UCS Blog - Clean Vehicles (text only)

Who Breathes the Dirtiest Air from Vehicles in Colorado?

Vehicle pollution is a major issue for human health and the environment.

This post was written in collaboration with David Reichmuth

Most people know that cars, trucks, and buses from our highways and city streets are a significant source of air pollution. While this pollution impacts all communities in the state to some degree, Coloradans who face the greatest exposure to transportation pollution are those who live near highways, along major freight corridors, and in urban areas.

To help understand exactly which communities bear the greatest burden and breathe the highest concentrations of this dangerous air pollution, we used a computer model to estimate the amount of fine particulate matter air pollution (known as PM2.5) produced by on-road vehicles that burn gasoline and diesel. The findings, which are not likely not to be a surprise to many residents, are quite troubling—they show that people of color are disproportionally exposed to vehicular PM2.5. For example:

  • African Americans are exposed to 64 percent higher PM2.5 concentrations from on-road transportation than the average PM2.5 exposure for all Coloradans. Asian Americans and Latinos experience concentrations 24 percent and 15 percent higher, respectively, than the average resident. At the same time, white residents have an average exposure that is 9 percent lower than the average for the state.
  • African American, Asian and Latino residents are exposed to vehicular PM2.5 pollution levels, on average, that are 81, 37, and 27 percent higher, respectively, than the exposure experienced by white residents.
  • A higher percentage of white residents than the state average live in the cleanest areas: white residents make up 76 percent of the people who live in census tracts where exposure is less than the state average, yet white residents make up just 69 percent of the state’s population.
What is PM2.5 and why is it so important?

The science is clear: no level of particulate matter is safe to breathe, says the American Lung Association. Although fine particulate matter—referred to as PM2.5—is not the only air pollutant that adversely affects health, it is estimated to be responsible for approximately 95 percent of the global public health impacts from air pollution. Exposure to this dangerous pollutant is the largest environmental risk factor in the United States, responsible for 63 percent of deaths from environmental causes.

They include particles smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter in diameter—at least 20 times smaller than the diameter of fine human hair—so they can penetrate deeply into the lungs. The ultrafine particles – smaller than 0.1 millionths of a meter – are particularly dangerous, as some can enter into the bloodstream.

Chronic exposure to PM2.5 causes increased death rates attributed to cardiovascular diseases, including heart attacks and strokes, and has been linked to other adverse impacts such as lung cancer, reproductive and developmental harm and even diabetes and dementia. Chronic exposure to PM2.5 in children has also been linked to slowed lung-function growth and the development of asthma.

PM2.5 is formed in many ways. A significant source of PM2.5 is fuel combustion. The combustion engines of cars burn gasoline and diesel. Power plants burn natural gas and other fuels to produce electricity. Burning wood for cooking and in residential fireplaces, as well as wildfires, are examples of biofuel combustion. To make things worse, not only does burning fossil fuels and biofuels produce PM2.5 directly, but the combustion reaction also emits gases such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds that go on to form additional PM2.5 through complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Because there are so many ways in which particulate matter is formed, you may ask yourself if some pose more health risks than others. Indeed particles can bind with bacteria, pollen, heavy metals, elemental carbon, dust and other building blocks, and so have a broad range of effects on human health. But size is one of the most important factors, and PM2.5 is responsible for a very heavy burden of disease, disability and death. That is why we focused our analysis on this pollutant.

Greater pollution for people of color

The results are clear: PM2.5 pollution burden from cars, trucks, and buses is inequitably distributed when looking at the exposure experienced by racial and ethnic groups in the state. People of color experience an undeniable “pollution disadvantage”.

We estimated exposure to PM2.5 pollution using a recently developed model from the University of Washington, and data from the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory and the US Census Bureau. This model allows us to calculate how vehicle tailpipe and refueling emissions ultimately lead to ground-level pollution exposure, so we can understand how exposure to PM2.5 varies among groups and locations.

Looking at the state as a whole, African Americans are exposed to 64 percent higher PM2.5 concentrations from on-road transportation than the  average PM2.5 exposure for all Coloradans.  Asian Americans and Latinos experience concentrations 24 percent and 15 percent higher, respectively, than the average resident.  At the same time, white residents have an average exposure that is 9 percent lower than the average for the state.

 In an equitable world, one might expect that every area with the same pollution level would have an approximately equal representation of all racial groups. In other words, the burden would be shared equally. But only 11 percent of all white residents in the state live in the dirtiest census tracts, where pollution is more than twice the state average, while 38% of all African American residents live in these polluted areas.

We can look at this data in a different way. In the cleanest areas of Colorado—in census tracts with average annual PM2.5 concentrations less than half the state average—whites make up 76 percent of the population, while constituting only 69 percent of the state’s total population. In contrast, the most polluted census tracts have a higher proportion of people of color. Almost 12 percent of people in the highest burden areas, where concentrations are more than 2.5 times the state average, are African American, compared with a state population that is just 4 percent African American (Figure 2). The inequities are clear.

 

This chart shows the PM2.5 exposure in groups of census tracts, defined relative to state average. In areas where PM2.5 exposure is low, the fraction of white residents is high. As the analysis looks at more polluted areas, this fraction decreases. In the highest pollution areas, which correspond to urban centers with heavy traffic, the fraction of white residents is higher. Notes: Each column refers to census tracts in areas with similar PM2.5 pollution concentrations. The columns show the fraction of people belonging to each of eight racial groups living in those areas. The least polluted areas are on the left and the most polluted on the right. The 0–50% area refers to census tracts where PM2.5 pollution is less than half the state average, the 50–100% area refers to tracts where pollution is from half the state average to the state average, etc. The column at the far right shows the state’s racial composition.

Furthermore, PM2.5 exposure varies greatly within Colorado. People in the urban areas of the state, like Denver County, are exposed to vehicle pollution at levels similar to Los Angeles County in California. Denver County, the second most populous county in the state, and the most polluted, has average PM2.5 exposure from vehicles 237 percent higher than the state average.

Finally, the analysis also shows that exposure inequities are more pronounced between racial and ethnic groups than between income groups.

What is to be done?

Clearly air pollution from on-road transportation such as diesel and gasoline vehicles places significant, inequitable and unacceptable health burdens on Coloradans. This inequity reflects decades of local, state, regional, and national decisions about transportation, housing, and land use. Decisions concerning where to construct highways, where to invest in public transportation, and where to build housing have all contributed to a transportation system that concentrates emissions in communities of color. In many cases, transportation policies have left those communities with inadequate access to public transportation.

We have the tools and the technologies to transform our transportation system away from diesel and gasoline and toward clean, modern, and equitable solutions. Electrification of vehicles, both passenger and freight, could greatly reduce emissions. Battery-electric and fuel cell vehicles have no tailpipe emissions, with the exception of minor amounts of PM2.5 emissions from tire and brake wear. Not just that, but these vehicles eliminate vapor emissions associated with gasoline refueling.

Electric vehicles  can result in some additional climate emissions (carbon dioxide) from electricity generation, but these emissions are lower for an electric vehicle than for an average gasoline car, and vary depending on the location where the vehicle is charged. Seventy-five percent of people in the US live in places where driving on electricity is cleaner than a 50 mile per gallon car. It is very good news for Coloradans that Governor Polis has pledged for 100 percent renewable energy in the state’s electric grid by 2040.  By the way, Colorado ranks fourth in the US for solar potential, and eleventh for wind potential.

While residents can make a difference for local air pollution (as well as for climate emissions) by choosing cleaner vehicles and driving less, much of today’s air pollution comes from sources outside the direct control of individuals. Colorado needs regulations, incentives, and other policies to reduce vehicle emissions, with equity and the meaningful involvement of affected communities as key considerations in designing policies and strategies to reduce pollution from vehicles.

Last year, the state approved a low emission vehicle standard (LEV) for passenger cars and light trucks, which means Colorado will continue to sell vehicles that are progressively cleaner and more fuel efficient. Colorado is also considering adopting the California Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standard, which would require automakers to increase the percentage of ZEV vehicles sold in the state. This state leadership is especially critical at a time when the federal government has proposed rolling back federal fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards. Furthermore, the Colorado legislature recently approved the extension of the income tax credit for purchase or lease of electric vehicles until 2025.

Other specific investments that could reduce inequities in air pollution include:

  • Investments in electric transit buses and school buses, with a priority on serving communities exposed to the highest levels of gasoline and diesel emissions
  • Expansion of electric vehicle rebate programs to provide financing assistance and larger rebates to low- and moderate-income residents
  • Utility investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, with a priority on serving communities exposed to the highest levels of gasoline and diesel emissions

Colorado has made much progress in reducing air pollution from vehicles, but it needs to continue this effort, placing a high priority on actions that reduce the inequitably distributed burden of air pollution in the state. This analysis provides important quantitative evidence of the need for and importance of such programs, and it can help inform and shape future actions to reduce on-road transportation pollution exposure and inequities in the state.

Trump Administration Dramatically Reduces Penalties for Auto Inefficiency

Photo: Marco Verch/CC BY 2.0 (Flickr)

In a Friday news dump last week, the Trump administration announced that they will be finalizing a reduction in fines for missing fuel economy targets. Not only is the administration working to roll back the strong standards set in place by the previous administration currently driving efficiency improvements across new vehicles, but now they are letting automakers off the hook if they miss targets between now and when that rollback goes into effect.

This action is par for the course for this administration, which is doing whatever it can to increase pollution and oil use.

Thwarting a Congressional mandate

Since 1975, manufacturers have been required to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) targets which govern the average efficiency of new vehicles sold. If a manufacturer missed its annual target, they had to pay a penalty, which was initially set at $50 per miles-per-gallon, per vehicle. This penalty was adjusted slightly in the 1990s to $55/mpg/vehicle, but obviously this is nowhere close to the level of inflation that has occurred since 1975, which is why in 2015 Congress required Federal agencies to adjust all of their penalties with respect to inflation in order to ensure that they remained as strong a deterrent as they were when initially finalized (Title VII, HR 1314). The resulting penalty of $140/mpg/vehicle put in place under the Obama administration did not fully account for inflation since 1975, but it was the maximum allowable increase under the law set by Congress.

Fines this low are not a deterrent

Historically, while luxury manufacturers often treated the fines as part of their business model of selling nothing but overpowered vehicles to high-income buyers, large full-line automakers have managed to comply with the standards (or get the federal government to weaken CAFE standards, as in the 1980s) in order to avoid millions of dollars in fines for noncompliance. However, last year saw Fiat-Chrysler (FCA) fined for failing to ensure that the FCA cars produced in North America are approximately as efficient as the average car sold in the United States. The penalty rate is the same as it is for the CAFE standard, and with FCA falling nearly 3 mpg short of the rest of the industry, the decision not to improve the efficiency of its domestically-manufactured vehicles cost the company $77 million in fines last year, a fine which would have been nearly three times higher if NHTSA had not delayed implementation of the CAFE fine increase.

FCA knew years in advance that it would miss its efficiency targets and would therefore have to pay fines, and it did not adjust its behavior. And according to the Auto Alliance, the largest automaker trade group, its members are willing to pay billions of dollars in fines instead of complying with the regulations.

Clearly, the fine is not acting as a deterrent and should be increased—however, to no one’s surprise this administration is instead moving in the wrong direction.

This action gives manufacturers a free pass to sell more gas guzzlers

Under dubious legal arguments that the CAFE fine is not, in fact, a “penalty”, the Trump administration is rolling back the penalty from $140 back down to $55/mpg/vehicle, an argument at odds with previous increases under the Clinton and Obama administrations. Automakers themselves are even saying the fine is not high enough to push them to comply with the regulations, since the fine may be lower than the cost of putting more efficient technology in new vehicles. Since automakers assume their customers don’t care much about saving money at the pump, regulations are a key driver in getting technology to market, even technologies which pay for themselves. Lower fines simply reduce that push to actually comply with the rules, limiting the availability of consumers’ choices of more efficient vehicle options.

