DOT-EPA Fuel Economy Rules - A Summary

On April 1, 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation and EPA jointly announced new national standards for automotive fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions. Here's a summary.

Vehicles Covered
Passenger cars and light trucks, model years 2012 onward.

New Standard

• Starting with MY 2012, improve fleet-wide fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions about 5% each year.
• By MY 2016, fleet fuel economy should be 34.1 mpg without credits for air-conditioning improvements, as required by DOT's National Highway Transportation Safety Administration rules.
• By MY 2016, manufacturers must achieve a combined average vehicle emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile.

Potential Costs
Building cars and light trucks that achieve the standard will cost carmakers an extra $52 billion for MY 2012 through 2016.

Potential Savings

• $3,000 in lower fuel costs for each buyer of a covered vehicle, over that vehicle's life.
• Nationally, 1.8 billion barrels of oil and nearly 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases over the lives of covered vehicles.

Why the Executive Branch of the Government Loves the New Standard

• The savings.
• Realizing one of the Obama Administration's first major directives.
• Clearer rules for all automakers, instead of three standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard).

Why the Legislative Branch of the Government Isn't Too Thrilled
Some senators say the rules could hurt the economy, and want to curb EPA action.

Who Else Hates It
The American Petroleum Institute.

Who Else Loves It
Canada. On the same day as the U.S. action, Environment Canada released proposed regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles and which would harmonize with those of the U.S. starting with MY 2011.

Smog Standard Strengthened By EPA

The EPA is proposing to steeply lower the existing standard for emissions of particles that cause ground-level ozone, better known as smog.

According to the EPA, "Ground-level ozone forms when emissions from industrial facilities, power plants, landfills and motor vehicles react in the sun."

Under the proposed "primary" smog standard, emissions would be limited to between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) in eight hours. A separate "secondary" standard would vary with the seasons and protect plants and trees. The agency did not say what this standard would be.

The new smog standard replaces the 0.075 ppm limit the agency set in March 2008.

The agency estimates that implementing the new smog standard would cost industry $19 billion to $90 billion. But its benefits to human health would range from $13 billion to $100 billion, mainly from reduced premature deaths, aggravated asthma and bronchitis cases, and hospital and emergency room visits. Another benefit to society from the lower smog standard: fewer people missing work and school days because of ozone-related symptoms.

“Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities, and drives up our health care costs across the country,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier.”

Children are at the greatest risk from ozone, the agency said, because their lungs are still developing, they are most likely to be active outdoors, and they are more likely than adults to have asthma.

The public may comment on the smog standards for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.

According to the New York Times, under the current smog standard of 0.075 ppm,

322 counties of the 675 that monitor ozone levels are out of compliance. If the 0.070 limit is adopted, 515 counties would be out of compliance. Only 15 of the 675 monitored counties now meet the 0.060 standard.

The Times reports that the agency expects to issue a final rule in August. The new rules would be phased in between 2014 and 2031.

Emissions Standards Set for Large U.S. Ships

The Environmental Protection Agency has released regulations that set emissions and clean fuel standards for U.S.-flagged ships.

The standards apply to new marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacements of 30 or more liters. Under the new rules, stronger standards for nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions will begin in 2011 and new sulfur content specifications for diesel fuel will be introduced in 2012, for ships traveling within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. and Canadian coastlines. This zone has been designated as an emission control area.

The rules will go far in curbing air pollution from large ships and helping improve the health of residents of coastal and neighboring inland states. Because of the regulations, ultimately, releases of NO_x, particulate matter and sulfur oxides will be reduced 80%–95%.

These regulations have been in the works for a while. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says air pollution from large ships, such as oil tankers and cargo ships, is expected to grow rapidly as port traffic increases.

Copenhagen 2009: Draft Text and Summary of the Climate Change Accord

Click here to read the draft text and appendices of the "Copenhagen Accord" president Obama announced at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Here's the summary:

• Climate change is the greatest challenge of our lifetimes.
  
  
• Countries will enhance their cooperation to combat climate change and keep global temperatures from rising more than 2° C.
  
  
• Developed countries will provide "adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries."
  
  
• The so-called Annex I countries committed to individual emissions targets that they would meet by 2020.
  
  
• Non-Annex I countries pledged to implement their own mitigation actions. They will communicate these actions every 2 years.
  
  
• Programs such as REDD-plus will provide financial incentives from developed nations to prevent deforestation and forest degradation.
  
  
• Developed countries will pay $30 billion between 2010 and 2012, with a goal of reaching $100 billion by 2020, to fund mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing nations. This amount includes REDD incentives.
  
