LOS ANGELES, California, January 8, 2009 (ENS) – The Puente Hills Landfill hosted a rare group of federal and state environmental officials on Monday. They met at the waste disposal site to view tractors, bulldozers and refuse compactors that are ahead of schedule in meeting California’s new, stringent diesel emissions standards for heavy equipment.

The roughly 180,000 pieces of off road equipment in California spew nearly as much smog-forming emissions and fine particle pollution as the one million diesel trucks that have just come under regulation by the California Air Resources Board.

Board Chairman Mary Nichols said, “ARB’s first-in-the nation standards are driving businesses to invest in advanced technologies to clean our air and save the planet. Even heavy duty off road equipment can be part of the solution.”

The Air Resources Board adopted a precedent-setting regulation in July 2007 that Nichols says will reduce toxic and cancer-causing diesel emissions from off road vehicles used in construction, mining, airport ground support, and other industries.

The regulation requires the installation of diesel soot filters and encourages the replacement of older, dirtier engines with newer emission-controlled models.

Because many diesel engines lack emission controls and can remain in use for 30 years or longer, they could become long-term contributors to air pollution.

But Nichols estimates that under the regulation, by 2020, diesel particulate matter will be reduced by 74 percent and smog forming oxides of nitrogen by 32 percent, compared to what emissions would be without the rule.

Diesel particulate matter, or diesel soot, was identified as a toxic air contaminant in 1998.

The ARB estimates that the off-road diesel rule will prevent at least 4,000 premature deaths statewide and avoid $18 to 26 billion in premature death and health costs.

“It cannot be overstated how this new regulation will help us in preventing air pollution-related health problems for residents of our region,” said Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

“Speeding up the transition to cleaner off-road equipment is key in our efforts to protect public health,” he said.

ARB performed a comprehensive economic analysis of the rule’s impact on business, which concluded that the regulation will cost industry up to $3.5 billion over its lifetime.

The requirements and deadlines vary depending on fleet size.

For small fleets, which include small businesses or municipalities with a combined horsepower of 2500 or less, implementation does not begin until 2015.

Medium fleets, with 2501 to 5000 horsepower, have until 2013, while large fleets, with over 5000 horsepower, must begin complying in 2010.

Bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and forklifts, as well as many other self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles must meet the new standard.

“This equipment is no longer just moving earth – it’s moving California toward better air quality,” said Wayne Nastri, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Pacific Southwest region, viewing the heavy equipment at Puente Hills.

“And with the $1 million we’re giving to the South Coast Air Quality Management District to clean up 700 heavy duty trucks, more and more vehicles will be driving toward a future of cleaner air,” Nastri said.

(Photo: A refuse compactor at the Puente Hills Landfill by John Wiseman)

The funding for the greener heavy equipment resulted from enforcement actions that the U.S. EPA took against Chevron, Valero, Cosmed and ARCO for violations at their California facilities.

As part of their settlements, these companies agreed to use funds that otherwise would have been paid as penalties to conduct environmental projects that directly benefit the community where the violations occurred.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, January 2, 2009 (ENS) – As of January 1, every 2009 model year and newer car built for sale in California will be required to carry a label that clearly ranks the vehicle’s environmental impact. A vehicle’s certification level can be found under the hood on the vehicle emissions control information label.

The label will show a simple ranking system that provides consumers with practical information that can help them choose the most environmentally friendly vehicle that still meets their transportation needs.

“This label will arm consumers with the information they need to choose a vehicle that saves gas, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps fight smog all at once,” said California Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols. “Consumer choice is an especially powerful tool in our fight against climate change.”

The environmental performance label will have two scores on a scale of 1-10, a global warming score and a smog score.

The higher the score the more environmentally friendly the car is. The average new car will score five on both scales.

Electric cars earn the highest ratings on both scores. One car rating 10 on both scores is the GEM electric car from Global Electric Motors, a Chrysler company. Priced at $12,495, the GEM is 100 percent battery-electric and does not use any gasoline.

A GEM electric car is the highest rated car
for both the smog and the global warming
scores. (Photo courtesy Global Electric Motors)

Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, creating global warming. Scientists are certain that human activities such as burning gasoline for transportation are changing the composition of the atmosphere and warming the planet’s climate.

Greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles include carbon dioxide, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons from air conditioner refrigerant. Greenhouse gas emissions are identified as the CO2-equivalent value.

The California global warming score is based on the sum of a vehicle’s greenhouse gas emissions, which are identified as the CO2-equivalent value.