The Trump administration is already standing in the way of improvements beyond 2020 by rolling back fuel economy regulations. This action serves only to mute progress between now and then.

This administration gives polluters a green light

This action is like far too many others under this administration—Trump’s EPA has seen substantial reductions in penalties assessed to polluters and the number of inspections and actions taken towards those who put profit over public welfare. The agency has also ignored the health impacts of air quality worsening under their watch.

Unsurprisingly, automakers lauded the decision to lower the penalty, even while working to roll back the standards to fuel economy levels which are so meager that nearly one-third of vehicles sold today already meet them.

The administration’s actions to make enforcement of strong fuel economy standards as toothless as possible are consistent with the rest of their environmental and energy policies—give industry what it wants, and to hell with the rest of us. But that’s not a justifiable policy in the courts, and it is up to NGOs like UCS, as well as the states bearing the adverse impacts of these policies, to give ‘em hell right back, holding the administration and, thus, industry accountable for its actions.

10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just One Year

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signs the so-called Affordable Clean Energy rule, replacing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan that would have reduced coal-fired plant carbon emissions. Photo: EPA

On July 8, President Trump hosted a White House event to unabashedly tout his truly abysmal environmental record. The next day, coincidentally, marked the one-year anniversary of Andrew Wheeler at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), first as acting administrator and then as administrator after the Senate confirmed him in late February.

The good news, if there is any, is that Wheeler is an Eagle Scout compared to his ethically challenged predecessor, Scott Pruitt. The bad news is, as predicted, Wheeler has been more effective than Pruitt in rolling back and eliminating EPA safeguards.

My organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists, has compiled a list of 80 Trump administration attacks on science since taking office, and Wheeler has been the driving force behind many of them. Below are 10 of the more egregious ways he has undermined the EPA’s time-honored role to protect public health and the environment so far.

1. Sidelined scientists

Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, has taken a number of steps to systematically reduce the role of scientists in the agency’s policymaking process. Last fall, for example, he eliminated the agency’s Office of the Science Advisor, which counseled the EPA administrator on research supporting health and environmental standards, and placed the head of the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection on administrative leave. He also disbanded a 20-member scientific advisory committee on particulate matter, or soot; failed to convene a similar panel on ozone; and packed a seven-member advisory committee on air quality standards with industry-friendly participants.

2. Proposed to restrict the use of scientific data

Claiming his intent is to increase “transparency,” Wheeler is promoting a rule Pruitt proposed that would dramatically limit the scientific studies the agency considers when developing health standards. If adopted, the rule would restrict the use of scientific studies in EPA decisions if the underlying data are not public and reproducible, which would disqualify many epidemiological and other health studies the EPA relies on to set science-based public safeguards. Given that EPA health standards often rely on studies that contain private patient information, as well as confidential business information that cannot be revealed, the rule would significantly hamper the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. Wheeler plans to finalize the rule sometime this year.

3. Gutted the coal ash rule

The first major rule Wheeler signed as acting administrator refuted his claim that he could fulfill President Trump’s directive to “clean up the air, clean up the water, and provide regulatory relief” at the same time. By rolling back the Obama-era coal ash rule, Wheeler provided regulatory relief to his old friend the coal industry by weakening environmental protections established in 2015 to clean up coal ash ponds, which are laced with toxic contaminants that leak into groundwater. The move was a top priority for coal baron Bob Murray, owner of Murray Energy, Wheeler’s most lucrative client when he worked for the Faegre Baker Daniels law firm.

Coal-fired power plants have been dumping this residue from burning coal into giant, unlined pits for decades. According to the EPA, there are more than 1,000 coal ash disposal sites across the country, and a recent analysis by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project found that 91 percent of the coal plants filing monitoring data required by the 2015 rule are polluting water with unsafe levels of toxic contaminants. Wheeler’s EPA says the new rule—which extends the deadline for closing some leaking ash ponds and allows states to suspend groundwater monitoring and set their own standards—will save utilities as much as $31 million. But the agency ignored the enormous costs of cancer and neurological and cardiovascular diseases linked to coal ash ingredients, which include arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury.

4. Recommended unsafe levels of drinking water contaminants

Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are used in firefighting foam and a variety of nonstick, cleaning, packaging and other household products, have been linked to thyroid disease and kidney, liver, pancreatic and testicular cancer. According to a recent study by the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University, these chemicals threaten the drinking water supplies of an estimated 19 million Americans. A 2018 Union of Concerned Scientists report, meanwhile, found that PFAS water contamination at 130 military bases across the country exceed the 11-parts-per-trillion safety threshold determined by the Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Nearly two-thirds of the sites had contamination that was more than 100 times higher than the safe level.

In February, Wheeler announced the “first-ever nationwide action plan” to regulate PFAS chemicals in water, saying the agency would develop and set a limit for two of the most prevalent PFAS chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. During the announcement, he told reporters he believes the agency’s voluntary 70-part-per-trillion health-advisory level for the chemicals is “a safe level for drinking water,” despite the fact that this level is more than six times higher than what the Disease Registry considers safe.

While Wheeler slow-walks the EPA’s response, members of Congress have introduced at least a dozen bills to address PFAS contamination, and the Senate recently passed a defense bill that would require the EPA to set a science-based standard for PFAS in drinking water.

5. Rolled back Clean Water Act protections

Clearing up a decade-long dispute over the scope of the Clean Water Act, the Obama EPA adopted a broad, science-based definition of the law that included protecting intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands that do not have surface water connections to other waterways. A 2015 EPA meta-analysis of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed studies concluded that even infrequently flowing small streams and isolated wetlands can affect “the integrity of downstream waters.” Trash them and that pollution could wind up in rivers, lakes, reservoirs and estuaries.

Regardless, Wheeler announced plans during a December telephone press briefing to reverse the Obama EPA definition of waters protected by the Clean Water Act, a thinly disguised gift to land developers and the agriculture industry. When asked what wetlands would no longer be protected, Wheeler replied, “We have not done … a detailed mapping of all the wetlands in the country.” Likewise, EPA Office of Water head David Ross—who represented industry clients against the EPA before joining the Trump administration—told reporters on the call that the agency had no idea how many streams would be dropped from Clean Water Act protection under the proposal.

In fact, Wheeler and Ross were well aware of the damage their new definition would do. At least 18 percent of streams and 51 percent of wetlands across the country would not be covered under their proposed definition, according to an internal 2017 slideshow prepared by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers and obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act.

6. Suppressed an inconvenient formaldehyde report

Last August, Wheeler disingenuously told a Senate committee that the EPA was holding up the release of a report on the risk of cancer from formaldehyde to confirm its veracity. “I am sure we will release it,” he said, “but I need to make sure that the science in the report is still accurate.”

In fact, the report—which concluded that formaldehyde can cause leukemia and nose and throat cancer—was completed by EPA scientists a year before Wheeler testified, according to a Senate investigation, and their conclusion was hardly a surprise. Both the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer and the US Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program have already classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.

The EPA’s review process normally takes 60 to 90 days. The formaldehyde report has been in limbo for at least a year and a half, a blatant giveaway to the American Chemistry Council, the US chemical industry’s premier trade association, which has blocked tighter restrictions on formaldehyde for decades.

7. Ignored EPA scientists’ advice to ban asbestos

Instead of heeding the advice of agency scientists and lawyers to follow the example of 55 other countries and ban asbestos completely, the EPA announced in April that it would tighten restrictions on asbestos—not ban it—despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its dangers. Manufacturers will be able to continue to use the substance if they obtain EPA approval.

Asbestos has not been produced in the United States since 2002, but is still imported for use in a wide range of commercial and consumer products, including auto brake components, roofing, vinyl floor tile, fire-resistant clothing, and cement pipes, sheets and shingles. One of the deadliest known carcinogens, asbestos kills nearly 40,000 Americans annually, mainly from lung cancer.

8. Weakened the mercury emissions rule

In late December, the EPA proposed to significantly weaken a rule restricting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by recalculating its costs and benefits. The Obama EPA, which issued the rule in 2011, estimated it would cost utilities $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually to install pollution controls and lead to $37 billion to $90 billion in health benefits by reducing not only mercury, a potent neurotoxin, but also sulfur dioxide and soot, thus preventing 130,000 asthma attacks, 4,700 heart attacks, and as many as 11,000 premature deaths. The Wheeler EPA ignored the “co-benefits” of limiting sulfur dioxide and soot, and flagrantly lowballed the health benefits of curbing mercury alone at only $4 million to $6 million annually.

Most utilities have already complied with the mercury rule at a fraction of the estimated cost, but health advocates fear that this new, industry-friendly accounting method, which makes it appear that the cost to polluters far outweigh the rule’s benefits, will set a precedent for the EPA to sabotage an array of other public health protections.

9. Slammed vehicle emission rules into reverse

Last August, the EPA and the Transportation Department issued a proposal to freeze vehicle tailpipe pollution and fuel efficiency standards, rolling back a 2012 Obama-era rule requiring automakers to boost passenger vehicle fuel economy to a fleetwide average of 54 miles per gallon by 2025. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “Make Cars Great Again” published a few days before the two agencies announced their proposal, Wheeler and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao charged that the Obama-era standards—the first to limit vehicle carbon emissions—are too burdensome for automakers and “raised the cost and decreased the supply of newer, safer vehicles.”

Parroting the Trump administration’s line of reasoning, Wheeler and Chao argued that fuel-efficient cars—which weigh less than gas-guzzlers—are not as safe, a contention that has been widely debunked. In fact, a 2017 study concluded that reducing the average weight of new vehicles could result in fewer traffic fatalities.

In any case, freezing the standards at 2020 levels would be hard on the planet, not to mention Americans’ wallets, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. It would result in an additional 2.2 billion metric tons of global warming emissions by 2040, amounting to 170 million metric tons in 2040 alone—the equivalent of the annual output of 43 average size coal-fired power plants. It also would cost drivers billions of dollars. In 2040 alone, they would have to pay an additional $55 billion to fill their gas tanks. Meanwhile, the design improvements automakers have made so far to meet the standards have already saved drivers more than $86 trillion at the pump since 2012, and off-the-shelf technological fixes, the Union of Concerned Scientists says, would enable automakers to meet the original 2025 target.

10. Rescinded the Clean Power Plan

Perhaps Wheeler’s most damaging move to date came late last month when he signed a final rule to repeal and replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which would have required coal-fired power plants to dramatically cut their carbon emissions. Yet another gift to the coal industry, Wheeler’s so-called Affordable Clean Energy rule grants states the authority to determine emissions standards but sets no targets, leaving them the option to do absolutely nothing.

Before Wheeler released the final rule, an April study in the journal Environmental Research Letters found that his draft version would boost carbon emissions in 18 states and the District of Columbia and increase sulfur dioxide emissions in 19 states. The EPA’s own analysis of the draft rule, meanwhile, found that the proposal could have led to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 due to an increase in soot, and as many as 15,000 cases of upper respiratory problems.

Reversing decades of bipartisan protections

If Wheeler truly cared about transparency, he would petition the Trump administration to change the name of his agency to “Every Polluter’s Ally.” In just 12 months, he has killed or weakened dozens of safeguards with the sole intention of bolstering polluting industries’ profit margins even after Congress slashed the corporate tax rate. As a result, millions of Americans will be drinking filthier water and breathing dirtier air, and more will suffer from serious diseases, according to his agency’s own accounting.

Wheeler and his predecessor Pruitt have sullied the bipartisan track record of one of the nation’s agencies entrusted with protecting public health and safety. So it is little wonder that three former EPA administrators who, notably, served under Republican presidents, recently sounded the alarm on Capitol Hill, urging legislators to step up their oversight of the agency and denouncing its attempts to hamstring science.