  
• A High Level Panel will study how the money is being sourced.
  
  
• A Copenhagen Green Climate Fund will take care of transferring funds between parties, and a Technology Mechanism will "accelerate technology development and transfer."
  
  
• Finally, the accord asks that its implementation be assessed by 2015. Nothing legally binds anyone to do anything.

Is this the start of something big? Or simply a lot of hot air? Time will tell.

Oh, by the way: the a in Copenhagen is not pronounced aa but ay.

Carbon Emissions Expected to 9% Decline Since 2007

The Guardian's Grist website reported this week that carbon emissions in the U.S. had dropped 9% since 2007.

While part of this drop is due to the recession, Grist says part of it is from "efficiency gains and from replacing coal with natural gas, wind, solar, and geothermal energy."

The "efficiency gains" claim sounded too good to be true. As I reported in a previous post, America's energy-efficiency improvement from 2007 to 2008 was less than 0.1 percentage point.

So I did some digging.

This month, the Energy Information Administration released a report (pdf) titled "Understanding the Decline in Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009." In it, the EIA said it expected CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels in 2009 to be 5.9% below the 2008 level.

70% of the decline in emissions was from:

• Lower energy consumption by the industrial, commercial and residential sectors because of the poor economy
• Utilities switching from coal to natural gas to take advantage of lower natural gas prices -- which had dropped because of the weak economy
• Increased electricity production by non-CO₂-emitting sources like hydropower and wind (these two sources accounted for only 8.3% of electricity generation in 2009)

The other 30% of the drop in CO₂ releases came from declines in petroleum consumption for jet fuel and distillate fuel oil (which includes diesel fuel oil and heating oil). The EIA attributed over two-thirds of this contraction to "economy-related reductions in consumption."

Regarding fuel efficiency, this is what the EIA had to say (emphasis mine):

The data are not yet available to reliably allocate consumption to end-use sectors or the decline in jet fuel, distillate fuel, and other transportation fuel consumption between economy-related declines in demand for transportation services and increases in fuel efficiency, which may be permanent due to technology-related improvements in equipment or transitory because of higher load factors.

In other words, it's too early to declare victory in the drive to fuel efficiency.

Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Will Be Phased Out, Say G-20 Leaders

Leaders of the G-20 nations, who met in Pittsburgh last week, pledged on Friday to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels in the "medium term."

It's a small step, outlined in vague language, but it indicates a desire to cut dependence on fossil fuels over time.

The G-20 agreement protects aid from rich nations that help developing countries pay for conventional energy, subsidize renewable energy and combat the effects of climate change.

Environmentalists welcomed the pledge. They look forward to more concrete language on financial aid in the next round of G-20 climate talks in Copenhagen in November, when a climate-change treaty will be negotiated.

Oil and natural gas industry executives in the U.S. said reducing subsidies would raise costs on consumers.

Decisions by the G-20 countries carry much weight, as the council represents economies that account for 85% of the world's GDP and 66% of its population. G-20 nations are:

• Argentina
• Australia
• Brazil
• Canada
• China
• France
• Germany
• India
• Indonesia
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Turkey
• United Kingdom
• United States
• European Union, represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank.

The G-20 will replace the G-8 as the world's leading economic council.

9 Threats to Earth's Environmental Stability

The Earth's environment has been unusually stable for the past 10,000 years, but human actions now threaten that stability, say Johan Rockström and 28 colleagues in a recent article published in Nature.

This statement, by itself, is hardly shocking. Scientists began sounding alarms about climate change years ago. But Rockstrom et al present a new approach to the question of human sustainability. They list 9 boundaries that we are crossing and endangering Earth's ability to maintain the environment that enabled human development. Giving teeth to their thesis, they quantify 7 of these environmental boundaries.

The boundaries are:

• Climate change
• Rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine)
• Interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles
• Stratospheric ozone depletion
• Ocean acidification
• Global freshwater use
• Change in land use
• Chemical pollution
• Atmospheric aerosol loading

The boundaries are interrelated, the authors say. For example, land-use changes in the Amazon could influence water resources in Tibet. And "transgressing the nitrogen–phosphorus boundary can erode the resilience of some marine ecosystems, potentially reducing their capacity to absorb CO₂ and thus affecting the climate boundary."

All boundaries must be addressed, according to the authors. We no longer have the luxury of concentrating on one at the expense of others.

The Nature article summarizes the full paper, "Tipping towards the unknown," available at the Stockholm Resilience Centre (where Professor Rockström is executive director). The paper's web page includes abundant complementary material, such as videos of some of the paper's contributors, the full 36-page scientific article and information for the press.

