United States
Environmental Protection January 1992
Agency
Air/Policy
&EPA Innovative Regulatory
Strategies Workshop
Market-Based Incentives and
Other Innovations for
Air Pollution Control
January 15-17, 1992
Georgetown University
Conference Center
Washington, DC
Sponsored by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Quality Management Division and Regulatory Innovations Staff
Office of Air and Radiation Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
-------
45019923
INNOVATIVE REGULATORY STRATEGIES WORKSHOP
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1992
11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
Welcome
Opening Remarks
Overview of
U. S. Programs
Keynote Address
Session I
2:30 - 5:45 p.m.
Introduction
Case Studies
Registration
Welcome and Overview
Barry Korb, Workshop Moderator
Director, Regulatory Innovations Staff
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. EPA
John Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
and
Maryann Froehlich, Acting Director
Office of Policy Analysis
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. EPA
John O'Connor, Senior Program Manager
Radian Corporation
and
Linda Critchfield
Acid Rain Division
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
William Rosenberg, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
Innovative Uses of Taxes and Fees for Stationary and Mobile Sources
Barry El man
Regulatory Innovations Staff
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. EPA
Louisiana Environmental Scoring System/Property Tax Exemptions
John Glenn
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Drive Plus: Sales Tax/Rebate Based Upon Vehicle Emissions
and Fuel Efficiency
Deborah Gordon
Union of Concerned Scientists
Berkeley, California
Alternative Fuels Programs
Kevin McCarthy
Office of Legislative Research
Hartford, Connecticut
Concurrent Small Group Discussions
Videos and Displays
6:00 p.m. Reception (Cash Bar)
-------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 16,1992
Session II Marketable Permits for Stationary, Mobile, and Area Sources
8:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Introduction Karen Martin
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
Case Studies South Coast Marketable Permits Program: VOC and NO, Sources
Pat Leyden
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Los Angeles, California
Locomotive Emissions Trading
Marijke Bekken
California Air Resources Board
Sacramento, California
Wood Stove/Fireplace Marketable Permit Program
Nicholas Kirsch
Telluride Transit Company
Telluride, Colorado
Concurrent Small Group Discussions
Luncheon
12:30 p.m.
Luncheon Speaker Richard Morgenstern, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. EPA
Session III
2:00 - 5:30 p.m.
Introduction
Case Studies
Other Innovative Strategies for Air Pollution Control
Conniesue Oldham
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
Free Bus Ride/Voluntary No Drive Day
Ray Bishop
Tulsa City/County Health Department
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Media Programs to Encourage Carpooling
Lynn Sonntag
Disney Productions
Los Angeles, California
-------
THURSDAY JANUARY 16, 1992
Session III (Continued) Other Innovative Strategies for Air Pollution Control
2:00 - 5:30 p.m.
Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs
Sarah Siwek
LA County Transportation Commission
Los Angeles, California
SCRAP (Old Car Buy Back Program)
Terrence Larson
Unocal
Los Angeles, California
Concurrent Small Group Discussions
FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 1992
Session IV Dialogue on Issues Leading to Future Research
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
This session will provide an opportunity for all workshop attendees to:
• Share highlights and synthesize issues raised during the small group discussions
• Hear about additional programs identified by individuals in the concurrent small group
discussions
• Participate in the definition of a future research agenda
Closing Remarks
Adjourn
12:00 p.m.
EPA is not endorsing any particular program featured in this workshop, but it is providing an
opportunity for the interaction of people who are involved in real applications of these strategies.
-------
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Conniesue Oldham
Workshop Chairperson
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Karen Martin
Regulatory Strategies Section Chief
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Barry Elman
Air Innovations Program Manager
Regulatory Innovations Staff
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. EPA
Key for Nametag Colors:
Green = EPA Blue = State/Local Agency
Grey = Environmental, Academic Gold = Industry, Other
-------
Resource People for Session I
Innovative Uses of Taxes and Fees for Stationary and Mobile Sources
Ahearn, Stephen
Arizona Energy Office
3800 N. Central
Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-280-1420
Anderson, Bob
Research Manager
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-682-8000
Atcheson, John
Chief, Prevention Integration Branch
Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(PM-222B)
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 N
202-260-4164
Austin, Jim
Assistant to Senator Owen
Environmental Conservation Committee
New York State Senate
310 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
518-455-3411
Breedlove, Buz
Senior Consultant
California Senate Office of Research
1020 N Street
Suite 565
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-1727
Buchert, Cy
Director
Div. of Policy Analysis & Planning
Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet Drive
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884
504-765-0735
Carlson, Laurel
Deputy Director
Division of Air Quality
Dept. of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street
Seventh Floor
Boston, Mass. 02108
617-292-5630
Carruthers, Cathy
Washington State Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
206-459-6014
Conroy, Dave
Section Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203-2211
617-565-3254
Deck, Leland
Economist
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5294
Dion, Jerry
Program Manager
Policy & Planning Energy Office
Arizona Dept. of Commerce
3800 North Central Avenue
Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-280-1420
Elman, Barry
Air Innovation Program Manager
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (PM-221)
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2727
-------
Resource People for Session I
Innovative Uses of Taxes and Fees for Stationary and Mobile Sources
(Continued)
Farber, Steve
Professor
Dept. of Economics
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
504-388-3791
Glenn, John C.
Policy and Planning Administrator
Department of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet Drive
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884
504-765-0720
Gordon, Deborah
Senior Transport Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
c/o Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Building 90-3124
One Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, California 94720
415-486-4321
Hudson, Larry
Manager, Alternative Fuel Vehicles
N.Y. State Energy Research &
Development Authority
2 Rockefeller Plaza
Albany, NY 12223
518-465-6251, ext. 209
Jones, Tom
Senior Staff Engineer
Union Carbide Corporation
P.O. Box 50
Hahnville, Louisiana 70057
504-468-4103
Madriaga, Bruce
Economist
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5290
Martin, Karen
Chief, Regulatory Strategies Section
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5274
Mayer, Nancy
Environmental Engineer
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5390
McCarthy, Kevin E.
Associate Analyst
Office of Legislative Research
Legislative Office Building
Room 5300
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
203-240-8400
McGinn, Andy
Manager, State & Local Relations
American Gas Association
1515 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
703-841-8597
Miles-McLean, Robin
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (PM-221)
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1126
Morton, Brian
Economist
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-7094
-------
Resource People for Session I
Innovative Uses of Taxes and Fees for Stationary and Mobile Sources
(Continued)
Nogee, Alan
Energy Program Director
MASSPIRG
29 Temple Place
Boston, MA 02111
617-292-4800
Oldham, Conniesue
IRS Workshop Chairperson
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7774
Ormond, Amanda
Energy and Environmental Planner
Arizona Energy Office
3800 N. Central
Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
602-280-1420
Roy, Nikki
Pollution Prevention Specialist
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-387-3500
Schroeer, Will
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (PM-221)
