Bay Area gets .5 million to reduce air pollution

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 (11-13) 00:21 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

Public agencies in the San Francisco Bay area will receive more than $9.5 million to help reduce air pollution.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Transportation Fund for Clean Air will fund 33 projects this year to remove an estimated 414 tons of smog-causing gases and small particles from the air, according to the district.

The largest emission reductions from this year's funding cycle will come from the replacement of old diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles and transit buses with new cleaner propane or natural gas-fueled engines.

"These awards are putting vehicle registration fees to work to benefit air quality and consequently the health of Bay Area residents," said Executive Director William C. Norton.

The Transportation Fund for Clean Air awards the $4 surcharge on Department of Motor Vehicle registration fees collected in the Bay Area to public agency projects

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-air14nov14,0,2723737.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dscience

THE NATION

EPA to Enact Long-Contested Smog Standard

A court settlement with environmental groups requires the agency to begin enforcing the pollution rules, stymied five years by challenges.

By Gary Polakovic L.A.Times Staff Writer November 14 2002

In a decision that could signal a broad, new assault on smog, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed Wednesday to put in place a long-contested pollution standard that will make the air cleaner by increasing regulations in dozens of cities from coast to coast.

A court settlement between the EPA and environmental groups requires the EPA to begin enforcing the standard, which has been stymied for the last five years by lawsuits and industry challenges.

The new standard, developed in 1997 under the Clinton administration, allows less ozone, one of the two most pernicious air pollutants.

In all, about 320 communities in 38 states could be reclassified as "non-attainment." That designation would require them to prepare smog-cleanup plans and implement them in a timely manner. Half of California's 58 counties would not be able to meet the new eight-hour ozone standard.

Until now, California's ozone standard has been the most restrictive in the nation.

Some communities that have never imposed smog controls will be required to do so for the first time. Others, including San Francisco, Ventura and San Diego, which have largely complied with the existing smog standard, will have to make additional emissions cuts.

"It's a new chapter. We're going to have air-pollution standards based on science, and the science shows that air isn't safe to breathe," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "There will be some new costs, but we're getting cleaner air in return, fewer cases of asthma, less emphysema and more days kids can play outside."

Industry representatives warn that the costs will be prohibitive and will lead to regulations that will be onerous to businesses all over the country.

"This is one of the most expensive environmental regulations ever. This will affect just about everybody," said Jeffrey Marks, director of air quality for the National Assn. of Manufacturers.

"It will mark hundreds of new counties as Clean Air Act violators. It's going to label areas with a stigma that will create a negative perception. Businesses will be unlikely to invest in those areas where there are excessive costs due to regulation. It will result in loss of jobs and decreased investment in those areas."

Even though all smoggy cities in California and the rest of the nation are already subject to smog-abatement measures established under the Clean Air Act, there is widespread agreement among health experts that those measures do not adequately protect public health.

In the settlement filed Wednesday with U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the EPA agreed to designate cities that fail to meet the new ozone standard by April 2004. Under that limit, ozone cannot exceed more than 0.08 parts per million during any eight-hour period.

The measure is stricter than the existing national standard, which restricts ozone that people are exposed to during a one-hour period, and offers more protection for people, including children, construction workers and others who spend considerable time outdoors. Ozone is a colorless gas that damages lung tissue and causes headaches and nausea.

Under a separate, but related, effort, the EPA has already begun to identify communities that fail to meet a 1997 standard for microscopic particles, called PM2.5.

New limits for those tiny flecks, a fraction of the diameter of a human hair, were established at the same time as the new ozone standard and will begin to take effect by 2005.

Although California is the nation's smoggiest state, communities likely to be most affected by the EPA's decision are in the Midwest and Southeast. Those regions are home to more lenient pollution controls and to many old, heavily polluting power plants.

Anti-smog measures long used in California, including Smog Check and vapor recovery nozzles at gas stations, could be instituted for the first time from Sheboygan, Wis., to Jefferson County, Mo., to Jeffersonville, Ind.