New DOT and EPA Program Criticized by Environmental Groups

Remember that proposed fuel economy program from the DOT and the EPA? Remember how it promised to curb greenhouse gas emissions and put a dent in our foreign-oil purchases?

Well, according to Time magazine, some environmentalists aren't too happy about loopholes in the program that weren't publicized in the press release.

Loopholes like:

• Electric car makers will get credits that apply to their overall pollution targets. But the electricity that powers the car comes from power plants that emit carbon dioxide, and this CO₂ is not factored into greenhouse gas calculations for such vehicles.
  
  
• The flex-fuel credit still stands, allowing carmakers to build gas guzzlers provided the guzzlers can run on E85 (a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). This credit reduces the corporate average fuel economy target for manufacturers of these cars by 1.2 mpg.
  
  What makes this credit pointless, says Time magazine, is that only 1% of the gas stations in the country sell E85, and that number isn't expected to go up soon.
  
  
• Carmakers will get carbon credits for selling their most fuel-efficient vehicles in California and other states that had adopted separate standards before the program was proposed. If a manufacturer had already been prepared to sell in California even without the credit, it now stands to earn a credit just for doing so.
  
  There's something inherently wrong with that. Not because the carmakers will benefit from fortunate timing, but because California's standard should be the nation's standard. Meeting it shouldn't earn anyone an extra gold star.
  
  
• Manufacturers that sell less than 400,000 vehicles a year will have to live up to a lower EPA standard.

More loopholes -- and benefits -- will surely emerge as the plan gets closer to implementation.

New Fuel Economy Program for Vehicles Proposed by DOT and EPA

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on Sept. 15 jointly proposed a national program for improving automotive fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gases.

The program covers model years 2012 through 2016. It allows carmakers to build a single, light-duty national fleet that would satisfy all federal requirements and the standards of California and other states.

And it replaces rules set under 3 standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard) by a single set of clearer rules -- something that automakers will probably welcome.

Some specifics:

Fuel economy of a corporate light-duty vehicle fleet would increase by about 5% every year, to 35.5 mpg in model year 2016. The current law requires an average fuel economy of 35 mpg in 2020.

Greenhouse gas emissions: The proposed rules introduce the nation’s first national greenhouse gas standards. They cover vehicles that produce almost 60% of all transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Model year 2016 vehicles would have to emit no more than 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. CO₂ emissions would be cut by about 21% in 2030 over the level that would occur had there been no new greenhouse gas or fuel economy standards.

The program is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons, equivalent to the emissions of 42 million cars.

Lower costs for consumers: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the EPA, if you buy, not lease, a new 2016 car, you would save more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the car. In the first 3 years, you would save enough to offset the increase in the price of the car.

Fewer oil imports: The program is projected to conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil -- or twice the amount of oil imported in 2008 from Persian Gulf countries.

How will the car industry meet these standards? By improving engine efficiency, transmissions and tires, and air conditioning systems, and by increasing the use of start-stop technology. Hybrid vehicles and clean diesel engines would also probably get a boost in sales.

Synthetic Tree Could Collect 90,000 Tons of Carbon a Year

There's synthetic oil ... synthetic diamonds ... so why not synthetic trees?

Klaus Lackner, a professor at Columbia University in New York City, is developing a synthetic tree that soaks up carbon dioxide about 1,000 times faster than an actual tree.

The synthetic tree's plastic leaves trap CO₂ in a chamber. The CO₂ is then liquefied and "could be used to create fuel for jet engines and cars," or to enhance vegetable production. You could get up to 90,000 tons of carbon per year from one of the trees.

Unlike their natural counterparts, synthetic trees don't need sunlight to snare CO₂. Also unlike their natural counterparts, each synthetic tree costs about as much as a car (no word on which car). But then, those are not fair comparisons. Synthetic trees don't look anything like their natural counterparts.

Fuel Cells Create Electricity From Onion Waste

What do you do with 150 tons of onion waste per day?

If you're Gills Onions, the U.S.'s largest producer of fresh onions, you buy two fuel cell power plants and make electricity, that's what.

Last Friday, the Oxnard, Calif., company unveiled a waste-to-power fuel cell generation plant that will annually cut $700,000 from its electricity bill and $400,000 in onion peel and shavings disposal costs.

Here's how the system works: The onion waste is pressed into juice and animal feed. The juice is then digested by bacteria, or fermented, a process that releases methane gas. The methane, instead of being burned, goes into two fuel cell power plants that produce a combined 600 kW of electricity -- enough to meet half the company's power needs.

