Climate 411

Clean Power Plan: Opponents Have Already Conceded that EPA Has Authority to Regulate

By Tomas Carbonell / Published: September 13, 2016

(EDF Attorney Ben Levitan co-authored this post)

rp_Gavel-and-earth-from-Flickr-300x199.jpgTwo weeks from today, on September 27th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument on the Clean Power Plan — our nation’s first-ever limits on dangerous, climate-destabilizing carbon pollution from power plants. Fossil fuel power plants are the country’s single largest source of this pollution, and among the world’s largest contributors to climate change.

As we’ve noted before, the Clean Power Plan has a solid legal foundation and is supported by many of the nation’s leading legal experts. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued similarly flexible, cost-effective pollution limits for decades under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, resulting in generations of healthier Americans and enormous economic benefits. Nevertheless, opponents of the Clean Power Plan — the coal industry, coal-intensive power companies and allied states — will almost certainly claim on September 27 that EPA has overstepped its bounds.

One particular claim you can expect to hear is that EPA does not have the authority to regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act because EPA has already regulated those same power plants — for entirely separate toxic substances like mercury, arsenic, acid gases and other hazardous air pollutants — under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. This bizarre theory is akin to arguing that a restaurant that has complied with health standards can’t be subject to the fire code.

This “pick your poison” legal theory is antithetical to the public health foundations of the Clean Air Act and utterly self-serving to the interests of polluters. Under this reading of the Clean Air Act, some dangerous pollution could be emitted in unlimited quantities no matter how much harm it inflicts upon our health and environment.

But opponents of the Clean Power Plan haven’t always sung this same tune. There are several prominent examples of Clean Power Plan opponents conceding EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants — sometimes even citing section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the very statutory provision that is the basis for the Clean Power Plan.

Here are some instances in which the Clean Power Plan opponents and their legal counsel have manifestly conceded EPA’s authority to limit the carbon pollution from existing power plants:

  • Concession #1: Attorney Peter Keisler, Representing Coal-Based Power Companies Before the U.S. Supreme Court, Concedes EPA’s Authority to Regulate Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act

In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011), several states and land trusts sought to limit climate pollution from several power companies under federal common law. In the Supreme Court, the power companies successfully argued that action under common law was unwarranted because Congress had already given EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under section 111.

During oral argument in the case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Peter Keisler — an attorney who represented the power companies in American Electric Power v. Connecticut and who is slated to present oral argument in the Clean Power Plan case — whether EPA had the authority to regulate climate pollution from existing power plants. Keisler responded that EPA did have authority — under the very same section that opponents of the Clean Power Plan now claim prohibits EPA from regulating those emissions.

We believe that the EPA can consider, as it’s undertaking to do, regulating existing nonmodified sources under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, and that’s the process that’s engaged in now. It’s announced that it will propose standards in the summer and complete a rulemaking by May. Obviously, at the close of that process there could be [Administrative Procedure Act] challenges on a variety of grounds, but we do believe that they have the authority to consider standards under section 111. (Attorney Peter Keisler, from transcript of oral argument in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (No. 10-174), page 15, emphasis added)

Three years later, Keisler again appeared before the Supreme Court representing coal companies and coal-based power companies. This time he was challenging EPA’s authority to require limits on the climate pollution under a separate Clean Air Act program.  During oral argument in this case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, Justice Ginsburg asked Keisler to identify which sections of the Clean Air Act provide EPA with authority to regulate climate pollution. Keisler responded by citing the Court’s discussion of section 111 in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, where the central question was the regulation of climate pollution from existing power plants.

I think most critically, Your Honor, it includes the new source performance standards program of Section 111 that this Court discussed in Connecticut v. AEP. And this is a very important point, because [Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA] is not about whether EPA can regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources. This Court held that it could under this program in Section [1]11. (Attorney Peter Keisler, from transcript of oral argument in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (No. 12-1146), page 18, emphasis added)

Crucially, this exchange occurred in February 2014 — more than two years after EPA issued the emission standards for mercury and air toxics that opponents now claim deprive EPA of the authority to issue the Clean Power Plan.

  • Concession #2: American Public Power Association and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

The American Public Power Association and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association — current petitioners against the Clean Power Plan — expressly supported Keisler’s position in American Electric Power v. Connecticut. Their amicus brief in that case specifically cited section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act — the same section under which EPA issued the Clean Power Plan — as a source of EPA’s authority to regulate the carbon pollution from existing power plants.