How much the new regulations will cost is open to debate. The EPA says costs could reach $60 billion, although industry groups say it will be more.

The EPA says better air-quality standards will prevent 15,000 premature deaths, 350,000 cases of asthma and 1 million cases of diminished lung function in children.

The manufacturers' group, the American Truckers Assns., and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were among several business groups that sued the Clinton administration to block the new pollution standards. The fight reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed broad portions of the plan, but sent other parts back to the lower court for review.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals removed the remaining objections, although no dates were established for the EPA to begin proceeding with the new air-quality standards until Wednesday's court agreement.

The EPA will have to determine how much time each community has to comply with the new standard. That will be decided on a case-by-case basis as the EPA gathers more pollution data on various cities in the next couple of years. A community's failure to meet the new standard can result in loss of federal highway improvement funds and penalties that restrict economic development.

But it will be up to the EPA to decide whether to impose those sanctions, actions that the agency has often been reluctant to take.

Posted on Thu, Nov. 14, 2002

Also Wednesday, a court axed a suit blocking funds for transit projects

By Mike Taugher

CONTRA COSTA TIMES

You can breathe easy now: The Bay Area is set to declare a major victory over smog after this summer's pollution readings showed the air was clean enough to meet federal standards.

Not only that, but the region can meet stricter clean air rules that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed Wednesday it would begin enforcing after a five-year delay.

"Overall, the Bay Area has been doing very well in terms of air quality improvement. We're hoping that trend continues," said Luna Salaver, a spokeswoman for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Salaver said the air district has not yet asked the EPA to reclassify the Bay Area as a clean-air region, but that it plans to do so.

The classification is important because it would render moot a controversial smog reduction plan that temporarily snagged some federal funding for Bay Area highway projects. It would also relieve air quality and transportation agencies of requirements to cut smog aggressively in order to preserve highway funds.

"While they haven't been officially designated (as having clean air), they should be re-designated in the near future," said Jerry Martin, a spokesman at the California Air Resources Board, whose engineers reviewed the Bay Area figures.

In all, the region dodged two bullets Wednesday.

First, the EPA's agreement to start enforcing the stricter air quality standards throughout the country appeared have no immediate effect on the Bay Area, although that could change if the region's air quality worsens.

Second, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit by environmentalists that temporarily blocked federal funds for highway projects. The environmental groups argued that the smog-reduction plan did not go far enough.

Still, air officials are treading carefully. In 1995, the EPA responded to requests from the Bay Area by designating the area as free of smog problems, only to have that summer end as one of the smoggiest on record.

In 1998, the federal agency declared the Bay Area once again was out of compliance with smog rules.

That decision triggered a requirement that transportation and air quality officials devise a smog-reduction plan. The EPA is reviewing the latest version of that plan. It was also the subject of the lawsuit dismissed Wednesday.

Air quality officials say new regulations of power plants and refineries, along with more efficient and cleaner cars, are some of the biggest reasons the Bay Area's air has improved.

But the Bay Area escapes the air quality problems of urban areas of similar size because much of its pollution blows inland.

Smog is measured at stations throughout the Bay Area. As long as no single station records a high smog level more than three times in a three-year period, the entire region is considered to be free of smog problems.

Statisticians at the air quality district also analyzed information from those monitors to see if the region would conform to the stricter rules that the EPA is set to enforce within the next couple of years. They found that it would, and state air quality regulators confirmed those findings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Taugher covers the environment and energy. Reach him at 925-943-8257 or mtaugher@cctimes.com.
http://fresnobee.com/local/story/5192118p-6201012c.html

Industry leaders start air cleanup

By Mark Grossi The Fresno Bee Published 11/14/02 05:00:29

Leaders of the building, petroleum and agricultural industries today will kick off their own air-cleanup campaign as the threat of federal intervention over air pollution grows in the San Joaquin Valley.

The industries will announce a nonprofit group, called Clean Air Now, that will provide funding, ideas and other support for projects and groups aimed at reducing air pollution.

