SB 382 bill creates a cap in the amount of sulfur that is allowed in heating oil used in the state, and reduces it over time. Connecticut’s sulfur limit will be cut from the current 3,000 parts per million (ppm) to 50 ppm on July 1, 2011, and to 15 ppm on July 1, 2014.
As I’ve written here, here and here, we are still waiting for the New York Senate to pass S. 1145-C (Perkins), a bill with similar goals, i.e., reducing sulfur in heating oil from the current sky-high levels to the same 15 ppm levels used in diesel trucks and buses. New York’s Assembly has already passed a similar bill.
Currently, New York’s heating oil contains 175 times as much sulfur as our highway diesel fuel. Passing S.1145-C would eliminate roughly 1000 tons per year of the city’s soot pollution, which triggers asthma emergencies, bronchitis, cancer, heart diseases and premature deaths. Plus, cleaning up heating oil would reduce nickel, a toxic metal that worsens heart disease and other ailments.
181 of the 182 members of Connecticut’s General Assembly voted for this bill. Connecticut’s elected officials looked at the same facts as New York’s legislators, and almost all of them concluded that cleaning up heating oil by reducing sulfur levels was a worthwhile investment in public health.
For months, we’ve been waiting for the leadership of the New York Senate to move S. 1145-C towards passage in New York.
Connecticut’s General Assembly has shown that it’s possible to move ahead with a cleaner heating oil bill. It’s time for Albany’s Senators to do the same.
]]>There are analogies to our work to reduce diesel pollution that are appropriate here.
Just as we had to remove sulfur from diesel fuel to get cleaner diesel trucks, buses and other diesel engines, the first step towards solving the heating oil pollution problem will be to reduce the sky-high sulfur levels in the heating oil used in the state. I just posted an article over at Gotham Gazette that outlines why New York state needs to act to make this happen, and what additional steps need to be taken at the city level to bring cleaner heating systems into the city's buildings that will reduce heating oil pollution further, increase the efficiency of the city's heating systems, and save consumers money in the long run. I won't repeat all of the details here, but will encourage you to click over to my article.
If you don't know Gotham Gazette, it's a great website for NYC politics and policy. Check it out here.
]]>Uggh.
Back in the late 1990s, we became aware of emissions tests that showed that engine manufacturers were designing their engines in a way that allowed them to meet EPA’s laboratory-based certification tests, but that also increased their NOx emissions by up to 300 percent on highway speeds.
Working with our friends at EPA, state air pollution agencies, and coalition partners like the American Lung Association and the Environmental Defense Fund, we convinced the Clinton Justice Department to investigate fully. The results included the largest air pollution fines in history at that time, and enough egg on the diesel industry’s face to help us secure the ground-breaking Highway Diesel Rule in late 2000. And, of course, this rule has brought us the world’s cleanest diesel engines, which are 90-95% cleaner than engines sold as recently as 2006.
Now, it seems that some of the most modern European trucks (built to Euro V standards, implemented in 2008) are only a bit cleaner than older trucks (i.e., trucks built to Euro III vehicles, which covered engines built from 2000-2004), even though the Euro V standard is 60% lower than the Euro III standard.
Engines using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology performed worse than the other technologies in the Dutch study. SCR technology is being used by several companies to meet EPA’s 2010 standards.
For more than a decade, we’ve been saying that we need a system to ensure that real-world emissions are comparable to what laboratory-based engine certification tests would predict. Without such a system, it just seems that, every so often, some company or companies will figure out a way to get around the emissions requirements.
That’s bad for the environment, and it’s also bad for those companies that play by the rules.
It’s a system that needs to be fixed.
]]>
As the Times noted, these heavy fuels increase air pollution and, if spilled, create serious risks to marine life.
The Times is right. It always seemed wrong to me that large cruise ships would burn the dirtiest of fuels en route to visiting one of the world’s unique and fragile ecosystems. As the editorial stated, “what’s the point of visiting the natural wonders of the nautical world if you leave a terrible stain behind when you leave?”