[The Clean Air Act] authorizes EPA to list categories of ‘stationary sources’ — i.e., non-mobile emissions sources, such as power plants — that ‘cause[ ], or contribute[ ] significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,’ and to establish federal performance standards for new or modified sources that fall within the listed category.  [Clean Air Act] § [1]11(b)(1)(A), (B). It requires states to issue performance standards for existing stationary sources in some circumstances, subject to EPA-promulgated guidelines. Id. § [1]11(d). (Brief of Amici Curiae Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), pages 6 and 7, emphasis added)

The brief goes on to note that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act requires the establishment of emission standards for:

air pollutants that are not regulated under other provisions of the Clean Air Act, such as [greenhouse gases] (Brief of Amici Curiae Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), page 9)

This is directly contrary to the position these same opponents have taken in the Clean Power Plan litigation, in which they have written that EPA lacks authority to regulate carbon pollution even though that pollution is not regulated under other Clean Air Act programs.

  • Concession #3: Hunton & Williams’s “Clean Air Handbook”

The law firm Hunton & Williams has long represented coal-related interests that are currently challenging the Clean Power Plan. In recent legal filings, Hunton & Williams attorneys have made the same argument — that EPA lacks the authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants because it already regulated those power plants for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants under section 112.

But in late 2014 — almost three years after EPA had issued its section 112 regulations, and two years before the recent legal filings — Hunton & Williams released a new edition of its “Clean Air Handbook” which correctly explained that EPA could regulate the same pollution source under both sections 111 and 112.

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act governs the regulation of emissions from existing sources of air pollutants that are not listed as criteria air pollutants pursuant to section 108 of the Act or listed as hazardous air pollutants under section 112. (Hunton & Williams, Clean Air Handbook 4th ed., page 211, (2014) emphasis added)

Hunton & Williams’s explanation in its 2014 Handbook is entirely consistent with EPA’s approach — their explanation indisputably permits the Clean Power Plan’s limits on carbon emissions from power plants, which aren’t listed under sections 108 or 112.  Yet an attorney from Hunton & Williams is expected to present the exact opposite position at the Clean Power Plan oral argument, claiming that EPA can’t regulate the same source under sections 111 and 112.

In Hunton & Williams’ 2014 Handbook, this notion was relegated only to an endnote and described as an alternative “legal argument [that] exists.” (page 222, endnote 230 of the handbook)

  • Concession #4: Clean Power Plan Opponent Peabody and Its Attorney Laurence Tribe Endorsed EPA’s Expertise in Regulating Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants

Despite EPA’s long, successful history of regulating pollution from power plants, Clean Power Plan opponents argue in their briefs that EPA lacks the expertise to make the policy decisions that went into the Clean Power Plan. Yet previously, in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the same industry litigants urged the courts themselves not to set climate pollution limits for power plants under the federal common law, arguing vigorously that EPA was more qualified to do so.

Peabody Energy Corporation’s brief in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, written by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, explained that the Supreme Court had recognized EPA’s regulatory expertise:

This Court has opined, in recognizing EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction, that the judiciary has ‘neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate [climate change] policy judgments …’ Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 533 (2007). (Brief of Amici Curiae Peabody Energy Corporation, Consumer Energy Alliance, and others in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), page 11, emphasis added, brackets in brief.)  

Tribe ultimately removed his name from that brief, but he continues to represent Peabody in litigation against the Clean Power Plan.

  • Concession #5: Peter Keisler Again

Peter Keisler, the attorney for the coal-based power companies, stated at oral argument for American Electric Power v. Connecticut that Congress created an orderly statutory framework under the Clean Air Act for EPA to regulate carbon pollution from power plants.

[T]here’s a reason that this issue is so fraught and difficult in international negotiations and at the EPA and in the halls of Congress, and that’s because it requires policymakers to allocate burdens among critical social goods in favor of important environmental considerations … [I]n a big intractable issue like this, Congress can often create an orderly framework for consideration within a statutory context, which it has done in part by enacting the Clean Air Act. [The Clean Air Act is implemented by EPA.] (Attorney Peter Keisler, from transcript of oral argument in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (No. 10-174), page 64 and 65, bracketed sentence added)

What do all these contradictory statements reveal? Opponents of climate progress will tie themselves in knots coming up with legal arguments to oppose any limit on carbon pollution. Their opposition isn’t just to the Clean Power Plan, but to any required reductions in climate-harming pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants.