“There is no doubt in my mind that under the current administration the EPA is retreating from its historic mission to protect our environment and the health of the public from environmental hazards,” former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who served under President George W. Bush, stated in her written testimony for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. “This administration, from the beginning, has made no secret of its intention to essentially dismantle the EPA…. Therefore, I urge this committee, in the strongest possible terms, to exercise Congress’s oversight responsibilities over the actions and direction of the EPA.”

Congress Investigates Rollback of the Clean Car Standards – an Epic Oversight Hearing

Photo: nsub1/Flickr

The House Energy and Commerce committee held its first oversight hearing on the soon-to-be-rolled-back fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards on Thursday, June 20.   The hearing highlighted how the rollback will be bad for consumers, the environment, health, and energy security – you can read more about the hearing set up in my colleague Dave’s curtain raiser blog, and Rep. Schakowsky does a nice job of setting up what’s really going on in her opening statement.

But the night before the hearing, Committee leaders called attention to the real beneficiaries of the rollback and officially launched an investigation into Big Oil’s covert campaign supporting the rollback, which was originally exposed in a blockbuster New York Times report late last year. The committee demanded answers on the coordination between the administration and  Marathon Petroleum, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Legislative Exchange Council, Energy4US and Americans for Prosperity. Those answers are due on July 3 – we will see if these entities comply with the Committee’s request.

The hearing

While we await those answers, the hearing provides some fascinating background about the machinations behind this ridiculous rollback. Some quick numbers:

  • 10 – There were ten (10!) witnesses at this hearing. There were two testifiers from the Trump administration, Bill Wehrum, (now outgoing) Assistant Administrator of EPA, and Heidi King, Deputy Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the Department of Transportation.  Mary Nichols, the Chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), also testified on the second panel, along with witnesses from the United Auto Workers, Consumer Reports Advocacy, the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association, Colorado Department of Transportation, the Heritage Foundation, the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the Louisiana Attorney General, and others.
  • 5 – Between opening statements, documents for the record, testimony, questioning, and drama, the hearing lasted more than five hours.
  • 17- About two weeks before the hearing, 17 of the world’s largest automakers, including Ford, General Motors and Toyota (many of whom are represented by the Alliance, who was a witness), sent letters to the Trump administration (also a witness) and California (also a witness), told the administration that their plan to rollback cleaner cars standards would reduce profits and create “untenable” instability in the auto manufacturing sector, promoting calls for parties to resume negotiations, which were summarily stopped by the Trump administration earlier this year.
  • 2 – As is typical, the hearing was split into 2 panels – the first panel was the administration officials and the second panel was everyone else. There was a little drama on this front though…..
The Wheeler letter

Mary Nichols, the Chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), should have been sitting at the table with the administration witnesses, as California is (should be) an equal partner in setting the standards. However, the EPA was committed to undermining her at every turn.  Bill Wehrum refused to sit with her on the same panel.  While sparks were flying about this detail in the hearing room (with the Democrats arguing that Mary Nichols should have been on the first panel and Republicans arguing that she shouldn’t be sitting with administration witnesses), EPA Administrator Wheeler – who was not in the room – found a way to chime in.

David Shepardson tweeted out a letter from EPA Administrator Wheeler addressed (only!) to the minority (Republican) committee members. In the letter Administrator Wheeler basically called Mary Nichols a liar, said that her testimony was not truthful (!!), and accused her of “irresponsible testimony about conspiracy theories that ‘the oil industry drove this action’.” Again, this is the morning after the committee sent letters to oil industry members to disclose their involvement, based on evidence they had been communicating with the administration about this rule.  Having this letter drop as the hearing was starting made the hearing kick off rather strange, AND from all of the public statements we have seen, the content was absolutely inaccurate.  The (untrue) content of the letter was referenced multiple times during the hearing, both by Wehrum and by some Republican Committee Members.

What did the administration say?

The real fireworks of the hearing occurred while Wehrum and King were testifying.   They both made rather predictable (and untrue) statements about how the proposed rollback is actually good for people, said that everyone at both agencies are working together (even though there is ample evidence that EPA technical staff have been frozen out of the analysis), blamed California for stalled negotiations – it was the same stuff we have been hearing for over a year now.

But the back and forth with the Reps was still fun.  Here’s a sampling of some of the lines of questioning that the witnesses had to respond to (the number in parentheses is the district each Rep represents in their state) –

  • Schakowsky (D-IL-9) noted that the analysis that NHTSA relies on to say that mandating more efficient cars actually has dramatic negative safety consequences is untested and unproven – she asked Wehrum if EPA really signed off on it.
    • Bill Wehrum’s answer was that EPA had talked about it and they believed that the rule would save lives (refuted by the fact that EPA had to put their critique of NTHSA’s model in the official record during interagency review – an unusual move). He went on to simultaneously mansplain and brush off Rep. Schakowsky by saying that that the safety analysis was “very complex”.
    • Schakowsky’s answer to this was perfect – she noted that garbage in equals garbage out when modeling, demonstrating her understanding of complex issues.
  • Matsui (D-CA-6) talked about the importance of state authority and asked Bill Wehrum specifically about the administration’s intent to revoke California’s waiver to regulate tailpipe pollution – an authority the state has had since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, and an action that no administration has ever proposed.
    • Bill Wehrum refused to acknowledge that a waiver granted to California to regulate emissions has never been revoked, while in reality over 100 waivers have been granted to date and none have ever been revoked.
  • Dingell (D-MI-12) mostly wanted to get the Trump administration awe nd CARB back to the negotiating table and asked if EPA would restart negotiations if CA was willing to.
    • Wehrum said he would do what the President wanted him to do.
  • Blunt-Rochester (D-DE) asked why NHTSA wasn’t working on rules that would actually increase the safety of vehicles – like side restraint standards and side impact testing for car seats.
    • King said that rulemakings are complicated and they issue them when they’re ready (nevermind that NHTSA is many years overdue for several safety rules, as was noted by former Deputy Administrator David Friedman on the second panel).
  • Chairman Pallone (D-NJ-6) DeGette (D-CO-1) probed Bill Wehrum’s potential conflicts of interest as he is under investigation about his work with his former clients in the oil industry – they asked specifically about the rollback – he didn’t recall any meetings and didn’t know if any of his staff had meetings with these groups.*
    • Bill Wehrum refused to say he would definitely get the list of meetings to Rep. DeGette, instead saying that he would take the request back to EPA’s Office of Congressional Affairs.

*As an epilogue to this section – it’s worth noting that on Wednesday June 26, Bill Wehrum announced that he was stepping down from EPA – apparently because the ethics probes by both the EPA inspector General and the House Energy and Commerce Committees were having detrimental impacts on his former employer,  Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm where he represented power sector and energy and gas clients who were mostly fighting against regulations.

The main theme

One of the things that we heard over and over again was that most people don’t want the rollback of the standards, as the administration has proposed.  Representatives, both Democrat and Republican, the United Auto Workers, the Alliance of Auto manufacturers, the head of the Colorado Dept of Transportation – everyone wants the Trump administration to cease and desist with their relentless rollback of the popular and effective fuel economy and global warming pollution standards and go back to the negotiating table with CARB to find a solution that strengthens the standards.

Following the hearing, bipartisan letters were sent to the agencies and California, urging them to restart negotiations.  These letters were signed by Reps. Dingell and Tonko from the democratic side and Reps. Upton and Shimkus from the republican side.

While a negotiated outcome could be better than what we’re facing, particularly if it eliminates the administration’s attack on the Clean Air Act and state authority, the devil is in the details. As my colleague Dave has pointed out, the proposals that automakers put into the record are still a lot weaker than the existing standards—if that’s an indication of what a negotiated settlement looks like, that’s not much of a victory for the American public.

Moving forward, it will be critical that Congress continue to press the administration on its bad modeling and even worse proposals—strong oversight is needed to get the administration to uphold its Congressionally mandated responsibilities to protect public health and welfare and improve energy efficiency. The Energy and Commerce hearing is a good public display of the committee’s interest in this issue, and the letters that they sent to the oil companies and oil-funded front groups shows that they aren’t letting go of this issue any time soon.  We will continue to share our analysis and expertise in this issue and look forward to learning more about the committee’s work over time.  Ideally this level of interest stops the Trump administration from finalizing the rule as it was originally put forward in their proposal, and Congress will continue to play an important role in continuing to hold their feet to the fire.

Photo: nsub1/Flickr

Who Breathes the Dirtiest Air from Vehicles in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic?

Photo: frankieleon/Flickr

Most people know that cars, trucks, and buses  from our highways and city streets are a significant source of air pollution.  While pollution from transportation impacts all communities in the region to some degree, the people who face the greatest exposure to transportation pollution are those who live near highways, along major freight corridors, and in urban areas.

To help understand exactly which communities bear the greatest burden and breathe the highest concentrations of this dangerous air pollution, we used a computer model to estimate the amount of fine particulate matter air pollution (known as PM2.5) created by on-road vehicles that burn gasoline and diesel. The findings, which  are not likely not to be a surprise to many residents, are quite troubling: they show that people of color disproportionately breathe dirtier air than white people do:

  • On average, Latino, Asian American and African American residents are exposed to more PM5 pollution from cars, trucks, and buses than white residents of the region. These groups are exposed to PM2.5 pollution 75, 73, and 61 percent higher, respectively, than white residents.
  • Almost one-fifth of the region’s 72 million people live in census tracts where PM5 pollution levels are more than one-and-a-half times the average of the state where they live; more than 60 percent of the residents of those tracts are people of color.
What is PM2.5 and why is it important?

The science is clear: no level of particulate matter is safe to breathe, says the American Lung Association. While fine particulate matter – referred to as PM2.5 – is not the only air pollutant that adversely affects health, it is estimated to be responsible for approximately 95 percent of the global public health impacts from air pollution. Breathing PM2.5  is linked to increased illness and death, primarily from heart and lung diseases.

These minuscule particles are only visible to the naked eye when their concentration in the air is high, such as when a truck belches black smoke. They include particles smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter in diameter – at least 20 times smaller than the diameter of fine human hair— so they can penetrate deep into the lungs. The ultrafine particles  – smaller than 0.1 millionths of a meter – are particularly dangerous, as some can enter into the bloodstream.

Chronic exposure to PM2.5 causes increased death rates attributed to cardiovascular diseases, including heart attacks and strokes, and has been linked to other adverse impacts such as lung cancer, reproductive and developmental harm and even diabetes and dementia. Chronic exposure to PM2.5 in children has also been linked to slowed lung-function growth and development of asthma.

PM2.5  is formed in many ways. A significant source of PM2.5  is fuel combustion. The combustion engines of cars burn gasoline and diesel. Power plants burn natural gas and other fuels to produce electricity. Burning wood for cooking and in residential fireplaces, as well as wildfires, are some examples of biofuel combustion.  To make things worse, not only does burning fossil fuels and biofuels produce PM2.5 directly, but the combustion reaction also emits gases such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds that go on to form additional PM2.5 through complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Because there are so many ways in which particulate matter is formed, you may ask yourself if some pose more health risks than others. Indeed particles can bind with bacteria, pollen, heavy metals, elemental carbon, dust and other building blocks, and so have a broad range of effects on human health. But size is one of the most important factors, and PM2.5  is responsible for a very heavy burden of disease, disability and death.

Greater pollution for people of color

We estimated exposure to PM2.5 pollution using a recently developed model from the University of Washington and data from the US Census Bureau. This model allows us to calculate how vehicle tailpipe and refueling emissions ultimately lead to ground-level pollution exposure, so we can understand how exposure to PM2.5 varies among groups and locations.

The results are clear: PM2.5 pollution burden from cars, trucks, and buses is inequitable when looking at the exposure experienced by racial and ethnic groups in the region. Looking at the region as a whole, Latino residents are exposed to 42 percent higher PM2.5 concentrations than a person breathing polluted air equivalent to the state’s average PM2.5. Asian Americans and African Americans experience concentrations 42 percent and 40 percent higher, respectively, than the average resident (Figure 1).  At the same time, white residents have an average exposure that is 19 percent lower than the average for the region. This means that, on average,  Latino, Asian American and African Americans are exposed to more PM2.5 pollution 75, 73 and 61 percent higher, respectively, than white residents.

