Category Archives: Environment

West Explosion: Not Enough Protections Or Not Enough Oversight?

Source: www.thenation.com

There’s been a lot of debate following the West tragedy as to whether a lack of safety protections, lack of coordination and oversight among enforcement agencies, or some combination of both contributed to a system wide failure and 14 deaths with hundreds injured. As we have mentioned before, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with more than 400 deaths in 2011. And while not every accident can be prevented, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share.

In recent reports, some state officials have indicated that the state’s level of oversight for facilities like the one in West is adequate. It is difficult to understand how one could make such bold statements when the cause of the explosion has yet to be determined. Furthermore, some legislators have recommended this legislative session that state environmental laws be weakened. This is in addition to recent budget cuts at the state environmental agency; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) budget was recently cut by $305 million, which reduced the agency by 235 full-time employees. Perhaps what some of our officials really mean is that it is not a lack of oversight, but rather a lack of due diligence in enforcing the laws already on the books, laws designed to protect citizens from events like this one.

The Governor of Texas was quoted recently claiming that the state upholds the standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But frankly that is not quite true. Acting alone, Texas recently refused to abide by laws on permitting regulations for greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, the state sent an aggressive letter to EPA stating that “On behalf of the state of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.”  EPA actually had to devise a federal implementation plan for greenhouse gas emissions, so that any new facilities built in the state of Texas could in fact work with a legal permit. Currently, facilities that need a greenhouse gas permit must apply to EPA rather than to TCEQ, even though it is Texas’ responsibility. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Legislation, TCEQ | 1 Response

Explosion At Texas Plant Renews Concerns About State Environmental Agency

Source: kxan.com

Unfortunately, last night’s explosion at West Fertilizer, a plant just north of Waco, Texas is just one more tragedy in a long list of facility disasters in the state of Texas. (See previous TXCAM posts here and here).

The same questions always arise – how could this accident have been prevented? Who is responsible? What are the long term health implications to those who have survived this catastrophe?

The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the lead state agency in charge of permitting facilities such as the West plant. We know that the agency investigated the facility in 2006, only after a concerned citizen called to report a strong smell of ammonia. One of the troubling items regarding this complaint is that the agency knew that the smell was ammonia and that it was coming from a fertilizer facility (a deadly omen) and still took 11 days to investigate the complaint. Once the agency did get to the facility, they recognized that the plant was storing large quantities of anhydrous ammonia without a permit.

It turns out that the facility, originally built in 1962, had been grandfathered into the permitting program – the facility was not required to have a permit until September 1, 2004, the date marking the end of the grandfathered permitting period. This means that two years went by where the facility was operating in violation of a permit and completely unnoticed by the state environmental agency.

Another troubling bit of information is that the agency gave the facility an “unclassifiable” rating for their compliance history. Compliance history, as described by the agency, entails both positive and negative factors related to the facility's environmental performance at a site over the past five years—for example, whether at this site this customer has:

  • received an enforcement order, court order, or criminal conviction; related to environmental violations in another state;
  • received a citation for a chronic excessive emissions event;
  • received a notice of violation from the TCEQ;
  • received one or more inspections from the TCEQ (and, if so, the results of those inspections)

Given that the facility had been operating without a permit for two years, one might expect that the facility would have been given an unsatisfactory rating for compliance. An unsatisfactory rating would have triggered additional scrutiny or strengthened permit requirements for the facility. But of course we know that’s not what happened.

While no one questions that accidents happen, even at facilities that do abide by the law, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share of tragedies. In fact, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with over 400 deaths in 2011. And when these tragedies happen at industrial facilities that handle large quantities of toxic and explosive materials, people die. Lives are forever changed.

The deaths in West, as well as all deaths from these kinds of tragedies, are senseless and preventable. In the name of all citizens in the state of Texas whose lives have ended in this tragic way, we implore the TCEQ to:

  • be more diligent with regard to monitoring of facilities – how many more facilities like West exist across the state?
  • hire more investigators since it is obvious that the current rate of facility inspections is woefully inadequate.
  • spend more time protecting the public than fighting against EPA and public health protections, using the saved funds instead for hiring more investigators.

Disclaimer: This video, filmed by a local citizen with his daughter, shows the plant as it explodes into a larger fire.  Not intended for sensitive audiences.

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Ozone Season Is Coming…

How To Better Protect Yourself From Smog In 2013

Even though temps haven’t yet risen to triple digits, the official ozone season starts this week for much of Texas (March 1 for DFW, Houston, April 1 for Austin, San Antonio and Corpus Christi), and based on the number of exceedances from last year, much work remains to be done.

