1 / 39

California’s Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles: Hearing on Request for Waiver of Preem

This document discusses the legal and policy framework for EPA review of California's regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. It addresses the issues of protectiveness, extraordinary and compelling conditions, and the burden on opponents. The document provides evidence supporting California's need for its own standards to address air pollution and climate change impacts.

aalfred
Télécharger la présentation

California’s Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles: Hearing on Request for Waiver of Preem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. California’s Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles: Hearing on Request for Waiver of Preemption Under Clean Air Act Section 209(b) Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Sacramento, California May 30, 2007

  2. Legal and Policy Framework for EPA Review • Overview • Only 3 Issues Before EPA • Protectiveness • CA Conditions Justifying Program • Consistency with 202(a) • Burden on Opponents • Deference to California’s Judgments

  3. Protectiveness First Issue: Protectiveness • Was CA arbitrary & capricious in determining its standards are at least as protective as applicable federal standards? NO • recent EPA decisions confirm California’s program remains more protective

  4. Protectiveness First Issue: Protectiveness • Was California required to compare its standards to non-EPA standards (e.g. EPCA/CAFÉ) ? NO • Comparison is to EPA standards only • EPA has no GHG standards • Even if comparison were made, CA GHG standards clearly more protective than EPCA/CAFE standards: inherent in manufacturers’ opposition

  5. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions Second Issue: Does CA need its state standards to meet extraordinary and compelling conditions? YES • Nothing Has Changed Since Recent EPA Waiver Approvals: CA Needs Its Motor Vehicle Program to Address Smog and other Traditional Pollutants

  6. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions Initial Classifications for Federal 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in California Butte County (2009 - 2014) Western Nevada (2009 - 2014) Sutter Buttes (2009 - 2014) Sacramento Metro Area (2013) Central Mountain Counties (2009 - 2014) Southern Mountain Counties (2009 - 2014) San Francisco Bay Area (2007) San Joaquin Valley (2013) Eastern Kern (2009 - 2014) Antelope Valley and Western Mojave Desert (2010) Coachella Valley (2013) Ventura (2010) South Coast Air Basin (2021) Imperial (2007) San Diego (2009 - 2014)

  7. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions • Even if EPA improperly applies the test solely to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts, California’s conditions met

  8. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions Hotter Days Lead to More Ozone Fresno, 2003-2205 Riverside, 2003-2005 Source: Air Resources Board, 2007

  9. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions More Smog Likely: Section 209(b) clearly covers this extraordinary and compelling condition Increasing emissions Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California (2006), www.climatechange.ca.gov Data from GFDL B1 and A2 runs. SOURCE: Kleeman et al. 2006

  10. 60 LOWER WARMING RANGE MEDIUM WARMING RANGE % CHANGE IN EXPECTED MINIMUM NUMBER OF LARGE FIRES PER YEAR 30 0 2035-2064 2070-2099 Increase in Wildfires Source of data : Westerling and Bryant, “Climate change and wildfire in and around California: Fire modeling and loss modeling” (2006), www.climatechange.ca.gov

  11. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions • Additional California Impacts • Snow pack • Sea level rise • Agricultural (wine, dairy) • Tourism • Expert Reports

  12. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions • Must California demonstrate a temperature impact from these specific regulations? NO • EPA cannot second-guess the effectiveness or need for any particular standard

  13. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions • Must California demonstrate a temperature impact from these specific regulations? NO “The law makes it clear that the waiver request cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in air quality not commensurate with its cost or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209… EPA Administrator Train, 36 Fed.Reg. 17158 (August 31, 1971)

  14. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions • Modeling is not required • No ozone modeling can show similar impacts for small precursor reductions • No regional GHG models can show impact • “tragedy of the commons” status quo rejected in Massachusetts v. EPA

  15. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions • These emission standards are needed to address effects of global warming in California • One of many such actions needed

  16. We can Choose our Emissions Future(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Emission Scenarios) CO2 tripling at 2100, then more CO2 doubling, then stabilized Higher Emissions A1FI Medium-High Emissions Lower Emissions Just fossil fuel emissions shown in graphic.

  17. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions: All GHG Reductions Matter

  18. summer Rising TemperatureEMISSIONS MATTER! F 18.0 LOWER EMISSIONS HIGHER EMISSIONS 16.2 14.4 12.6 10.8 9.0 7.2 5.4 3.6 1.8 summer 0.0 - 1.8 - 3.6 Notes: HadCM3 model results for 2070-2099 vs. 1961-1990. Higher emissions = A1fi; lower emissions = B1 scenarios from IPCC Third Assessment Report. Downscaled results from E. Maurer (http://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/index.shtml).

  19. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions: Driving a Wedge Toward Stabilization 3 2.6 2.5 Electricity end-use efficiency Other end-use efficiency 2 1.8 Passenger vehicle efficiency 1.5 GtC Other transport efficiency Renewables 1 CCS and Supply efficiency 0.9 0.5 0 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 Source: Pacala and Socolow , 2004; ARA CarBen3 Spreadsheet

  20. U.S. Transportation Sector } AB 1493 } Wedges to “Stabilization Triangle” Sources: “A Wedge Analysis of the U.S. Transportation Sector”, USEPA. April 2007 “Northeast State GHG Emission Reduction Potential from Adoption of the California Motor Vehicle GHG Standards Summary of NESCAUM Analysis”, October 2005 Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions: AB 1493 Contribution GHG Emissions MMT CO2e AB 1493 cumulative benefit– 4200 MMT CO2e 20% of reductions needed from light-duty vehicles