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1126
Sullivan, Robin
Planning Section (6T-AP)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202
214-655-7214
Wilcox, Rich
Tehnical Support Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OMS
Region VI
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
313-668-4390
-------
Resource People for Session n
Marketable Permits for Stationary, Mobile, and Area Sources
Aarni, Charles
Chevron
P.O. Box 97
324 W. El Segundo Blvd.
ElSegundo, CA 90245
213-615-5285
Anderson, Glen
Senior Economist
Environmental Defense Fund
128 E. Hargett Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-821-7793
Bekken, Marijke
Associate Air Pollution Specialist
Off-Road Control Section
Air Resources Board
9528 Telstar Avenue
El Monte, California 91731
818-575-6684
Broadbent, Jack
Office of Planning and Rules
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive
P.O. Box 4939
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
714-396-3119
Bush, Jan
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
415-749-4943
Chamberlin, John
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (PM-221)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2762
Critchfield, Linda
Acid Rain Division (ANR-445)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7915
Deck, Leland
Economist
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5294
Elman, Barry
Air Innovations Program Manager
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (PM-221)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2727
Goffman, Joe
Senior Attorney
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-387-3500
Kirsch, Nicholas
Telluride Transit Company
P.O. Box 159
218 West Gregory Street
Telluride, CO 81435
303-728-3512
Larson, Terrence
Manager
Environmental Affairs
Unocal Corporation
911 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1114
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213-977-7294
-------
Resource People for Session n
Marketable Permits for Stationary, Mobile, and Area Sources
(Continued)
Leyden, Pat
Deputy Executive Officer of Planning and Rules
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 E. Copley Drive
P.O. Box 4939
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-0938
714-396-3119
Loeb, Alan
Energy/Environment Policy Analyst
Argonne National Laboratories
9700 South Cass Avenue
EID/900
Argonne, Illinois 60439-4832
708-252-6473
Madriaga, Bruce
Economist
Office of Ah- Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5290
Martin, Karen
Chief, Regulatory Strategies Section
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5274
Mayer, Nancy
Environmental Engineer
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5390
McGinn, Andy
Manager, State and Local Relations
American Gas Association
1515 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
703-841-8597
Morton, Brian
Economist
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-7094
Nichols, Mary
Senior Staff Attorney
National Resources Defense Council
617 South Olive Street
Suite 1210
Los Angeles, CA 90014
213-892-1500
Oldham, Conniesue
IRS Workgroup Chairperson
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7774
Palmisano, John
President
AER*X, Inc.
1990 M Street, NW
Suite 610
Washington, DC 20036
202-463-6909
Repsher, Bill
Office of Enforcement (LE-134A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2854
Rudd, John
Office of Enforcement (LE-134A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2864
-------
Resource People for Session n
Marketable Permits for Stationary, Mobile, and Area Sources
(Continued)
Sonntag, Lynn
Senior Counsel
The Walt Disney Company
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521-0321
818-560-7094
South, David
Economist & Section Manager
Argonne National Laboratories
9700 South Cass Avenue
EID/900
Argonne, Illinois 60439-4832
708-252-6107
Stahl, Cynthia
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division
Region III, 3AT-13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9337
Sullivan, Robin
Planning Section (6T-AP)
Region VI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202
214-655-7214
Tether, Ivan
Senior Counsel
Pacific Enterprises
P.O. Box 60043
Los Angeles, CA 90060
213-895-5150
Ungvarsky, John
Environmental Protection Specialist
Air and Toxics Division
Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1188
Van Ommering, Lucille
Executive Office
California Air Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
916-323-0296
Vogel, Ray
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-3153
Whynot, Jill
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive
P.O. Box 4939
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
714-396-3104
Wilcox, Rich
Technical Support Staff
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
313-668-4390
Wilsie, Terri
Office of Policy Analysis Review (ANR-443)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1360
Wochnick, Verne
Manager of Government Affairs
Hughes Aircraft Company
Corporate Headquarters
P.O. Box 45066
7200 Hughes Terrace
Building C-l, M/S C129
Los Angeles, CA 90045-0066
310-568-6318
-------
Resource People for Session HI
Other Innovative Strategies for Air Pollution Control
Anderson, Bob
Research Manager
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-682-8000
Armstrong, Jane
Senior Project Manager
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
313-668-4441
Aspy, Dale
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Mobile Source Unit
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404-347-5014
Bassett, Dave
Pollution Prevention Division (PM-222B)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2720
Bishard, Laura
Assistant Coordinator
Colorado Department of Health
Clean Air Colorado
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
303-331-8559
Bishop, Ray
Manager
Air, Water, Waste, and Vector Programs
Tulsa City/County Health Department
4616 E. 15th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112
918-744-1000
Brown, Jack
Director, Environmental Health
City/County Health Department
1900 E. 9th Street
Wichita, Kansas 67214
316-268-8457
Byrum, Larry
Director
Air Monitoring & Analysis Division
Oklahoma State Dept. of Health
1000 N.E. 10th Street, MC0201
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117-1299
405-271-5220
Bush, Jan
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
415-749-4943
Cappadoro, Jill Kupferberg
Director of Marketing
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority
14840 49th Street, N
Clearwater, Florida 34622-2893
813-530-9921
Colt, Sandra
Program Director
American Lung Association of Atlanta
723 Piedmont Avenue, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365-0701
404-872-9653
Conroy, Dave
Section Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203-2211
617-565-3254
-------
Resource People for Session HI
Other Innovative Strategies for Air Pollution Control
(Continued)
Deck, Leland
Economist
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
919-541-5294
Elman, Barry
Air Innovations Program Manager
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (PM-221)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-2727
Fitzpatrick, Maura
Director, Office of Air Policy
NY City Dept. of Environmental Protection
59-17 Junction Blvd., 4th Floor
Corona, NY 11368
718-595-4462
Irwin, John
Director
Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment
Forbes Field, Bldg. 740
Topeka, Kansas 66620
913-296-1593
Larson, Terrence
Manager
Environmental Affairs
Unocal Corporation
911 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1114
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213-977-7294
Martin, Karen
Chief, Regulatory Strategies Section
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5274
Mayer, Nancy
Environmental Engineer
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5390
McGill, Michael
Executive Director
Bay Area Economics Forum
200 Pine Street
Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-981-7117
Miles-McLean, Robin
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (PM-221)
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1126
Oldham, Conniesue
IRS Workshop Chairperson
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7774
Riehle, Mike
Manager, Policy Analysis
Environmental Affairs
Unocal Corporation
911 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1114
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213-977-7311
Roach, Bill
Supervisor, Market Development
Seattle Metro
MS128
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
206-684-1620
-------
Resource People for Session HI
Other Innovative Strategies for Air Pollution Control
(Continued)
Sargent, Katherine
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
313-668-4441
Schroeer, Will
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (PM-221)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1126
Siwek, Sarah
Director, Transportation Demand Management
Los Angeles Co. Transportation Comm.
818 West 7th Street
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90017
213-244-6278
Slavin, Marian
Travel Reduction Program Manager
Pima Association of Governments
177 North Church, Suite 405
Tucson, AZ 85701-1187
602-792-2952
Sonntag, Lynn
Senior Counsel
The Walt Disney Company
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521-0321
818-560-7094
Ungvarsky, John
Environmental Protection Specialist
Air Programs Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (A-5-3)
Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1188
Van Ommering, Lucille
Executive Office
California Air Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
916-323-0296
Von Bodungen, Gus
Administrator
Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810
504-765-0110
Wilcox, Rich
Project Manager
Technical Support Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
313-668-4390
-------
Guest Entrance
MAIN FLOOR
THE THOMAS AND DOROTHY LEAVEY CENTER
University
Book Shop
I I r
NORTH GALLERY
Center Grill
Servery
Center Grill
Cafeteria
"The Basement"
Student Pub
Commons
Fast
Break!
Restaurant
GRAND
BALLROOM «>
Conf.
Rm.S
Con(~
Rm.6
WEST
LOBBY
Conf.
Admin.
Bldg.
Maint.
Service
F*cu]* .Cocktail
Club I Lounge
Restaurant
Decatur's
Restaurant
Conf. I
Rm.3 I
I Conf.
Rm.2
SOUTH GALLERY
I I
Saxa Sundries
Vital Vittles /
Student
Credit
Union
1 Entrance to
Student
^Activity Bldg.
i tm
ATM
Campus
Ministry
1
Center
Lounge
i
Student
Program
Room
Info.
Desk for
Student
Affairs
Student
Assns.
Entrance
Bridge
-------
EVALUATION OF
INNOVATIVE REGULATORY STRATEGIES WORKSHOP
January 15-17, 1992, Washington D.C.
A. GENERAL
1. My overall evaluation of the workshop is:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
2. The oral presentations (session topics and case study speakers) were:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
3. The concurrent small group discussion sessions were:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
4. The Friday panel that reported back highlights of the small group discussions was:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
5. The workshop gave me ideas for innovative regulatory strategies that could be
applied in my State/local area.