Why? Ozone exceedances threaten lives. A recently released study reminds us of how critical clean air is to our health, especially for those who are most vulnerable to the harmful impacts of pollution. Rice University published a study this month in the American Heart Association journal Circulation, reporting a correlation between ozone exposure and heart attacks in the Houston area.

"It's long been thought there was an association between air pollution and cardiac arrest, and this study brings statistical support to that suspicion," said Texas Heart Institute President Dr. James Willerson in the Houston Chronicle.

Remember that ground level ozone – also known as smog – has been linked to premature mortality; increased hospital admissions, and emergency room visits for respiratory issues among children and adults with pre-existing respiratory disease such as asthma; as well as possible long-term lung damage. Children and the elderly with existing respiratory conditions are most at risk from smog.

EDF is working with university researchers to more fully understand how ozone and other types of air pollution contribute to disease. Early indicators point to low birth weights, for example, in babies with mothers exposed to high levels of particulate matter pollution. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Ozone | 1 Response

The Ultimate Texas New Year’s Resolution

Stuck finding a good 2013 New Year’s resolution? Here’s a great one: reduce your carbon footprint. The first step in reducing your carbon footprint is to first calculate your footprint and then set a goal.

How to measure your carbon footprint

There are a number of carbon calculators that you can use to calculate your annual carbon footprint. Here are a few:

How to reduce your footprint

Once you have an inventory of your emissions, then you’ll be able to see the largest opportunities for reductions. We have listed a few of the easiest ways to reduce your footprint here:

Five tips for reducing your carbon footprint

Source: Florida Today

  1. Drive/Fly less. Some say this is close to impossible living in a freeway-dominant state that is the size of a small country. It’s easier today though than just a decade or two ago, given the convenience of increased bus routes in Houston or San Antonio, or rail lines in Dallas-Fort Worth. For short commutes, consider walking or bicycling, which offers cardio benefits as well. And let’s not let the vast states of Alaska, Idaho or Montana continue outbiking Texas (we rank pretty low compared with most other states in the nation). If the drive or flight is a must, consider carpooling or purchasing carbon offsets for your flight.
  2. Conserve energy. There are many ways to do this today. Use energy efficient light bulbs, appliances and electronics. Turn off the lights when leaving a room. Power down electric items plugged into a power strip with one flick of a button. Insulate your home. Not only do you reduce carbon emissions by conserving energy, you also come out ahead financially.
  3. Go meatless. While Texans love their meat, studies show that livestock contributes nearly 18 percent toward global greenhouse gas emissions. There’s a fairly new trend gaining ground called “Meatless Mondays,” and it means foregoing a burger or pork chop for just one day a week. Totally doable. The dual benefits include fewer emissions and improved health. If abstaining from meat once a week isn’t your thing, consider buying more locally produced food, which also contributes to reduced carbon emissions.
  4. Buy used. It’s better for the planet as well as your pocketbook. According to NARTS (National Association of Resale Professionals), resale retail is on the upswing, growing almost seven percent in the last two years. Maybe the adage is true: One man’s junk is another man’s treasure. In any case, when you purchase used items, you reduce the shipping/transportation, energy and resources that go into manufacturing new items, and thereby reduce carbon emissions. Plus, you get to brag to your friends about how much money you saved.
  5. Print double-sided. More offices are seeing the economic value of printing on both sides of a piece of paper. However, this tip should encompass all paper usage. The paper industry is the nation’s fourth largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. An article in The Daily Green offers the following additional tips: use cloth dinner napkins, shred used office paper for packaging, rediscover your local library, reuse paper bags, pay bills online, use dish towels instead of paper towels, and buy recycled paper.

You may feel that your individual efforts to reduce carbon won’t move the needle – but you’d be surprised how your actions inspire others to make changes.

In the words of Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Take the opportunity to make 2013 a carbon-reducing and more environmentally conscious year. And good luck!

Why reduce your carbon footprint?

Greenhouse gases are heat-trapping gases, which contribute to catastrophic climate change. Among those gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest contributor. Plus, Texas leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions, a ranking we should not be proud of and one we can do something about.

The effects of climate change include melting glaciers, more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions and an increase in the number, duration and intensity of tropical storms in others, shifting plant and animal ranges, loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

So, in order to reduce the carbon emissions contributing to this climate change, we continue to raise awareness and seek solutions. The science is clear. Human activities – emissions from fossil fuel combustion such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources – are a leading source of these emissions. Therefore, we offer the preceding easy tips on ways to reduce your carbon emissions.

