions.
Sure, American automakers will be making more fuel-efficient cars, one reporter asked, but what is the White House doing to encourage consumers to buy them? (in addition to restricting tailpipe emissions, the new rules also substantially increase fuel efficiency standards for manufacturers' fleets–SUVs and trucks will still be available; they'll be more fuel efficient than before, but less efficient than smaller cars.) The question takes on new relevance as the federal government finds itself a major stockholder in auto companies.
President Obama says the new regs will have the equivalent impact of taking 177 million cars off the road.
Low-Carbon Fuels in Your Future
After years of study and a day of marathon testimony in Sacramento, state regulators have adopted the world’s first low-carbon standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels. Only one member of the California Air Resources Board, John Telles, voted against adoption.
During nearly six hours of testimony by almost 100 speakers, businesses lined up both for and against the new rules. As Marjorie Sun reported for us this week, some claimed that calculations for the carbon footprints of different fuels–especially ethanol–were not even-handed. Speaker after speaker assailed the LCFS as being the product of "incomplete analysis" or just bad math (public testimony begins about an hour into the webcast).
But Daniel Sperling, a UC Davis professor and member of the Air Board, calls it "government at its best."
"There’s been a huge amount of effort," he said, " in working with the oil companies, working with the electricity companies, working with the environmental community, working with the biofuels companies, to try to get this really done right."
Though numerous speakers challenged the view that it was done right, both Sperling and Air Board head Mary Nichols seemed to leave the door open to additional tweakage of the regulations. "In the end, it’s a science-based policy," said Sterling. "There are a lot of pieces of this that we’re not certain exactly the best way to do it but we’ve got the framework of a really outstanding policy and an important policy. And we’ve made the commitment to work with all the different stakeholders in refining it, to make sure that it really works best."
Small-business and environmental justice groups locked arms to decry the cost of the new rules. Some cited a report from Sacramento-based Sierra Research estimating $3.8 billion in increased fuel costs by 2020, if the LCFS takes effect.
An "expert working group" is due to report back on January 1, with possible suggestions for fine-tuning the plan.
Board member Ron Roberts summed up the proposed regulation by paraphrasing Winston Churchill: "It may not be the end or even the beginning of the end, but it's the end of the start," said Roberts (falling somewhat short of Churchillian eloquence but point taken).
The new rules are designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from transportation 10 percent by 20-20. Sperling is now headed to Capitol Hill, to testify before Congress on national legislation. California's process is being closely watched in Washington, where pending federal carbon legislation is widely seen to be modeled after California’s plan.
Green Response to EPA's CO2 Finding: "Duh."
Reactions are coming in to The EPA's long-awaited finding today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases pose a threat to "the public health and welfare." One California environmental group actually used the word "Duh" in its official response.
After two years of study, prodded by a Supreme Court decision, the federal agency finds that CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen and two other industrial gases should be regulated as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. A sampling of reactions:
“‘Duh’ may not be a scientific term, but it applies here. Today, common sense prevailed over pressure from Big Oil and other big polluters to deny the obvious in order to maintain the status quo on energy. EPA has embraced the basic facts on global warming that scientists around the world have acknowledged for years."
Governor Schwarzenegger:
“While the federal government was asleep at the wheel for years, we in California have known greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and to our environment – that’s why we have taken such aggressive action to reduce harmful emissions and move toward a greener economy. Two years after the Supreme Court declared greenhouse gas emissions a pollutant, it’s promising to see the new administration in Washington showing signs that it will take an aggressive leadership role in fighting climate change that will lead to reduced emissions, thousands of new green jobs and a healthier future for our children and our planet.”
Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma–boldface is his):
"Today's action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America's global competitiveness," Senator Inhofe said. "It now appears EPA's regulatory reach will find its way into schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and just about any activity that meets minimum thresholds in the Clean Air Act. Rep. John Dingell was right: the endangerment finding will produce a ‘glorious mess.'
“This finding was expected, but long overdue because the previous administration respected neither the science nor the law. The consequence of this finding is that EPA will now begin the task of reducing these emissions through the permitting process provided by the Clean Air Act. One way or the other, the clear and present danger of endlessly dumping pollutants into the atmosphere must be confronted. We will either find a way to build a future for our children based on clean energy and sustainable jobs, or we will face a very unsentimental foe unarmed – a climate that makes life unsustainable. The choice is clear, and the new Administration is following the wisest path forward.”
California moved to regulate carbon emissions three years ago, when state lawmakers passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. But many specific regulations required by that law have yet to take effect.
EPA Waiver Still Not "In the Can"
Now the waiting begins–or resumes. After nearly seven hours watching opposing sides duke it out in a Beltway hearing room this week, the EPA will settle down to deciding (again) if California should be allowed to set its own standards for auto emissions.