As for the Emission Control Area, this is an incredibly important step forward for public health. By 2020, using cleaner fuels and emission controls in the ECA will eliminate 14,000 premature deaths and $110 billion in health costs annually.
The IMO’s work is not finished: the organization is also considering a new code of conduct for shipping in the Arctic, as well as a proposal to reduce black carbon emissions from ships, which have been linked to accelerating Arctic ice melt. These will be critically important debates for the organization, as it seeks to balance the desire of shippers to use increasingly-open northern waters and the obvious environmental need to tread very carefully in those waters.
For many people who care about pollution from ships, or about the fragile environment of our polar regions, the IMO may be the most important organization that you've never heard of. Their recent steps are evidence that the organization is moving in the right direction.
Another good news story for this Earth Day weekend.
]]>
Four wins worth celebrating.
Thousands of premature deaths don’t happen in our country every year because of these four wins. Millions of kids are smarter and don’t get asthma attacks, and countless parents don’t get heart attacks or cancer. Billions and billions of dollars are saved in health costs every year.
Happy Earth Day!
]]>
At a meeting in the UK today, the International Maritime Organization formally adopted a proposal to create a special “Emission Control Area” around the coastlines of the U.S. and Canada that will dramatically reduce air pollution from all ships within 200 miles of our shores. The finalized plan will cover all ocean-going vessels, including large tankers, container ships, and cruise vessels, whether U.S. or foreign-flagged. It goes into effect in 2015.
I wrote about the background and significance of the proposal in this blog post from last week, before I left for the international make-or-break meetings as the only NGO member of the U.S. delegation at this meeting. And now, I’m thrilled to announce, it is official.
These new emission controls will finally begin to clean up the largest, dirtiest ships servicing North American ports and sailing along our shores. Communities up and down the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts will feel the air quality improvements – and the benefits will even extend hundreds of miles inland, reaching as far away as Nevada, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and the Grand Canyon.
And the health benefits will be enormous. EPA estimates this change will avoid as many as 14,000 premature deaths in 2020, and relieve acute respiratory symptoms in nearly 5 million people each year.
Cleaning up these floating smokestacks was critical – they are some of the dirtiest engines in our midst. In fact, right now the fuel used in a large ship contains as much sulfur pollution as 3,000 diesel trucks. Starting in five years, that will fuel will not only have 98 percent less sulfur, the ships that use this new fuel will emit 80 percent less smog-forming nitrogen oxides and 85 percent less cancer-causing particulate soot emissions.
As with all EPA's diesel rules over the past decade, the financial benefits will far, far, far exceed the expected implementation costs. In fact, EPA estimates that there will be more than $34 in health benefits for every $1 in implementation costs.
By proposing these emissions controls, EPA and our colleagues on the U.S. delegation took a stand for public health across the country. And by finalizing the U.S. proposal, the international community has cemented this major public health victory and affirmed the need for cleaner ships in North America. Because 88 percent of the ships that carry goods to U.S. ports are foreign-flagged, we needed the International Maritime Organization, the only body with the authority to control international ship pollution, to take this action.
It was an honor and a real pleasure to be part of the official U.S. delegation at this week’s IMO meetings in London, where they welcomed me onto the team. Bravo and my heartiest congratulations to my delegation colleagues from EPA, the Coast Guard, the State Department and the other agencies and departments who carefully and ably drove this proposal over the finish line.
]]>If successful, next week’s meeting will be a major step forward for public health in cities and towns up and down our Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts - and even hundreds of miles inland.
Here's the background:
Only the IMO can set standards for all of the ocean-going vessels at our ports, such as oil tankers, container-carrying cargo ships, and large cruise ships. In October 2008, after several years of debate, the IMO adopted a new global pact to reduce ship emissions.
Most significantly, the new pact includes a provision that allows individual countries to create special Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to accelerate the reduction of ship pollution off their coastlines. Last March, the Obama administration and the Canadian government proposed the creation of a joint US/Canada ECA that would require ships within 200 nautical miles of our coastlines to use fuel that has 98 percent less sulfur than in current ship fuel, and will cut their smog-forming nitrogen oxides emissions by 80 percent and their cancer-causing particulate soot emissions by 85 percent, starting in 2015.