Figure 1. Disproportionately High Exposure for People of Color in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Note: This analysis uses the following US Census Bureau–defined racial groups: White; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; Hispanic; Latino; and Some Other Race. In the chart above, Latino includes census respondents who select Hispanic, Latino, or both; Other Race includes respondents who select Some Other Race as their only race.

When we zoom in to the census tract level, defined as an area with approximately 4,000 people, pollution inequity is just as evident as the inequity we see at the regional level (Figure 2). In census tracts with low pollution and cleaner air (where average annual PM2.5 concentrations are less than half of the state average), whites make up 85 percent of the total population, although they constitute less than two-thirds of the total population in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. In contrast, more people of color live in census tracts where pollution is more than one and a half times the state average. In these areas, people of color constitute slightly more than 60 percent of the population, compared with about 35 percent of the regional population.

Figure 2. PM2.5 Unequal Exposure in Different Pollution Areas. Note: Each column refers to census tracts in areas with similar PM2.5 pollution concentrations. The columns show the fraction of people belonging to each of eight racial groups living in those areas. The least polluted areas are on the left and the most polluted on the right. The 0–50% area refers to census tracts where PM2.5 pollution is less than half the regional average, the 50–100% area refers to tracts where pollution is from half the regional average to the regional average, etc. The column at the far right shows the region’s racial composition.

We were also curious about the inequities in air pollution relative to income distribution, and found that exposure inequities are more pronounced between racial and ethnic groups than between income groups. Disparities based on income are not significant because the fractions of people in each income bracket are distributed fairly evenly over areas with different pollution levels.

Pollution also varies across the region

Of all the states in the region, New York ranks highest in the region in average PM2.5 concentration from on-road vehicles, followed by Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, all of which have averages higher than the regional average. Pennsylvania holds a close fifth place (Figure 3).

Figure 3. PM2.5 Exposure Varies Greatly across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Note: Metropolitan areas in the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have many areas with PM2.5 pollution at least twice as high as the regional average. There is much variability between exposure in urban and rural areas of all states.

But averages can be deceptive, and so looking at the range of PM2.5 concentrations within each state paints a clearer picture. Even if a state average is low, pockets of racial and ethnic inequity pop up frequently in the analysis, showing that very high concentrations may afflict some areas, many of which are located near junctions of major highways.

For example, New York State has the census tracts with the highest PM2.5 concentrations in the entire region. These tracts are in the Bronx, Queens, and Manhattan. The Philadelphia area also has very high PM2.5 concentrations compared with the Pennsylvania average: pollution in the state’s dirtiest census tracts is more than three times as high as Pennsylvania’s average. On the other hand, Washington, DC, has a higher average than New York State’s because it is urban – but the most polluted air in the District of Columbia is only about two-thirds the concentration of the most polluted areas in New York State.

New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, the region’s three most populous states with a total of 41.4 million people, have higher PM2.5 averages than the other states. In other words, almost 58 percent of the region’s population live in states where the average pollution from on-road vehicles ranges from 94 percent to almost 150 percent of the regional PM2.5 average.

In New York State, one-third of the population experiences PM2.5 pollution levels that are more than 150 percent of the state average. Because New York is the region’s most populous state, this higher level of pollution affects 6.3 million people, almost 70 percent of whom are people of color. The most polluted census tract in New York State is in Morris Heights in the West Bronx, at the juncture of interstates 95 and 87. This neighborhood is 70 percent Latino and 29 percent African American – and only 0.2% are white.

In Pennsylvania, while the state is 78 percent white, the areas where this pollution is less than half the state average are 93 percent white; the areas where it’s more than twice the state average are only 42 percent white. Even though the state’s average pollution level is slightly lower than the average for the entire Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region, the state has the second most polluted census tract in the region, just below the pollution level of the worst census tract in the region, in the West Bronx of New York City.

Massachusetts is another state where the state average can be deceptive. Residents of Suffolk County, where Boston is located, experience pollution levels that are almost twice as high as the Massachusetts average. In the two most polluted census tracts in the state, which are in downtown Boston, encompassing Chinatown, inequity is blatant: 70% of the population consists of people of color.

There are many such pockets of inequity throughout the region.

What is to be done?

Clearly air pollution from on-road transportation such as diesel and gasoline vehicles places significant, inequitable and unacceptable health burdens on residents of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. This inequity reflects decades of local, state, regional, and national decisions about transportation, housing, and land use. Decisions concerning where to construct highways, where to invest in public transportation, and where to build housing have all contributed to a transportation system that concentrates emissions in communities of color. In many cases, transportation policies have left those communities with inadequate access to public transportation, divided by highways, and exposed to air polluted by congested highways serving suburban commuters.

We have the tools and the technologies to transform our transportation system away from diesel and gasoline and toward clean, modern, equitable solutions. With targeted actions in electrification and clean fuels, the region can save more than $30 billion by 2050 and save thousands of lives.

Electrification of vehicles, both passenger and freight, could greatly reduce emissions. Battery-electric and fuel cell vehicles have no tailpipe emissions, with the exception of minor amounts of PM2.5 emissions from tire and brake wear. Not just that, but these vehicles eliminate emissions associated with refueling. The electricity used to charge the vehicle can produce some emissions from electricity generation, but it’s critical to remember that these emissions are lower than those of an average gasoline car, even if it charges in coal country, and emissions vary depending on the location where the vehicle is charged. In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, along with investments in solar, wind, and other renewable electricity resources, has greatly reduced emissions from electricity generation.

Significant new funding is necessary to expand access to clean transportation in these communities, as are strong regulations that limit transportation emissions and put a price on carbon pollution. And the communities most affected by transportation pollution often have the fewest available resources.

In December 2018, nine states in the region and the District of Columbia agreed to create a regional, market-based program that would limit transportation emissions and invest in clean transportation.  They plan to use funds raised from pollution permits to make strategic investments in clean transportation. States should seek input from communities disproportionately burdened by transportation pollution and ensure that equity is a key consideration in both design processes and future investment decisions.

Specific investments that could reduce inequities include:

  • Investments in electric transit and school buses, with a priority on serving communities exposed to the highest levels of gasoline and diesel emissions
  • Expansion of electric vehicle rebate programs to provide financing assistance and larger rebates to low- and moderate-income residents
  • Utility investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, with a priority on serving communities exposed to the highest levels of gasoline and diesel emissions
  • State programs that provide aid to municipalities to support clean transportation, with a priority on serving communities exposed to the highest levels of pollution.
  • While residents of the region can make a difference by choosing cleaner vehicles and driving less, much of today’s air pollution comes from sources outside the direct control of individuals. States need regulations, incentives, and other policies to reduce vehicle emissions, with equity and the meaningful involvement of affected communities as key considerations in designing policies and strategies to reduce pollution from vehicles.

States need to continue to reduce emissions, placing a high priority on actions that reduce the inequitably distributed burden of air pollution in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. This analysis provides important quantitative evidence of the need for and importance of such programs, and it can help inform and shape future actions to reduce pollution exposure and environmental inequities in the region.

Photo: frankieleon/Flickr Sources: US CENSUS BUREAU 2018; EPA 2014. Sources: US CENSUS BUREAU 2018; EPA 2014. Source: US CENSUS BUREAU 2018; EPA 2014.

Electric Airport Shuttle Buses Are Taking Off

Photo: Jimmy O'Dea

Today, California is expected to pass a standard that will transition airport shuttle buses to zero-emission battery and fuel cell electric vehicles.

While California established a standard for zero-emission transit buses last year, airport shuttle operators are distinct enough from public transit agencies that a different policy is fitting.

The shuttle bus standard covers an estimated 950 vehicles operating at 13 airports. Transitioning these buses to zero-emission technologies by 2035 will reduce global warming emissions by an estimated 35,000 metric tonnes CO2e per year, the equivalent of taking 7,400 of today’s cars off the road each year.

The operational characteristics of shuttle buses (i.e., fixed, short routes and stop-and-go operation) are well matched to today’s electric vehicle technology. There are already 14 companies that make over 30 different models of electric buses ranging from large transit-style buses to small shuttle buses.

And airports are beginning to adopt these vehicles. One hundred electric shuttle buses are on order or operating at 9 of the 13 airports in California that will be covered by the standard. Notably, San Jose recently unveiled 10 electric shuttle buses and Los Angeles is expected to receive 20 electric buses soon. There are already 16 off-airport electric shuttles taking customers between LAX and a nearby parking garage.

“Why bother?”

Some might say that 950 vehicles is small compared to California’s 1.9 million heavy-duty vehicles. Or that 35,000 metric tonnes of emission reductions isn’t that much compared to the state’s annual 430 million metric tonnes of global warming emissions.

It may look like a small step in the right direction, but there are several reasons this policy—and others like it—can be big leaps.

First, if we’re going to reduce carbon emissions and inequitable exposure to air pollution by electrifying as many or all of the vehicles on the road, we have to start somewhere and airport shuttles are well-suited to be an early adopter of electric technologies. In fact, the policy for airport shuttle buses is even stronger than the one now in effect for transit buses, requiring every bus purchased beginning in 2023 to be zero-emission for airports. Compare that to 2029 for transit agencies.

Second, we usually don’t get big policy shifts without passing small policies first. The good news is that bigger policies—covering all categories of heavy-duty vehicles—are in the works. Even when bigger policies are in place, it often takes smaller policies to further strengthen them.

Third, shuttle buses have a lot in common with trucks. Just look at the two vehicles on the top. One carries passengers and the other carries packages, but otherwise they are the same vehicle.

The same goes for the shuttle bus and box truck on the bottom. They have the same business in the front, just different parties in the back.

What this means is that electrifying shuttle buses will increase the availability and market for all electric trucks.

Finally, heavy-duty vehicles disproportionately contribute to global warming and air pollution compared to cars. Buses and trucks are large vehicles with large engines that consume more fuel per mile than cars. Electric buses offer zero tailpipe emissions and 75 percent lower global warming emissions on today’s grid in California compared to diesel and natural gas buses.

Replacing just one diesel or natural gas bus with an electric vehicle has the same effect as eliminating the emissions from several cars. As mentioned above, this policy’s transition of 950 buses to electric technologies will have the same effect (from a global warming perspective) as taking 7,400 of today’s cars off the road each year.

Policy details

The standard applies to shuttle buses serving all 13 major airports in California, including: Los Angeles (LAX), San Diego (SAN), San Francisco (SFO), Burbank (BUR), Oakland (OAK), Ontario (ONT), Santa Ana (SNA), Sacramento (SMF), San Jose (SJC), Fresno (FAT), Long Beach (LGB), Palm Springs (PSP), and Santa Barbara (SBA).

The standard applies to both public and private airport shuttle buses, but only those with fixed routes less than 30 miles long. Types of vehicles falling under the standard include buses operating between airport terminals, rental car sites, off-site parking lots, or airport hotels. Door-to-door charter services, taxis, and ridehails (i.e., Uber and Lyft) are not included in this policy.

Under the standard, any airport shuttle bus purchased after January 1, 2023, must be a battery or fuel cell electric vehicle. Fleets must achieve the following percentages of zero-emission vehicles on the road by these dates:

  • 33 percent by December 31, 2027
  • 66 percent by December 31, 2031
  • 100 percent by December 31, 2035

With fuel and maintenance savings expected from electric vehicles compared to diesel, natural gas, and gasoline, as well as decreases in vehicle purchase costs, the standard is estimated to save $30 million across the state from 2020 to 2040.

Significant state funding is available to incentivize early action before 2023, providing savings above and beyond the estimated $30 million. California’s HVIP voucher program, for example, provides $25,000 to $160,000 in funding for the purchase of battery electric shuttle buses (depending on the vehicle size) to offset higher purchase costs.