During the hearing, one group was using Twitter to pass around an online petition supporting the required EPA waiver. They weren't too late. EPA will continue accepting public comment until April 6. EPA spokesman Cathy Milbourn says "We will review all of the comments, with a decision to follow." No further timeline for that decision has been made public, however.
Meanwhile, the Detroit News is reporting today that California's top air regulator may be ready to compromise on a new national standard that would obviate the need for a special waiver.
In case you need a quick review, the issue is whether the tailpipe emissions standards passed into law by California several years ago–the so-called Pavley regulations–can actually be enforced. The Pavley standards are more stringent than the current federal standard and the state is leaning heavily on them to attain its greenhouse gas targets under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). But the waiver was denied under the Bush administration.
Thirteen other states are lined up to enact the California standard if they get a green light from EPA. The auto industry has long argued that this will create a "patchwork" of regulations across the nation, and the ensuing complications of compliance would place an onerous burden on the industry and push up prices for car buyers.
Supporters of the California standard, like Jim Kliesch of the Union of Concerned Scientists, say that automakers already have the technology and can easily comply. Kliesch conceded that consolidating the most efficient technology into one car would add–he figures–about $700 to the cost. But he says the same technology would recoup $1,800 in fuel savings over the life of the car.
Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America pointed to an apparent disconnect in the car maket. He referred to a survey in which half the respondents said they wanted their next car to get at least 30 MPG–but Cooper said only 2% of models currently on the market deliver that.
And so, the argument goes, that if car makers would just follow the market toward cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars, it would actually help them recover from a financial abyss that threatens to topple them.
At the end of the day, the EPA has to make its decision based on three criteria, says David Doniger of the NRDC. To be valid, the California standard must be:
1. Equally strict or more stringent than the federal standard,
2. Needed to meet "compelling and extraordinary conditions," and
3. Technologically and economically feasible.
Hmm. It seems like you could make a solid case for checking off numbers 1 and 2 but what's "economically feasible" is a potential tripwire, especially with General Motors teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Much of it will come down to whether the Obama administration buys into the "patchwork" argument. It'll be at least another month before we know.
The Cost of Ignoring Climate Change
Much of the debate over addressing climate change hinges on the cost of proposed mitigation efforts. Some say we can't afford the extraordinary measures required to cut greenhouses gases, particularly in the current economic train wreck. What gets less attention is the cost of doing nothing.
This has been a controversial idea since the Stern Review called attention to the issue in 2006. That report concluded that unless one percent of global GDP was diverted to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, the world could lose up to 5% of global GDP each year and the total damage could claim as much as 20%.
A set of new reports out of the University of Oregon inserts fresh numbers into the debate. According to researchers, three western states are each likely to lose more than $3 billion a year in climate change-related costs by 2020, if nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2080, the projected annual costs range from $9-to-$18 billion for each state.
The reports, which focus on Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico, assume a business-as-usual scenario where both carbon emissions and temperature continue to rise at rates similar to those seen in recent years. Under these conditions, these states (and California, according to the prevalent research) can expect more severe droughts and floods, less snowfall, more wildfires and habitat loss, and a higher incidence of climate-associated health problems and deaths.
In New Mexico, the study's authors expect summer temperatures to climb 12.6 degrees above current averages by 2080, spiking air-conditioning costs, health-care complications, and the state's death rate. By 2020, annual climate-related health care costs in New Mexico alone are expected to top $1.3 billion.
California's temperatures, under business-as-usual scenarios, are widely expected rise between six and ten degrees by the end of century. Even in a relatively cool state like Washington, health care impacts would make up $421 million, or 32%, of total annual climate-related costs, under this pr0jection.
The study attributed the largest costs (more than $1 billion annually in each state) to inefficient consumption of energy, a projection that might not pan out, given the Obama Adminstration's focus on green technology and clean energy efforts.
Other costs cited by the study include reduced salmon populations and food production, lost recreational opportunities (sell your snowboard now), and more intense and frequent wildfires and storms.
Cow Power Takes to the Highway
If the program for the World Ag Expo in Tulare had a centerfold, it might well be a gleaming red and silver tank truck, powered by pure Holstein hydrocarbons.
A Tulare County dairyman is using cow "emissions" to fuel two delivery trucks. Instead of a sleeper compartment, the cab of the truck holds six lightweight tanks for compressed bio-methane.
Western United Dairymen have produced a video about the project and its benefits to the environment. That's an interesting twist because the dairy lobbying group and air quality regulators haven't always seen eye to eye on the question of bovine gas.
Emissions from livestock have their own load of air quality issues, especially in Tulare County, where there are more cows than people. When cows burp or emit gas, it produces ozone, a key component of smog. Dairy owners have also wrangled with air regulators over emissions from some methane digesters that convert manure to electricity on dairies. For a refresher (poor word choice, perhaps), check out our recent radio/web series on methane.