Cleaning up these floating smokestacks is critical. Most burn residual bunker fuel, which can contain up to 45,000 parts-per-million (ppm) of sulfur, and lack even the most basic of pollution controls. Sulfur is a naturally-occurring presence in petroleum, and its presence leads to sulfur dioxide and particular matter emissions (aka soot) that trigger asthma emergencies, cancer, and thousands of premature deaths across the U.S. every year. Plus, sulfur in the fuel ruins anti-pollution catalysts and filters, just as lead in gasoline was once a barrier to effective catalytic converters in cars. (In contrast to dirty ships, diesel fuel used in trucks and buses in the U.S. was capped at only 15 ppm in late 2006, leading to new diesel engines that are more than 90 percent cleaner than they were prior to that date.)
The health benefits of implementing the ECA will be huge.
Air quality will improve along the coasts and even hundreds of miles inland, with air quality benefits extending all the way to Nevada, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania - and even the Grand Canyon. EPA esimates that implementing the ECA will avoid as many as 14,000 premature deaths in 2020, and nearly five million people will be relieved from acute respiratory symptoms each year. As with all EPA's diesel rules over the past decade, these financial benefits will far, far, far exceed the expected implementation costs—in fact, EPA estimates that there will be more than $34 in health benefits for every $1 in implementation cost.
And there may be significant climate benefits too.
Scientists are increasingly pointing to black carbon emissions as an important issue in the acceleration of melting sea and glacial ice, especially in the Arctic region. Because black carbon emissions last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, cutting them today should help slow the pace of this melting. Reducing ship pollution will cut these black carbon emissions, and the benefits will be greatest for ships travelling in the northern latitudes to and from our continent. At the IMO meeting, there will also be consideration of additional black carbon strategies for shipping.
I'll be attending the IMO meeting as a member of the U.S. delegation, joining officials from EPA, the Coast Guard, and other agenices as we advocate for this critically important step forward.
Stay tuned as this story develops.
]]>
Over the past year, I co-chaired the Port Authority’s Truck Work Group with my good friend, Bill Nurthen of the Port Authority. Together, we worked with staff from all of the key stakeholders on this issue – federal, state and city governments, community and environmental justice groups, labor, and industry. The plan that emerged is an important step that will mean cleaner air for drivers and communities neighboring the port next year. It deserves our hearty applause.
The truck replacement program will have three main components:
This program is the latest step on the road towards a sustainable goods movement system. Back in 2004, NRDC released “Harboring Pollution” – the first environmental report on the health impacts of our nation’s large ports, complete with a set of recommendations on how to make our ports more sustainable.
Cleaning up trucks was at the top of the list of recommendations. Here’s why:
Every day, thousands of dirty diesel trucks carry containers of goods from large ships to warehouses, distribution centers and other facilities, en route to stores and homes around the nation. These trucks (so-called “drayage trucks”) tend to be older and dirtier than the typical truck driven on the interstates. They travel through mostly low-income neighborhoods and communities of color bordering our ports, spewing high levels of particulate soot that triggers asthma emergencies, bronchitis, cancer, heart disease and premature deaths.
Fortunately – as we’re seeing today and as I’ve written over and over, diesel pollution is a solvable problem. Today’s new trucks are more than 90 percent cleaner than the trucks they replace.
But the drayage trucks aren’t the super-clean new trucks being sold today. They are typically trucks that started out in large, well-maintained fleets that travelled long distances, and that trickled down to smaller and smaller fleets on their way to drayage service, a place that my colleague, David Pettit, has called the place “where old trucks go to die.”
In the months and years to come, we need to build on today’s announcement to ensure that goods movement throughout our region is as clean, competitive and sustainable as possible – for the communities that breathe the air, and for the drivers and businesses who will be investing in the cleaner trucks.
]]>There has been no media attention on this issue in a long time, so I'll fill you in now.