The global warming score ranks each vehicle’s CO2-equivalent value on a scale of one to 10 relative to all other vehicles within the current model year.

A score of 10 is the cleanest a vehicle can rate and indicates that the vehicle emits less than 200 grams of CO2-equivalent per mile driven.

A score of one is the dirtiest a vehicle can rate and indicates that the vehicle emits more than 520 grams of CO2-equivalent per mile driven.

The global warming scores are adjusted to reflect the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions from the production and distribution of the fuel used to power the vehicle.

Smog is hazy air pollution produced by the photochemical reaction of sunlight with volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen released into the atmosphere, especially by automobile operation.

California’s new smog score ranks each vehicle’s pollutant levels of non-methane organic gases and oxides of nitrogen relative to all other vehicles within the current model year.

Smog scores will be on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the cleanest. The average vehicle available in California today will get a smog score of 5. Many pre-2004 vehicles fall below a smog score of one. This is because, over time, there have been significant advances in air pollution control technologies and the Air Resources Board has established more stringent pollution standards for vehicles.

For a list of the top 10 cleanest cars, click [urlhttp://www.driveclean.ca.gov/]here[/url] to go to the California Air Resources Board’s consumer website.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, December 12, 2008 (ENS) – The California Air Resources Board today adopted two regulations aimed at cleaning up harmful emissions from the estimated one million heavy-duty diesel trucks that operate in California. The regulations are the first of their kind in the United States.

Heavy-duty big rigs are the largest remaining source of unregulated diesel emissions, responsible for 32 percent of the smog-forming emissions and nearly 40 percent of the cancer-causing emissions from diesel mobile sources. Other diesel emitters include trains, off-road vehicles and marine engines.

Beginning January 1, 2011, the Statewide Truck and Bus rule will require truck owners to install diesel exhaust filters on their rigs, with nearly all vehicles to be upgraded by 2014.

Owners also must replace engines older than the 2010 model year according to a staggered implementation schedule that extends from 2012 to 2022.

Also adopted today, the Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction measure requires long-haul truckers to install fuel efficient tires and aerodynamic devices on their trailers that lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy.

Trucks operating in California will have to
comply with new rules limiting diesel
emissions. (Photo by Alexander DeVoe)

“Today’s vote marks a milestone in the history of California’s air quality,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. “The Board’s actions will not only help protect the health of 38 million Californians, they will also ensure that California continues strongly on its path to achieving clean air.”

“In light of today’s extremely challenging financial climate, I am also pleased to say that the governor, legislature and voters have made available more than one billion dollars in grants and loan programs to help truckers and business owners comply with this vital public health measure,” she said.

Diesel emissions are associated with cancer and worsen cardiovascular and respiratory ailments, as do smog-forming emissions. The truck regulation is expected to save 9,400 lives between 2011 and 2025, and reduce health care costs.

These benefits have an estimated value of $48 billion to $69 billion, said Nichols. The cost of installing the trailer greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies will be quickly recouped through lower fuel use.

Without the diesel regulation, California will not be able to meet U.S. EPA mandated air quality standards and deadlines, and so could lose billions of dollars in federal highway funding.

“In passing these rules, California will continue to lead a nationwide movement to protect our most vulnerable citizens and reduce health care costs by placing highly cost-effective controls on diesel engines,” testified Dr. John Balbus, chief health scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

During the public meeting this morning before the Air Resources Board voted to approve the rule late today, Balbus said, “The scientific literature is overflowing with studies documenting harm from diesel emissions to the lungs, the immune system, the heart and cardiovascular system, even the developing brain.”

The greenhouse gas reduction measure applies to more than 500,000 trailers, while the diesel regulation applies to about 400,000 heavy duty vehicles that are registered in the state, and about 500,000 out-of-state vehicles that do business in California.

Because many heavy duty vehicles are replaced or retired due to normal business practices on a faster schedule than what the new regulation will require, the number of vehicles expected to be retrofit by 2014 under the rule is about 230,000, while up to 350,000 vehicles would be replaced earlier than normal over the next 15 years.

There are exceptions to the regulation, including low-use vehicles, emergency and military vehicles, and personal use motor homes. School buses would be subject only to requirements for reducing diesel particulate matter and not for engine replacement.

To reduce diesel emissions and improve air quality and public health, the California Air Resources Board adopted a Diesel Risk Reduction Plan in 2000 and has already passed regulations addressing urban buses, garbage trucks, school bus and truck idling, stationary engines, transport refrigeration units, cargo handling equipment at ports and rail yards, port trucks and off-road vehicles.