Agree Disagree
6. The length of the workshop was:
Too short About right Too long
7. The location of the workshop (Washington, D.C.) was:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
8. The facility used for the workshop (Georgetown University Conference Center) was:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
B. SESSION I: INNOVATIVE USES OF TAXES AND FEES
1. I attended the small group discussion session.
2. The level and quality of idea exchange at this small group discussion session was:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
3. The key issues, programs, and strategies pertaining to this session topic were
discussed.
Agree Disagree
4. Other programs, strategies, or issues that fit under this session topic but that were
not addressed during the small group discussion are:
(over)
-------
C. SESSION II: MARKETABLE PERMITS
1. I attended the small group discussion session.
2. The level and quality of idea exchange at this small group discussion session was:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
3. The key issues, programs, and strategies pertaining to this session topic were
discussed.
Agree Disagree
4. Other programs or strategies that fit under this session topic but that were not
addressed during the small group discussion are:
D. SESSION III: OTHER INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES
1. I attended the small group discussion session.
2. The level and quality of idea exchange at this small group discussion session was:
Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
3. The key issues, programs, and strategies pertaining to the session topic were
discussed.
Agree Disagree
4. Other programs or strategies that fit under this session topic but that were not
addressed during the small group discussion are:
E. COMMENTS (ideas for improving the workshop, what you found most helpful, etc.)
Name (optional) State or Affiliation^
Please return your completed evaluation form to the Registration Desk at the conclusion
of the workshop.
-------
Overview
-------
EPA INNOVATIVE REGULATORY STRATEGIES WORKSHOP
Market-Based Incentives and
Other Innovations for Air Pollution Control
Scope
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 allow, and in some cases require, states to
adopt effective, market-based strategies or other innovative types of control. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's innovative regulatory strategies program seeks to
encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the development, demonstration, and
implementation of a wide range of innovative regulatory programs, including market-
based, informational, and pollution prevention approaches.
Objectives
The purpose of this workshop is to bring together and facilitate discussions among
individuals with practical experience or interest in developing market-based strategies.
The workshop is designed to:
• Promote the consideration and use of market-based regulatory strategies
• Explore design and implementation issues related to strategies such as
marketable emission permits, pollution fees, and transportation controls
• Facilitate peer exchange of information and ideas on actual programs
(either existing or being developed)
• Identify implementation obstacles and other issues for future research
-------
Summary of Programs
-------
Summary of Innovative Regulatory Strategy Programs
Found in the Literature and Popular Press
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
3200 East Chapel Hill Road/Nelson Highway
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Under EPA Contract 68-D8-0065
October 1991
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Transportation Control Measures 1
A. Alternative Fuels 1
1. Alternative Fuel Requirements (General) 1
2. Natural Gas 1
3. Methanol/Ethanol 3
4. Use of Electric Cars 5
5. Low Emission Vehicles 7
6. Fuel From Corn/Other Crops t . . 8
7. Tailpipe Testing/Inspection 8
B. Vehicle Fees/Taxes/Rebates 9
1. General 9
2. Higher Registration Fees 9
3. Increased Bridge Tolls 10
4. Fees for Single Occupancy Vehicles 11
5. Fees for Motorists Driving Long Distance 11
6. Vehicle Buy-Back Programs 12
7. Clean Vehicle Rebates Through Reduced State Sales Taxes . . 13
8. Fee on High Emission Fuels 15
9. Congestion Pricing 15
10. Parking Fees at Shopping Centers 16
11. Pay As You Drive Automobile Insurance 17
C. Carpooling/Ride Sharing 18
1. Carpooling/Ridesharing Programs 18
2. Businesses Required to Submit Trip Reduction Plans 21
3. Examples of Employees Incentives 24
4. Businesses Charging for Employee Parking 28
5. Tax Breaks for Employers That Encourage Commuting 29
6. Telecommuting . : 30
7. Walk/Jog/Bicycle 31
8. 4-Day Work Week 34
9. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 35
n
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
D. Mass Transit 35
1. General 35
2. Light Rail/Maglev 37
3. Metro 38
4. Buses 39
5. Van Pools 42
E. Restrictions on Road Construction 42
II. Fireplace Control Measures 43
III. Green Tax/Carbon Tax/Emission Fees 44
IV. Consumer Products Control 48
V. Grants/Awards for Innovation Assistance 48
VI. Green Labeling 48
VII. Charges for Waste Disposal 52
VIII. Increased Permit Fees/Inspection Fees (Facilities) 52
IX. Requirements for New Residential/Commercial Development 53
X. Public Education 54
XI. Emissions Trading/Offsets 54
XII. Adverse Publicity 56
XIII. Incentives for Tree Planting 57
XIV. Incentives to Reduce Electric Demand 57
XV. Environmental Cities Coalition 63
111
-------
I. Transportation Control Measures
A. Alternative Fuels
1. Alternative Fuel Requirements (General)
a. Colorado - passed a bill that calls for 10% of new motor vehicles
bought or leased by the State during 1991-92 to run on clean-
burning alternative fuels. Each year through 1994 and 1995, an
additional 10% of all new vehicles will have to use alternative fuels.
The State also provides a $200 rebate to anyone who buys a clean-
fuel vehicle or retrofits an existing car or truck. Tilley, C.R. "Clean
Air and Natural Gas Vehicles." Public Utilities Fortnightly.
September 13, 1990, p. 31.
b. Utah ~ Utah legislature may vote in favor of a plan to eliminate the
sales tax on alternative-fueled vehicles, one of 123 recommendations
adopted in summer 1990 by the Governor's Commission on Clean
Air. The exemption covers sales of motor vehicles or equipment for
converting existing vehicles and refueling equipment that meet 1990
CAA. "Alternative Fuels: Politics Threatens New York Program
for Must-Buy Clean Fueled Vehicles" Energy Report. January 14,
1991. (Newsletter)
c. California - 1995 rules establish strict emission limits for low-
emission vehicles (LEVs) and provide an incentive for alternative-
fueled and electric vehicles "Cuomo: New York Will Adopt
California Auto Standards" Air Water Pollution Report March 4,
1991. (Newsletter)
d. Access to ride lanes or preferential parking for alternative fuel cars
"The Greening of Detroit" Business Week April 8, 1991, p. 60.
2. Natural Gas
a. Pennsylvania - The Pennsylvania Energy Office provided the State's
alternative fuels program with $10 million last year. The energy
office committed half of that funding to private companies, transit
authorities, a State university, and several local governments for the
conversion of 124 fleet vehicles to natural gas. The program is also
assisting the demonstration of a dedicated natural gas bus in
Altoona's transit system. And 63 Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation vehicles are set to be converted to natural gas.
pjh.Ol
-------
Through public-private partnership with the Pennsylvania Energy
Office, Columbia Gas is converting 25 transit authority vehicles in
York where they own and operate a refueling station. Columbia
Gas was instrumental in developing the nation's first dedicated
natural gas bus and loaned the bus for field testing to the transit
authority in Columbus, Ohio, which has been using it in regular
service 5 days/week since early 1990. Tilley, C.R. "Clean Air and
Natural Gas Vehicles." Public Utilities Fortnightly. September 13,
1990, pp. 31, 34.
b. Broward County. Florida - Gray Line Corp. is seeking approval to
operate 50 buses, mini-buses, and vans on compressed natural gas
(CNG) instead of diesel fuel or gasoline. Gray Line wants
$2.25 million to buy 15 new buses and vans that operate on CNG,
and to convert 35 existing vans from gasoline to the alternative
fuels. Of that money, 20 percent will come from Gray Line. The
rest will be subsidized by taxpayers through Federal and State funds.