Here’s the bill in a nutshell: Starting in July 2011, S. 1145-A will require all of the #2 grade heating oil (the most commonly used heating oil) sold for use in New York State to meet the same refining standards that the U.S. EPA already requires for diesel fuel used in trucks and buses.
The analogy to diesel fuel is a good one: heating oil comes from the same slice of a petroleum barrel as diesel fuel. Chemically, it’s essentially the same stuff.
The key difference, thanks to stringent EPA diesel regulations that do not apply to heating oil, is that sulfur levels in diesel truck and bus fuel are capped at 15 parts-per-million (ppm), but heating oil can contain up to 15,000 ppm.
Here’s why this matters: Most New Yorkers live in areas that fail to meet EPA’s health-based standards for particulate matter. Particulate matter (or soot) pollution contributes to increased asthma, cancer, heart and lung disease and even premature death. In NYC and many other NYS communities that rely heavily on heating oil, this sludge is a significant source of local soot emissions.
And, many New Yorkers live in communities that are home to some of the highest asthma levels in the nation. Airborne particulate soot is a known trigger of asthma emergencies and attacks.
S. 1145-A would greatly improve New York’s air quality by dramatically reducing the sulfur content in No. 2 heating oil sold for use in New York State. The pollution benefits of implementing S. 1145-A would be comparable to shutting down two and a half coal plants in New York State.
Plus, cleaner heating oil would save money in the long run. The heating oil industry calculates that consumers would save between up to 6% in their heating costs with ultra-low sulfur heating oil. This will be due to higher boiler efficiency, reduced maintenance needs, and reduced fuel use that results from using the cleaner heating oil. These savings more than offset any price increase from switching to the cleaner fuel. (Since January 2008 the premium for ultra low sulfur diesel over No. 2 heating oil in New York State has been 1.74%.)
We’ve got great support for this bill, including the Teamsters Joint Council 16 and Local 553; the NY Oil Heating Association, the Empire State Petroleum Association, the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island and their counterparts in the Hudson Valley, Central New York and Easter New York; and our environmental and public health colleagues at the American Lung Association of NY, Environmental Advocates, EDF, NY League of Conservation Voters, UPROSE, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
The Assembly has already passed this important bill. On Monday, we need the Senate to pass it also!
]]>The rule will cover the largest, dirtiest diesels that power the ocean-going vessels (OGVs) at our ports, such as oil tankers, container-carrying cargo ships, and large cruise vessels (regulated as "Category 3" engines because of their size, i.e., those with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters).
This rule is a critical piece of a multi-part strategy to reduce ship pollution off our coasts and at our ports. Due to the complexities of how ships are governed at the international level, this rule will only cover the U.S.-flagged ships at our ports and off our coasts. But it’s a key step towards getting international approval of a comparable rule for all ships, U.S.- and foreign-flagged, at the March 2010 meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London.
Here’s the background:
Over the past few years, EPA joined with the Coast Guard, the State Department, and a diverse set of other governmental, industry and nongovernmental stakeholders (including NRDC) to advocate for a stronger global commitment to reducing ship emissions worldwide.
It was the correct next step for an EPA that had aggressively targeted every other source of mobile diesel emissions over the past decade. (see, e.g., EPA’s rules for trucks and buses, farm, construction, and other nonroad diesel engines, and locomotives and marine-diesel engines).
In late 2008, this resulted in a new global pact to reduce ship emissions (for those readers interested in the minutiae, the agreement is codified in amendments to Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (a/k/a "MARPOL” in the shipping world)). The new Annex VI amendments include a provision that allows individual countries to create special "Emission Control Areas" to accelerate the reduction of ship pollution off their coast lines.
In March, the Obama administration proposed the creation of a joint US/Canada Emission Control Area (ECA) pursuant to this provision. Under this ECA proposal, ships within 200 nautical miles of our coastlines will use fuel that has 98 percent less sulfur than in current OGV fuel, and will cut their smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 80 percent and their cancer-causing particulate soot (PM) emissions by 85 percent, starting in 2015.