As communities across America confront tragic flooding, heat waves, rising sea levels, and other grim impacts of climate change, we need to overcome this obstructionism and work together to forge solutions. We need the Clean Power Plan to help protect our families and communities from the clear and present danger of climate change — we do not need a legalistic shell game to evade accountability and avoid common-sense solutions.

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, EPA litgation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Five things you need to know before the Clean Power Plan oral argument

By Martha Roberts / Published: August 18, 2016

alternative-21581_640The Clean Power Plan oral argument is coming up soon. On September 27, attorneys will present their arguments in front of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

EPA and the many supporters of the Clean Power Plan have already filed their written arguments – and so has the coalition of coal companies and their allies that are challenging the rule. (You can read all their submissions here.) And just yesterday, the D.C. Circuit released the final order on the argument’s format and duration.

The Clean Power Plan is America’s first-ever nationwide program to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. It sets eminently achievable carbon emission targets that phase in gradually, in line with current power sector trends, while giving states and power companies tremendous flexibility to determine how best to meet these goals.

As we approach September 27, here are five key facts to keep in mind:

  1. The Clean Power Plan has supporters across the country.

Power companies and state and local officials in forty-one states are supporting the Clean Power Plan in court – either through their state attorney general, a local power company, or a municipality. And there are a lot more supporters as well.

The final submitted briefs reflect a wide array of important perspectives in our society. Supporters of the Clean Power Plan in court include:

  • Leading businesses. Power companies that produce about 10 percent of our nation’s electricity as well as prominent, iconic businesses including Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Google, IKEA, Mars, and Microsoft
  • States and municipalities. 18 states and 60 cities, including major cities in states that are litigating against these protections – like Houston, Grand Rapids, and Miami
  • Consumers Union and other organizations addressing the economic benefits for consumers and low income ratepayers from expansive, low cost clean energy solutions
  • 41 faith communities including the National Council of Churches and the Catholic Climate Covenant
  • Numerous renewable energy companies that are members of the Advanced Energy Economy, American Wind Energy Association, and Solar Energy Industries Association, which together represent more than 3,000 companies in the advanced energy sector, a $200 billion industry in the United States
  • 25 business associations including American Sustainable Business Council, U.S. Black Chambers, Inc., as well as state associations from West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, among others
  • Current and former members of Congress, including 36 sitting Senators and 157 sitting members of the House
  • Leading public health associations such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics
  • National security experts including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
  1. The legal and technical foundation of the Clean Power Plan is rock solid.

The Supreme Court has affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act three times since 2007. In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court specifically held that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act – the provision that underlies the Clean Power Plan – “speaks directly” to the regulation of carbon pollution from existing power plants.

EPA exhaustively analyzed the Clean Power Plan to ensure that it was based on the best available technical information and would not compromise the affordability or reliability of our electricity supply. EPA also reviewed millions of comments, received on every aspect of the proposed version.

A range of renowned experts have affirmed the robust legal and technical bases for the Clean Power Plan in amicus brief submissions to the D.C. Circuit, including:

  • The Institute for Policy Integrity — represented by New York University Law Dean Emeritus Richard Revesz
  • Former EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly, who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush — represented by Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus
  • Leon Billings and Tom Jorling — the principal drafters of the 1970 Clean Air Act
  • Former state energy and environmental officials — including Larry Soward, Commissioner at the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality under Texas Governor Rick Perry
  • Premier electric grid experts, who affirmed that EPA’s approach is fully in line with on-going power sector trends
  • Top climate scientists, who articulated the latest research on observed and projected impacts from our changing climate
  1. The tremendous pace of clean energy development further reinforces the Clean Power Plan’s reasonableness.

The cost of renewable energy is falling at an extraordinary rate, spurring dramatic expansion in its use. The cost of new wind power has dropped 60 percent — and the cost of new solar by 80 percent — since just 2009.

Renewable energy is anticipated to make up approximately 63 percent of new capacity additions in 2016. In fact, the amount of new renewable energy capacity developed in the first three months of 2016 exceeded new natural gas by a factor of more than seventy to one. Almost 100 gigawatts of additional new renewable energy resources are now projected in the United States by 2020, and annual investment in energy efficiency has quadrupled in the last decade.