Companies represented on the board include the Tejon Ranch in Lebec, Chevron-Texaco in Kern County and Gary McDonald Homes Inc. in Fresno.

"Rather than relegating these decisions to the government, we have an opportunity to take action ourselves," said Reedley-area farmer Rick Schellenberg, a board member for the group. "Air quality has a lot of significance for me. I've got two little daughters with asthma."

The Valley, considered the second-most-polluted place in the country behind the Los Angeles-area South Coast Air Basin, faces major federal cleanup deadlines in 2004 and 2005.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is working on cleanup plans for the eight-county area, ranging from Stockton to Bakersfield.

If the deadlines are missed, the federal government will enforce sanctions, increasing fees for new and expanding businesses and freezing federal road-building money. Federal officials also could take over the area's cleanup plans.

For the past year, business owners and industry leaders have followed the discussions as environmentalists have filed lawsuits to force federal action against the Valley.

The business community felt it was time for private groups to enter the conversation, said Bob Maddux, land development official with Gary McDonald Homes. Maddux is president of Clean Air Now's board.

"We're going to do things that can be done now," he said. "The air-quality problem isn't going to be solved by government fiat. We need public education and personal responsibility."

Other board members include John Harris of Harris Ranch, K.C. Bishop of Chevron-Texaco, Fred Ruiz of Ruiz Foods and Joe Drew of Tejon Ranch. The board today is expected to present a $20,000 check to a research and development group called the Air Quality Task Force, which works closely with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Board members said the group has come together quickly over the past several weeks.

There are not many specific projects yet.

Farmer Schellenberg said he would like to see incentive programs to help growers use chippers for their farm waste, rather than burning. Others said public education would be high on their agenda.

"If we could educate schoolchildren about our air, that would be something I would like to see," said board member Gus Freshwater of Shafter-based Elk Corp., which supplies asphalt roofing products.

"Other than that, I'm wide open to discuss this."

The reporter can be reached at mgrossi@fresnobee.com or 441-6316.
http://bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/2130726p-2218155c.html

Industry reps launch clean air group

By BRIAN MELLEY, Associated Press Writer Wednesday November 13, 2002, 08:15:09 PM

FRESNO, Calif.(AP) - Representatives of industries targeted for polluting the San Joaquin Valley's darkening skies are launching a group to address the problem and speed the cleanup.

Clean Air Now, a private nonprofit funded by ChevronTexaco, will announce plans Thursday to pay for studies and promote voluntary actions to clean up chronic pollution, said Octavia Diener, a board member of the group.

Members of the farming, oil, and construction industries dominate the board of directors. Those industries are likely to face greater regulation as the valley attempts to clear its skies of some of the nation's worst pollution.

An environmentalist criticized the effort as "greenwashing" the problem by trying make industry appear environmentally friendly when it is responsible for much of the pollution.

"What I see is a replay of what happened a decade ago," said Kevin Hall of the Sierra Club. "Industry hammered the air board and drove loopholes into the process. I think what they'd like to accomplish is to set the whole process back another 10 years."

Hall, who is part of a group called the California Clean Air Campaign, has led the effort to force regulators to begin taking action after neglecting air pollution in the valley for a decade.

Fresno leads the state in childhood asthma and the valley was ranked this year as the second smoggiest place nationally by the American Lung Association. Air pollution is blamed for asthma, other respiratory ailments and heart problems.

The problem is so severe in the valley that the local air district is prepared to ask the federal Environment Protection Agency to classify it as an "extreme" polluter, joining only Los Angeles, and buying more time to fix the problem. Such a move would also increase regulatory fees for new and expanding businesses.

In that climate, Clean Air Now emerged as another voice in an increasing chorus trying to address the problem.

Diener, who owns a large farm and runs a business that rebuilds engines, said the group has only met once and does not have specific proposals on how to clean up the pollution.

But she said it will likely involve sacrifices by everyone: fewer fires, less driving, maybe even fewer trucks rumbling up Highway 99 and Interstate 5.

Diener rejected criticism that the group was motivated to avoid stricter regulations.