This proposal is critically important because air pollution from large ships is expected to grow rapidly as port traffic increases. By 2030, the ECA strategy is expected to reduce annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from large marine diesel engines by about 1.2 million tons and particulate matter (PM) emissions by about 143,000 tons. Cutting those NOx and PM emissions by 80 and 85 percent, respectively, will be necessary for communities downwind of our ports and for states that are chronically battling dirty air.
The health benefits of these emissions reductions will be substantial. In fact, EPA estimates that, by 2030, between 13,000 and 33,000 premature deaths and between $110 and $280 billion in health costs will be avoided annually. As with all the other EPA diesel rules over the past decade, these benefits will far, far, far exceed the expected implementation costs—at a ratio of at least 30:1.
Frankly, it is hard to find a better deal in the public health world.
Plus, there are significant climate benefits too. Scientists are increasingly pointing to black carbon emissions as a key issue in the acceleration of melting sea and glacial ice, especially in the Arctic region and key mountain ranges that supply drinking water to billions of people around the world like the Himalayas and the Rockies. Unlike carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, black carbon emissions are very short-term in duration – they last only a few weeks in the atmosphere. In other words, cutting black carbon emissions today creates global warming benefits almost immediately—creating some breathing room to allow the longer-term strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions time to take effect.
The soot particles from the world’s ocean-going ships have a core that is largely composed of black carbon. So, in addition to the health benefits listed above, cutting ship pollution creates a short-term climate benefit almost immediately. In this week of important climate news, a commitment to cutting ship pollution would be an added bonus.
What does EPA’s new rule have to do with all of this?
As I wrote in August, EPA’s rule covers all US-flagged ships, just in case the IMO fails to support the US/Canada ECA proposal. Obviously, given the global nature of shipping, we need the IMO-sanctioned ECA to really solve the ship pollution problem off our coasts because most large ships at our ports carry foreign flags. Nevertheless, this EPA rule for US-flagged ships will send a strong signal to the global shipping industry that the US intends to act swiftly to cut this pollution from the ships under its jurisdiction. Doing so should help encourage the IMO to adopt a globally-recognized ECA, rather than a more limited US-only approach.
One caveat worth noting: earlier this fall, a group of 13 steamships that operate on the Great Lakes convinced Congress to add a budget rider that restricted EPA’s ability to enforce the proposed pollution cuts against their vessels. More recently, some steamship operators off the Alaskan and northwest coasts have been advocating for a similar carve-out. Hopefully, dealing with these niche operators (less than one percent or less of emissions) won’t lead to extra trouble at the IMO meeting in March, just as the existence of a few remaining Model T Fords never stood in the way of EPA's world-class Tier 2 emission standards for cars.
The bottom line: EPA’s rule is strong, and is a welcome holiday present to anybody who cares about clean air.
]]>That soot comes from #2 heating oil, a close cousin of diesel fuel. It's similar to the diesel fuel in New York's buses and trucks, except it can contain more than 650 times as much sulfur. It's dirty stuff, and it can trigger asthma emergencies and other health ailments when people breathe it. Like all soot pollution, it's especially a threat to children, the elderly and anybody with heart or lung ailments.
On Monday, the New York State Senate has a chance to take a big step to make this plume of smoke a thing of the past.
Here are the particulars: The Senate will meet in a special session on Monday, and may use this opportunity to pass S.1145-A (Perkins), a bill that, when it takes effect in July 2011, will reduce the sulfur level of #2 heating oil to the same level as the clean, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel now used in trucks and buses across the country. (The Assembly has already passed a version of this bill.)
Ever since the fall of 2006, sulfur levels in highway diesel fuel have been capped at 15 parts-per-million (ppm). But #2 heating oil averages about 2,600 ppm in New York, and is permitted to contain up to 10,000 ppm - 666 times the allowable sulfur levels in bus and truck fuel.
Sulfur in heating oil contributes to high concentrations of sulfur dioxides and fine particulate matter in New York State.