Under the latest plan, Gray Line would purchase 5 new 40-foot
buses, 5 minibuses, and 5 vans, all used to shuttle passengers to and
from the county's Tri-Rail Stations. If approved by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, Gary Line could begin operating the
new vehicles by early 1992. "Gray Line Proposes Clean Bus Tax
Dollars Sought for Natural Gas Plan" Sun Sentinel July 23, 1991,
p. 5B.
c. T. Boone Pickens head of the Mesa Limited Partnership told the
Natural Gas Roundtable that consumers should get a $2,000 tax
credit during the first year they own a vehicle capable of running on
natural gas or another alternative to gasoline. "Alternative Fuels:
Pickens, Energy Group Push Incentives for Consumers Who Buy
Clean Cars." Energy Report. December 10, 1990 (Newsletter)
d. Los Angeles/San Diego/San Francisco Bay. The TecoDrive 7000
CNG powered engines certified by CARB will fuel 10 new school
buses by some Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco Bay area
school districts beginning next September. It is built by Tecogen
Inc., Waltham, Mass. CARB data show the CNG powered buses
(which seat 66 students each) emit less than 1/3 of the HC and
NOX emissions allowed by the CARB emission limits.
The 10 Tecogen buses are being built through a $700,000 grant from
the California Energy Commission. The grant is part of a $100
million California program established to replace more than 460
school buses built before 1977 with new, cleaner running models.
pjh.Ol
-------
The first 163 school buses, built at a cost of $20 million, are
expected to be available for service by next September. They
include 103 diesel powered models and 50 that use methanol in
addition to the 10 CNG buses. An additional 300 buses, which may
cost as much as $40 million, are expected to be built this year. "U.S.
Gas Fueled Vehicle Program Intensifies." Oil & Gas Journal.
April 15, 1991, p. 32.
e. British Columbia -- In a conference entitled "Roads to Alternative
Fuels" held July 1990, participants heard a first-hand account of a
government-supported program introducing an alternative
transportation fuel. Bill Hennessey of British Columbia (BC) Gas
described a 10-year, province-wide program to convert privately
owned gasoline autos and light-duty trucks to natural gas.
Initially, the program was hampered by poor quality conversions
performed by inadequately trained mechanics. Consumers also were
wary of the lack of sufficient refueling stations, and of various
problems with station equipment. BC Gas and the government took
a more proactive role. As an incentive to those interested in
opening a refueling station, risk-free, money-backed financing was
offered, based on a minimum sales volume. Station operators were
provided with engineering assistance. Conversion mechanics were
specially licensed, conversion warranties underwritten, and the costs
of resolving customer complaints were substantially covered.
Although the Canadian government abolished fuel taxes on natural
gas and sales tax on the conversion kits, the relatively low price of
gasoline through the 1980's acted as a deterrent to consumer
participation in the conversion program. Since 1984, -11,000
vehicles have been converted. "Roads to Alternative Fuels" ITS
Review November 1990, pp. 2-3.
3. Mcthanol/Ethanol
a. Nebraska. Has a market-expansion program to increase ethanol
demand, including an ethanol production credit equal to
20 cents/gal; an excise tax reduction on 10% methanol blends,
taxing them at 2 cents/gal less than gasoline; cooperative marketing
services for gasoline marketers; an equity investment program
through the Nebraska Ethanol Authority and Development Board; a
full-time industry assistance program; and performance-based tax-
abatement help. "Refiners Should Look to Mixing Oxygenate in
Gasoline Formulas" International Solar Energy Intelligence Report.
October 19, 1990. (Newsletter)
pjh.Ol
-------
b. The United States' National Corn Growers Association wants any
new energy legislation to require use of 10 percent ethanol-blend
fuels in all federal vehicle fleets; appropriate funding for ethanol
research and development that is equal to money provided for
alternative fuels; and establish federal investment tax credits for
expanding existing ethanol plants and constructing new plants. "The
United States' National Corn Growers Association" Greenhouse
Effect Report. April 9, 1991 (Newsletter)
c. California - Methanol can be used in fuel-flexible vehicles that
automatically adjust to operate on alcohol fuels or gasoline, or both.
The California Energy Commission plans to place 5,000 of these
fuel-flexible vehicles with government and private fleets throughout
the State by 1993.
California has used fuel-flexible vehicles since 1987. In 1990,
210 Ford built fuel-flexible vehicles were placed with government
and private fleets in California. In addition, there are 20 General
Motors Chevrolet Corsica variable fuel vehicles in California fleets.
California Energy Commission variable fuel demonstration programs
for 1991 include the Chevrolet Lumina, the Ford Taurus, and the
Volkswagen Jetta. "Alternate Fuels Come of Age." Moore, R.E.
Gene. The Journal of State Government Vol 63. p. 93.
d. Iowa - The Des Moines Metro Transit Authority will become the
first city bus system to turn its entire fleet into vehicles that operate
on 80% diesel and 20% ethanol injection by as early as May 1991.
The Des Moines project will be funded primarily by a $4.2 million
Federal grant and about $1 million in local and private dollars. The
project could have a significant effect on the economy of this corn-
growing State. "Corn-Fed Buses" State Government News, p. 35.
(date?)
e. Illinois « By 1992, the Greater Peoria Mass Transit District will
replace 14 of its diesel buses with ones that run on 100% ethanol.
The $4 million project will be paid for with a $2.1 million Federal
grant, about $1 million from State government, and the remaining
from the private sector. Bradley University in Peoria plans to study
the direct and indirect costs of ethanol once the Peoria buses are in
operation. The project could have a significant effect on the
economy of this corn-growing State. "Corn-Fed Buses" State
Government News, p. 35. (date?)
pjh.01
-------
4. Use of Electric Cars
a. Pennsylvania ~ Legislation in House of Representatives to eliminate
the Pennsylvania State sales tax, registration, and inspection fees for
electrically powered vehicles. "US, French Politicians Encourage
Use of Electric Cars" Business and the Environment. February 22,
1991 (Newsletter)
b. France - Proposed tax rebate for buyers of electric cars "US, French
Politicians Encourage Use of Electric Cars" Business and the
Environment. February 22, 1991 (Newsletter)
c. California — Legislation has been introduced to provide Federal
funds for States to encourage development of electric car technology
and the regional infrastructure to support it.
At the Federal level, a new bill "the Electric Vehicle Research,
Development and Commercialization Act of 1991" would establish a
10-year $50-million demonstration program for large or polluted
cities to buy electric vehicles for their municipal fleets. It would
also set aside $10 million a year for 3 years for joint ventures with
industry to develop electric car infrastructure and $5 million a year
for 5 years to assist States with planning and seed money for
alternative-fuel vehicles. Also, plans to establish a Federal fund to
assist States in developing the technology to nurture electric vehicle
production. The bill would also set up a capital pool of matching
Federal funds for States to sponsor regional corporations to support
development of an electric vehicle industry with ventures such as
industrial parks or telecommunication services. "Officials Plug
Electric Cars to Recharge Economy" Los Angeles Times May 5,
1991, p. 3-B.
d. Los Angeles. CA — The Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (DWP) and Southern California Edison last year awarded a
$7-million contract to a Swedish firm, Clean Air Transport (CAT),
to produce at least 6,000 hybrid electric cars for sale in the Los
Angeles market. The luxury sedans, to be fueled by a combination
of electricity and a small internal engine, would initially cost an
estimated $25,000 each and would have a range of 150 miles. They
are slated to hit city roads within the next 4 years. The firm's plans
call for production of 35,000 cars by 1997. Arizona and Utah, Great
Britain and various counties in Sweden have also approached the
high-tech firm about hosting a long-term production plant.
pjh.Ol
-------
The CAT sedan will have a top speed of 70 mph and accelerate
form 0 to 30 mph in 9 seconds. Their batteries must be replaced
every several years at a cost of $800 to $5,000 per car - depending
on the number and the nature of the batteries. "Officials Plug
Electric Cars to Recharge Economy" Los Angeles Times May 5,
1991, p. 3-B.
f»
e. Westchester. CA -- The DWP and Edison also launched a $2-million
research project last year to build an electrified roadway in
Westchester. An electric cable is being installed beneath the
pavement on a 1,000-foot segment of a lightly traveled street below
Westchester bluffs. Two electric vans and a passenger bus will be
equipped to draw power from the street by tapping a magnetic field
created by the electrified roadway. This could be the first step
toward a full-scale powered roadway in Los Angeles. "Officials Plug
Electric Cars to Recharge Economy" Los Angeles Times May 5,
1991, p. 3-B.
f. Sacramento. CA ~ The Air Resources Board is implementing new
legislation to give electric vehicle (EV) buyers an income tax credit
of up to $1,000 and partial sales-tax exemption. "Ready! Set! . . .
