Category Archives: Vehicles and Tailpipe Emissions

Day Two of Landmark Clean Air Cases: Courtroom Arguments Wrap Up

By | Published: February 29, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. heard its second and final day of oral arguments, today, in a landmark group of cases about EPA’s critical climate protections.

Today’s arguments focused on EPA’s actions to require cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from the largest sources, like power plants — while shielding smaller sources.

I was at the courthouse again today. Here’s a look at some of the highlights:

The judges began by examining EPA’s decision to initially focus climate protections on the largest sources of pollution. The judges closely questioned the Solicitor General of the State of Texas about how this focus on large sources harmed the state.

In a pointed exchange, Chief Judge Sentelle noted that the remedy Texas seeks — invalidation of the large-source thresholds — would seem to cause Texas injury where, under EPA’s current program, none exists. 

The Chief Judge underscored the seeming irrationality of this position, noting that Texas’s argument:

[D]oesn’t even make good non-sense.

The questioning then turned to EPA’s long-standing rules describing the workings of the permitting system for the largest sources of pollution. Those rules are more than 30 years old.

In this series of exchanges, Judge Tatel focused on provisions of the Clean Air Act that capture “any air pollutant” within this program. He questioned the Petitioners about how this language, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, could possibly allow the agency to exclude greenhouse gas pollutants.

Like yesterday, the judges closely examined EPA’s legal authority. Today, they pointedly questioned both Petitioners and EPA. 

It was another fascinating day in the courtroom with important implications for protecting human health and the environment from the clear and present danger climate pollution poses.   

Now, we’ll all have to wait for the court’s decisions –probably sometime in the summer. We’ll bring you updates as soon as anything happens.

In the meantime, you can read more about the EPA's endangerment findings and the attacks on EPA's climate change protections on our website, or from my earlier blogs posts – a preview of the case, or a look at yesterday’s proceedings.

Also posted in Automobiles & Fuels, Clean Air Act, Climate Change Legislation, EPA & Tailpipe Emissions, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy | Comments closed

EDF Applauds New Fuel Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Cars and Trucks

By | Bio | Published: November 17, 2011

America has driven a little bit further down the road toward clean and fuel efficient cars.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation just announced their joint proposal to set new, stronger fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks – for model years 2017 to 2025.

EDF’s Fred Krupp said the announcement:

 … is more good news for American consumers, auto manufacturers, public health and the environment. By 2025 we’ll have cars that on average get more than 54 miles to the gallon, save their owners more than $8,000 in fuel costs, save our country more than two million barrels of oil a day, and drastically reduce the carbon dioxide pollution in our air.

This is the second phase of setting new fuel efficiency standards for cars. The Administration already set standards for model year 2012 to 2016 cars, which will reach an average of 35.5 miles to the gallon.

They also set new standards for trucks and buses. (Our experts have written about all of this before, of course – most recently here)

But the newly proposed standards are the biggest step forward yet. Together with the earlier improvements, they will:

  • Save Americans a total of $1.7 trillion in national fuel savings over the life of the program.
  • Reduce our oil consumption by an amount more than our 2010 oil imports from the entire Persian Gulf, by the year 2025
  • Reduce our carbon dioxide pollution, over the life of the program, by the equivalent to the emissions from the entire United States in 2010

You can get a lot more details, and a illustrative graph, on our new fact sheet.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy | Comments closed

Broad Support for Cleaner Cars — Except from Some in Congress

By | Published: October 17, 2011

At a Congressional hearing last week, some members of Congress sought to undermine historic fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards that will save Americans money at the gas pump, help break our addiction to foreign oil, strengthen our economy, and reduce harmful pollution.   

 The shrill attacks on those historic standards were in sharp contrast to the broad support for cleaner cars, including support from the U.S. auto industry.

Automobile manufacturers have intervened to support the standards in the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.  In recent filings in federal court, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers have characterized these standards as:

valid, mandated by law, and non-controversial

(That's from a D.C. Circuit Court filing from September 30, 2011 — Brief for Intervenors Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Docket Number 10-1092) 

The State of Texas and its allies, along with an industry group representing coal mining interests, have sought to topple the landmark clean car standards.  The automakers — those directly regulated by the new standards –have forcefully countered that, if legal challenges are successful in overturning EPA’s clean car standards, it "would result in tremendous hardship to their companies" and that the associated costs would be “substantial."

(Those two quotes above are both from court documents: the first is from the same brief I already cited, and the second is from a November 1, 2010 filing with the same D.C. Circuit Court: Intervenor Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers' and Association of International Automobile Manufacturers' Opposition to Motions for Stay, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Docket Number 10-1092).