"We have to stop pointing the finger and get involved in the solution," she said. "I hate to see naysayers before it even starts going."

Josette Merced Bello, a spokeswoman for the air district, said her agency welcomes comment from anyone who is interested in addressing the problem.

For years, air district meetings have been dominated by agriculture, petroleum and construction interests. Only recently have citizens begun to demand cleaner air.

On the Net:

Clean Air Now: www.cleanairnow.com

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: http://www.valleyair.org/

California Clean Air Campaign: http://www.CalCleanAir.org

Chevron Texaco: http://www.chevrontexaco.com/
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-fi-oil18nov18,0,3112368.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dscience

State Could Face Gasoline Price Hikes

Some energy experts say the phase-in of an environmental rule coupled with a U.S.-led war on Iraq may double the cost of fuel.

By Evelyn Iritani

Times Staff Writer

November 18 2002

California consumers could see gasoline prices shoot as high as $4 a gallon next year if a U.S.-led war on Iraq disrupts the flow of Middle East oil at the same time the state introduces a new environmental regulation that is likely to create supply problems, some energy experts warn.

Though many analysts strongly disagree that things are so dire for consumers, West Coast traders are bracing for problems in January when California begins phasing out gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. The controversial additive has been banned because of environmental concerns. The state, meanwhile, is shifting to gasoline made with ethanol, another clean-air additive.

The fragile situation could then get worse if the U.S. attacks Iraq because the West Coast's reliance on imported petroleum leaves it "extremely vulnerable" to a global oil disruption, said Philip Verleger, an energy analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

He is convinced that a war with Iraq at least for a time could push crude oil prices above $40 a barrel, up from about $25 now. And if that happened as ethanol-related supply troubles kicked in, Verleger contends, Californians could face a doubling of prices at the pump.

Such a scenario would not only depress an already shaky economy but also could spark a backlash against the U.S. effort to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, he warned.

"No one is thinking about this," Verleger said after a presentation Saturday at the annual meeting of the Pacific Council on International Policy, a foreign policy organization based in Los Angeles. "We haven't done anything to prepare for it."

John Kingston, director of global oil for Platts, an energy information service, believes that California's transition to ethanol will trigger gasoline shortages and steep price hikes regardless of what happens in the Middle East.

He predicts that producers outside of California will initially shy away from shifting to gasoline with ethanol because of the uncertain demand and higher costs of production and transportation. That could create reductions in supply and price hikes of as much as 30 cents a gallon a day in California by early spring, he said.

"Traders are not nonchalant about this," Kingston said. "Think chaos."

Others are skeptical, however, that the West Coast faces such a grave threat.

Amy Jaffe, a senior energy analyst at Rice University in Houston, said there are enough oil suppliers in Asia and Latin America to keep California refineries supplied if the Mideast oil supply is disrupted.

In a severe situation, Jaffe said, California officials could temporarily lift environmental restrictions that limit the types of gasoline drivers can use. And she believes that U.S. refineries will move relatively quickly to ethanol because the California market is too big to ignore.

"You may have to pay 50 cents more to get a barrel from Asia, but people in California already pay more for gasoline than elsewhere in the country because of your environmental restrictions," Jaffe said. "Somebody's not going to have to turn off a California refinery because there's no oil."

Crude oil prices, which jumped more than 40% earlier in the year, have dropped in recent weeks because of increased production by OPEC and progress in the United Nations' campaign to disarm the Iraqi government. Oil prices fell a dollar a barrel last week after Hussein agreed to U.N. weapons inspections. West Texas Intermediate crude closed at $25.53 a barrel Friday, up 25 cents over the previous day.

Yet though gasoline prices have held steady or dropped recently in other parts of the country, they have risen here.

In California, the average price of a gallon of regular self-serve gasoline on Nov. 11 was $1.59, a 3-cent increase over the previous week, according to the Energy Department. The nationwide average was $1.44 a gallon, a 9-cent-per-gallon decrease from the previous week.

The West Coast's dependence on imported oil and distance from key providers drastically increases the region's economic vulnerability, according to Verleger.