California is the state with the most polluted air in the country. Because of new engine standards established in 2001, diesel engines operating in California have been getting cleaner, but they are not getting clean fast enough to meet air quality goals.

With the new State Bus and Truck rule in place, by 2014, diesel emissions will be 68 percent lower than they would be without the regulation, while emissions of the smog-forming pollutant nitrogen oxides will be 25 percent lower.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, December 9, 2008 (ENS) – The California Air Resources Board has issued a consumer alert, advising holiday shoppers not to purchase air purifiers or air cleaning devices that intentionally generate ozone.

Some devices that are advertised as “air purifiers,” air cleaners, or ozone generators purposely emit large amounts of ozone, the main component of smog.

“Not only are such ozone generators ineffective at cleaning indoor air, but breathing ozone poses serious health risks,” warns the Air Resources Board, recommending that these ozone generators not be used.

“Consumers should take care when considering purchase of an air cleaning device,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols, “Beware of misleading advertisements offering air purifiers that are simply indoor smog-making machines.”

Consumers may unknowingly purchase these “ozone generators” from advertisers touting the so-called benefits of “activated oxygen” that can make the air inside your home “as fresh as the outdoors after a thunderstorm,” the board said, quoting the ads.

Air-Zone’s top of the line ozone generator, price
$2899.99. (Photo courtesyAir-Zone)

In fact, the board says, “Ozone generators are capable of emitting enough ozone indoors to far exceed outdoor health standards and can intentionally create the equivalent of a Stage 1 smog alert inside your home.”

These devices pump a well-known air pollutant into people’s homes putting everyone at risk, especially the most vulnerable – the young, elderly and infirm.

The devices can produce levels of ozone that can worsen asthma, cause serious lung inflammation, decrease lung function, and lead to hospitalization for respiratory conditions, emergency room visits for asthma, and increased school absences.

Air-Zone, one of the companies selling devices on the board’s long don’t buy list has a prominent warning on its website, “IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS OZONE GENERATOR IS MEANT FOR UNOCCUPIED ROOM USE ONLY. THIS MACHINE CANNOT EVER BE USED IN OCCUPIED ROOMS. IT IS FAR TOO STRONG. It has a built in timer so you can run the unit and have it automatically shut itself off long before you return. One hour later all the ozone will be gone.”

“IT IS ONLY MEANT AS A SHOCK TREATMENT CLEAN OUT TOOL TO KILL MOLD AND BACTERIA, AND REMOVE SERIOUS ODORS IN UNOCCUPIED AREAS ONLY. ONLY A HIGH POWERED OZONE GENERATOR LIKE THIS CAN TRULY KILL MOLD.”

Recently, California regulated the sale of these devices to protect public health. California Assembly Bill 2276 (2006, Pavley), signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006, directed the Air Resources Board to develop and adopt a regulation to limit the amount of ozone emitted from indoor air cleaning devices.

The regulation became final on October 18, 2008, and all air cleaning devices sold in California must meet the requirements by October 18, 2010, the full compliance date.

Currently, air cleaners are being tested by the state to assure they do not emit harmful levels of ozone; however, testing of air cleaners by certified laboratories is expected to take up to two years. During this interim time period high ozone-emitting devices can still be sold.

For that reason, the Air Resources Board recommends consumers avoid the purchase of any air cleaner for home or office that intentionally emits ozone.

The best and most effective way to avoid indoor air pollution problems is to remove the sources of the pollution or prevent emissions to begin with, the board advises [www.arb.ca.gov]. Improving fresh-air ventilation is also helpful.

Those still wishing to use an air cleaner should look for models that use high-efficiency pleated filters, known as HEPA filters, or electrostatic precipitators that do not emit high amounts of ozone.

For guidance in selecting air cleaners, including ratings in Consumer Reports articles and ARB’s fact sheet entitled “Air Cleaning Devices for the Home: Frequently Asked Questions,” click here [www.arb.ca.gov].

Click here [www.arb.ca.gov] for a list of air cleaners to avoid. The list includes air cleaners sold primarily for residential use, plus some for commercial, in-vehicle, and personal use.

For more about ozone-emitting air cleaners and the Air Resources Board regulation click here [www.arb.ca.gov] or call the ARB indoor air hotline at 916-322-8282.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, December 4, 2008 (ENS) – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. once again is urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat climate change.

With U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rising year after year, according to a report issued this week by the U.S. Energy Department, and with the UN’s annual climate conference now taking place in Poland, Brown and other attorneys general say this is the time for the EPA to protect the climate.