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) standards govern greenhouse gas emissions, and not just fuel economy. That means EPA’s measures will create business opportunities throughout the vehicle supply chain.

Honeywell, a leading global manufacturer of air condition systems, filed an amicus brief in support of EPA’s standards, noting that :

technologies for reducing the United States’ carbon footprint have the potential to create the kind of ‘green jobs’ that are a priority for America in the 21st century

(That's another quote from a D.C. Circuit court filing, this time from September 8,2011: Amicus Brief of Honeywell International, Inc., Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Docket Number 10-1092). 

Honeywell recognized the possibility that innovative technologies spurred by these emission standards have the potential to spread throughout the global economy, creating business opportunities for companies at the forefront of this technological innovation.  The automobile industry developed the catalytic converter in response to clean air measures, and, through commonsense regulations like these vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards, the United States can remain at the forefront of technological innovation in the global automotive market.   

These benefits are echoed by members of the small business community — eventual purchasers of the new, more fuel efficient vehicles. 

In a press release, Small Business Majority founder and CEO John Arensmeyer emphasized the importance of strong emissions standards, stating that:

 [s]mall businesses understand that to survive in this tough economy they need to innovate, and that strong fuel efficiency standards will assist them in doing so by helping them save money in their own business and creating new market opportunities

In fact, in a recent survey, small business owners overwhelmingly supported stronger fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, with 87 percent stating that it was critical for the U.S. to take action now to increase fuel efficiency.

 The benefits to covered business are, of course, just a portion of the environmental and economic benefits associated with EPA’s clean vehicle rule:

  • More fuel efficient vehicles will save consumers money.  American families will save more than $3,000 on fuel costs over the lifetime of a model year 2016 vehicle, and, for families financing a vehicle, the savings will be immediate. 
  • The standards are projected to cut gasoline consumption by 75 billion gallons. 
  • The standards are also projected to cut harmful global warming pollution by over 20 percent, avoiding 960 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent

As a result of these myriad benefits, EPA’s vehicle standards have strong support from a diverse coalition, including auto manufacturers, states, environmental organizations, and veterans organizations.  Members of the veterans’ organization Operation Free testified at public hearings across the country about the vital importance of EPA’s clean vehicle rules in breaking our addiction to foreign oil. 

Despite these significant benefits and the strong, broad-based support for vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, some in Congress are attempting to topple these common-sense rules on the theory that doing so would ease burdensome regulation.  Ironically, overturning these regulations would have precisely the opposite effect – constraining business innovation, burdening cash-strapped consumers, and harming the environment. That’s a result that would benefit no one.

 

Also posted in Automobiles & Fuels, Clean Air Act, Economics, Energy Technologies, EPA & Tailpipe Emissions, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy | Comments closed

Countdown to Better Consumer Labeling for New Cars

By | Published: September 24, 2010

(Just posted on our sister blog Way2Go by Kathryn Phillips)

Car Lot

Photo by Alex92287

The 60-day countdown for submitting your vote online about the best car label design has officially begun. Today the federal register published the official notice inviting comment on the government’s proposed changes to the information labels posted on new cars. The agency has also scheduled two public hearings to collect opinions about the labels—in Chicago on October 14 and in Los Angeles on October 21.

As we reported about three weeks ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has offered up two new designs to replace the old fuel economy label. The new designs reflect the most significant change in the 30 years since automakers began attaching the information labels to new cars.

Both of the proposed designs still have fuel economy information. But they both also have something new: details about how much greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution will be generated by the auto or light truck on which the sticker is affixed. For the first time ever, consumers living all over the country will be able to easily, while on the car lot shopping, compare the environmental impact of vehicles. It makes shopping greener simpler.

The two label options are not entirely equal, though. One option provides a bit more information about fuel costs and savings, and it includes a letter grade.

The grade has been drawing a lot of attention and there have been some confusing explanations in the press about how it works. So here are two important things to know about the letter grade:

  1. The grade reflects a vehicle’s standing on a scale set according to a combination of fuel economy and how much greenhouse gas emissions a vehicle spews. So basically, a car or light truck that gets a B grade produces fewer GHGs and gets better fuel economy than a car or light truck that gets a D grade.
  2. Every car and light truck has a fair shot at a good grade. When EPA compared its grading scale against the 2010 fleet (see page 36 of the proposed rule document), a lot of SUVs received B grades, and a lot received C grades. A lot of small cars received B grades and a lot received C grades. The difference was that the B vehicles, not matter the vehicle size, were engineered to get better fuel economy and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the C vehicles. The grade system helps highlight that the engineering exists to make vehicles less polluting—it’s just up to the automakers to do it.