Gills had bought the fuel cells in August 2006 from FuelCell Energy, a company that manufactures stationary fuel cell power plants and is based in my home state of Connecticut.

The entire system cost $9.5 million. Southern California Gas and the state government provided credits of more than $3 million. Gills expects the plant will pay for itself in under 6 years. After that, the savings drop straight to the bottom line.

By converting farm waste to energy, Gills Onions will eliminate about 30,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide-equivalent gases from the air. It will also conserve land and water that would otherwise have been used in disposing and composting the waste.

(Photo of the two fuel cell power plants © Deaton & Associates LLC.)

Green Fireworks Coming

Did you enjoy the Fourth of July fireworks? Good. Because you might be interested to know, the next generation of fireworks lighting up your sky will be green.

Today's fireworks spew perchlorates and heavy metals and other toxic chemicals into the air. The glorious reds and blues and yellows that make us go "Oooh" owe their brilliance to elements like strontium and copper and rubidium.

In fact, there's nothing like a fireworks display to make one think of the periodic table.

But a new crop of fireworks is being developed that won't be made of harmful chemicals. Based mostly on nitrogen (remember, air is 78% nitrogen), these fireworks will be as lustrous as their toxic-chemicals-laden forebears. Plus, they won't release as much smoke.

Still, chances are you won't be seeing the green fireworks in your local park anytime soon. Their higher costs are expected to hamper their widespread usage.

Goats Keep Grass Short in Maryland

Some 40 goats are munching on about 8 acres of grass at a road construction site near Hempstead, Md.

The State Highway Administration put them there because cutting the grass with mowers would have harmed the habitats of the bog turtles who live there. Bog turtles are an endangered species.

Cost of the goats: $10,000 for two years.

Gasoline consumption: zero.

Oil consumption: zero. (Unless you count the fuel used by the vehicles that transport the goats to and from the site.)

Emissions: natural fertilizer; methane (but only about 13% of a cow's emission of the gas, which is 80-110 kg per year).

I'm all for the goats.

Paint Roofs White, Obama Administration Urges

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs white to cut down on heat absorption by buildings and reduce the need for air conditioning.

He was talking about flat roofs, not the gray-shingled gabled roofs common on U.S. houses. He also revealed a startling fact: making roofs and roads paler would have the same effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years.

Painting cars a lighter color would also deliver energy savings, he said. American car buyers prefer white cars anyway, according to DuPont's annual survey of new car colors (pdf). So it's not like he's asking us to radically change our tastes.

Using cooler colors on surfaces that face the sun may not seem a game-changing move. But every little step helps, if enough people take them.

Green Energy Does Not Bode Well for All Sectors of the Economy

From the Dallas Morning News, a story about how Texas will fare as green energy sources assume more prominence in our nation's grid.

The short answer: Not well.

Texas's dominance in wind power notwithstanding, the state relies heavily on fossil-fuel jobs. According to the story (emphasis mine):

In 2008, the oil and gas industry contributed 16.5 percent of Texas' gross state product and employed 367,967 people, or 3.52 percent of the state's nonfarm jobs, according to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. The renewable industry, according to data from 2007, employed about 18,427 people.

OK, so the jobs relationship isn't quite valid, because it compares 2008 numbers to 2007. And renewable-energy employment grew like crazy in 2008, especially in wind energy, where jobs rose 70%.

So let's be generous and say Texas renewable-energy jobs grew 100% in 2008. That would put the employment number at 36,854 instead of 18,427. That's still just 10% of oil and gas jobs.

It's going to be a long time before all those fossil-fuel jobs get replaced by ones in renewable energy. If they ever do.

Also, let's not forget cap-and-trade, which would force sources of greenhouse gases to buy carbon credits. Texas ranks number 1 for greenhouse gas emissions.

The outlook isn't too rosy right now. But new technologies and policies usually hurt some while helping others. It's the price of progress. In the long term, on a macro scale, everyone mostly benefits.

"Cash for Clunkers" Draws Praise and Criticism

We're one step closer to passage of the so-called "Cash for Clunkers" program. The program, part of a wider climate-change bill currently wending its way through Congress, would give consumers a voucher of up to $4,500 for trading in an old gas-guzzler for a new car with better gas mileage.

The fine print on that $4,500 deal: The car owner must turn in a vehicle that gets less than 18 mpg for a new car whose mpg is at least 10 more than the old one's. Or 5 more if it's a truck.
EPA numbers from the window sticker will be used to establish the car's fuel efficiency.

The government expects the incentive will stimulate new car sales to the tune of 1 million units.