Charge?" Los Angeles Times. August 7, 1991, p. E-l.
g. California — Throughout California, utility companies are designing
incentive programs, such as deductions for recharging at night when
the electric power load is reduced. "Ready! Set! . . . Charge?" Los
Angeles Times. August 7, 1991, p. E-l.
h. Los Angeles. CA -- Under the Los Angeles Vehicle Initiative, Los
Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude in 1988 sponsored a
worldwide competition for the design of 10,000 electric vehicles for
Southern California drivers. That resulted in a contract with Clean
Air Transport, a Swedish-English consortium that is designing a
hybrid gasoline-electric, 4-passenger sedan. The car will be priced
in the mid-$20,000 range and franchised through local automobile
dealers.
The City Council in July passed a series of recommendations to
make Los Angeles an "electric vehicle-ready city." The plan includes
massive installation of battery-charging outlets at public and private
parking facilities throughout the city. "Ready! Set! ... Charge?"
Los Angeles Times. August 7, 1991, p. E-l.
pjh.Ol
-------
i. Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler announced earlier this year that
they had formed a joint venture to share the costs of research
designed to produce a technological breakthrough. They have
pledged $35 million to the project and plan to raise $100 million
annually by 1993 from the government and electric utilities for the
consortium, known as the United States Advance Battery
Consortium. They are addressing the need to produce a lighter,
cheaper, more durable battery. "Officials Plug Electric Cars to
Recharge Economy" Los Angeles Times May 5, 1991, p. 3-B.
j. Phoenix. AZ ~ The Solar and Electric 500 car race is scheduled for
April 5-7 to showcase the latest in solar- and electric-car technology.
American Honda recently stepped forward with a "zinc-air" battery-
powered entry. General Motors also has announced that it will
retool its Lansing, MI factory to produce its first electric car, the
Impact, possibly by 1993. Development of the alternative
technology has taken on a new urgency, with California mandating
that automakers produce at least 10% no emission-meaning
electric-cars by 2003. Ernie Holden, who founded the Solar and
Electric Racing Association, hopes the race will bring together
leaders in the field and promote innovation. "Electric, Solar Cars
Will Race in Valley" Arizona Republic March 13, 1991, p. B-l.
k. Los Angeles. CA — 10 LA-area bus lines would be served by electric
trolley buses under a preliminary plan approved by the Southern
California Rapid Transit District (RTD) late last month. The 10
RTD bus lines being considered for electrification carry about
250,000 passengers daily along 150 miles of routes. The 7-year cost
estimate of converting the lines to electric trolleybus service is $570
million. "Regional, State, Local Briefs" Urban Transport News
April 4, 1991, p. 54. (Newsletter)
5. Low Emission Vehicles
a. New York State - State officials proposed Low Emission Vehicle
standards modeled after rules in California and would affect model
year 1995 cars and light trucks sold in New York. The new proposal
would not set one uniform limit on tailpipe emissions. Car
manufacturers could make vehicles that meet 5 different sets of
standards. The annual average of each manufacturer's fleet would
have to comply with an average limit, which would grow more
stringent each year. Beginning in 1998, manufacturers would be
required to start selling "zero emission vehicles," which would
probably be electric. The fleet averaging provision may allow New
York to direct the cleanest operating vehicles to the most polluted
pjh.Ol
-------
DRAFT
areas of the State through incentive programs and fleet purchase
requirements "New Car Emission Rules" Newsday July 30, 1991,
p. 27.
6. Fuel From Corn/Other Crops
a. North Carolina Solar Energy Association suggested slashing taxes on
fuels made out of corn or other crops. "North Carolina" Air Water
Pollution Report May 1990 (Newsletter)
7. Tailpipe Testing/Inspection
a. The waiver limit is a ceiling on expenditures that must be
undertaken if a vehicle fails an inspection/maintenance (I/M) test.
The higher the ceiling, the greater the probability that an older
vehicle will be scrapped rather than repaired. Of the 9 severe
ozone nonattainment areas, only Houston has no waiver limit.
Connecticut has a $40 limit, Philadelphia a $25 limit on pre-1975
and a $50 limit on newer vehicles, Baltimore a $75 limit, Milwaukee
a $55 limit, California a $50 limit for pre-1972 cars, $90 for 1972-
1974 cars, and $125 for 1975-79 cars. Sierra Research, the Office of
Technology Assessment, and the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers
Association argue that the waiver limits should be raised to $300-
$500. Higher waiver limits would accelerate the scrapping of
vehicles with market values below the waiver limit.
b. Several of the 65 State I/M testing programs in existence exempt
older vehicles from I/M requirements. Of the 9 severe ozone
nonattainment areas, Baltimore has the largest exemption: only 1977
and newer models are included in its program. California includes
models since 1966; Milwaukee includes models up to 15 years old.
Connecticut, Chicago, and Houston include models since 1968.
New York City includes all vehicles in their I/M program. The
Office of Technology Assessment recommends including all vehicles
because it would stimulate the replacement of older vehicles by
increasing the relative cost of keeping them registered. Reducing
Emissions From Older Vehicles. Robert Anderson, American
Petroleum Institute, Research Study #053. August 1990, p. 30.
pjh.Ol 8
-------
B. Vehicle Fees/Taxes/Rebates
1. General
a, Los Angeles. CA - Southern California's plague of smog and traffic
could be significantly reduced with 5 incentive-based traffic policies
suggested by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Regional
Institute of Southern California.
These policies, promoted as part of a project called Cleaning
Southern California's Air and Protecting its Economy (CSCAPE)
include: 1) Removing employer parking subsidies and allowing
employers to offer cash incentives to employees who relinquish paid
parking privileges. Free or heavily-subsidized parking is a major
inducement for commuters to drive alone. 2) Instituting non-
employee parking pricing at major activity centers such as shopping
malls, high schools, and universities. In addition, local zoning
practices that currently encourage free parking could be amended
with reduced parking requirements. 3) Implementing peak-period
congestion fees to relieve traffic during heavy commuting hours
(road pricing). 4) Deregulating transit to allow expanded use of
private transit services similar to those that currently serve many
airports. Deregulation could make van services, for example, more
efficient and a favorable option for commuters. 5) Assessing smog
fees on cars in proportion to the number of miles driven and vehicle
emissions produced. This policy would reward drivers who cut
automobile use and who buy and maintain less-polluting vehicles.
Low-income drivers would be assessed smog fees at a lower rate
than higher income persons. Carpoolers would pay less and public
transit users would pay nothing under these policies, but single
occupant vehicles would pay the full fee, which could average $5 to
$6 per day on normal workdays. "Environmentalists Suggest
Incentives to Clear Up Smog, Traffic Congestion" Urban Transport
News April 4, 1991, p. 50. (Newsletter)
2. Higher Registration Fees
a. Washington State ~ Washington Environment 2010 program
proposes to increase registration fees for cars with poor gas mileage,
discourage commuting by cars alone, require Stage II vapor recovery
for gas stations, and expand Inspection and Maintenance programs
beyond the Seattle and Spokane areas. "Around the States:
Washington" Air Water Pollution Report. June 11, 1990
(Newsletter)
pjh.Ol
-------
b. San Diego. CA - San Diego Association of Governments is
considering an increased registration fee for motorists who own
more than one car. "Around the States: CALIFORNIA - Some
San Diego motorists spoke sharply against an emissions fee" Air
Water Pollution Report June 10, 1991 (Newsletter)
c. Los Angeles. CA - The AQMD plan also includes a
recommendation that the Legislature revise registration fees to
increase the cost of driving older, higher-polluting vehicles. "Junkers
-- Targets in Smog War." Los Angeles Times March 20, 1991,
p. 1-A.
d. Salem. OR ~ Oregon Environmental Council worked during the
legislative session to pass a much stronger clean-air bill, one that
would have charged motorists a fee based on the kind of car driven
and the amount of miles traveled. Those with old, gas-guzzling cars
and plenty of time on the road would have faced the heftiest fees.