Just today, EPA designated much of downstate New York, including New York City, as a "nonattainment area" for its most recent health-based particulate matter standard. This will trigger a legal requirement for the state to create a plan to cut this pollution.
No. 2 home heating oil contributes an estimated 1,155 tons of PM emissions every year in New York City. Passing and implementing S.1145-A would reduce as much pollution as shutting down two and a half coal plants in New York State, and will help the state meet its new legal requirements for particulate matter.
Let's hope the Senate passes this bill on Monday. It's time to get rid of that black plume of sooty smoke, once and for all.
]]>With nearly $50 million in EPA's FY 2008 budget for this program, EPA made 119 grants nationwide that enabled more than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles to run cleaner. These grants run the gamut of diesel engines - school and transit buses, trucks, farm and construction equipment, cargo-handling equipment at our ports, and so on. And, in many cases, these dirty diesels were equipped with the most advanced diesel soot filters, making them more than 85 percent cleaner.
For years, I've been writing and talking about the cost-effectiveness of diesel clean-up. This report documents that cost-effectiveness clearly: for the government's $50 million investment, the public will receive between $500 million and $1.4 billion in health benefits, thanks to the reduced number of asthma emergencies, bronchitis cases, cancers, heart attacks, and premature deaths that would have been attributable to the diesel pollution that, thankfully, will no longer exist.
Plus, projects funded by these grants will save 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year, saving operators more than $8 million each year (at $2.50/gallon). At a time when many school districts and local governments are struggling with operating budget shortfalls, these cost-savings are critically important.
Much of this money is being spent in nonattainment areas (i.e., cities and towns that don't meet EPA's health-based standards for ozone or particulate soot), in urban environments, and in the low-income communities and communities of color that border many of our nation's ports and other diesel "hotspots." This is good news for those communities that are disproportionately affected by diesel pollution.
The stimulus bill, passed by Congress earlier this year, contains another $300 million for diesel clean-up, which must be spent by next September 30, 2010 in most cases. It's hard to imagine a better investment in cleaner air and improved public health.
γ
]]>Our nation's ports bring us the things we want and need, when and where we want them. But our ports are among the nation's most serious diesel "hotspots"-places where trucks, equipment, and ships all congregate, spewing huge quantities of diesel exhaust into the air.
And, because of the economics of the local trucking industry that serves the ports, most of these trucks are older and dirtier than the cleaner models that meet current EPA standards for new trucks.
For example, according to Port Authority of New York and New Jersey data, roughly 16 percent of the frequent callers at the marine terminals in New York Harbor are more than fifteen years old (and therefore predate EPA regulations that require pollution filters), and only 3 percent of these trucks have engines that are certified to meet EPA's current standards. That's the unfortunate reality of a goods movement system that drives costs down and down without regard for any unwanted side effects.
This issue is a growing environmental justice concern. From Los Angeles to Red Hook, Brooklyn and the Ironbound district of Newark, our large ports are surrounded by low-income communities and communities of color who suffer the disproportionate burden of all of these dirty trucks.
My colleague, Melissa Lin Perrella, recently wrote about the one-year anniversary of the Clean Truck Program in Los Angeles. Read the whole post if you can, but if you are in a hurry, here's the gist of it:
By banning the oldest trucks outright, and incentivizing the purchase of newer, cleaner vehicles, Los Angeles officials have removed 2,000 of the oldest, dirtiest trucks from service and have helped their local businesses put nearly 6,000 clean-burning and alternative fuel trucks on the road. In just a year, this program has removed as much pollution as taking 200,000 cars off the road. Plus, in a year when national truck sales are down 60 percent, they are up by one-third in LA.
Unfortunately, this program is being challenged by a Virginia-based trucking lobby that has been fighting the program since the start. They are arguing that federal law prevents ports from conditioning port access on meeting safety, environment, and security-based requirements.
We're asking Congress to remove any doubt that ports can enact solutions that compliment green business growth and protect public health. If we're successful, truck clean-up programs will be easier to install at ports around the country, including here in the NY/NJ region.