This is just the beginning

With policies only for transit buses and airport shuttle buses, many types of heavy-duty vehicles remain ripe for electrification. Nearly every truck operating in an urban setting with a local operating radius is suited for electrification today.

California is currently working to: a) set standards for manufacturers to make electric trucks and buses, and b) set standards for fleets beyond transit and shuttle buses to purchase these zero-emission vehicles, such as refuse trucks, delivery trucks, and port drayage trucks.

UCS supports the standard for zero-emission airport shuttle buses. It is the result of more than two years of public meetings and significant analysis of the airport shuttle bus industry.

No single policy will solve all of our air quality and climate problems, but progress is the sum of all things, airport shuttle buses included.

Photo: Jimmy O'Dea Photos: Jimmy O'Dea, Thomas R. Machnitzki, and MobiusDaXter

Congress Is Pushing Back on the Trump Fuel Economy Rollback. Why Aren’t Auto Companies?

The administration considered a number of alternatives in its proposed rulemaking, though none would yield even half the benefits of the current standards. Proposals from automaker trade groups, it turns out, were not any better. Honda’s proposal represents the highwater mark for the industry, though it, too, falls well short of the current standards.

On Thursday, two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees are holding a joint hearing examining the Trump administration’s rollback of fuel efficiency and emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks. The witnesses include the regulators moving forward with this disastrous plan and at least one of the key state regulators opposing it, but one voice likely to be missing from the hearing will be the auto manufacturers themselves, who set this rollback in motion by requesting the President undo the rules in the first place.

Auto companies refuse to own their role in the rollback

The auto companies have recently tried a new tack in its media strategy to urge the public to forget its role in this mess, playing the woe-begone victim of an administration ignoring both science and the public interest in a letter to the President urging him to rethink the current proposal. And unfortunately, many in the media have adopted the frame precisely as the auto companies intended, painting a story of the letter as an indictment of the President’s policies.

Unfortunately, the media has the automakers’ letter all wrong—it shows nothing new, and certainly isn’t pushing back on the outcome. The auto companies once again asked for a bevy of carve-outs, loopholes, and weak standards. They may be trying to hide the rust under a new coat of paint, but it’s the same old jalopy they’ve been trying to sell since day one—the President is giving them exactly what they asked for, but it’s just they really wish his administration had crafted a more legally defensible escape hatch.

The telltale sign is in the automakers’ letter to California. In their letters, the auto companies whine about the lack of a 50-state standard as a result of the administration’s proposal, but if the auto companies were so concerned about the need for a 50-state standard, they’d acknowledge that we already have one on the books that’s saving consumers at the pump. Instead, they continue to beg California not to exercise its right to protect its citizens while trying to weaken those rules.

Auto companies aren’t the victims—consumers are

While one might want better from companies, it’s hard to be surprised. This is an industry with a history of fighting regulations at every turn. As Brett Smith of the Center for Automotive Research puts it, “They are looking out for their own best interest, as every company and every person does at the end of the day.”

Of course, that’s precisely why regulators must set strong standards—these corporations aren’t actually interested in the public good, and they certainly aren’t going to do it themselves. And as a result of the auto companies’ ask for weaker standards and an administration all too willing to give it to them, consumers are going to pay more for gas as we veer towards environmental catastrophe. Thanks, guys.

Updated analysis shows auto companies still asking for a rollback

As I wrote last year, the auto industry has been asking for a rollback at every turn, damn the consequences to consumers and the environment. To more accurately assess the impacts of the flexibilities requested by the auto companies and their trade groups, I’ve recently modeled how the various automaker proposals would affect future compliance strategies. For example, incentives for electric vehicles could encourage more deployment of electric vehicles, but weaker overall stringency disincentivizes all technology deployment—our modeling examines the interaction of these various requests and considers the trade-offs.

Even the most beneficial positions by major automakers would represent a step backwards from the standards we have today, even if the stringency of the underlying curves were left intact. Our latest analysis (in red) continues to show that the magnitude of some of these proposals for “flexibilities” are so large that they could erode the standards as much as the flat-line alternative preferred by the Agency we have noted here as a “rollback.”

The end result is not particularly surprising—our updated analysis falls smack in the middle of our previous estimates (Figure 1), meaning that while automaker proposals may not be quite as bad as we feared, they are also not as good as we had hoped.

Automakers and administration seem to be in alignment

Earlier this year, it was reported that the administration may adjust its proposal upward up to 0.5% improvement per year (Figure 2, Alternatives 2/3), slightly better than the original proposal but just 1/10th of the nearly 5% per year required under current standards. Even doubling such a weak proposal to 1% would do little to mitigate its adverse consequences (Figure 2, Alternative 4).

The administration considered a number of alternatives in its proposed rulemaking, though none would yield even half the benefits of the current standards. Proposals from automaker trade groups, it turns out, were not any better. Honda’s proposal represents the highwater mark for the industry, though it, too, falls well short of the current standards.

The Auto Alliance’s proposal falls right in line with such an adjustment by the administration in terms of its impact on emissions and fuel use…which is to say, not much improvement. Furthermore, its comments on the proposal included telling the administration how it could bolster its flimsy legal basis for the awful regulation that, when finalized, will inevitably wind up in court.

The Global Automakers’ proposal is better, but essentially amounts to exactly the same thing as is rumored the administration is putting forth, except starting a year later in 2022 instead of 2021. One more year of strong regulation may be better than nothing, but not much better.

Will automakers push for improvements or side with the administration?

Honda’s is the only proposal which goes beyond the proposals offered by the administration. While it would represent nearly a 30 percent loss in emissions from the current standards, that’s only half as bad as its trade association’s proposal, making them one of few automakers who are on the record supporting something better than the administration has offered. During EPA’s actions under then-Administrator Scott Pruitt which started this rollback fiasco, Volkswagen supported maintaining the current standards as-is, but they’ve gone quiet since. Only Tesla has been a consistently vocal advocate among vehicle manufacturers.

Given everything at stake, it is up to these and other automakers to distance themselves from the administration’s proposal right now–and not just by asking for a different, loophole-friendly standard that harms the environment to an equal degree. For example, if a company like Ford wants to tout its environmental bona fides, it should be working with California to press forward with the strong standards working for American consumers today, not collaborating with its trade group and the administration to erode them.

The administration is getting ready to finalize a proposal that will hurt the economy, undermine national security, and increase emissions. When this regulation inevitably winds up in court, it will be incumbent upon the auto companies to side with the states opposing this destructive policy. The auto industry supported rolling back these standards—they must now fight them or forever be associated with the negative repercussions on their consumers and the environment.

Here’s Why New York Should Pass the CCPA

Photo: Zach Miles/Unsplash

New York State is on the verge of passing one of the nation’s most ambitious economy-wide climate laws.

The Community and Climate Protection Act, or CCPA, would not only require New York to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2040, but also pave the way for the complete transition of New York’s economy to clean energy. The CCPA is the result of years of work by grassroots activists and leaders within the New York Renews coalition, demonstrating that with persistence and determination, momentum on the ground has the potential to achieve big things in climate policy.

Ensuring that New York is on a path to becoming a national climate leader is not only about the future – it’s about today, too. New Yorkers are already feeling the impacts across the state, from superstorms to extreme heat. With each passing year of inaction, we face increasingly dire threats from climate change.

Elected officials in Albany have only a handful of days left before the end of this legislative session, but we cannot afford to wait another year before ensuring that New York has a climate law on the books. If New York succeeds in passing this historic legislation, it will be critical that state officials take a hard look at the largest and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions: transportation.

Tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks, and buses are the largest source of pollution in New York, as it is throughout the United States, and is responsible for 43% of New York’s climate emissions. Transportation is also a leading source of particulate matter and other forms of toxic air pollution that harm the health of our communities every day, particularly communities near highways and ports.

Implementation of the CCPA must therefore include a big-picture vision for how New York builds a clean, modern transportation system that works for everyone. Here’s what we believe to be the essential components of that vision:

We should electrify everything

Electric vehicles (EVs) are here, and they are increasingly available in all models and vehicle classes. Electric vehicles are also awesome. It’s a better mousetrap. Electric engines use energy far more efficiently, which means a great automotive experience with lower costs for consumers. They have fewer moving parts, which mean lower maintenance costs and greater longevity. By plugging into the grid and managing EV charging strategically, we can power EVs with renewable energy, make our electric grid more efficient, and help facilitate the transition to renewable energy.

But the better mousetrap doesn’t always win in the constrained market for vehicles. Gasoline and diesel vehicles still have major market advantages, in terms of infrastructure, consumer expectations, and upfront vehicle cost. Transitioning the 11 million vehicles operating in New York to electric vehicles will be a challenge that requires more ambitious policies. We need to build out the infrastructure that makes keeping an EV fully charged even more convenient than filling up at a gas station. We need to expand incentives to reduce the upfront vehicle cost for consumers, especially low- and moderate-income consumers and rural residents who currently cannot afford an EV. And we need to do more to make the buying of an EV a simple and easy process for consumers.

Electric vehicles are not only a solution for passenger vehicles, but also for heavy duty vehicles such as buses and trucks. We commend New York City for their commitment to achieve the complete electrification of their transit bus fleet by 2040 and we encourage other cities and RTAs operating in New York to make similar commitments. New funding from New York State could help transit agencies and fleet operators replace diesel engines with zero-emission alternatives, which in turn would help reduce fuel and maintenance costs and improve service for riders.

We should invest in alternatives to driving, through improved public and active transportation

Electrification alone cannot solve all the problems impacting New York’s transportation system. We also need to do more to provide New Yorkers with alternatives to driving, through enhanced public transportation, and improved infrastructure for walking, biking, and micromobility solutions such as electric scooters.

This year the legislature took a big step toward improving public transportation in the New York City metro area by approving congestion pricing and allocating significant new resources to the MTA. But we know that we need to do more to fully fund the national treasure that is the MTA and make it the first-class public transportation system New York City needs and deserves. And we also know that we need to do much more to improve public transportation services throughout the state. All New Yorkers deserve to be able to get where they need to go without a car, regardless of where they live.

We should build more affordable housing near public transportation

Issues of transportation emissions and congestion are inextricably linked to housing and land use. People want to live in neighborhoods that have strong public transportation services – if they can afford it. But for many low- and moderate-income New Yorkers, finding affordable housing close to public transportation is impossible. Expanding public transportation services to new communities without investing in affordable housing can inadvertently encourage gentrification. Climate policy in New York should look to expand the production of permanently affordable housing near public transportation so that more New Yorkers can get to work and the places they need to go without driving.

Solutions should focus on communities shouldering the greatest burdens from transportation pollution

Pollution from transportation impacts all communities in New York, but the communities suffering under the weight of the greatest burdens are those near major traffic corridors, highways, and ports. These impacts fall disproportionately hard on communities of color. For example, in the Bronx, where over 70% of the population is non-white, over 20% of children have asthma and the rate of asthma-related deaths is over three times the national average. We believe that the current CCPA language directing 40% of funds towards solutions in disadvantaged communities would be a good start and a potential model for other states looking to solve transportation challenges in these communities.

We should create a market-based limit on transportation emissions

The CCPA would also authorize one of the most important tools in achieving limits on emissions from transportation and other sectors: a market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

New York State already participates in one market-based climate program: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. RGGI works by setting an overall cap on emissions from power plants, requiring polluters to purchase allowances based on their emissions, and investing the proceeds from those allowance sales in efficiency and clean energy. RGGI, together with other smart programs like the Renewable Energy Standard as well as the switch from coal to gas, has helped put the Northeast region on track to reduce emissions 65% by 2030.

An expansion of this policy model into transportation fuels could create an enforceable limit on overall emissions from transportation and provide one source of funding for the investments we need in clean vehicles, public transportation, and affordable housing.

Our regional partners are at work on a policy that would build on the success of RGGI. Last December, nine states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic along with Washington DC made a commitment to design a market-based program similar to RGGI, covering transportation fuels through the Transportation and Climate Initiative. The CCPA would authorize New York State to join this important initiative.