Find out more about how EDF is working to fight climate change.

EDF staffer Delia Barrack and intern Carolyn Knight contributed to this post.

Also posted in Climate change, GHGs | Leave a comment

Court Upholds Historic EPA Actions, Rebukes Texas' Lawsuits To Undermine Health Protections

(Credit: www.kidsstuffworld.com)

This morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous opinion affirming EPA’s protective carbon pollution standards issued under the Clean Air Act.  The Court upheld EPA’s science-based finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare (the “Endangerment Finding”) and the Clean Car Standards.    The court also dismissed petitions challenging the requirement for large industrial sources to install modern cost-effective solutions to address greenhouse gases and EPA's common sense approach to inoculate small sources.  

Today’s ruling underscores what we have long known — that EPA’s climate protections are firmly grounded in science and law and will help secure a healthier, more prosperous future for all Americans.

EDF's press statement is appended below. 

The court's opinion is unanimous, strong, and emphatic.  Unfortunately, the lawsuits to obstruct these vital protections were brought by Texas and others. In today’s opinion, the court thoroughly rebuked those, like Texas, who attack science and obstruct progress in reducing climate pollution, noting “[t]his is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

Environmental Defense Fund, together with a large coalition of states and environmental organizations, intervened in defense of the clean air protections. Those protections include:  

  • The Climate Pollution Endangerment Finding, in which EPA – following the Supreme Court’s order in Massachusetts v. EPA – determined that climate pollution endangers human health and welfare on the basis of a rigorous review of the extensive body of climate science.
  • The Clean Car Standards, which establish cost-saving fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The standards are supported by U.S. auto makers and the United Auto Workers union, among others. They will save Americans thousands of dollars at the gas pump by enabling families to get more mileage out of each gallon of gas. They will also help break our nation's addiction to imported oil and will cut the amount of dangerous pollution from vehicles.
  • Carbon Pollution Limits for Big New Power Plants and Industrial Sources (the Timing and Tailoring Rules), in which EPA is phasing-in requirements for use of the best available cost-effective pollution controls, starting with new, large industrial emitters (like power plants) while shielding smaller emitters.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, clean car standards, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs, Oil | Leave a comment

EPA (finally) releases toxics limits on power plants

(credit: www.eoearth.org)

 What a great holiday gift for America's kids. And other people who breathe and eat.

On Wednesday, with sign-off from President Obama, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the first federal regulations limiting the amount of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, dioxins and other toxics that America's coal- and oil-fired power plants can release into our air. Of course, this is a big deal only if you think neurological damage, cancer, heart disease, birth defects, asthma attacks and premature deaths are big deals. At EDF, we do, and in a joint statement with a half-dozen other national environmental groups, we pointed out the new protections will prevent 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks among children — and save 11,000 lives. Every single year.

It wasn't easy. Environmentalists, evangelicals, moms and health professionals have been pushing to address this toxic threat for 21 years, and the electric power industry has pushed just as hard the other way — and with a lot more money behind them. The new regulations are a major step forward for the public's health and the health of the environment. Not surprisingly, some power companies are squealing like stuck pigs. But to their credit, fully three-quarters of the nation's largest coal-fired generators support the new rules and say they should be able to comply with them. In fact, the CEO and President of PSEG told the Wall Street Journal that the new regulations "provide a clear path for responsible coal generation."

And to those who insist on pitting the environment against the economy, we offer this: Fitting older power plants with new pollution control technology will produce an estimated 46,000 new short-term construction jobs and 8,000 new permanent jobs at power plants.

It was a long time coming, but Wednesday was a very good day.

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury | Leave a comment

A Response To Attacks On Renewable Energy

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange Blog.

Grover Norquist asks us to “rethink” renewable energy, and I think he may be right.  But we differ on the best way to do that.

(Source: Reddit)

He seems to think that Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and similar policies that level the playing field and create markets for renewable energy are “unfeasible,” as opposed to the current subsidies and rules that heavily favor fossil fuels.  In his op-ed, Norquist manages to wax poetic about free markets while dodging the billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels and numerous impartial analyses that illustrate how renewable energy saves money for customers and adds much needed revenue to state budgets.