And, that will mean cleaner communities, improved public health, better working conditions, and a stronger local trucking industry in the long run.
]]>Much of this pollution leaks from the crankcase under the children into the cabin where they sit.
In 2001, my NRDC colleagues in California showed that students in California school buses were exposed to 4-6 times as much toxic soot pollution as passengers in adjacent cars, thanks to the open crankcase systems found on older buses. (The same buses are used here in New York).
Since then, many public health and environmental professionals have replicated this research and found similar results. Equally important, effective crankcase filters have entered the market place to solve the problem.
Later today, the City Council will vote on a bill that will require all of the City's school buses to be retrofit with crankcase filters to protect the children on the bus. It will also require all buses to be retired after sixteen years of service, effectively eliminating the oldest, dirtiest buses from our streets and replacing them with buses that meet the most stringent emissions standards in the world.
It's a smart step forward to help improve the health of our city's children.
This bill is the latest step in a series of groundbreaking laws and programs that have dramatically reduced diesel pollution in the City and around the country.
And, it's a step that reaches back directly to the summer of 1995.
That summer, NRDC's Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign successfully sued for the right to launch an ad campaign on the backs of NYC Transit buses that read, "Standing behind this bus could be more dangerous than standing in front of it."
The MTA story has been told many times before, but it bears repeating: Just as we had to take lead out of gasoline to enable the use of catalytic converters that would make cars dramatically cleaner, we had to take sulfur out of diesel fuel to enable the use of effective pollution-cutting technologies that would clean up our dirty diesel buses and trucks.
Back then, this was an untested approach. There was no such thing as a clean diesel bus, so most advocacy was directed to replacing diesels with clean, but extremely costly alternative fuels like natural gas.
Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (the diesel equivalent of unleaded gasoline) did not exist in the commercial market yet, and nobody knew whether the new catalysts and filters would work effectively in the rough-and-tumble of 24/7 transit service in New York City.
But Governor Pataki and the MTA worked closely with NRDC to create the clean-fuel bus program that would test this approach (while also investing in natural gas in case the diesel components didn't work as planned).
The program worked - and it has become the model for clean fleets in the City, including this soon-to-be-passed school bus bill.
(An important aside: When the NYC Transit buses showed that the combination of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and effective soot filters would reduce particulate pollution by more than 90 percent in real-world transit service, it helped lay the technical foundation for EPA's regulatory program that now requires ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for all trucks and buses, as well as requires soot filters on every new truck and bus engine built since 2007.)
Thanks to the MTA program, we know that a diesel-based approach can be clean without requiring an expensive shift in fuels and fueling infrastructure - a critical need in today's tough fiscal climate. In fact, a M.J. Bradley study showed that diesel soot pollution from the NYC Transit fleet has been reduced by 97% since we ran those ads in the summer of 1995, thanks to replacing or retrofitting old diesel clunkers with new buses or engines that use the cleaner fuel and soot filters to cut their emissions.
But here's the problem: because diesel engines last for decades, polluted cities still need to take extra steps to accelerate the retirement and retrofitting of the dirty diesels that have years of active service left.
That's where today's City Council vote comes in.
Over the past eight years, the City Council and the Bloomberg administration have worked together to accelerate the extinction of the City's dirtiest diesels, and diesel clean-up has been a key component of PlaNYC 2030. Laws passed in 2003 and 2005 require ultra-low sulfur diesel and "best available" retrofit technologies to be used in almost every diesel engine under the City's auspices, including construction equipment, many school buses, tour buses, sanitation trucks and other diesel vehicles.
Unfortunately, those laws did not cover school buses that carry fewer than 10 children or the buses that carry children with special needs. And it didn't require the bus operators to close or filter their crankcases.
Intro. 622-A will close this loophole. It will add the extra protection of crankcase filtration for kids while they are on the bus to the public health protections of the 2003 and 2005 laws, and it will bring more of the newest, cleanest school buses to the City as soon as next year.
And that's good news for all of our kids.
]]>As close readers of my posts know, I've worked closely with EPA staff over the past few years to craft a strategy to reduce OGV emissions. Today, I will be happy to testify that I think the two-pronged strategy they've devised is a strong one.