America’s powerful clean energy trends further buttress the feasibility of the Clean Power Plan’s targets. But you don’t have to take our word for it — because power companies have said so themselves.

In their Clean Power Plan filing, major power producers emphasized their strong support for the Clean Power Plan, highlighting that it “harnesses existing trends within the electricity sector” and was set “with ample margin and attention to what is practically attainable.”

As the companies noted, both they and the power sector in general have “have successfully reduced emissions within their generation portfolios without compromising reliability and will continue to do so” under the Clean Power Plan.

Dominion Resources, an owner of several large coal-fired power plants in the Mid-Atlantic, affirmed the feasibility of compliance in a lengthy amicus brief submitted in support of the Clean Power Plan.

  1. States and power companies are charging ahead.

On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the Clean Power Plan in an unprecedented order. Nonetheless, states and power companies are voluntarily moving ahead, in recognition of the tremendous value in following the Clean Power Plan’s flexible, sensible approach to achieving emissions reductions.

More than half of states are continuing to assess planning options under the Clean Power Plan. 14 states across the country have explicitly requested that EPA continue providing information and guidance to help them make informed decisions about potential Clean Power Plan obligations as they continue moving forward. California developed its proposed Clean Power Plan state plan in a year and released it for public comment earlier this month. State officials across the country have voiced support for sensible continued planning — as one Wyoming state legislator put it, “Wyoming should be prepared.” (See a full compilation of state statements on the Clean Power Plan here.)

Power companies across the country have expressed similar sentiments. A representative from Mid-American Energy highlighted that they “wish” the stay hadn’t happened, because of the resulting uncertainty. American Electric Power, a major producer of coal-fired electricity, said that the Supreme Court stay “doesn’t change our focus on the diversification of our generation fleet,” and those diversification plans include more gas and renewables. Power companies are already investing in clean energy in response to the market and their customers — for these companies, any delay in planning creates needless risk and uncertainty.

  1. This record-breaking summer highlights just how urgently we need sensible climate protections.

It’s challenging to encapsulate all the extreme weather we’ve witnessed in 2016. Just in the U.S., we’ve experienced a series of dangerous heat waves, deadly floods, and extreme storms. This week’s flooding in Louisiana is just the latest heart-rending example — with lives tragically lost and upended across the state. Yesterday, NASA announced that July 2016 was the warmest month ever in 136 years of modern record-keeping. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2016 is firmly on track to be the warmest year yet. The Weather Channel noted all of these wild weather events from the first six months of 2016 together here, in a website on 2016’s “Weirdest Weather.” All these events are fully in line with the hotter, more extreme weather that’s predicted under a changing climate.

Meanwhile, new research only underscores the human health costs of climate change. Mitigating the human health impacts of climate change will add to the Clean Power Plan’s substantial health benefits from reducing soot and smog pollutants. EPA estimates that once the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented, these reductions will — every year — avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays.

These climate risks and essential health benefits highlight the importance of having a mandatory framework to ensure emissions reductions. Clean energy trends are already charging ahead, but investors need the certainty that the Clean Power Plan provides — and all Americans’ health and well-being are depending on it.

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, Economics, Energy, EPA litgation, Green Jobs, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, Jobs, Policy / Comments are closed

New Standards for Cleaner Freight Trucks – By the Numbers

By Peter Zalzal / Published: August 17, 2016

rp_Pepsi-truck-300x225.jpgThe Clean Truck standards are here!

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) just announced new greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

These are the second phase of EPA and DOT’s joint program for heavy-duty trucks.

They will apply to the freight trucks that transport the products we buy every day, as well as to buses and school buses, tractor-trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and garbage trucks for model years 2018 to 2027.

These standards will have widespread benefits. They’ll help ensure that our nation’s fleet of trucks uses dramatically less fuel, will cut climate and other harmful pollution, and will save both truckers and consumers money. EPA and DOT estimate they will yield $230 billion in net societal benefits over the life of the program.

Here’s a bit more on the benefits of the new Clean Truck standards, by the numbers:

Cutting Pollution

  • 1.1 billion tons of carbon pollution: EPA projects the standards will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.1 billion tons over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program.
  • 550,000 tons of nitrous oxides and 32,000 tons of particulate matter: EPA projects that the standards will have multi-pollutant benefits and result in significant reductions of nitrous oxides and particulate matter — harmful air pollutants associated with respiratory ailments and premature death.