  21. Extraordinary & Compelling Conditions • Must global warming impacts in California be worse than in other States? NO • {cite} • Even if this were a proper legal requirement, California meets

  22. 202(a) Consistency • Third Issue: Are the standards and enforcement procedures inconsistent with Clean Air Act §202(a) ? • not technologically feasible within lead time provided (giving appropriate consideration to compliance costs), or • inconsistent with federal test procedures

  23. Vehicular GHG Sources CO2 Methane Nitrous Oxide HFCs CO2 Transmission Engine A/C compressor

  24. Technological Feasibility:General Approach • Awareness of available and emerging technologies • NAS report 2002 • ARB technology symposium 2003 • Comprehensive technical study sponsored by NESCCAF • AVL engine/vehicle modeling of GHG emissions • Meszler Engineering for air conditioning technology • Martec for hardware costs • EPA review concluded “EPA selected the NAS and NESCCAF studies because we believe they are the most credible peer-reviewed analyses in the literature…” and are “…the most authoritative on the subject.” Interim Report: New Powertrain Technologies and Their Projected Costs, EPA420-R-05-012, October 2005

  25. Gasoline Direct Injection w/dual cam phasers VW Technological Feasibility (near-term) Nissan continuously variable valve timing & Lift (VVEL) VW Jetta Honda Variable Flow Turbocharger 2007 Acura RDX Nissan G37

  26. Automated Manual Transmission Jetta Cylinder Deactivation Technological Feasibility (near-term) Chrysler 300C Hemi VW Jetta

  27. Technological Feasibility: Components and Systems

  28. Sturman camless valve actuation Technological Feasibility (Mid-term) 2006 Chevrolet Silverado Integrated Starter/Generator California certified 2007 MB Bluetec AVL Homogeneous Combustion Compression Ignition

  29. Technological Feasibility (Mid-term) • More announced plans for mid-term technologies: • “We will have an engine (camless) on the market by 2010 or 2011”, says Martin Haub, Valeo board member for r&d. … “working with several global automakers” on camless engines. • Multiple announcements of diesel introduction (50state) by 2009/10. (BMW, DC, VW, Nissan, Honda) Sources: Autoweek, December 18, 2006

  30. California’s Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations: Overview AB 1493 Regulations– Pollutants Regulated • Combined GHG emissions • (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs) • All vehicular GHG sources • (tailpipe, air conditioner) • “CO2-equivalent” emissions • (weighted according to “global warming potential”)

  31. California’s Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations: Overview AB 1493 Regulations • Two categories (as in LEV II) • PC/LDT1 • Passenger cars, small trucks and SUVs • LDT2/MDV • Large trucks and SUVs • Exemption for work trucks

  32. California’s Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations: Overview AB 1493 Regulations: Fleet-Average Emission Standards ~22% reduction in 2012 ~30% reduction in 2016

  33. California’s Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations: Overview AB 1493 Regulations • Flexibility • Credit Trading between PC/LDT1 and LDT2/MDV and between manufacturers • Optional Compliance Mechanism for Alternatively Fueled Vehicles • Early Credits • Less stringent requirements for small & intermediate volume manufacturers

  34. Manufacturers’ Public Statements Manufacturers Know World is Changing: • “Every day, our engineers are working to reduce greenhouse gases and petroleum consumption. We absolutely will be part of the solution and we will accelerate our efforts.” DaimlerChrysler’s Tom LaSorda • “Toyota is committed to continued action to address climate change and promote greater energy diversity….I believe the time is right to enlist the immense talent and might of the auto industry to help solve some of the key issues of our time. As an industry we have an obligation to be part of the solution not the problem. “ Toyota’s James Press

  35. Technological Feasibility:Conclusions • Feasibility assessment of GHG reducing technologies sound • Technologies we assessed are used increasingly • Other GHG technologies (e.g. E85, HEVs, diesel) expanding • Industry criticism unfounded or minor • Doesn’t affect conclusions • Cost estimates remain sound • Lead time adequate • No safety issues • ARB GHG emission standards are feasible and can be complied with as adopted

  36. Supplemental Questions from Notice • Are EPCA/CAFE fuel economy provisions relevant to CA authority to implement vehicle GHG regulations? NO: • Emission control and fuel efficiency have always overlapped • NHTSA takes California and EPA standards as a given. 49 USC §32902(f) • Massachusetts et. al. v. EPA decides the issue

  37. Supplemental Questions from Notice • Are EPCA/CAFE fuel economy provisions relevant to EPA’s consideration of this CA waiver request ? NO: • EPCA/CAFE is not among the three permissible waiver review criteria • Massachusetts et. al. v. EPA reinforces that EPA must stick to factors in the statute

  38. California’s Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations: Request for Clean Air Act §209(b) Waiver Conclusion • AB 1493 vehicles will look, cost, and perform like today’s vehicles • California’s request meets the three permissible prongs of EPA’s waiver analysis • Neither the Supplemental Issues EPA noticed nor Constitutional concerns change that analysis • Mass v. EPA decision strengthens that analysis and provides no excuse to delay deciding this request • Law and policy require more, not less, deference to CA to regulate vehicular climate change emissions • U.S. EPA must grant CA’s request by October 24, 2007

  39. California’s Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations: Request for Clean Air Act §209(b) Waiver Contact Information Catherine Witherspoon Executive Officer California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-4383 E-mail: cwithers@arb.ca.gov

More Related