EPA conducted a lot of market research, including focus groups with consumers. The consumers emphasized that they wanted a label that was simple and quick to understand. Hence, the letter grade on one of the proposed options. 

The auto industry and some pundits don’t like the letter grade. They say it's intrusive and unnecessary. I say that providing product information in a format that everyone can understand at a glance—and without needing bifocals—is a public service.

So go online now and  let EPA know which version you think makes most sense. And while you’re at it, let us know what you think about the labels, too.

Also posted in Automobiles & Fuels, EPA & Tailpipe Emissions, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy | Comments closed

From the blogosphere: new green jobs, a proposal on low carbon fuel standards, and VoteVets supports clean energy legislation

By | Published: July 20, 2010

Treehugger and CleanTechnica both wrote on the new Council on Economic Advisors report finding that nearly 1 million new jobs were created by the stimulus bill, and “one of the areas where Recovery Act funds are stimulating the most private investment is the clean energy sector.”

In response to reports that senators are considering adding a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) into the pending climate and energy bill, Michael Levi blogged about what impact this might have on the legislation, potential obstacles and opportunities. While he lauds the goal of reducing emissions, he recommends adding a price ceiling on the tradable permits refiners, blenders, and importers would be required to hold.

Grist posted the new ad from VoteVets, in which Brigadier Gen. Steven Anderson, “who served under Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, calls clean energy legislation not only a military priority, but an American mission.”

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics, News, Policy | Comments closed

Hail to the Chief, Indeed: President's truck order will bring fuel-saving technologies to scale

By | Bio | Published: May 25, 2010

This was originally posted on the Innovation Exchange blog.

There is no question that tools exists today to significantly reduce fuel consumption by medium and heavy-duty trucks. The recent National Academy of Sciences’ report on reducing emissions from these vehicles explored this in-depth as did another recent report from NESCAUM. The key question is: can we deploy these tools at an acceptable cost?

The answer is closer to “yes” than ever before, thanks in part to President Obama’s statement last week instructing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop rules to reduce emissions from medium and heavy-duty trucks – which consume over a quarter of the nation’s liquid fuels.

The most advanced of our fuel-saving tools, such as the hybrid system for medium-duty trucks, face a significant upfront cost barrier. While these systems can payback over the lifetime of the vehicle, the ROI timeline is too extended for most businesses to justify the cost without external incentives. Other, more incremental strategies such as single-wide tires face cultural and cost barriers as well. The resulting upfront capital cost versus long-term operating savings conundrum slows the adoption of these tools and delays emission reductions.

Fuel-saving components need to be produced at a large enough scale to spread out the fixed costs over time while simultaneously bringing the dollar cost down. By creating a nationwide standard for greenhouse gas emissions, the President has put us on a path to finally reach this scale. Imagine that instead of spreading the fix costs of developing and producing medium-duty hybrid powertrains, or single wide tires over a few hundred vehicles a year, these costs are spread over tens of thousands of trucks annually. The ROI for any one unit will instantly be much more attractive. This is what can happen with a strong federal rule.

How will this impact the business community? Consumers, shippers and carriers will be better off with more efficient, cleaner trucks. Operating costs will be lower and less exposed to fuel price volatility. The increased capital costs should be manageable with the advantages of scaled economies. Some of the increased upfront cost will likely be recouped through hire residual values too.

Of course, technological improvements alone aren’t sufficient. There remain many opportunities to reduce emissions through better operational practices, particularly for freight. From reducing empty backhauls, cutting idling, dropping curb weight, decreasing packaging and improving trucking loading, every truck trip can get more done. Some trips can be avoided all together or simply moved to more efficient modes of transportation.

Medium-and-heavy duty trucks will continue to play a vital role as we transition into a carbon constrained world. These trucks are needed to deliver food and beverages to restaurants and stores, drop off packages at homes and offices, and move goods across the nation. However, they will use less fuel for each of these actions. That’s a good thing for the environment, our pocketbooks and energy security.

Also posted in Business, Climate Change Legislation, News, Science | Comments closed

Mapping the Transit Funding Crisis

By | Published: April 20, 2010

Transit cuts from coast to coast.

Today Transportation for America (T4) released an updated map of widespread transit cuts, layoffs, fare increases and service cuts across the U.S.

At Way2Go, we've written frequently about this transit funding crisis, as it is harming our mobility at a time when getting to work cleanly, reliably and inexpensively is very important. We've focused on how these cuts have affected communities throughout the country—rural, suburban, urban neighborhoods—and who it affects–students, less affluent citizens, and seniors.