Saving Fuel

  • 2 billion barrels of oil: EPA estimates that the standards will save two billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program.

Saving Money

  • $170 billion: EPA estimates that over the lifetime of the program, the standards will save vehicle owners fuel costs of about $170 billion.
  • 2 years: The typical buyer of a new long-haul truck in 2027 could recoup the cost of modernizing with advanced low-emitting technologies in less than two years through fuel savings.
  • $250: The program will also benefit con­sumers by reducing the costs for shipping goods. The Consumer Federation of America found that rigorous fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards could save American households $250 annually in the near term and $400 annually by 2035.

Broad Support

  • 300 Companies: More than 300 companies called for strong final standards during the rulemaking process, including PepsiCo and Walmart (two of the largest trucking fleets in the U.S.), mid-size trucking companies RFX Global and Dillon Transport, and large customers of trucking services General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, and IKEA. Innovative manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and freight shippers have also called for strong standards.

Strong Clean Truck standards are also supported by national security and veterans groups, labor, consumer, and health groups, and clean air advocates (including EDF). 

Beyond the numbers, they are a testament to the fact that when we work together we can secure commonsense standards that protect public health while driving innovation and helping to create more efficient trucks for the future.

(This post was co-written by EDF Legal Fellow Alice Henderson)

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Partners for Change, Policy / Comments are closed

Coming Soon – Cleaner Trucks, Less Pollution, and Fuel Cost Savings

By Jason Mathers / Published: August 10, 2016

Traffic Light TrucksNew and improved Clean Truck standards are coming soon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are expected to imminently finalize new greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium-and heavy-duty trucks and buses. The standards will apply to the freight trucks that transport the products we buy every day, as well as to buses and school buses, tractor-trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and garbage trucks. (They are separate from standards for cars and passenger trucks.)

EDF, together with a broad coalition of stakeholders, has consistently called for a protective cost-effective program that will curb climate pollution and reduce our nation’s oil consumption while also driving innovative technologies that will stimulate economic growth and create high-quality domestic jobs.

Heavy-duty trucks consume almost 120 million gallons of fuel every day and emit more than 400 million metric tons of climate pollution annually. (These estimates do not include upstream emissions.) Freight movement is also one of the most briskly growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption in the United States.

The upcoming second phase of Clean Truck standards will build on the first ever heavy-duty fuel economy and GHG program, which was finalized in 2011 with broad support from truck manufacturers, national security and veterans groups, labor, consumer, and health groups, and clean air advocates (including EDF). The success of the first phase Clean Truck program is already being demonstrated by the demand for more efficient trucks and the wide variety of efficiency technologies already available for consumers to choose from.

The second-phase Clean Truck standards will apply to vehicles manufactured years from now, beginning in model year 2021 and spanning later years.The nearly final standards are an important step forward in delivering climate, health and energy benefits.

EPA estimates the standards, as proposed, would:

  • Reduce carbon pollution by one billion tons and cut fuel use by 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles subject to the standards
  • Save vehicle owners $170 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles
  • Save the average American household $150 a year by 2030
  • Reduce harmful criteria and air toxic emissions by hundreds of thousands of tons annually

Increased Efficiency Provides Savings across the Entire Supply Chain

The average semi truck today burns 20,000 gallons of diesel a year – the same volume of fuel used by 50 new passenger cars. Fuel has been the largest single cost for trucking fleets, accounting for 39 percent of the cost of ownership in 2013. According to a study by EDF and CERES, robust fuel efficiency standards for trucks could lower total per-mile cost of ownership by 22 cents-a-mile by 2040.

Companies across the Supply Chain Support Strong Final Standards

Given the combination of environmental and economic benefits that strong final standards will provide, many leading companies have already shown support. PepsiCo and Walmart – two of the largest trucking fleets in the U.S. – support strong standards. General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, IKEA and many other companies that rely on trucking also support strong standards. Innovative manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and freight shippers have also called for strong standards.