Obscuring the Facts
A recent analysis found that the five states with the highest amount of renewable energy (states that are encouraged by the policies Norquist asks us to rethink) have lower rates than the states with the least amounts of renewable energy.  In 2009 the Texas PUC declared that the state’s national leadership in wind energy, driven by their RPS, “has had the impact of lowering wholesale and retail prices of electricity."  The Texas State Comptroller said, “After the RPS was implemented, Texas wind corporations and utilities invested $1 billion in wind power, creating jobs, adding to the Texas Permanent School Fund and increasing the rural tax base.”

The story is similar in Colorado where, according to the American Wind Energy Association, the state’s RPS supported a total of 5,000-6,000 direct and indirect jobs, generating $7 million in state revenue and $4 million in leasing revenue for landowners who benefit from the policy.  Still, Norquist chooses to focus on a report – not yet released at the time of this writing – by the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative group founded by Republican politician Ray Shamie, to support some rather speculative claims.  

“Choose Your Own Free Market”
Much like the old “Choose Your Own Adventure” children’s books, the fossil fuel industry would very much like to choose their own free market, one that gives fossil fuels an unfair advantage over all other resources.  Leaving the discussion there would simply perpetuate the junk science cycle that benefits the fossil fuel industry and their attempts to distract from the massive amounts of federal subsidies that these companies claim they need to continue operations.  A discussion on their terms would ignore the very real health impacts fossil fuel use has on infants, pregnant women, the elderly and the general population.   

 Fossil fuel use directly impacts human health and we subsidize fossil fuels heavily through increasing health care costs and other expenses. A recent report from Harvard Medical School found that these unwitting subsidies cost us $345 billion annually in emergency room visits, health impacts, loss of life and loss of tourism income among other impacts.  A true free market is one in which industry takes responsibility for the costs it imposes on society.  In this sense, the fossil fuels industry has failed miserably.

Growing Faster Than the Rest of the Economy
While fossil fuels have increasingly clear health costs, the ways in which clean energy production helps the U.S. economy are becoming clearer as well.  According to a study from the non-partisan Brookings Institute, renewable energy jobs – and clean tech jobs in general – have grown at a much faster pace than the rest of the U.S. economy, driven largely by state policies like the RPS (the only exception being hydropower).  Solar jobs alone have doubled in the U.S. to 100,000 since 2009; many of these local installation and service jobs cannot be exported.  Last year alone, U.S. solar energy installations created a combined $6 billion in direct value, $4 billion of which was accrued to the U.S.  Furthermore, Jackie Roberts, Director of Sustainable Technologies at EDF, recently wrote that the U.S. was a significant net exporter of solar energy products when the entire value chain is accounted for, with total net exports of $2 billion in 2010.
 
A Non-Partisan Issue
Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on Norquist’s part, but he certainly knows about renewable energy’s long history as a non-partisan issue – one where nationally recognized conservative Republicans like Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback have publicly supported the same policies that Norquist decries.  Polls across the country show strong voter support for renewable energy, reaching across political ideology and party lines.  In fact, the most recent Republican President and the previous Governor of Texas created the most successful Renewable Portfolio Standard in the country and reportedly consider it one of their proudest achievements in Texas.  Speaking in Dallas last year at the American Wind Energy Association’s annual conference, former President Bush noted that “when we diversify our energy supply, we create jobs.”
 
Mr. Norquist asks us to rethink renewable energy, and I think he may be right. Recently, fossil fuel industry-funded attacks on renewable energy have grown, which makes me think they are beginning to feel the pressure from cleaner renewable energy with no fuel cost.  Pseudo scientific claims like those found in Norquist’s op-ed make front page news while the incredible growth rates of renewable energy projects and jobs in the U.S. barely make the back page, which leads me to believe that the media is more focused on reporting controversy than facts.  The public remains committed to clean energy, while public officials waver, seeking to catch the political wind.  All of this makes me think that we need to recommit to a cleaner energy future with less pollution, healthier children and more local jobs.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Renewable Energy | 2 Responses

EDF Releases Ten Recommendations For The First Offshore CCS Projects In Texas

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange Blog by Tim O'Connor.

(Source: Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Region)

On December 2nd, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) completed a 2-year long research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to support a University of Texas (UT) project to find suitable sites to sequester carbon dioxide below ground in Texas’ offshore state waters. The research report, which directs site selection, anticipates environmental risks and provides recommendations during project siting and development, was generated to safely and efficiently guide offshore carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCS) projects to minimize risks to human health and the environment.

