Climate 411

Protective pollution safeguards can dramatically increase deployment of zero-emission freight trucks and buses

By Andy Su / Published: February 17, 2022

Photo: Scharfsinn86

A new study developed by Roush Industries for EDF shows rapidly declining costs for zero-emission freight trucks and buses, underscoring the feasibility of rapidly deploying these vehicles that will help us save money, have healthier air, and address the climate crisis.

The study, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electrification Cost Evaluation, analyzes the cost of electrifying vehicles in several medium and heavy-duty market segments, including transit and school buses, shuttle and delivery vehicles, and garbage trucks – vehicles that typically operate in cities where average trip distances are short and the health and pollution effects of transportation pollution are of particular concern. It projects the upfront costs of buying an electric vehicle instead of a diesel vehicle, and the total cost of ownership for electric vehicles in model years 2027 to 2030.

The study finds that a rapid transition to electric freight trucks and buses makes economic sense when considering both the upfront purchase cost and the total cost of ownership.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Cities and states, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, News, Policy / Comments are closed

An attack on hypothetical climate pollution safeguards lands at the Supreme Court. EDF will fight to protect climate action.

By Ashley Maiolatesi / Published: January 24, 2022

EPA’s authority to safeguard human health and the environment is longstanding and well-established. But now there’s a new case before the Supreme Court that threatens it.

The case was brought by coal companies and their allies, whose efforts to tightly constrict EPA’s ability are not only alarming but also should not even be before the Supreme Court. That’s why EDF is participating in the case (West Virginia et al. v. EPA) in support of the agency’s clear authority and obligation to reduce climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. We joined other leading environmental groups and trade associations to file our merits brief in the case. Almost two dozen states and several cities, the federal government, and power companies that provide power to 40 million people in 49 states also filed in support of EPA.

The arguments made by the petitioners in this case do not articulate an actual, redressable injury. The case before the Supreme Court necessarily lacks this essential ingredient necessary for court review because the rule petitioners take issue with is not currently in effect. In fact, the rule has never been in effect.

Put simply, no actual dispute exists.

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

The Supreme Court will review a crucial case about climate pollution from power plants. Now what?

By Ashley Maiolatesi / Published: November 3, 2021

(This post was co-authored by EDF legal fellow Jesse Hevia)

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a D.C. Circuit decision that struck down the Trump administration’s rule weakening regulations of carbon pollution from power plants.

Here’s a look at what happened – and what might happen next.

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

Four Reasons Petitions for Supreme Court Review of Climate Pollution Standards for Power Plants Should Fail

By Ashley Maiolatesi / Published: September 24, 2021

This coming Monday, the Supreme Court will consider hundreds of petitions for review, which ask the Court to take up cases for full consideration during its new term. Among the petitions for review are four from coal companies and states asking the Court to review the D.C. Circuit decision overturning the Trump administration’s rule weakening regulations of carbon pollution from power plants. For multiple reasons the four petitions lack merit.

The Clean Power Plan, adopted in 2015, established the first-ever national limits on climate pollution from existing power plants. In 2019, the Trump administration adopted regulations to repeal the Clean Power Plan and replace it with the “ACE” rule – which did virtually nothing to limit pollution.

This January the D.C. Circuit struck down this attempt, issuing a narrow opinion that explained how ACE misinterpreted specific language in section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

In the months since the D.C. Circuit’s decision, neither the Clean Power Plan nor the Trump administration’s weak replacement rule has been in effect, meaning that no power plants or operators have experienced harm under either rule. Additionally, EPA has been working from a clean slate on new safeguards that will reflect current information about our rapidly changing power sector. Despite this, and the fact that no one is subject to any compliance obligations under the Clean Power Plan or ACE, coal companies and 21 states are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit opinion and issue a statutory interpretation that limits EPA’s ability under the Clean Air Act to protect the public from climate pollution.

Effectively, they are asking the Court for an “advisory” opinion — a free-floating legal opinion untethered to any current dispute but intended to constrain future behavior. EDF is part of a coalition of environmental organizations that – along with almost two dozen states and cities, power companies and business associations – opposes this challenge.

Rather than take up this case in order to consider legal theories in the abstract, the appropriate course would be for the Court to allow EPA to complete its new rulemaking, which will be subject to judicial review once finalized. At that time, reviewing courts will be able to assess EPA’s actual application of its Clean Air Act authority in the context of real compliance obligations and a factual record that reflects current realities.

Here are four key reasons that the petitioners’ pleas for Supreme Court review should fail:

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

EPA Expected to Act Soon on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

By Ashley Maiolatesi / Published: August 31, 2021

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have slashed dangerous pollution and prevented thousands of premature deaths since their creation in 2012.

Despite this success, the Trump administration undermined the legal foundation for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in 2020. But the Environmental Protection Agency is soon expected to release a proposal that would restore the legal basis for limiting hazardous air pollution from coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act.

It’s critical for the health of American families that EPA does so — and that EPA then further strengthens the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

Also posted in Health, Policy / Comments are closed

Trump administration decision on soot ignores science, risks Americans’ health

By Taylor Bacon / Published: December 7, 2020

Today, the Trump administration finalized a rushed and inadequate review of our national particle pollution standard – otherwise known as PM 2.5, or soot. They ignored public input and the latest body of health science, and decided to keep a weak standard in place.

The decision by Trump’s EPA means that Americans – particularly Black, Latino, Indigenous and other communities of color – will be exposed to elevated levels of harmful air pollution. It’s a decision that the incoming Biden-Harris administration should immediately reverse and replace with strong standards that reflect the clear scientific evidence and protect all Americans.

Here are three things you should know:

Also posted in Health, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Search
Get new posts by email
We'll deliver new blog posts to your inbox.

Subscribe via RSS
Categories
Categories