Consumers Demand More Efficient Trucks

Some of the savings from the Clean Trucks standards will be passed on to consumers. The Consumer Federation of America found that rigorous fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards could save American households $250 annually in the near term and $400 annually by 2035 on goods and services (even more than what EPA estimated). According to a survey by the Consumer Federation of America, a large majority of Americans – 74 percent – favor requiring truck manufacturers to increase the fuel economy of large trucks to reduce their fuel costs, as much of that savings is passed on to consumers.

Cost-Effective Technologies are Proven and Available

There are many technology solutions on the shelf and in production today that can be cost-effectively scaled to make trucks significantly more efficient and cleaner. Truckers and fleets across the nation have already begun adopting many of these fuel saving technologies and strategies.

Here are some examples:

Rigorous fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses will make the American freight industry cleaner and create American jobs while saving American fleets and consumers money.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Jobs, Partners for Change, Policy / Comments are closed

Clean Trucks Turn Five and Bring Far-Reaching Economic and Environmental Benefits

By Jason Mathers / Published: August 9, 2016
One of Walmart's aerodynamic trucks

One of Walmart’s aerodynamic trucks

Five years ago today, President Obama announced final fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty trucks. These new Clean Truck standards are helping to keep Americans safe from climate change and from unhealthy air pollution, reduce our country’s reliance on imported oil, and save money for both truckers and consumers.

On the fifth anniversary of their release, it is unequivocally clear that this program has been an enormous success for manufacturers, truck fleets, freight shippers, and the American people. It is also clear that more is needed and that more is possible.

The first generation Clean Truck standards were created with the broad support of the trucking industry and many other key stakeholders. Among the diverse groups that supported them were the American Trucking Associations, Engine Manufacturers Association and the Truck Manufacturers Association, the United Auto Workers — and of course EDF. With the benefit of five years of hindsight, it’s clear that this support was well deserved.

The Clean Truck standards went into effect in 2014, which was a banner year for new truck sales. These new standards drove a wave of innovation for fuel efficiency. Cummins brought forward an engine that was seven percent more efficient. Volvo improved its engine by three percent compared to just the previous year’s model. Numerous component manufacturers brought forth new fuel saving solutions.

We are now seeing this same pattern repeat itself as manufacturers announce their 2017 product lines. Volvo just introduced an engine capable of improving fuel efficiency by 6.5 percent over its 2013 model in part because of its use of waste-heat recovery. Cummins base 2017 engine is three percent more efficient than its 2016 engine and it offers a model that is 10 more efficient than one made just five years ago.

The progress we made toward fuel efficiency in 2014 and 2017 is the result of a Clean Trucks program that strikes an important balance between protective, long-term standards and the ability of manufacturers to bring new solutions to market. As Martin Daum, president and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America has noted, these standards “are very good examples of regulations that work well.”

The new trucks built under the 2014-to-2018 program are delivering tens of billions of dollars in savings for truck owners. Individual consumers are benefiting too, as passed-through truck fuel use expenditures cost Americans more than $1100 per household annually.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) are now building on this record of success with a new round of standards. These second-round standards were proposed last summer and are expected to be finalized soon. The proposed second-round standards were a good first step, but significant opportunities remain to strengthen and improve on the proposal. Chief among these is the need for a more robust engine standard.

The 2014-to-2017 program, which has been incredibly successful, required a nine percent engine efficiency improvement over the course of four years. In comparison, the proposed 2021-to-2029 program would require only a four percent improvement over the course of nearly a decade. Failing to strengthen these standards would be an enormous lost opportunity. Leading engine experts have found that fuel savings of fifteen percent beyond the 2017 standards are technically feasible and cost effective over the course of the 2021-to-2029 program.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration released a recent analysis of the emissions impacts of the 2021-to-2029 standards as proposed. It found that the standards would cut direct emissions by 100 million tons in 2040 compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Even with these impressive reductions, freight trucks are projected to directly emit nearly 400 million tons of climate pollution in 2040. This doesn’t have to be so.

We are seeing significant investments in potential solutions and technologies that can dramatically reduce future truck emissions.