Given that a CCS project off the coast of Texas would likely be the first of its kind in U.S. history, the report offers valuable insight to help guide a future demonstration project which may open the door to a potentially huge CCS industry. In 2010, the U.S. DOE evaluated the gulf coast region and found vast potential for storing CO2 in deep saline formations (underground salt-water deposits) as well as in depleted oil and gas fields throughout the area. Similarly, in 2006 the University of Texas evaluated geologic formations across the coastal region, finding exceptional geology for engaging in CCS projects.

EDF’s recommendations, included in Section VII or the report, provide guidelines for use in site selection and development for offshore CCS projects in Texas, including:

  • Following threshold standards to avoid negative effects on human health or coastal natural resources;
  • Taking an overall precautionary approach wherever possible;
  • Performing site-specific evaluations within the full zone of potential impact, even if not required by law;
  • Choosing sites with the least potential for leakage;
  • Applying recently adopted U.S. EPA rules for groundwater protection even if not required by law;
  • Locating sites as far from shorelines and existing aquifers as feasible;
  • Reusing or collocating equipment new project footprints;
  • Selecting back-up sites where possible;
  • Developing site specific monitoring, verification, accounting, and reporting plan; and
  • Evaluating feasible mitigation measure prior to site operation.

To complete the research project, EDF energy and oceans experts performed an in-depth look into the current state of the Texas gulf coast environment and extrapolated lessons learned from operations analogous to CCS to analyze the potential for impact and recommend ways to mitigate overall risk. EDF used examples and best management practices developed for offshore oil drilling, onshore enhanced oil recovery, acid gas and wastewater injection, and offshore CCS projects in other countries to make its suite of recommendations.

Also posted in Gulf coast | Tagged | Leave a comment

Former Utility Executive Talks EPA, On-Bill Financing And “Waterproof Power”

It’s always nice to hear a guy say things that you agree with; it kind of makes you think you might be as smart as him, at least on the topic at hand (even if you know that’s not really true).  When it’s a person who has probably "run more public power agencies than anyone in history" including the Tennessee Valley Authority Texas’ Lower Colorado River Authority it makes you feel extra smart.  EDF has been a strong advocate of market based clean energy solutions like demand response, on-bill energy efficiency financing and clean energy in Texas, but hearing S. David Freeman talk about those issues with the Texas Tribune yesterday added some much needed perspective to the energy discussion.

Credit: LCRA

It’s well worth the full read here. But here are some of my favorites:

On the ongoing battle between Texas and the EPA:

… this is a kind of a almost childish reaction to something you've got to do that people are now saying they don't want to do. We have gone from 1970 to 2010 with people recognizing that the most precious, the most finite, the thinnest resource we have is this thin layer of air around the earth in which we have to breathe, and we have been steadily trying to put less and less poison into the air. Now, all of a sudden in 2011, because there's a recession and people are hurting economically, folks are trying to blame the environmental laws. Well, that's almost like blaming your momma for making you go to church.

On industry’s concerns about regulation:

I lived through an era when the electric power industry took out full-page ads in the paper saying, "We don't know how to build a scrubber," at the same time the engineers were learning how to build a scrubber [a piece of pollution control equipment]. And we've built scrubbers and we've installed them. The electric power industry has bellyached about the environmental laws while obeying them for the last 40 years…

On environmental progress and historical perspective:

…I'm not sure that the current public is quite as familiar with what's going on as we were in the 1970s and 1980s, because back then the Cayuga River was on fire and you couldn't breathe in Los Angeles or Houston. But because of the EPA, and only because of the EPA, the air quality has gotten a lot better. It's still not healthy. And so this is a march of progress that has gone on for a long time, and at every step of the road there have been affected industries.

On solar power:

If I were in charge of Texas right now, I would make sure that we initiated the load management [i.e., demand response] program immediately… I would do on-bill [energy] efficiency. And I would pick up the phone and call First Solar or one of these major solar companies and say, "I got a bunch of land in West Texas, near substations. How many megawatts can you put in between now and June?”

On “water proof” power:

Water, more than anything else, is the limiting factor on power production. It's time that we start, in a practical state like Texas, beginning to face the fact that electricity that can be generated without heating up or consuming water is far more practical than large nuclear, coal or even gas-fired plants… So we don't have all the power capacity we think we have, looking at the future. And therefore it puts a whole new look on the value of wind and solar and storage… And that's with waterproof power.”

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Broad Support for Cleaner Cars — Except from Some in Congress

This commentary was originally posted on EDF's Climate 411 blog.

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 Air Pollution, clean car standards, Environmental Protection Agency | Leave a comment