And Americans do not want to see these cuts. T4's most recent poll numbers, which we blogged about a few weeks ago, show that Americans want improved and better public transportation, and those polled would be willing to almost double current federal spending for public transportation, which is now at 18 cents to every dollar, to 37 cents to every dollar.

T4's map is extensive, but needs your input. With public transportation ridership at record highs from coast to coast, these funding cuts are felt by many. Check out T4's map to see if your town or city has been properly accounted for, so that T4 can articulate the true extent of this funding crisis.

Posted in Vehicles and Tailpipe Emissions | Comments closed

Opportunity: Reduce emissions of the overlooked accomplices of CO2

By | Bio | Published: May 29, 2009

The global warming culprit we hear the most about is carbon dioxide (CO2), but human activity produces a host of other, shorter-lived pollutants that act as "partners in crime" in contributing to climate change.

Until recently, most of the attention paid to these pollutants has centered around their detrimental effects on air quality and human health – the pollutants include fine particles such as black carbon and gases that form smog.

But because these pollutants disappear from the atmosphere relatively quickly, they also give us an important opportunity to put the brakes on the rapid rise in global temperature. If people around the world can reduce the amounts that they emit, everyone will see an immediate benefit and help avoid dangerous tipping points in the climate system over the next few decades.

My colleagues Nadine Unger and Drew Shindell at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and I just published a paper in the journal Atmospheric Environment that offers additional insight into the climatic role of these pollutants. Our findings come at a time when activity on domestic and international climate policy in general and on black carbon policy in particular is ramping up.

For this paper, we delved into emissions from two key sectors, transportation and power generation, for the U.S. and the world. We primarily used a global climate model developed at NASA GISS that simulates the transport of pollutants by wind and the chemical and physical reactions that transform the pollutants into smog and particles. The model also calculates the warming or cooling effect of the different pollutants.

One of our important findings is that transportation is a particularly good sector to target quickly for emissions controls because it produces a lot of black carbon (think: diesel exhaust) and ozone-producing gases, in addition to CO2. In contrast, emissions cuts in the power generation sector do not offer the same short-term opportunity. That sector emits little black carbon, but it does create much sulfate particle pollution. Sulfate particles are bad for air quality and acid rain, but in the short term actually counteract the warming effects of CO2 emissions. Of course, it is essential to clean up the power sector to address long-term climate damage from CO2, as well as health problems from sulfate particles, ozone smog and other pollutants. But short-term opportunities to slow global warming are more significant in the transportation sector.

We also considered a hypothetical example of switching the transportation sector to a zero-emissions or electric power source, such as in plug-in hybrid electric or pure electric technologies.The result: A hefty benefit for the climate.

The switch to a zero-emissions or electric power source would decrease the warming effect if you just consider CO2 emissions.  (Though increased CO2 emissions from the electricity generation sector would offset the decrease in direct emissions from vehicles to a certain extent.)

But reducing the non-CO2 pollutants provides even more benefit for the climate. Zero-emission or electric transportation would greatly reduce black carbon emissions.  The short-term benefits to be gained from focus on the transportation sector are important for policymakers to note.

Last week's announcement by President Obama on national greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks is a significant step in this direction. Further action is needed to clean up the exhaust from existing heavy-duty trucks and other diesel-powered transport, both in this country and internationally.

Unger and her colleagues are working to expand the published analysis to include a full suite of economic sectors, including industry, non-road transport and agriculture, and additional greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.

Look for another paper in the near future.

Also posted in Science | Comments closed

Colbert on "Prescott Oil"

By | Bio | Published: October 3, 2008

Sheryl CanterThis Stephen Colbert clip on oil companies and the environment is fall-over funny and dead-on right.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml" width="332" height="316" fvars="videoId = 186475" fversion="8" loop="false" play="false" menu="true" quality="best" wmode="transparent" /]

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Also posted in Automobiles & Fuels | Comments closed

White House Fax Flippant on Grim Impacts of Global Warming

By | Bio | Published: September 22, 2008

Vickie Patton's profileTomorrow, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold an important hearing on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the power of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address global warming under existing law. Unfortunately, EPA's progress has been stymied by stiff winds blowing from the White House.

Environmental Defense Fund has uncovered a document that provides a disturbing look at the White House's views on global warming science, views that were revealed as part of White House efforts to interfere with progress at EPA. On June 20, the White House Office of Management and Budget transmitted a fax to EPA with numerous comments on a critically important EPA technical document examining how global warming endangers human health and the environment.

The summary below highlights a few remarkable examples from the White House fax [PDF].

Read More »

Also posted in EPA & Tailpipe Emissions | Comments closed