High-profile examples of this innovation include:

  • Tesla’s intention of bringing forward an electric semi-truck, noting that a prototype truck will be unveiled in 2017
  • Walmart’s introduction of its W.A.V.E. truck
  • The U.S. Department of Energy’s SuperTruck team road-testing trucks capable of getting 10.7 and 12.2 miles per gallon

By building on the foundation of the 2014-to-2017 standards with truly strong 2021-to-2029 standards, EPA and DOT will provided needed wind in the sails to get breakthrough innovations like these to market. The benefits have been, and will be, far reaching — in fuel cost savings for trucker and shippers alike, job creation, pollution reductions, and the technological innovation that is the foundation of a strong, vibrant economy.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Partners for Change, Policy / Read 1 Response

EPA Updates Standards to Reduce Methane Pollution from Landfills

By Peter Zalzal / Published: July 15, 2016

Landfill Gas Extraction — photo by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(This post was co-written by EDF’s Tomás Carbonell)

This morning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized long-overdue revisions to national emission standards and emission guidelines for new and existing municipal solid waste landfills.

These standards will reduce harmful air pollution from landfills, which are our nation’s third largest source of climate-destabilizing methane pollution and also discharge other deleterious pollutants.

In 2025, EPA estimates that the final standards and emission guidelines will reduce methane emissions by an estimated 334,000 metric tons and non-methane organic compounds by more than 2,000 metric tons, primarily by expanding the application of landfill gas capture technology.

Today’s announcement updates standards and guidelines for existing sources that have not been substantially changed since they were first issued in 1996. Over the last two decades, technology and practices have evolved to enable better and more efficient control of landfill emissions — both from new and existing sources. For instance, leading landfill operators and industry experts have identified and implemented a number of best practices for achieving further reductions in landfill emissions, including: installing gas collection systems early in the life cycle of the landfill; using proper landfill covers and rigorously monitoring the integrity of those covers; using landfill gas as an energy source to replace fossil fuels; and developing alternatives to landfilling, including recycling and composting of organic waste.

Despite these advances, some have argued that EPA is not authorized to update emission guidelines for existing sources and instead must maintain requirements that are now more than 20 years out of date. EPA’s authority to review and revise emission guidelines for existing landfills, however, is firmly grounded in the text and purpose of the Clean Air Act and consistent with bedrock principles of administrative law.

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes these standards and guidelines for landfills, requires standards for new and existing sources alike to reflect the “best system of emission reduction,” taking into account cost and other factors.

Courts have consistently held that this provision of the Clean Air Act is manifestly forward-looking, enabling EPA to:

look toward what may fairly be projected for the regulated future, rather than the state of the art at present (National Asphalt Pavement Association v. Train, F.2d 775, 785, D.C. Circuit 1976 — quoting Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 286 F.2d 375, 391, D.C. Cir. 1973)

If EPA is to fulfill this statutory obligation, it must have the ability to ensure that guidelines for existing sources are updated over time – just as the agency does for new sources — to reflect the latest advances and improvements in systems of emission reduction.

More broadly, EPA’s authority to update guidelines for existing sources flows inexorably from the fabric of the Clean Air Act, which recognizes the importance of EPA assessing new information about air pollution threats, incentivizing development of new technologies, and enabling their swift application.

In amending the Clean Air Act in 1977 Congress explicitly noted the importance of providing for continuous development and updating of standards:

Throughout this bill there is a philosophy of encouragement of technology development. It is an encouragement to induce, to stimulate, and to augment the innovative character of industry in reaching for more effective, less-costly systems to control air pollution. (S. Rep. No. 95-127 at *18, 1977)

Indeed, EPA periodically revisits the nation’s health-based standards for various pollutants in light of new scientific information and has revised standards for sources ranging from cars to power plants as new technologies have enabled more efficient and protective approaches. This process of regular review and improvement is consistent with firmly established principles of administrative law, which have long held that agencies have authority to revisit and update their regulations over time.

As the Supreme Court held in a landmark case:

Regulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last forever; they are supposed … to adapt their rules and practices to the Nation’s needs in a volatile, changing economy. They are neither required nor supposed to regulate the present and the future within the inflexible limits of yesterday. (American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RR Co., et al., 387 U.S. 397; 87 S. Ct. 1608, 1967)

Although EPA’s final landfills standards secure important benefits for climate and public health, there remain significant opportunities to achieve cost-effective emission reductions from municipal solid waste landfills. EPA’s decision to revise its landfill standards, however, is firmly consistent with the Clean Air Act’s long history grounded in innovation and cost effective pollution reductions. It can help to ensure these requirements remain vibrant over time and spur development of these and other new technologies to reduce landfill pollution.

Also posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Read 2 Responses