But the California Air Resources Board stands behind the cow-power project (though perhaps not the manure spreaders–okay, old joke). In fact, CARB staked the dairy to a $600,000 grant, under legislation passed in June 2006 to encourage the introduction of alternative fuels into the California market. Hilarides Dairy and Cheese company used the money to help build a methane digester and figure out how to convert the diesel trucks.
How exactly does cow poop become something that can power a vehicle? It isn't pretty, according to the group Sustainable Conservation, which put out a report on the subject. It goes something like this:
Manure is flushed from the cows' stalls into a covered lagoon where bacteria convert the manure to biogas. The trapped gas is sent from the lagoon to a biogas upgrading system which removes impurities. Pressurized bio-methane is put into the truck's fuel tank. The truck is then ready for the road.
The report estimates that cows could eventually power a million cars nationwide. But unless you live near a dairy farm or have your own personal cow to hook up to your fuel tank, don't expect this will save you a trip to the gas station anytime soon.
Photo courtesy of Hilarides Dairy: The biogas upgrading system arrives by truck from Michigan (but transported with conventional diesel).
Methane Epilogue: Power from Cows and Castoffs
We have updates from some of the places we visited in our methane series, heard on The California Report. For Part 1 of the series, click here. For Part 2 of the series, click here.
At Fiscalini Farms near Modesto, John Fiscalini says he finally worked out a deal with air regulators that allows him to convert his manure into methane for electric power. His permit from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District allows him to run the engine while he makes adjustments to minimize particulate and nitrous oxide pollutants.
He hopes to be making power by the middle of this month–more than 13 months behind schedule. Capturing the methane, of course, will make a significant dent in the carbon footprint of the farm, which has 3,000 cows (1,500 producing and 1,500 "replacements").
He also has a grant from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, under which university researchers will install equipment to monitor the methane operation. Fiscalini says they'll "monitor everything we can possibly monitor" and gather data to make better judgments about the efficiency and economic feasibility of methane digesters. He's having some doubts about the economic feasibility of his own. Now, he says, water quality regulators want him to do $40,000 worth of environmental assessments, including a hydro-geologic survey and a study of his waste stream (he uses leftovers from the methane digester for fertilizer).
You may recall that we started Part One at an unidentified landfill, to explain how methane is produced and captured, and why flaring it off is better than letting the methane escape into the atmosphere. I later heard from Jessica Jones, district manager for Waste Management, which runs the Redwood Landfill and Recycling Center in Marin County, the location where I did the recording. While the landfill currently flares off its collected methane, Jones wanted us to know about some of the company's efforts to harness that gas–potentially enough to power 4,000-5,000 homes. In an email to KQED, she wrote:
"Redwood Landfill is currently working to permit a landfill gas to energy facility which will become Marin County's largest source of green power. Altamont Landfill in Alameda County currently has landfill gas to energy production through the use of internal combustion engines and turbines, and is beginning construction of a liquefied natural gas facility which will convert landfill gas into a clean burning fuel which can be used to power Waste Management's refuse collection fleet. This type of fuel is estimated to be potentially the closest to carbon neutral of any fuel being developed today."
There's more about Redwood's landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) project at the company's website. In echoes from our conversations with John Fiscalini, Jones writes on the site that there are "regulatory hurdles" to be cleared before this can happen. Sound familiar?
Photo: Stinky silage; Methane digester tanks will soon power the Fiscalini dairy farm.
A Few Miles Closer to that EPA Waiver
Continuing his methodical repudiation of Bush administration policies, President Obama today took California's long-delayed request to regulate tailpipe emissions off the shelf. The President ordered an immediate review of the state's request for a waiver to supersede federal requirements with its own, stricter ones.
We should be just as clear about what didn't happen, however. He did not throw a thunderbolt at the EPA and reverse the previous administration's denial of said waiver. He essentially told new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to put it back on top of the stack in her in-box. Jackson had already promised a "speedy review" of California's request, during questioning at her Senate confirmation hearing. "Speedy" is a relative term, however and the reality is that it will likely be months before we get a final decision.
Though there is little doubt what that decision will be, the President did leave room for the EPA to soften the blow to the destitute auto industry. Automakers claim that the waiver will cost them billions in new investments and add an average of $5,000 to the price of new cars.
There's a lot on the line for California, which had taken the EPA to court over the waiver. The state's proposed tailpipe emission standards (known as the Pavley regulations) account for nearly 20% of the hoped-for CO2 reductions in the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB-32) and 70% of the attendant economic gains (estimated to be $11 billion).
Some reactions to the White House executive order today…
From the Governor:
“With this announcement from President Obama less than a week into his administration, it is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House. Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly cars.”
From Bernadette del Chiaro, Environment California:
“After being stuck in reverse for eight years when it comes to clean energy and global warming policy, President Obama has taken America from 0 to 60 in six days. From here on, science and not special interests will be in the driver’s seat in America.”
You get the idea. It was high fives all around and a cavalcade of automotive metaphors in Sacramento today.
-
RSS FEED
Subscribe to our blog feed and you'll never miss a post!