While this may sound like a good plan to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from auto exhaust fumes, the program has its detractors.

The plan's opponents say the government isn't thinking big enough. If it's really out to help the environment, they say, it can do better than craft a program that only affects 5% of all vehicles, while ignoring other methods for reducing fuel consumption.

EPA announcement on greenhouse gas regulation - Q&A

The announcement of the EPA's proposed finding on 6 greenhouse gases has generated lots of buzz. In the Q&A below, I've tried to break it down and make sense of what exactly the EPA said and what that means.

What exactly did the EPA say?
The EPA said it proposed to find that the following 6 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH₄)
• Nitrous oxide (N₂O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)

What does proposed to find mean?
It means unless someone or something changes the EPA's mind during the public comment period over the next 60 days, it will issue a final finding that will confirm what it is saying now.

And that will set some pretty serious wheels in motion.

Like what?
The EPA will then have to issue regulations limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that major sources, including automobiles and coal-fired power plants, can emit.

But the EPA and the White House prefer that limits on greenhouse gas emissions be achieved through climate-change legislation from Congress, rather than by regulations.

Why will the EPA have to issue regulations if Congress doesn't act?
Because in April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must regulate these gases if it found the gases caused or contributed to air pollution that endangered human health or welfare. After studying the science for 2 years, the EPA is proposing to find just that.

Will anyone change the EPA's mind in the next 60 days?
I don't know, but you can bet a lot of people are going to try hard. If you'd like to give it a shot, here are the instructions for submitting a comment in writing (pdf).

I lap this stuff up. Where can I find the full text of the proposed finding?
The official version will be published in the Federal Register and will be available in the Docket soon, under Docket ID No. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171].

If you can't wait -- and I suspect you can't -- click here (pdf) for the pre-publication copy and here (pdf) for its supporting technical analyses. You're welcome.

Double tractor-trailers in Ontario pilot program

A double tractor-trailer is something you don't often see in Connecticut or the rest of the Northeast. But in other parts of the country, such as some Western states and I-80 in Ohio and Indiana, they've been in use for years.

Canada, too, has long allowed double full-size trailers in its Western provinces and Quebec. Ontario will launch a pilot program this summer allowing 100 double trailers on certain highways for one year. Canadian trailers are longer than American ones (23 meters vs. 15-16 meters), so a double tractor-trailer on a Canadian freeway is a more impressive sight.

It also takes longer to pass a double. On a rain-slicked road at night, with the spray flying thick and fast off the trailers' roofs, it seemingly takes forever.

What does this have to do with the environment?

Simply this. A double trailer means one less tractor on the road, which means gas consumption and exhaust emissions get cut. Not by half, because the lone tractor needs to expend more energy pulling two loads instead of one, but by one-third.

Which sounds like small savings, but every bit helps.

(Photo: U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration)

Cigarette tax hike should be good for the environment

The federal cigarette tax went up today from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack. If you want to buy your favorite stick in New York City, be prepared to cough up $10 or more.

Here in Connecticut, the price tops $7 a pack. The state may increase the tax a further $1.12 this year. If it does, prices could reach within striking distance of $9.

(Click here (pdf) for a list of state cigarette taxes and rankings, from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.)

Diehard smokers will probably keep puffing, but the wallop to the wallet will cause many to break their habit.

When that happens, the quitters' health and the environment will both benefit.

Cigarette smoke fouls the air, while cigarettes and their butts litter our roads, harm wildlife and threaten property. Any cessation of smoking is welcome news.

Though I wonder whether huge swaths of the smoking population will now stop lighting up. It's possible that the bulk of smokers who were going to quit for economic reasons have already quit, and we're now reaching the point of diminishing returns.

From personal observation at least, it seems there aren't that many smokers left. I think the last time I saw someone actually smoking a cigarette was on a college campus in 2005.

The drop in smoking and its attendant litter may not be as great as we expect.

But to be sure, every little bit helps.

Federal funding for energy efficiency improvements - Breakdown of dollars by state

On March 26, the Obama Administration announced $3.2 billion in funding for energy efficiency projects at state and local levels.

According to the official press release, the funding will "support energy audits [all emphasis is mine] and energy efficiency retrofits in residential and commercial buildings, the development and implementation of advanced building codes and inspections, and the creation of financial incentive programs for energy efficiency improvements. Other activities eligible for use of grant funds include transportation programs that conserve energy, projects to reduce and capture methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, renewable energy installations on government buildings, energy efficient traffic signals and street lights, deployment of Combined Heat and Power and district heating and cooling systems, and others."

To see how much money has been allocated to your state, click here.