“After eight years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming and use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat dangerous climate change,” Brown said.

Brown joined with 13 other attorneys general; the California Air Resources Board and four other state environmental agencies; the cities of Minneapolis, Seattle and Salt Lake City; and the New York City Corporation Counsel in writing a letter to the federal agency that lays out key principles EPA should adhere to in regulating greenhouse gases.

Separately, Brown submitted a comment letter to EPA responding to the 500-page advance notice of rulemaking for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act issued by EPA over the summer.

Both letters called on EPA to make a determination as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – as required by the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Gridlock on a Los Angeles freeway (Photo
credit unknown)

The letters requested that the EPA reverse the denial of California’s preemption waiver for California’s landmark greenhouse gas automobile regulations, allowing California and the 13 other states that have adopted these standards to begin immediately enforcing the regulations.

The states of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington joined California in writing to the federal agency.

They requested the EPA to adopt controls for large polluting sources such as coal-fired power plants, cement plants and refineries.

And they asked the EPA to adopt controls for cars, trucks, aircraft, ocean-going vessels, and non-road engines that are responsible for more than one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

“Technology to reduce emissions from these sources is available and cost-effective,” Brown said.

In the joint letter to EPA, Brown and his co-authors wrote, “The Clean Air Act is one of our most successful regulatory programs. It has a proven track record of effectively dealing with complex air pollution problems that implicate a multitude of sources and a wide range of economic activities, and it has done so without harming the economy.”

The attorneys general said in their letter that they “strongly disagree” with claims by departing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson that the Clean Air Act is ill-suited to the task of regulating greenhouse gases.

As the analysis by EPA’s professional staff in the advance notice of rulemaking points out, “the Clean Air Act provides EPA with flexibility to regulate through a variety of approaches, including performance standards, operational controls, market-based incentives and other measures, and also to tailor its traditional strategies to suit the particular challenges posed by GHG emissions,” the attorneys general wrote.

But while the state attorneys general are critical of the EPA’s approach to climate change, the agency said in a November 18 statement that it and the U.S. Energy Department “are helping states lead the way in an effort to promote low cost energy efficiency.”

The remark came as the EPA introduced an updated version of the “National Action Plan Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change,” produced by more than 60 energy, environmental and state policy leaders.

The updated action plan outlines strategies to help lower the growth in energy demand across the country by more than 50 percent, and shows ways to save more than $500 billion in net savings over the next 20 years.

“These actions may help to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 90 million vehicles,” the agency said.

“The significant action taken by states, utilities and energy customers advances low cost energy solutions,” said Robert Meyers, principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “The plan is a big step toward a more energy-efficient future, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing the American economy.”

The action plan contains data showing that states, utilities and other organizations are spending about $2 billion per year on energy efficiency programs. It shows that they have saved the energy equivalent of more than 30 power plants generating 500 megawatts of electricity and that they helped reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those emitted by nine million vehicles.

Initiated in 2005, the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is directed by a group of 30 electric and gas utilities, 20 state agencies and 12 other organizations. It is designed to help electric and natural gas ratepayers increase energy efficiency while saving money. Some of the same states are involved in this plan as signed the attorneys general’s letter – California, Connecticut, Massachusett, and New York.

More than 120 organizations have endorsed the original recommendations of the national action plan and have committed to making it a reality.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, September 19, 2008 (ENS) – A first in the country, California’s climate change law, AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, will provide net benefits to the state’s economy and also to public health, according to reports issued Thursday by the state agency charged with implementing the law.

The California Air Resources Board Thursday released reports that analyze the economic and public health impacts of the recommended measures in the draft Scoping Plan, the state’s policy framework that outlines how California will reduce greenhouse gases 30 percent by 2020, as required under this law.

Central to the draft plan is a cap-and-trade program covering 85 percent of the state’s carbon dioxide emissions in a regional carbon market of seven states and three Canadian provinces.

The draft plan proposes that utilities produce a third of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, and proposes to expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards.

The South Bay power plant in San Diego
burns natural gas. Public hearings on
an $80 million upgrade are currently
underway. (Photo courtesy Duke
Energy)

The economic analysis indicates that the Air Resources Boards strategy will create jobs and save individual households money. And, California will achieve those benefits while enjoying a net benefit in economic growth between now and 2020, compared to the “do-nothing” scenario where California continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels as it does today.

The public health analysis shows that implementing the recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will build on existing air pollution programs that reduce smog-causing chemicals and toxic soot, providing additional public health and environmental benefits.

“The facts are in,” said Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols, introducing the reports.