During the first Gulf War, he noted, the region was an exporter of Alaskan oil, but a decline in production has changed that picture dramatically.

Today, the West Coast imports 1 out of 3 barrels of oil it consumes. Nearly 10% of those imports come from the Middle East, and about half of that is supplied by Iraq under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program.

To add to the pressure, financially strapped West Coast energy companies have depleted their oil inventories, which are at half the level of 1990.

The West Coast also can't depend on the U.S. government's emergency cache of oil for a quick fix, according to Verleger. The Energy Department recently announced that its Strategic Petroleum Reserve had reached 592 million barrels, the highest level in the program's 25-year history.

But getting that oil to the West Coast would be costly and time-consuming because it is stored in more than 50 underground caverns along the coast of Texas and Louisiana. The quickest way to California would be through the Panama Canal, but that is limited to smaller tankers because of the canal's size.

And under the Jones Act, a 1920 federal law aimed at protecting domestic shippers, only U.S. flag carriers can deliver cargo between two U.S. ports. Verleger said there are only a few U.S.-flagged tankers, and they already are busy transporting oil from Alaska to the lower states.

Though OPEC countries have increased their output lately, most of the extra reserves are being held in the Caribbean and in tankers outside the Pacific because those areas are considered less vulnerable to attack.

As an insurance policy, Verleger suggests that West Coast officials strike a deal with Japan. In the event of an oil crisis, Japan, which currently has 180 days of reserves, could agree to use its emergency supply and allow crude oil headed for that country to be diverted to the West Coast.

Verleger pointed out that though the U.S. government has treated the country as an "economic whole" in devising its energy strategy, the "interests of the West Coast are more linked to the Pacific Rim than the East Coast."

The U.S. defense secretary also can issue a temporary waiver of the Jones Act shipping restriction if national security is in danger. The last time the U.S. government granted a security waiver was during the 1990-91 Gulf War.

"This is all doable, but it shouldn't be left until the last minute," Verleger said.

California Energy Commission officials could not be reached Sunday for comment.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, agrees that the West Coast energy supply could be endangered by war with Iraq or terrorism.

But she said local and state officials would have difficulty developing emergency response plans until the Bush administration provided a thorough assessment of the possible damage, from the oil well to the gas pump.

"We are vulnerable," said Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. "Our energy supply is vulnerable."

Fascinating survey November 02 of Californians' land, housing, transportation etc patterns and concerns

excerpts:

The survey of 2,010 Californians finds that most residents believe quality of life is at serious risk in their region of the state. Strong majorities say traffic congestion (81 percent), housing affordability (69 percent), population growth and development (63 percent), air pollution (60 percent), and the opportunity for well-paying jobs (59 percent) are at least somewhat of a problem in their area. The level of concern varies by region: Los Angeles County (61 percent) and San Francisco Bay Area (59 percent) residents are more likely than residents of other regions to view traffic as a big problem, while residents of the Central Valley and other Southern California counties (31 percent each) are more inclined than others to see the availability of jobs as a big problem. Nearly one in four Los Angeles (38 percent) and Central Valley (37 percent) residents say air pollution is a big concern in their region, and 59 percent of people living in the Bay Area say affordable housing is a big problem. Surprisingly, 67 percent of residents statewide say that the availability of recreational parks and open space is not a problem in their region.

And contrary to popular belief, most Californians - including suburban and urban dwellers - are pleased with their commute to work: 82 percent say they are very (54 percent) or somewhat (28 percent) satisfied with their commute. The vast majority of employed residents (75 percent) say they drive alone to work, while 11 percent carpool, 6 percent ride public transportation, and 5 percent walk or bicycle. These numbers vary little across regions, although Bay Area residents are less likely than residents in other regions to carpool (6 percent) and more likely to use public transit (12 percent). "Californians prize their freedom and this is reflected in the state's 'driving alone' culture," says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. "But it is remarkable that residents are so content with their quality of life, at the same time as they perceive looming regional problems. This disconnect creates a challenging policy environment for state and local leaders."
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news141102-04