First, EPA has led the global shipping community to adopt a stronger global commitment to reducing ship emissions worldwide. Last fall, the U.S. delegation to the International Maritime Organization secured a new global pact to reduce ship emissions, and to allow individual countries to create special "Emission Control Areas" to accelerate the reduction of ship emissions off their coast lines.
In March, the Obama administration took advantage of this provision, and began the process of creating such a joint US/Canada Emission Control Area (ECA) within 200 miles of our coastlines.
The IMO will vote on this proposal in March 2010 - and if it passes, ship emissions in the area will use fuel that has 98 percent less sulfur than in current OGV fuel, and will cut their smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 80 percent and their cancer-causing particulate soot (PM)emissions by 85 percent, starting in 2015.
Second, EPA has proposed similar restrictions for all US-flagged ships, just in case the IMO fails to support the US/Canada ECA proposal. Obviously, given the global nature of shipping, we need both prongs to really solve the ship pollution problem. But this EPA proposal for US-flagged ships sends a strong signal to the global shipping industry that the US intends to act swiftly to cut this emissions-and it should help encourage the IMO to adopt a globally-recognized ECA, rather than a more limited approach
Together, EPA's combined OGV strategy is critical to the health of our communities and our region's ability to meet its Clean Air Act requirements. When today's proposal and the ECA designation are both finalized and fully implemented, the environmental and public health benefits of the combined OGV strategy will be substantial.
By 2030, between 13,000 and 33,000 premature deaths and between $110 and $280 billion in health costs will be avoided annually. As with all the other EPA diesel rules over the past decade, these benefits will far, far, far exceed the expected implementation cost of approximately 3.11 billion in 2030. At a return on investment of at least 30:1, it is hard to find a better deal in the public health world.
With the nation engaging in a critical debate about rising health care costs and an aging population, avoiding these health impacts and costs is an urgent need.
Today's proposal is especially critical to the low-income communities and communities of color that exist just beyond the gates of our largest ports. At our local port terminals in New York and New Jersey, nearby communities of Newark, Elizabeth, Brooklyn or Staten Island are hardest hit by port-related emissions. This proposal will help bring some needed relief.
Here's why: the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey expects container volumes at its terminals to triple by 2020. While the Port Authority is to be commended for convening many diverse stakeholders to create a "Clean Air Strategy" for the port, we know that only EPA can use its regulatory authority to require ship engines to be cleaner. We can work together to retire old trucks, retrofit old switcher locomotives, to convince shippers to slow down as they enter New York Harbor, but the bottom line is that OGVs emit 47 percent of the NOx related to port activities in the region, and 62 percent of the PM2.5 related to port activities in the region. We cannot meet our environmental goals for shipping in the region without cleaner ships.
The previous statistics underscore the importance of EPA's combined OGV strategy to New York, New Jersey, and all other states that are grappling with their upcoming Clean Air Act deadlines for ozone and particulate matter. Even with cleaner cars, trucks, and other sources, far too many people continue to breathe air that fails to meet EPA's ambient air quality standards for these pollutants, and too many states already know that they will not be able to meet some of their upcoming State Implementation Plan requirements without additional regulatory help from EPA.
Reducing ship emissions is the right place for EPA to provide that help. This is because OGV emissions are projected to grow dramatically-without the combined OGV strategy, NOx emissions from ships are projected to more than double, and PM emissions are expected to almost triple by 2030. OGV emissions are also projected to grow in relation to other transportation sources, as cars, trucks, and other mobile sources get progressively cleaner during this period. According to EPA, NOx emissions from OGVs will grow from about six percent of mobile source-related NOx in 2001 to 40 percent of this category in 2030. Likewise, EPA estimates that PM2.5 from OGVs will grow from 10 percent of mobile source-related PM2.5 to 75 percent of this category of emissions in 2030.
What's the bottom line?
EPA's approach is a strong one, and NRDC will be pleased to support it at today's hearing.
]]>