“These reports support the conclusion that guiding California toward a clean energy future with reduced dependence on fossil fuels will grow our economy, improve public health, protect the environment and create a more secure future built on clean and sustainable technologies,” she said.

The economic analysis compares the recommendations in the draft Scoping Plan to doing nothing and shows that implementing the recommendations will result in:

* Increased economic production of $27 billion
* Increased overall gross state product of $4 billion
* Increased overall personal income by $14 billion
* Increased per capita income of $200
* Increased jobs by more than 100,000

The public health analysis shows that programs under the law will improve on existing air pollution cleanup programs.

As a result, in 2020:

* An estimated 300 premature deaths statewide will be avoided
* Almost 9,000 incidences of asthma and lower respiratory symptoms will be avoided
* 53,000 work loss days will be avoided

The recommended approach that was analyzed includes a mix of strategies that combines market-based regulatory approaches, other regulations, voluntary measures, fees, and other policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The economic analysis used analytical models that measure economy-wide impacts of those policies and measures.

The analysis indicates that most of the economic benefits are the result of investments in energy efficiency that more than pay for themselves over time.

The results in the economic analysis may underestimate many economic benefits since the models do not include lower costs from innovation and improved technologies expected under a market-based program, Nichols said.

The Air Resources Board, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is seeking public comment on both reports. The comments will be considered in the development of the proposed Scoping Plan that will be presented for adoption to the Air Resources Board at its November hearing.

Both reports, with appendices, can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, August 3, 2008 (ENS) – Formal letters warning of impending lawsuits over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to address greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going ships and aircraft have been filed by four state attorneys general, three state agencies, New York City and a coalition of conservation groups.

The conservation groups’ notice of intent to sue was filed Thursday by the public interest law firm Earthjustice on behalf of Oceana, Friends of the Earth and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The state and local jurisdictions filed similar notices on the same day, formally declaring their intent to sue the EPA for unreasonable delay.

The states California, Connecticut, Oregon, New Jersey, and the California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, New York City, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection also filed notices of intent to sue in 180 days.

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. said, “Ships, aircraft and industrial equipment burn huge quantities of fossil fuel and cause massive greenhouse gas pollution yet President Bush stalls with one bureaucratic dodge after another.”

“Because Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency continues to wantonly ignore its duty to regulate pollution, California is forced to seek judicial action,” he said.

According to a report issued Thursday by Oceana, aircraft currently account for 12 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. transportation sources and three percent of the United States’ total carbon dioxide emissions. The United States is responsible for nearly half of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft.

A loaded cargo ship sails out of San
Francisco Bay. (Photo by Silverdigger)

The global fleet of marine vessels releases almost three percent of the world’s carbon dioxide, an amount comparable to the emissions of the entire country of Canada. Because of their huge numbers and inefficient operating practices, marine vessels release a large volume of global warming pollutants, particularly carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and soot.

Despite their impact on the global climate, greenhouse gas emissions from ships are not regulated by the U.S. government, nor are these emissions limited under the Kyoto Protocol.

The coalition of environmental groups filed petitions to the EPA in October and December 2007, requesting that the agency determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels and aircraft endanger public health and welfare, and if so, to issue regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from these sources.

The coalition asked for a response within 180 days but did not receive one.

Instead, the coalition and the state and local jurisdictions contend that the EPA delayed its legal obligations by issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ANPR, on July 11, 2008.

The ANPR does not make a finding as to whether EPA intends to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as the Supreme Court determined it was required to do in a 2007 ruling in the case of Massachusetts vs EPA.

Nor does the ANPR draw any conclusions about how to protect public health and welfare from global warming pollutants.

Instead, the ANPR compiles comments from other government agencies on the subject of regulating greenhouse gas emissions, reviews provisions of the Clean Air Act, and raises numerous issues regarding potential regulations.

In hundreds of pages, the ANPR avoids answering key relevant questions – whether greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, and if so, how and when it will take action.

“More than 15 months after the Supreme Court’s order, EPA, once again, has ignored its legal and moral obligation to act quickly to protect the health and welfare of Americans,” said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice, who is representing the coalition of environmental groups.

“The Bush administration is wasting precious time with continued foot-dragging – time that we don’t have. We have gone to court to force action by this or the next administration,” he said.

“Scientists are reporting that global climate change is damaging our oceans and our daily lives, even more rapidly than forecast,” said Dr. Michael Hirshfield, Oceana’s chief scientist and senior vice president for North America. “Does the EPA think climate change will go away by itself? ‘We’ll think about it tomorrow’ is an unconscionable conclusion for an agency whose mission is to protect the environment.”