Enact the CCPA

This is the time to act.

It has taken activists and champions years to get to this point, but today the Governor, the Senate and the Assembly have all indicated their support for ambitious and comprehensive climate legislation this session. It is important to get the details right, but it is also important to get this legislation done so that that hard work of implementing the CCPA can begin.

Photo: Zach Miles/Unsplash

Top Clean Cars for 2019 and 2020 

Photo: www.everycarlisted.com

Looking to clean up your commute? Choosing a less polluting vehicle is one of the biggest things you can do to combat climate change and fortunately for you, I just got back from the DC and NY Auto Shows where automakers displayed the latest and greatest clean vehicles coming to a showroom near you.

Electric vehicles were prominently displayed at this year’s auto shows; for good reason. EVs are cheaper and cleaner to drive than their gasoline-powered counterparts and are beginning to appear as SUVs and pickups, which are the most popular vehicle types in the U.S. Want to find out how clean an EV is in your area? Check out this handy emissions calculator.

2019 Hyundai Kona EV

This crossover utility EV is already a fan favorite, having generated strong reviews from auto reporters and consumer advocates since it was introduced to the U.S. in January 2019. It not only has good looks, but also good performance. The Kona EV gets 258 miles on a full charge from its 64 kWh battery pack, which can be filled up to 80 percent in just 75 minutes from a 50kW level 3 charger, or to 100 percent when plugged into a level 2 (240V) charger overnight.  The Kia Niro EV, the Kona’s sister car, has similar specs.

The only bad news here is the Kona EV is exclusively available on the West Coast and in Northeast states (specifically, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Washington D.C.). Should sales of this newcomer prove strong, Hyundai may be pressed to expand its availability but until then, you need to travel to a state where it is sold to take possession of this new EV offering from Hyundai.

2019 Volkswagen e-Golf

Volkswagen is slowly making amends for their transgressions and are beginning to offer electric options across their vehicle classes. One of the reasons why I’m excited about the 2019 VW e-Golf is its price. This all electric hatchback starts at $32,790 and is still eligible for the $7,500 federal tax credit – bringing the base MSRP down to $25,290. Considering that the average new vehicle cost $37,577 at the end of 2018, getting a nice VW for around $25k is a great deal. Though the e-Golf offers slightly less range than its competitors (estimated 125 miles on a full charge), it’s a good size – easily fitting 4 adults with bags in the trunk – and has plenty of electric range for most daily driving. Its price and features earned the e-Golf “best electric vehicle in the compact class” honors from Car & Driver, and an overall 10Best award for 2019. Similar to the Kona EV, the availabiilty of the e-Golf is limited to the “ZEV states” for now, but VW plans to bring more EVs to all 50 states as soon as 2022.

2019 Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid

Minivan alert! Do you need to shuttle gremlins to soccer practice or the mall but also want to cut your carbon footprint? Then this 2019 offering from Chrysler may be for you, as it is currently the only plug-in minivan for sale in the U.S. With the ability to travel 32 miles on a full charge, the Pacifica Hybrid can avoid filling up with gas for weeks or even months depending on your daily driving needs. It is also eligible for the $7,500 federal tax credit, which brings its price more in line with other traditional minivans.

When the battery is depleted, the Pacifica Hybrid operates like a traditional gasoline-electric hybrid, and achieves considerably better fuel economy than its gas-only minivan competitors. EPA rates the Pacifica Hybrid as capable of 32 miles per gallon combined in traditional hybrid mode, which is 10 mpg more than the Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey, and standard Pacifica. With its 16.5-gallon fuel tank, the Pacifica Hybrid also offers an outstanding 520 miles of total driving range, plenty for weekend warrior’ing or long road tips.

2020 Toyota Corolla Traditional Hybrid

For the car shoppers who can’t use an EV because they don’t have a place to plug it in every night, this traditional gasoline-electric hybrid might be a better choice.  The 2020 Toyota Corolla Hybrid comes in at a MSRP of just $23,880 and offers an estimated 52 MPG combined with the reliability consumers have come to expect from Toyota. Though the Prius has been the king or queen of traditional hybrids, the 2020 Corolla is a great alternative with a a more innocuous styling package.

2020 Rivian R1T

Based in Plymouth Michigan, start-up automaker Rivian recently raised funds to launch production of an all-electric pickup truck (the R1T) and an all-electric SUV they unveiled at the LA Auto Show this past November. Pickups and SUVs are the most popular vehicle classes in the U.S., so if Rivian cracks the code at producing an affordable electric version of these vehicles, they may be onto something huge. The Rivian R1T pickup is expected to deliver up to 400-plus miles of range, have an 11,000-pound tow rating and a cargo capacity of 1,760 pounds, go 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, and have off-road capability. But these impressive specs will come at a price. The R1T is expected to start at about $69,000 before any tax credits, but if you need a pickup truck and are tired of burning too much oil as you carry your cargo around, check out the Rivian R1T.

Photo: www.everycarlisted.com Photo: Hyndai Photo: Volkswagen Photo: Chrysler Photo Corolla Photo: Rivian

The Future of Transportation Is Electric

Photo: Kārlis Dambrāns/Wikimedia Commons

It’s clearer every day: the future of transportation is electric. We should be cheering this transition—and encouraging it, because along with the benefits for drivers, electrifying transportation is going to be a critical piece of fighting climate change.

Unfortunately, for many observers, skepticism about electric vehicles (EVs) has become something like an article of faith. Mired in an obsolete set of facts, electric-vehicle naysayers are making the same arguments they’ve made for years even as technology speeds forward.

Take columnist George Will, who launched a broadside against electric vehicles last week. In casting doubt on the viability of EVs, Will is revealing that he hasn’t updated his understanding of the technology or the market in a decade. His argument relies upon outdated, misleading and just-plain-wrong evidence, undermining his thesis completely.

Here’s the truth. Electric vehicles are considerably cleaner than gasoline-powered cars, and this advantage is only increasing with time. Increasingly, coal-fired power generation is declining, and the share of our electricity produced by renewables is increasing. Indeed, Will inadvertently makes this point in his article. He points out that 27 percent of our electricity comes from coal power plants but leaves out entirely the fact that a decade earlier, coal was the largest source of electricity at almost half (48 percent) of all generation. We’re on the right path.

Coal-fired electricity generation has fallen significantly over the last decade, as natural gas and renewable electricity generation has increased. Replacing coal power plants with renewable sources of electricity will make electric vehicles even cleaner. Nuclear and hydroelectric power generation is not shown as they have remained largely unchanged at 20 and 7 percent of generation respectively. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

This move to cleaner electricity means switching from gasoline to electricity to power our cars and trucks will lower global warming emissions. Our most recent analysis (based on 2016 electricity generation statistics) shows that the average EV driven in the US produces global warming emissions equal to an 80 mpg gasoline car. And that number is even better in parts of the US, like California and the Northeastern states, where coal is lower and renewables higher in the mix.

In addition to being the biggest source of global warming emissions in the US, transportation is also a major source of air pollution that harms public health. Reducing the amount of pollution from tailpipes will have real benefits for people living in densely-populated cities or along major highways.

Electric vehicles are cheaper to operate and maintain than traditional gasoline vehicles. While the price of oil is volatile, the cost of electricity is low and stable, and in most cities driving electric can save a household hundreds of dollars every year. And as the market grows, the price of electric vehicles has fallen dramatically, with 80 percent of electric vehicles sold in 2018 having a base suggested retail price under $50,000.

An electric future is not just the hope of EV owners and engineers. Increasingly, both automakers and governments around the world are looking to an electric future as a way to cut oil use, reduce the risks of climate change and build a cleaner, more sustainable future. Major automakers including Volkswagen, General Motors, and Toyota have all explicitly stated their belief that the future is electric.

We’re headed toward an electric future—but it’s in our interest to make sure it happens fast, because the urgency of the climate crisis demands it, and because we can’t afford to get left behind as the world makes the shift to innovative new technologies. That’s why it still makes sense for the federal government to encourage electric vehicle adoption. We need to build a strong electric market and keep the US competitive in a carbon-conscious world.  Companies will prioritize research, development, and manufacturing where policies encourage electric vehicles. Pulling back on electric car incentives too early could harm both US manufacturing and drivers as these global car companies prioritize progress outside the US.

In insisting these incentives are unnecessary, Will uses outdated and misleading data. For example, he writes “after a decade of production, moral exhortations and subsidies, electric cars are a fraction of 1 percent of all vehicle sales.”  The truth is far different: In 2018 (7 years, not 10, after the debut of the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt), electric vehicles were 2 percent of new car sales in the US and 8 percent in market leader California. Sales are picking up and driving economies of scale in the EV industry, but the next few years are critical to have EV reach purchase price parity with conventional vehicles.

Mr. Will also picks up a favorite argument of the current administration: US cars and trucks are only a slice of global emissions, so why bother moving to a cleaner technology? Yes, our cars and trucks are not the only source of emissions, but they are a growing source in the US. And to avoid the worst impacts of climate change we need to greatly reduce emissions from all sectors, transportation included. The US is already seeing greatly increased costs from disasters linked to climate change, and the federal government warns that future costs of global warming to the US alone could be in hundreds of billions of dollars per year from extreme heat deaths, labor productivity losses, and coastal flooding damage. Implementing policies like extending the federal EV tax credit now to reduce emissions from transportation makes sense.

Finally, George Will also misleads with his discussion of the average income of those that benefit from the federal electric vehicle tax credit. The analysis he points only looks at the early electric car purchases (2014 and earlier) and crucially ignores leases of electric cars. Because many lower-priced electric cars were leased (and some available only for lease), the income data presented is skewed towards higher-income purchasers.

Will’s refusal to look at the latest evidence undermines his case against electric vehicle incentives. The real world has moved past his outdated arguments—and to refuse to update his understanding means he’s being dishonest with his readers.

Photo: Kārlis Dambrāns/Wikimedia Commons

How Can we Get More Electric Trucks on the Road?

Tesla semi truck.

California is considering a policy to drive sales of electric trucks like it has done for sales of electric cars.

Electric cars in California

You may know that California has the largest share of electric cars in the United States. But it’s surprisingly large.

Despite having 11 percent of the country’s vehicles and 12 percent of the country’s population, California has roughly 50 percent of the 1 million electric cars sold in the United States (value includes plug-in hybrids).

In 2018, full electric (95,000) and plug-in hybrid (63,000) electric cars represented 8 percent of all passenger vehicle sales in California (car, SUV, light pickup truck). These impressive numbers were driven largely by sales of the Tesla Model 3, which had its first full year of sales, totaling over 50,000 in the state. Sales of the Tesla Model S, Tesla Model X, and Chevy Bolt totaled 10,000 each.

What makes California a leader in electric cars? A main reason is a policy requiring car manufacturers to sell electric vehicles in the state.

California is considering a similar policy for trucks

Trucks1 and buses make up just 7 percent of vehicles on the road in California, but 20 percent of global warming emissions and 40 percent of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the transportation sector, the largest sector for both types of emissions in California.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently released the latest iteration of a policy concept that would do for trucks what it has done for cars: set zero-emission sales targets. If set at the right level, such targets could transform the truck sector from one fueled by diesel to one powered by electricity and hydrogen.

The standard has undergone two and a half years of public workshops and information gathering. It will undergo another year of public input before it is voted on.

Here’s where things stand

The sales standard proposed by CARB would result in approximately 5 percent of trucks (84,000) operating in California as zero-emission vehicles by 2030.

Viewed from the limited number of electric trucks on the road in California today (less than a thousand), 84,000 zero-emission trucks might sound like a lot. But viewed in terms of the entire 1.5 million trucks operating in the state, 95 percent would still be powered by a combustion engine in 2030.

The table below summarizes the sales standard proposed by CARB. It sets different standards for different categories of trucks, Class 2b-3; Class 4-8 vocational trucks; and Class 7-8 tractor (semi) trucks.