"Governor Signs Wide Clean Air Bill" Oregonian August 6, 1991,
p. B-l.
e. Ventura County. CA - The Ventura County Board of Supervisors
voted to add $2 to the annual registration fee, which raises the cost
of registering a car to $28. The fee will fund 8 anti-smog programs,
including 4 designed to reduce smog generated by cars. Those
program include one to promote ride-sharing and another to require
large companies to purchase vehicles that run on cleaner fuels such
as methanol. "County Hikes Fees For Car Registration" Los
Angeles Times May 8, 1991, p. B-l.
3. Increased Bridge Tolls
a. San Francisco. CA ~ San Francisco Commission called for
increasing bridge tolls from $1 to $2 and creating a combined
gasoline tax and smog fee that could boost the price of gasoline to
$4/gal. "San Francisco Commission Drafts Strict Measures for
Cleaning Air" Air Water Pollution Report July 16, 1990 (Newsletter)
b. Sacramento. CA ~ A Senate report, "Blueprint for Our Future:
Safeguarding California's Environment" said the State could raise
fuel taxes and bridge tolls and even turn congested freeways into toll
roads to encourage motorists to abandon the State's increasingly
crowded highways "State Studies Tolls, Taxes for Drivers" San Jose
Mercury News January 23, 1991, p. 8B.
pjh.Ol 10
-------
DRAFT
c. Kings Beach. CA ~ Lake Tahoe would face toll booths at Emerald
Bay under a plan being considered by a coalition of 12
organizations. The Tahoe Transportation Coalition, which includes
environmentalists and representatives of the gaming and ski
industries, agreed a free basinwide transit system could ease the
problems. Coalition members said one way to pay for such a system
would be to set up toll booths at both sides of Emerald Bay during
the summer months. The coalition also considered a 1/2 cent
basinwide sales tax to raise funds for transit services and a drive to
encourage private businesses to provide shuttle service to resort
areas. 'Toll Booth Recommended to Ease Tahoe Congestion"
Sacramento Bee Monday, July 15, 1991, p. B-3.
4. Fees for Single Occupancy Vehicles
a. South Coast. CA ~ Task Force suggests commuters pay fees for
driving alone during rush hour, forcing them to switch to mass
transportation -- the new Los Angeles County Blue Line light rail,
buses or carpool. Also suggests prohibiting employers from
subsidizing employees' parking costs. "Regional, State, Local Briefs:
California" Urban Transport News July 26, 1990 (Newsletter)
5. Fees for Motorists Driving Long Distance
a. San Diego. CA ~ San Diego Association of Governments
considering charging motorists for driving long distances. "Around
the States: CALIFORNIA - Some San Diego motorists spoke
sharply against an emissions fee" Air Water Pollution Report
June 10, 1991 (Newsletter)
b. Salem. OR -- Under Senate Bill 1089, automobile owners would pay
a fee based on odometer readings and type of car. Someone who
drives a fuel-efficient car about 15,000 miles a year would pay about
$150. "Panel Reviews Dirty Air Fees" Oregonian April 25, 1991,
p. D-4.
c. Los Angeles. CA - The AQMD agreed to proceed with a
requirement for local governments to enact air quality programs that
would shorten commutes. For instance, a city could require new
housing to be near jobs and vice versa, or encourage development
near mass transit stations. "AQMD Approves Changes to Region's
Clean Air Plan" Los Angeles Times July 13, 1991, p. A-l.
pjh.Ol 11
-------
DRAFT
d. Los Angeles. CA - AQMD plan contingency measures include:
Smog taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels; official odometer readings,
perhaps corresponding with smog checks, which would be used to
calculate a pollution fee based on mileage and the model year. A
1983 car, say the example in the proposed plan, could be assessed
$88.90 for 10,000 miles; smog charges in addition to regular rates at
parking lots; prohibiting lone drivers from entering the freeway
system during summers, the Los Angeles smog season; summertime
rationing of gasoline and diesel fuel; requiring work at home and
shutdowns of most government offices during Stage 1 smog alerts;
limiting the number of vehicles registered in the 4-county area.
"Officials Hope to Drive Up Costs of Solo Commuting" Los
Angeles Times April 9, 1991, p. A-5.
6. Vehicle Buy-Back Programs
a. Los Angeles -- UNOCAL to purchase 7,000 pre-1971 automobiles
through automobile repurchase program SCRAP (South Coast
Recycled Auto Program). UNOCAL also to offer free engine tune-
ups to owners or pre-1975 automobiles during the off-year of the
State's biennial inspection program at its UNOCAL Protech
Stations. As third initiative, UNOCAL to fund a highway patrol to
reduce traffic tie-ups (six vans outfitted to jump-start batteries,
change flat tires, provide air, water, and gasoline to get motorists off
the road to nearest service station) "UNOCAL Plans Innovative
Emission Reduction Effort in Los Angeles" Environment Week.
May 10, 1990 (Newsletter)
b. San Francisco. CA ~ Revenues from tolls, taxes, and fees would go
toward mass transit and perhaps a plan to purchase and junk older,
more polluting vehicles. "San Francisco Commission Drafts Strict
Measures for Cleaning Air" Air Water Pollution Report July 16,
1990 (Newsletter)
c. Los Angeles. CA ~ The latest SCAQMD smog-fighting plan suggests
buying and scrapping 250,000 junkers by 1996. The AQMD
envisions a buyback foundation financed by corporate contributions.
One question is whether a large-scale buyback program could make
California "a magnet for junkers". People would bring them to sell
them to UNOCAL or to sell them to people who sell their cars to
UNOCAL.
From June through October of 1990, UNOCAL and Ford Motor
Co. bought more than 8,000 pre-1971 cars for $700 apiece for the
demonstration, a public-relations gesture. Sellers had to register
their cars in the 4-county areas under the AQMD's jurisdiction.
pjh.Ol 12
-------
Also, they needed to prove they had owned the cars for at least 6
months. The autos had to be driven to the downtown scrap where
transactions were consummated. "Junkers -- Targets in Smog War."
Los Angeles Times March 20, 1991, p. 1-A.
d. California —• Two new programs in California will buy and scrap
older cars. In December 1989, the State of California and the City
of Salinas reached an agreement under which a proposed
cogeneration facility would "mitigate environmental effects to the
level of insignificance" through the buyback of older passenger cars
in the area. Under the agreement, the O'Brien cogeneration plant
will buy and scrap 120 vehicles annually, if that many can be
acquired from the fleet registered in the Monterey Bay air pollution
district, or 175 vehicles annually, if vehicles registered in the San
Jose SMSA are included. To the extent that actual emissions from
the facility in a year vary from a total of 169.3 tons/year, the
number of vehicles purchased will be multiplied by the ratio of the
sum of total emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO in tons to 169.3.
UNOCAL announced in April 1990 that it would buy and scrap up
to 7,000 pre-1971 model cars currently registered in the Los Angeles
area through a flat offer of $700 per vehicle. The program is
intended to demonstrate one means of lessening air pollution in the
area. Contributions by Ford Motor Co. and local Ford dealers have
expanded the program by about 1,000 vehicles. UNOCAL expects
to complete the program by mid-September 1990. Reducing
Emissions From Older Vehicles. Robert Anderson, American
Petroleum Institute, Research Study #053. August 1990, p. 31.