“The latest Bush administration tactic on global warming seems to be ‘if you can’t beat them, delay them,’” said Danielle Fugere, Western Regional Program -irector for Friends of the Earth. “Instead of taking action on global warming pollution from shipping and aviation – two of the fastest growing sources of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide – EPA is yet again putting the brakes on developing innovative global warming solutions.”

The EPA has refused to regulate emissions from nonroad engines, aircraft and ocean-going vessels despite “unassailable evidence of global warming and dangerous foreign oil dependency,” says California Attorney General Brown.

Brown cites a report on global warming issued last week by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which predicts more frequent and intense hurricanes, heat waves, and flooding.

In California, where hydropower makes up roughly 15 percent of in-state energy production, Brown says diminishing snowmelt flowing through dams will decrease the potential for hydropower production by up to 30 percent by the end of the century.

“If we’re going to slow the melting of the Arctic and save not only the polar bear but thousands of species around the world, we need to implement highly effective existing environmental laws like the Clean Air Act,” said Kassie Siegel, Climate Program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Regulating greenhouse pollution from ships and aircraft under the Clean Air Act is a necessary first step towards solving the climate crisis.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, July 24, 2008 (ENS) – The roughly 2,000 ocean-going vessels that visit California ports each year will have to operate on low-sulfur fuel in the future after the California Air Resources Board today adopted a regulation that requires the cleaner fuel.

The board says that when the phase-in is complete in 2012, the change will eliminate 15 tons of diesel exhaust daily from vessels that call at California ports – an 83 percent reduction compared to uncontrolled emissions.

“This regulation will save lives,” said Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols. “At ports and all along the California coast we will see cleaner air and better health.”

Nichols says the cleaner air will reduce the cancer rates and premature deaths associated with living near seaports and trade corridors along California’s coast.

A container ship visits San Diego
Harbor, pumping black diesel
smoke into the air. (Photo
by Mary)

Diesel exhaust contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 known cancer-causing compounds, the board pointed out in a statement today.

“Currently in California, diesel particulate emissions from ocean-going vessels expose more than 27 million people or 80 percent of California’s total population, to cancer risk levels at or above 10 chances in a million,” said the board.

The new measure requires ocean-going vessels within 24 nautical miles of California’s coastline to use lower-sulfur marine distillates in their main and auxiliary engines and auxiliary boilers, rather than the dirtier heavy-fuel oil called bunker fuel.

Both U.S.-flagged and foreign-flagged vessels are subject to the regulation, which the board says is the most stringent and comprehensive requirement for marine fuel-use in the world.

The regulation will be implemented in two steps, each requiring lower sulfur content in the fuel – first in 2009 and final in 2012.

In 2009, eliminating about 75 percent of the sooty diesel particulates, as well as 80 percent of the sulfur oxides and six percent of the nitrogen oxides is the target.

In 2012, when the very low sulfur fuel requirement takes effect, reductions of diesel particulate matter will be 15 tons daily, the board said.

As a result of the new regulation, the board estimates that sulfur oxides will be reduced by 140 tons daily, a 95 percent reduction, and nitrogen oxides will be reduced by 11 tons per day, a six percent reduction.

Between 2009 and 2015, an estimated 3,600 premature deaths will be avoided, said the board, and the cancer risk associated with the emissions from these vessels will be reduced by over 80 percent.

In addition, the measure will help the South Coast Air Quality Management District meet its federal clean air requirements for fine particulate matter by 2014 and move California closer to its goal of reducing diesel particulate matter 85 percent by 2020.

Reducing emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks is on the board’s agenda for fall.

Over the past 10 years the board has adopted regulations affecting cargo-handling equipment, transport refrigeration units, truck idling, off-road equipment, harbor craft, port drayage trucks, onboard incineration, and ships at-berth.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, June 29, 2008 (ENS) – A federal judge has denied the latest attempt by automobile manufacturers to invalidate the California law that regulates greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

Often called the California Clean Car Law, or the Pavley law because it was introduced by then Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, the measure was enacted on July 22, 2002 by California Governor Gray Davis.

The law directed the California Air Resources Board to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of global warming emissions from passenger cars and light trucks sold in California.

Regulations were developed during 2004 through a series of public workshops and hearings, and were adopted unanimously by the California Air Resources Board on September 24, 2004.

Regulations will apply only to 2009 and later model year vehicles and will require about a 30 percent reduction of global warming emissions by 2016.