Table showing proposed sales standards (percentages) and estimated sales of zero-emission trucks in California.

Table showing total truck sales estimated from the proposed sales standards for zero-emission trucks in California.

Numbers are based on today’s truck sales (100,000 trucks per year2) and today’s truck population (1.5 million trucks across all categories) in California. These numbers also assume no trading of truck credits with different values across the Class 2b-3, Class 4-8 vocational, and Class 7-8 tractor categories which CARB has proposed allowing.

How has the policy changed over the last two years?

CARB’s original proposal, released two years ago, started at a 2.5 percent sales standard in 2023 and increased to 15 percent in 2030. The most recent proposal starts a year later and works out to be 3 percent of total sales in 2024, increasing to 25 percent of total sales in 2030.

The original draft included Class 2b pickup trucks but excluded Class 8 trucks. The most recent draft flips that and includes Class 8 trucks but excludes pickups until 2027. Plug-in hybrid trucks (e.g., have a battery with ~20 miles in range combined with a combustion engine) would be counted as one-third of a full electric truck.

Using the most recent sales numbers, the original proposal would have resulted in 72,000 zero-emission trucks by 2030, compared to 84,000 trucks with the new proposal. This increase, small in the context of the 1.5 million trucks in California, does not match the advances in truck technology and purchases that we’ve seen in the last two years, or the $579 million approved for investments in electric truck and bus charging infrastructure.

Just last week, electric utilities in California, Oregon, and Washington  announced they will study how to provide charging infrastructure for trucks along I-5.  We’ve come a long way since electric cars first hit the market in late 2010; even interstate electric truck travel is now considered within reach.

A more ambition standard is needed

Improving local air quality and reducing California’s contribution to global warming will require more than 5 percent of trucks to be zero-emission by 2030. So, the overall sales targets need to be higher.

For a sense of scale, 225,000 zero-emission trucks would be just 15 percent of trucks on the road today. Analysis by CARB indicates that 100,000 cleaner trucks are needed in the Los Angeles area alone to meet 2023 air quality standards. And we can’t get to net-zero carbon emissions by 2045, a goal set by Governor Brown last year, without significant deployment of electric trucks.

In the Class 2b-3 category, there is room for strengthening the standard (currently tops out at 15 percent of sales in 2030), especially if pickup trucks have a delayed timeline as drafted. Some of the vehicles most suited for electrification today, such as small delivery vans, small box trucks, and shuttle buses, are in the Class 2b-3 category.

The sales standard should also start in 2024 for Class 7 and 8 tractor trucks, rather than being delayed until 2027. Electrification of these trucks is particularly important as they travel greater distances and have lower fuel efficiencies than other types of trucks. Several battery and fuel cell electric tractor trucks are planned, if not in demonstration already.

The benefits of moving faster on truck electrification include reductions in global warming emissions and improvements in air quality. And recent UCS analysis shows that reducing emissions from vehicles is critical for addressing the inequitable exposure to air pollution from cars and trucks experienced by low income and communities of color in California.

Detailed analysis by CARB also indicates significant financial benefits are possible with truck electrification. In all three of the truck applications examined by CARB, it was estimated to be comparable if not cheaper to own and operate a battery electric truck than a diesel truck in 2024, when the proposed standard would take effect. In some applications, battery electric trucks are estimated to be cheaper today, without including the significant purchase incentives currently offered by the state.

From left to right: UPS electric delivery truck, BYD Class 6 electric box truck, Toyota Class 8 hydrogen fuel cell semi truck.

The sales standards will be coupled with purchase standards

CARB has indicated an intent to develop purchase standards for fleets that would complement the sales standards for manufacturers. The purchase standards would also take effect in 2024.

The details of these standards – likely different for various end-uses of trucks – have yet to be determined, but would set targets for fleets to begin incorporating electric truck models into their operations. To help inform their development of truck purchase standards, CARB plans to collect data (through regulatory action) from fleets operating in the state.

Purchase standards aren’t without precedent. Last December, California set a landmark purchase standard that will ensure every transit bus sold in the state will be a zero-emission vehicle by 2029. This was the first policy in the United States shifting an entire class of vehicles to 100 percent electrification.

In all, sales and purchase standards are the next step in getting clean trucks on the road. Such standards will build on successful purchase incentive programs already in place as well as charging infrastructure investments approved and underway by California electric utilities. This suite of policies mirrors strategies that have made California a leader in electric cars.

What’s next

CARB staff will continue hosting workshops on the proposed sales standard and fleet reporting requirements over the next several months. The CARB Board will have its first formal, but non-voting, hearing of the sales standard and reporting requirements in December. A final version of both will be voted on sometime in 2020.

As the process for developing the sales standard progresses, UCS will be evaluating technology availability and advocating for standards that put the electric truck market on a trajectory that is feasible, ambitious, and necessary to address the public health, climate, and equity problems resulting from truck exhaust.

 

1 “Trucks” refers to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of at least 8,501 lbs, i.e., a large pickup truck and up. Trucks falling into the lightest category include the Chevy Silverado 2500 pickup truck, Ford F-250 pickup truck, cargo van, or a small U-Haul truck. CARB refers to the light end of trucks as “light-heavy-duty vehicle 1” (LHDV1).

2 CARB’s most recent sales numbers indicate 74,149 of Class 2b-3 trucks (of which 44,354 are pickup trucks), 27,182 of Class 4-8 vocational trucks, and 4,837 of Class 7-8 tractor (semi) trucks.

Public Domain Photos: Jimmy O'Dea

Make Electric Vehicle Rebates Available at the Point of Purchase

New legislation proposed in Massachusetts would take a critical step towards making electric vehicles (EVs) affordable to consumers, by offering rebates to consumers at the point of sale.

While Massachusetts offers rebates for electric vehicles through its “MOR-EV” program, Massachusetts currently does not offer rebates at the point of purchase. Instead, customers who purchase an electric vehicle must fill out this application, identifying the VIN number, the purchase details, the dealership and the sales person. If there is still funding available when you make your purchase (and the program is constantly on the verge of running out of funding) the state sends the applicant a rebate check up to 120 days later.

Further, beginning in 2019, MOR-EV rebate levels were cut to just $1,500 for battery electric vehicles and $0 for plug in hybrids. Massachusetts has been forced to cut rebate amounts because the state has not developed a sustainable funding source for MOR-EV. Even with the cutbacks, the program is set to run out of funding in June. Given the central role of EVs in achieving the state’s climate limits, this is a critical issue that must be dealt with by the legislature immediately.

A budget amendment proposed by Representative Jonathan Hecht would address these problems by creating a new instant rebate of for low- and moderate-income consumers. In addition, the Hecht amendment would restore MOR-EV rebate amounts to the level they were in 2018 ($2,500 for battery electric vehicles and $1,000 for plug in hybrids). Taken together, Rep. Hecht’s legislation would make EVs a viable choice for most new vehicle purchasers.

For example, under the Hecht proposal, a middle-class customer interested in a Chevy Bolt with Quirk Chevrolet through Green Energy Consumers Alliance’s Drive Green Program might be able to lease the vehicle for no money down, and an equivalent lease rate of $150 per month on a 36 month lease. That is a great deal for a great car that will improve our environment, our public health and our economy.

We need to make EVs affordable for more drivers

MOR-EV is an important program. Its goal of encouraging the electric vehicle market, so that economies of scale would improve quality and reduce price, remains well founded. Yes, many of the direct beneficiaries are early adopters, tech enthusiasts and people with high incomes. But those initial investments have driven down costs and made these vehicles more accessible.

Today, the challenge facing EVs is how to bring the technology to all drivers. Analysis conducted by the state agencies demonstrate that widespread electrification is necessary to hit the requirements of Massachusetts’s important climate law, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Passenger vehicles are responsible for over 20 percent of global warming emissions in the state. The Comprehensive Energy Plan requested by Governor Charlie Baker and conducted by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs looked at several potential scenarios to meet the state’s climate limits for 2030. They found that in even the least aggressive scenario, electric vehicles will have to be 2 of 3 passenger vehicles sold in Massachusetts by 2030. In the most aggressive scenario electric vehicles are 7 of 8 new vehicles sold!

A program that requires consumers to wait months before they receive their rebate is inadequate.

Many states offer EV rebates at the point of purchase

In contrast, most states that offer rebates for electric vehicles do so at the point of purchase. Most also offer larger total rebate amounts. The Delaware Clean Vehicle Rebate program offers rebates of $3,500 for consumers who purchase through participating dealerships at the point of purchase. Auto dealers who participate in Connecticut’s CHEAPR program or New York’s Drive Clean Rebate, both of which offer $2,000 for a battery electric vehicle, likewise do all the paperwork behind the scenes, giving Connecticut and New York consumers an immediate incentive without any paperwork. Colorado’s alternative fuel tax credit of up to $5,000 for a battery electric vehicle can be claimed by financing institutions at the point of purchase. New Jersey exempts EVs from the state’s sales tax, which effectively provides thousands in savings at the point of purchase.

California does not offer rebates at the point of purchase, although the state is working on pilot projects to preapprove income-eligible EV purchasers. However, California does offer much larger incentives for low- and moderate-income residents. California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program offers a rebate of up to $4,500 for the purchase or lease of a battery electric vehicle to low-income consumers statewide. People who live in the San Joaquin Valley or within the South Coast Air Quality Management District are further eligible for incentives to trade in an older, high-emissions car or truck for an electric vehicle or hybrid; taken together, these incentives “stack” to up to $14,000 for low income consumers. California is also exploring providing financing assistance to low income consumers.

Data from the Center for Sustainable Energy confirms that states such as New York and Connecticut that have introduced rebates at the point of sale do significantly better in stimulating the market for low- and moderate-income customers than Massachusetts.

Mass Save for vehicles

Making electric vehicle rebates available at the point of sale is one particularly obvious step towards bringing this technology to all consumers. But we need to figure out a larger and more comprehensive approach to vehicle electrification. The decision to purchase an electric vehicle can be complicated. It requires the consumer to consider a number of issues from long-term cost savings to charging infrastructure to access to offstreet parking. We need a program that will address multiple obstacles to vehicle electrification and help the consumer through the process of understanding this technology and making a purchase.

We have a great model for how to do that in the Bay State. It’s called the Mass Save program.

Thanks to Mass Save, all Massachusetts residents can enjoy a free Home Energy Assessment. As part of that assessment, a person comes to your house, explains what your options are, explains what incentives and programs are available to support you. Mass Save also combines direct, upfront rebates with financing assistance, offering zero-interest loans for technologies such as heat pumps, insulated windows, and solar water heaters. Several programs provide greater incentives to low-income residents – or   provide efficiency technologies for free to low-income residents. Mass Save is a big part of the reason why Massachusetts has been consistently rated the most energy efficient state in the country, saving consumers hundreds of millions per year on their energy bills.

Mass Save is an awesome program because Massachusetts has devoted real resources to Mass Save from multiple dedicated funding streams. Massachusetts’ Three Year Energy Efficiency Plan calls for $772 million in energy efficiency funding through Mass Save in 2019. Currently MOR-EV has a 2019 budget of $8 million, which is projected to last the state through June. Nobody knows how the state will fund EV incentives in July. It is very difficult to build a bold or comprehensive program that addresses multiple barriers to EV adoption when MOR-EV is constantly on the verge of running out of money.

We need to do better than this, and we can. Representative Hecht’s budget amendment would represent a good step towards making MOR-EV a program that works for all consumers. We encourage the legislature to work with the Baker administration to make point-of-sale rebates for low- and moderate-income customers a priority, and to provide the kind of sustainable funding source that can allow our EV programs to reach a lot more consumers.

Grendelkhan/Wikimedia Commons

Electric Utilities Can Accelerate Electric Truck and Bus Deployment

Photo: Greensboro Transit Authority

Today, in my inaugural blog post, I am excited to share a set of recommendations for electric utility investments in electric truck and bus charging programs.