7. Clean Vehicle Rebates Through Reduced State Sales Taxes
a. California - DRIVE+ (demand-based reduction in vehicle
efficiency plus improvements in fuel economy) is to give drivers who
buy new, efficient, clean vehicles rebates through reduced State sales
taxes. "Alternative Fuels: Pickens, Energy Group Push Incentives
for Consumers Who Buy Clean Cars." Energy Report. December
10, 1990 (Newsletter)
b. California — Reintroduced an auto-pollution tax to double the
State's usual 4.5% sales tax for a car that pollutes a lot and waive
the tax on a low-pollution model. "The Greening of Detroit"
Business Week April 8, 1991, p. 59.
pjh.Ol 13
-------
c. California ~ might require auto makers to withhold some models
from the California market to achieve higher overall fuel economy.
Or, more likely, a "fee-bate" plan where the State would charge a
fee to people who buy less fuel-efficient cars and give rebates to
those who buy fuel-stingy ones. "Bold Designs, Exotic Fuels Seek to
Curb Oil Appetite" Los Angeles Times March 25, 1991, p. 1-A.
t>
d. Washington State - To encourage the purchase of cleaner-running
cars, a $125 sales tax would be slapped on the worst polluters.
Covering about a quarter of all new-car sales, the list would include
most luxury cars, most light trucks, and a few economy models.
Also, motorists would pay an annual $2.50 fee with their vehicle
registration. "Who Would Get Hit the Hardest?" Seattle Times
March 7, 1991, p. B2.
e. California. Massachusetts ~ The California House and Senate in
1990 enacted a "Drive-Plus" initiative, which finances rebates for
relatively efficient and nonpolluting motor vehicles by taxing the
poorer performers in the same vehicle classes (CA Senate Bill No.
1905 1990). This sliding scale fee-rebate system addresses emissions
of hydrocarbons, NOX, CO, and PM, in addition to CO2 Although
Drive-Plus was vetoed by outgoing California Governor George
Deukmejian, it is expected to be reintroduced in 1991. "Statehouse
Effect Combats Greenhouse Effect" Cavanagh, Ralph C. and
Arthur H. Rosenfeld. The Journal of State Government. Vol. 63, p.
95.
f. California — An interesting variant on the rebate approach is the
revenue-neutral "feebate," a self-financing mechanism that charges
fees to purchasers of inefficient products and uses those funds to
provide rebates to purchasers of efficient products. A feebate bill
for cars passed the California legislature in 1990 by a 7 to 1 margin
but was vetoed by outgoing Gov. Dukmejian. It proposed a 7% tax
(the going rate) for the average vehicle, zero tax for the most
efficient models, and a 13.5% tax for the worst performers. A
$20,000 gas guzzler would therefore cost an additional $1,300 under
this plan. The new governor, Pete Wilson, is said to support the
idea, and proponents are pushing for greater rewards and penalties
in the bill's next version. Meanwhile, Massachusetts legislature is
considering a similar measure. "How to Improve Energy Efficiency"
Shepard, Michael Issues in Science and Technology Summer 1991,
p. 90.
pjh.Ol 14
-------
8. Fee on High Emission Fuels
a. San Diego. CA -- San Diego Association of Governments is
considering a polluting fuels fee on fuel distributors to discourage
use of high emission fuels. "Around the States: CALIFORNIA —
Some San Diego Motorists Spoke Sharply Against an Emissions
Fee" Air Water Pollution Report June 10, 1991 (Newsletter)
9. Congestion Pricing
a. San Francisco. CA - With "congestion pricing," cars might be fit
with electric transponders and the drivers hit with a fee every time
they pass key congestion points. "A Push To Cut Traffic 35% in 7
Years" San Francisco Chronicle January 16, 1991, p. Al.
b. Los Angeles. CA — The Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) has called for establishing a pilot project with
roadway congestion fees. Most likely, the experiment will be
conducted on a 10-mile stretch of the 91 Freeway in Orange County,
where a private company plans to open 4 express lanes in 1994
alongside the existing 8 public lanes. Officials envision a $2 toll
during rush hours and $1 toll at other times. Car pools, at least for
the first 2 years, would ride free. "Officials Hope to Drive Up Costs
of Solo Commuting" Los Angeles Times April 9, 1991, p. A-l.
c. Singapore. In Singapore, road pricing (which made its debut in
1975) consisted of buying a special license that was required to drive
in the downtown area. But with new Intelligent Vehicle Highway
Systems (IVHS) technology, the technique is becoming electronically
monitored and more sophisticated. "Road Pricing Can Increase
Mass Transit But Risks Opposition From Motorists" Urban
Transport News. March 21, 1991, p. 42. (Newsletter)
d. Cambridge. England. City officials are considering a road pricing
strategy that might take effect in 1996. Under the Cambridge plan,
motorists would pay for becoming involved in traffic congestion.
Each car that travels into downtown Cambridge would be required
to have an electronic meter. Roadside beacons would automatically
switch on the meters when the cars entered the city and switch the
meters off as the cars left. While the cars were in free flowing
traffic, the meters would not register a charge. But if the vehicles
hit congestion, the meters would start to clock up a charge for as
long as the motorists were stationary. The charge would start when
the vehicles made 4 stops in 500 meters.
pjh.Ol 15
-------
DRAFT
* Motorists would not be able to operate their cars without the meters
running. They would have to buy prepaid electronic cards to put
into the meters. If the cards ran out of credit, the next time the
motorists shut off their engines for more than 30 seconds, the
engines could not be restarted. "Road Pricing Can Increase Mass
Transit But Risks Opposition From Motorists" Urban Transport
News. March 21, 1991, p. 42. (Newsletter)
e. Los Angeles. CA. In the U.S., the closest thing to road pricing is
the Los Angeles area's Regulation XV. Major employers are
required to increase ridesharing by employees or face stiff fines.
But another Southern California proposal would require motorists to
buy special passes to use the freeways. Motorists who rideshare
would not need passes. "Road Pricing Can Increase Mass Transit
But Risks Opposition From Motorists" Urban Transport News.
March 21, 1991, p. 42. (Newsletter)
f. California - In late February, the University of California
Transportation Center (UCTC) and a group of invited participants
from government and industry met in San Diego for a 2-day
workshop on congestion pricing. Congestion pricing seeks to
alleviate traffic problems by charging motorists for their contribution
to congestion-raising and lowering transportation fees according to
levels of congestion at specific times of day and at specific locations.
Several workshop sessions centered around pricing experiments to
take place on privately owned-and-operated toll roads.
Developers of some privately built highway projects are considering
applying variable tolls-prices that would vary as levels of congestion
vary, thus offering motorists an incentive to leave a crowded
highway and ride the congestion-free toll road, or to leave their cars
at home and ride public transit. "UCTC Contributes to Education
and Research" ITE Journal February 1991, pp. 2-3.
10. Parking Fees at Shopping Centers
a. California - Earlier proposals called for harsher $3-a-day fees, not
only at work, but at malls and movie theaters, and on streets.
"Employee Parking Fee Plan Shelved" San Jose Mercury News
February 28, 1991, p. 1-C.
b. Los Angeles. CA - The 1991 AQMD plan will require employers of
staffs of at least 50 to expand ride-sharing. Students ar colleges and
possibly at high schools also will be targets of ride-sharing programs.
Shopping Centers, stadiums, concert halls and other so-called "event
centers' also will be required to come up with similar programs to
pjh.Ol 16
-------
reduce traffic (such as imposing limits on free parking at shopping
centers). "AQMD Approves Changes to Region's Clean Air Plan"
Los Angeles Times July 13, 1991, p. A-l.
c. Los Angeles. CA ~ One rule, anticipated for AQMD consideration
by 1995, would require facilities such as stadiums, concert halls,
shopping malls, and civic auditoriums to develop programs to reduce
the number of cars they attract. Such as parking lot fees and shuttle
buses. "40 New Rules Proposed to Clean Southland Air" Los
Angeles Times February 1, 1991, p. A-5.
11. Pay As You Drive Automobile Insurance
a. Pay As You Drive (PAYD) is a proposal for automobile insurance
which charges for insurance at the gas pump, raising the apparent
price of gasoline by about Si/gallon. This proposal would reduce
the gasoline use of existing cars by 10% in the short term and by up
to 30% in the long term, improve the market for fuel-efficient cars,
and solve the problem of uninsured motorists, who add about 25%
to premiums.