California has unique authority under the Clean Air Act to establish standards for passenger vehicles. While no other state has this authority, other states do have the option to adopt California’s standards in place of federal standards, and to date 17 other states have adopted the Clean Car Law standards.

But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must grant to California a waiver of less stringent federal standards, which to date the agency has declined to do.

Los Angeles traffic – jammed again.
(Photo credit unknown)

Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep and other California dealerships, joined by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, AIAM, filed suit against the California Air Resources Board to overturn the law. AIAM represents 730 auto dealers in California with a total financial investment of $2.8 billion.

They argued that the EPA would never grant a waiver to California, and if it ever does, manufacturers would need more lead time to develop the technology needed to meet its requirements.

The manufacturers argued that they are caught on the horns of a dilemma – whether to invest in carbon dioxide reducing technology or risk being out of compliance with standards that may or may not be granted a waiver of federal preemption sometime in the future.

On June 23, Judge Anthony Ishii ruled that the automakers and dealers were not entitled to overturn this law.

In his decision Judge Ishii wrote, “..so far as this court can discern, the choice to proceed as though California would never be granted waiver of federal preemption is fundamentally just a business decision that, like any other, may have negative consequences if wrongly made. It is not up to the courts to deflect the burden of such business decisions.”

Three environmental groups filed a brief in support of the California Air Resources Board.

Attorney Matt Pawa, who represented Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Environmental Defense in the case, said, “In short, the car companies argued that they will need a lot of lead time if and when California receives its EPA waiver in order to come into compliance with the new emissions rules and thus California should be enjoined from enforcing its law for a period of time even after EPA grants a waiver.”

“The court has basically said to the companies that it was your decision to assume that the Pavley law would never come into effect either by an EPA waiver denial or a victory in the lawsuit and if your risk did not pay off, that is your risk,” Pawa said.

AIAM President and chief executive Michael Stanton explained why the organization supports the EPA decision to deny California’s request for a waiver.

“This is not a question of whether to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks. AIAM and its members have always supported this goal and believe that the auto industry must do its part to address the critically important national and international issue of climate change. Rather, it is focused on only one issue – who should set those standards,” Stanton said on February 29, the day the EPA denied California’s waiver request.

“AIAM believes, like EPA, that it is the federal government that should set those standards,” he said.

The presumptive presidential candidates for both political parties, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois are on record as saying they support California’s waiver request.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, June 29, 2008 (ENS) – By the year 2020, California utilities will produce a third of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, under a draft plan to address climate change released Thursday by the California Air Resources Board.

Overall, the Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent over the next 12 years. to accomplish this goal, the plan utilizes both new and existing measures and is designed with strong elements of monitoring and enforcement.

“With the release of this draft scoping plan, California is once again blazing a trail to lead other states and the nation to address climate change,” said Mary Nichols, chairman of the Air Resources Board. “Our economy and our society face no greater threat than global warming.”

Development of the Scoping Plan is a central requirement of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Central to the draft plan is a cap-and-trade program covering 85 percent of the state’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

This program will be developed in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative [www.westernclimateinitiative.org] to create a regional carbon market among seven states and three Canadian provinces.

The draft plan calls for full implementation of the California Clean Car law to provide less polluting and more efficient cars and trucks to consumers who will save on operating costs through reduced fuel use.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, this state law requires a waiver of less stringent federal standards by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which to date has refused to grant the waiver. Nor has Congress passed any legislation that would allow California to implement the fuel economy provisions of the Clean Car law.

The draft plan also calls for development and implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard [gov.ca.gov], which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger established by Executive Order in January 2007. It requires that carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the state be reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020.

Geothermal power is generated at
The Geysers, which covers 30
square miles in the Mayacamas
Mountains north of San Francisco,
the largest complex of geothermal
power plants in the world.
(Photo courtesy Calpine)

“This draft plan is the roadmap to move us quickly to a cleaner, more sustainable future, energy independence and a healthier environment,” Nichols said. “This plan fulfills the governor’s determination to act now, and it is based on the conviction that Californians will rise to the challenge and develop creative solutions to improve our environment and grow our economy.”

The draft plan encourages improvements to the ways Californians grow and build communities to make more livable, walkable cities, and shorten commutes.

It requres full deployment of the Governor’s Million Solar Roofs initiative, development of high-speed rail transport and a range of regulations to reduce emissions from trucks and from ships docked in California ports.

The draft plan also proposes to expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards that have saved Californians more than $50 billion over the past 30 years in reduced costs for energy.