Swapping diesel trucks and buses for electric models is a critical strategy for both reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change and reducing local air pollution to improve public health. The good news is that high-performance electric trucks and buses are becoming increasingly available for many vehicle uses, notably medium-duty delivery vehicles, cargo equipment, transit buses, and school buses. The challenge is that widespread deployment of those vehicles requires a large-scale, coordinated effort by policymakers, private investors, and—you guessed it—electric utilities.

For their part, electric utilities are an important early investor in charging programs for all EVs, including trucks and buses for several reasons. First, grid-related investments to support electricity demand from EVs are well within utilities’ wheelhouse. Second, utilities’ expertise in managing the grid make them an important partner in managing electric truck and bus loads to maximize potential benefits to the grid. For example, smart charging of EVs can make renewable energy easier to incorporate into the grid.  Finally, utilities have access to debt and capital to make investments that kick-start the comparative market for private investments.

Utilities across the country are starting to take a serious look at EV programs to support the growing demand for electric cars, trucks, and buses.  Many utilities are moving forward with vehicle electrification proposals to state utility regulators, some of which include consideration for heavy-duty vehicles. Proactive state regulators and electric utilities can take advantage of the growing availability of models to accelerate electric truck and bus deployment to help realize the health, climate, and grid benefits from medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

UCS has laid out the principles for how electric utilities should invest in EV charging. The recommendations we release today, Utility Investment in Truck and Bus Charging: A Guide for Utilities, build on those principles by providing high-level guidance on the design of utility programs for truck and bus charging.

How should utilities go about designing programs, and what should state regulators look for when evaluating programs?

Consider various strategies to address barriers to truck and bus charging. 

Different electric truck and bus uses may require different program strategies, depending on vehicle model availability and the business case for electrification in a specific service territory. For charging infrastructure, this means utilities may need to make use of a variety of ownership models in order to effectively accelerate EV deployment. These ownership models extend beyond “business as usual” up to “end-to-end” utility ownership from the customer meter to the charger (see figure).

 

Diagram showing models of utility investment in EV charging infrastructure

Models of Utility Investment in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Set fair commercial rates that account for truck and bus charging and provide incentives for grid services.

Operating costs are one of the most important factors vehicle operators, particularly those who operate fleets, consider when deciding whether to switch to electric models.  Fair, sensible rates for commercial EV charging will ensure that vehicle operators have an opportunity to save on fuel costs and provide an incentive for charging at beneficial times for the electric grid.

Scale up programs based on their potential impact and the readiness of vehicles for electrification.

Vehicle applications such as transit buses, medium-duty delivery trucks, and cargo equipment have the potential to positively impact climate emissions and public health and are highly ready for electrification. As such, those vehicles are ready for large-scale utility programs. Utilities can also advance more nascent vehicle applications through pilot projects.

Prioritize serving communities overburdened by air pollution.

Diesel pollution and the consequential human health impacts are not distributed uniformly. Utility programs can have maximum impact for each charger deployed by focusing on areas that suffer disproportionately large amounts of diesel pollution. However, prioritizing overburdened communities is not just a best practice for cost-effectiveness. Because low-income communities and communities of color are overrepresented in overburdened areas, prioritizing charger and EV deployment in these areas is an important way to reduce public health inequities.

Coordinate and leverage multiple funding sources.

While utilities are well-suited to be an early investor in the EV charging space, other funds for EV charging are available. As UCS has previously discussed, the VW settlement and other funds fall short of providing the scale of investment needed for widespread electrification of truck and buses. Even so, those funds are an important resource for accelerating EV adoption. Utilities can maximize the reach of their own programs by coordinating with and leveraging other funding sources.

Consider fleet programs that accelerate electrification across vehicles classes.

Utilities can identify opportunities to include trucks and buses alongside passenger vehicles in fleet programs to make the most of synergies in information sharing between the utility and fleet customers.

Consult with truck and bus fleet managers when developing programs.

Utilities’ customer relationships with fleet managers can become strategic partnerships for the development of utility charging programs.  Utilities can collaborate with fleet operators to understand the use and charging needs of electric trucks and buses in order to inform infrastructure programs and rate designs.

Set minimum charging system capabilities to enable managed charging.

Managed charging of truck and bus loads is critical to realizing the greenhouse gas benefits and fuel cost savings those vehicles can offer. A “smart” system in which chargers can communicate with a network system is necessary to enable managed charging. Requiring such capabilities for chargers supported by utility programs will enable managed charging, while also making it easier to upgrade charger software over time.

Future-proof investments by preparing charger sites for additional deployments.

It is important to take a long-term view of electric truck and bus deployment when designing programs. Utilities can future-proof “make-ready” investments—the upgraded panels, new conduit and wires to make the site ready for chargers—by considering expected future charging demand when determining the capacity of the make-ready installation.

I am encouraged to see some utilities already step up to support truck and bus electrification. We need many more to follow suit with significant investments to make timely progress on climate and public health. These recommendations will help make utility investments more effective in meeting these urgent goals.

For a fuller discussion of each recommendation, including program examples, be sure to check out the full policy brief.

Photo: Greensboro Transit Authority

Will Congress Extend the EV Tax Credit? A New Bipartisan Bill Gives me Hope

Photo: John Brighenti/Flickr

Electric vehicles (EVs) are our best choice for significantly reducing emissions from cars and light trucks.  Here at UCS, we spend a lot of time thinking about EVs, how they work, what they do for the environment, how to get more consumers to think about buying one, how to make sure the benefits of electrification are widespread and equitable, and how to best incentivize these vehicles for consumers.

Numerous polls and studies show that reducing the upfront cost of EVs is key to accelerating adoption.  The purchase price of EVs are currently higher than their conventional gasoline-powered counterparts, so the federal $7,500 tax credit for plug-in electric EVs helps make them cost competitive and is critical for deployment.  The credit is structured differently than most other tax credits– the full credit is available until an auto company hits 200,000 EV sales – after a manufacturer exceeds that number of sales, there is a year-long phase down period where buyers receive a partial tax credit.

Why does this matter?

Two U.S. manufacturers have hit the 200,000 sales mark and are currently in the phase down – Tesla and General Motors.  Nissan will likely be the next manufacturer to hit the cap.  As consumers are shopping for a new EV, they will find that they will not be able to take the tax credit for vehicles made by these manufacturers, which creates a disincentive to buy EVs from these companies.  With about 40 EV models on the market (compared to nearly 300 models for conventional vehicles), the already restricted consumer choice on EVs shrinks even more.  Further, many of these EVs are only available in select markets, so depending on where you live, you may have far fewer EV models to choose from. This also penalizes the companies that have been leading the way on electrification as they are now competing with companies that have been slower to market and whose vehicles are still eligible for the tax credit.

It’s not that this is a bad structure, but the biggest problem with the current tax credit is that 200,000 vehicles isn’t considered scale in the auto industry.  For example, in 2018 over 240,000 Jeep Cherokees, 325,000 Honda Civics, and 909,000 Ford F-series trucks were sold.  These vehicles are all being produced at scale, but not a single EV model has had sales anywhere close to these numbers over their many years on the market.

As battery costs decline and manufacturing scale increases, these vehicles will become cost-competitive with conventional vehicles – both our analysis and new analysis from ICCT show that we can expect to see price parity in the mid-2020’s.  We strongly support expanding or modifying the tax credit for a defined period before EVs are cost-competitive with conventional vehicles.  There are a number of ideas on how to do this; some change the credit to be a more conventional tax credit and allow for it to be used for a set number of years.  Others increase the number of vehicles (the “manufacturer cap”) that are eligible for the tax credit.  We are open to evaluating any of these solutions.

We are nearing a tipping point in the next decade where electrification will be mainstream — costs for batteries are coming down, and manufacturers are nearing deployment of EVs in every class of vehicle. But it will take bipartisan support and investment to make that vision a reality, if the US is to lead the world towards a more sustainable transportation future.

What’s new this week?

Last night, the first bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation that would increase the tax credit was unveiled.  It has the support of 60 organizations, including the auto companies (all of them – this is no small feat), utilities, auto suppliers, environmental groups, health groups, business groups, and security groups.  In other words, this is legislation that has widespread support and could potentially become law.

In the Senate, Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Susan Collins (R-ME) are the primary architects of the Driving America Forward Act.  Representative Dan Kildee (D-MI-5) is the lead sponsor in the House of Representatives.  This proposal would increase the per manufacturer cap to 600,000 and reduce the tax credit value for the additional 400,000 units to $7,000 per vehicle (it’s currently a maximum $7,500 per vehicle).  The bill also extends the tax credit for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles for 10 years, which will incentivize the development and deployment of additional low carbon, zero tailpipe emissions options, which UCS also supports.

What will the bill really do?

Some relatively simple math shows the benefits of EVs. The average EV driving on electricity in the US will generate 3.3 tons FEWER CO2e (CO2 equivalent) emissions per year than an average gasoline-powered car (which right now gets about 30 mpg).  If I could wave a magic wand and replace 400,000 conventional vehicles with EVs tomorrow, the reduction would be 2 million metric tons of CO2e emissions per year, roughly the same emissions as from the electricity use of almost 350,000 homes in  a year.

These climate benefits are real and are only going to get better as the grid gets cleaner.  My colleagues have been looking at the emissions impacts of driving an EV in different parts of the country for years now and we have already seen a dramatic shift in the several years since when we first started this work.  In 2009, we found that 45 percent of people lived in areas where an EV would produce the same tailpipe global warming emissions as a conventional vehicle that gets 50 mpg.  By our more recent analysis in 2018, that number was up to 75 percent (the toggle function on the map in this blog is really fun).  In large parts of the country, EVs emit much less than even the most efficient conventional vehicle.  That’s a significant change over a relatively short time period.  Unlike gasoline, electricity is a transportation fuel that can get (and has gotten!) significantly cleaner over time – as the grid gets cleaner, the emissions from EVs charged on that grid automatically go down.

In addition to the climate benefits, this bill would also result in lower oil use – to the tune of about 480 gallons per year per car.  In my magic wand scenario above, that would be nearly 200 million gallons of gasoline that are not used.  That’s a lot of oil.  Speaking of oil – you know who isn’t going to like this bill?  The Koch brothers and the oil industry.  We have been keeping an eye on their lobbying activities around the EV tax credit – I’m sure it won’t be terribly surprising to learn that they are actively trying to abolish it.   This means that the oil companies think that EVs pose a real threat to their business.  To me, that means we’re on the right path, but we can’t afford to deviate now.  We must keep moving forward, and that means increasing EV sales and making sure that charging infrastructure is available so we can dramatically reduce emissions from transportation.

EVs may be a threat to the oil industry, but they are critical to the auto industry

US leadership in a critical industry is also riding on our ability to deploy EVs domestically.  Globally, there is really no question that we are moving towards electrification.  The International Council on Clean Transportation has written several reports on the global EV market and what other countries are doing to incentivize EV purchases – not surprisingly, China is setting itself up to eat our lunch.

In 2018, 64 percent of the EVs sold in the US were made domestically.  GM, Tesla and Nissan EVs have been rolling off assembly lines in MI, CA, and TN, for example. That’s a pretty good news story.  But if we, as a country, do not continue to invest in electrification, we are not going to be able to keep posting these numbers.  We are going to wind up importing more EVs, and maybe more importantly, the intellectual capacity on innovation and leadership in the advanced automotive industry is going to shift elsewhere.  As ICCT put it “Economies like Japan, Germany, and the United States, among others where there is major automobile manufacturing, have the most to lose if they do not lead in the transition to electric vehicles.  China, on the other hand, is now the leading automobile market and has the most to gain from staking out a leadership position in the shift to electric.”  If we don’t stay at the table, we can’t win.

It would be great for more Senators to support the bipartisan bill to extend the EV tax credit – you can ask your Senators to co-sponsor the bill by taking this action.

Photo: John Brighenti/Flickr