It also calls on Californians to make changes to their personal behavior to reduce their carbon footprint through carpooling and simple actions such as adjusting thermostats to use less energy for heating and cooling and water-related energy efficiency measures.

Workshops are planned throughout the state to present the details of the plan to the general public and to allow California Air Resources Board, CARB, staff to hear public comments before writing a final draft.

The Environmental Defense Fund has already expressed its approval of the plan.

Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative at Environmental Defense Fund, said, “The draft scoping plan presents a wide array of tools at California’s disposal to meet the law’s goals. The plan includes a robust, innovative combination of market-based mechanisms and traditional regulatory policies.”

“Between now and the Board’s final approval in November,” said Walker, “we look forward to working with CARB and other stakeholders to expand the recommendations to capture vital, cost-effective emissions reductions from all sectors of California’s economy.”

Once the final draft is prepared, it will go to the California Air Resources Board for consideration in November.

After adoption of the plan, all measures in the plan will be thoroughly vetted and analyzed, with full public input, over the next two years as they move through the regulatory process.

Preliminary economic modeling of the plan indicates that the overall savings from improved efficiency and the development of alternatives to petroleum will on the whole outweigh the costs. The draft plan recommends targeted fees to fund the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 administration.

To view the Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, click here [www.arb.ca.gov].

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, May 23, 2008 (ENS) – Every year, up to 24,000 Californians die prematurely because they breathe fine particle pollution over a long period of time, according to research presented Thursday to the California Air Resources Board.

A majority of these deaths occur in highly populated areas around the state, including the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay air basins.

All combustion processes produce fine particles. Major emitters include trucks, passenger cars, off-road equipment, electric power generation and industrial processes, and residential wood burning, as well as forest and agricultural burning.

“Particle pollution is a silent killer,” said Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols. “We must work even harder to cut these life-shortening emissions by further addressing pollution sources head-on.”

At the request of the Air Resources Board in 2006, staff researchers reviewed all scientific studies on the subject and consulted with health scientists.

While exposures to particulate matter have long been known as a serious health threat, new information suggests that the pollutant is even more toxic than previously thought.

The premature deaths are associated with exposures to PM2.5, a mix of microscopic particles less than 2.5 microns in size, the research report shows.

Traffic crawls along a street in San
Francisco’s Chinatown, emitting
fine particulate matter. (Photo
by Michael Vu)

Particulate matter, or PM, is a complex blend of substances ranging from dry solid fragments, solid-core fragments with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary in shape, size and chemical composition, and may include metals, soot, soil and dust.

Hospitalizations, emergency room visits and doctor visits for respiratory illnesses or heart disease have been associated with PM2.5 exposure. Other studies suggest that PM2.5 exposure may influence asthma symptoms and acute and chronic bronchitis.

Children, the elderly and people with pre-existing chronic disease are most at risk of experiencing adverse health effects from PM2.5 exposure. The report shows that even small increases in PM2.5 exposures may increase health risks.

While the new data reveals a greater threat from fine particle pollution, the state’s previous efforts to reduce emissions throughout the state have been successful, the ARB said Thursday.

Since the official year-round monitoring of PM2.5 in the air began in 1999, the board says concentrations have decreased 30 percent across California, most notably in the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley regions.

In 2000, the ARB adopted a risk reduction plan that targets all diesel sources of particulate matter in California. As part of the plan, cleaner diesel fuels and new diesel engines have been developed for both on-road and off-road uses.

Other regulations have been adopted to address diesel engines already on the road, including those in waste collection vehicles, transit fleet, school buses, stationary engines, transport refrigeration units and portable engines.

Later this year, the ARB will consider rules to cut diesel particulate emissions from private truck fleets.

The process that produced the draft report submitted to the Air Resources Board on Thursday began in 2006 when staff was directed by the board to update the health impacts methodology to reflect recent health information on PM2.5 exposures and premature death.

A formal review of the updated methodology and analysis was conducted by a peer review committee formed by the University of California composed of experts in the fields of epidemiology, air quality measurement, risk management, health effects of air pollution, and biostatistics.

The draft staff report was discussed at Thursday’s Air Resources Board meeting and is now available for public comment. Public input will be considered in drafting the final report, due for release to the public in August.

To view the report, “Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-term Exposures to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California,” click here [www.arb.ca.gov].

Submit comments on the draft staff report to lead author Dr. Hien Tran by email at htran@arb.ca.gov or by fax at: 916-323-1045 or 916-322-4357 by July 11, 2008.

Comments may also be mailed to Dr. Tran at the Air Resources Board, Research Division, 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento CA 95812.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.