Although the risk of an auto accident is proportional to annual
miles driven, U. S. insurance premiums are only about 15% less for
low or zero-mileage drivers. PAYD benefits these drivers because
premiums are proportional to actual miles driven. "Statehouse
Effect Combats Greenhouse Effect" Cavanagh, Ralph C. and
Arthur H. Rosenfeld. The Journal of State Government. Vol. 63, p.
95.
b. California ~ A fuel surcharge of 50 cents/gallon would cost the
average California motorists $300/yr. But if your insurance bill
were cut by more than that, you might find very attractive the idea
of paying for auto insurance at the pump.
Under the "Pay as You Drive" proposal recently put to the
California Energy Commission by energy expert Mohamed El-
Gassier, the new fuel surcharge collected by gas stations would be
turned over to a new fund created within the Franchise Tax Board.
This fund would take a small amount off the top to cover its costs of
operation and pay the rest, on the basis of a fixed amount per
insured vehicle, over to everyone's individual auto insurer. There
would be no additional matching. The insurers would charge extra
for additional insurance coverage.
pjh.Ol 17
-------
El-Grassier predicts that by having the driving public pay for auto
insurance as they drive, people would modify their behavior. More
commuters would carpool or take public transportation. To make
sure the insurance program is fair for both drivers with bad records
and novice drivers, the new State fund could be told to collect some
of its revenues from additional charges on drivers' license based on
one's driving experience and recent record of moving violation
citations. Also, some of the plan's revenue could be collected with
the annual registration of the vehicle-the amount paid based upon
the safety record of the model. "Pay-At-The-Pump Auto
Insurance?" Sacramento Bee June 9, 1991, p. F-l.
C. Carpooling/Ride Sharing
1. Carpooling/Ridesharing Programs
a. San Mateo County. CA. An unusual public/private partnership has
developed among 6 cities which have formed a joint powers
authority (JPA) to support mutually adopted transportation systems
management (TSM) ordinances. Following formation of the JAP,
the cities subcontracted with the San Mateo County Transit District
to assist in overseeing the administration of the effort.
The intercity TSM ordinances require the participation of every
employer in the 6 cities, as well as the sponsor of every multi-tenant,
non-residential building or group of buildings under common
ownership. The 4-year objective of these ordinances is to achieve a
25% employee participation rate in alternatives to the use of single-
occupant vehicles for commuting during peak traffic hours.
The authority is self-funded through a voter-approved 1/2-cent sales
tax passed in 1988 to fund transportation improvements. In fact, the
San Mateo County Transportation Authority, which determines
funding priorities and investment policies for the accumulated sales
tax revenue, has stipulated that a city in the county may receive
funds only if it has enacted a TSM ordinance. "San Mateo Cities
Fight Traffic Congestion" American City & County March 1991,
p. 26.
b. Connecticut ~ Connecticut's ride-sharing program is cutting CO2
emissions by about 83,000 tons/yr. "Global Warming~Too Hot to
Handle" State Government News August 1991, p. 10.
pjh.Ol 18
-------
c. Walnut Creek. CA -- In 1987, the City Council adopted Walnut
Creek's original employee commute incentive program. It offered
employees $15 transit discounts and a drawing for lunch for 2 to
those using a commute alternative. Little result. In January 1990,
the Council approved a plan which offered a new set of employee
benefits to those employees using commute alternatives. In a
3-pronged approach, employees who use a commute alternative
(walking, biking, transit riding, carpooling, or van pooling) can win
money, receive a transit discount, and earn time off.
Within each 10-day pay period, an employee who uses an alternative
can earn commute credit (a form has been designed to record their
activity). If an employee uses an alternative at least 3 times/week,
he/she automatically earns a 1/2 hour of time off. An employee
using an alternative at least once in 2 weeks can enter a drawing for
a $25/day award for each day he/she used an alternative (up to
$250 for a 10-day pay period). Discounted transit passes are also
sold to employees: one per month at the maximum allowable
Federal limit of $15.
An additional inducement is a Guaranteed Ride Home program.
This ensures employees will be able to use a city vehicle or have
someone drive them. This policy provides security to employees
who might be stranded without a car.
Citywide, employers are averaging a 15% participation rate with
their employees, while city employees are maintaining a 26%
participation rate. "Changing the Drive Alone Habit"
Grant, Joanna R. Western City June 1991, pp. 13-14.
d. Phoenix. AZ - The 1988 Arizona Omnibus Air Quality Bill requires
companies with 100 or more employees at any site to reduce the
number of miles they drive solo in their cars by 5% during each of
the next 2 years. This Travel Reduction Program currently affects
477 Valley employers at 727 work sites with some 380,000
employees, nearly 1/3 the valley's work force.
Some of the programs Valley businesses are using to help them
meet their goal:
• One law firm is paying 100% of the cost of bus passes for
employees who ride the bus.
• Sundstrand Aviation Operations offers rent subsidies to
employees in nearby apartments.
pjh.Ol 19
-------
• At the Chandler Regional Hospital, 33 full-time employees have
agreed to work 3 12-hour days instead of the usual 5 8-hour days.
5 more are working 10-hour days.
• The Sunburst Resort in Scottsdale is providing guaranteed
transportation for employees who car pool but might need a ride
home at odd times for emergencies.
• Motoral Government Electronics in Scottsdale is making showers
available to employees who want to bike to work.
The voluntary "Don't Drive One in Five" program, and a tightened
vehicle emissions check program also seem to have helped. In
addition, by law, all gasoline dispensed in Maricopa County from
Oct. 1 to March 31 must contain additives to make the fuel burn
cleaner -- MTBE or alcohol.
Checks at neighborhood sites show that since Oct. 1 there has been
only 1 day in the valley (in mid-Dec.) in which the concentration of
CO exceeded Federal standards. That's down from 3 such days last
year; and 11 days the year before that. "Thumbs Up For Car
Pooling-Valley Air Improves as Employers Offer Workers
Incentives" Phoenix Gazette Thursday, March 21, 1991,.p. D-10.
e. San Mateo County. CA ~ The San Mateo County Transit District
(SamTrans) recently introduced an employer discount pass program.
The program simplifies the purchasing and subsidizing of SamTrans
monthly passes to area employees. Employers who join the program
can sell the SamTrans passes to their employees for a 5% discount.
"San Mateo Introduces Employer Discount Pass Program" Urban
Transport News May 2, 1991, p. 72. (Newsletter)
f. Philadelphia. PA - Thousands of mass transit riders in the
Philadelphia area could be eligible for a $15/month tax-free subsidy
to help pay for their use of public transportation under a program
announced this month by local officials. Corporations in New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware are being asked to give their
workers the subsidy under terms of the 1984 Federal Deficit
Reduction Act and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which allow tax-
free fringe benefits. Government and transit officials describe it as
a major new effort to encourage use of mass transit.
Under the Commuter Benefit Program, participating area
companies will give employees tax-free transportation subsidies of
up to $15/month, issued in the form of vouchers called
TransitCheks. The vouchers can be bought from the Delaware
pjh.Ol 20
-------
Valley Regional Planning Commission, the group that developed the
plan. The vouchers can be used on SEPTA, NJ Transit,Amtrak,
PATCO, and all transit operators in Delaware.
Only 1 company, Keystone State Life Insurance, has signed up for
the program. But 55 other firms have expressed an interest,
including the PA Dept. of Transportation. "Marketing Moves:
Transitchek to Give Philadelphia Commuters Tax-Free Subsidy"
Urban Transport News June 27, 1991, p. 04. (Newsletter)
g. Los Angeles. CA -- The Southern California Rapid Transit District
(RTD) is offering a computerized planning service that gives drivers
personalized schedules for taking the bus between destinations.
Employers can pay the RTD $150 for a computer disc that is used
to plot the schedules. The commuters list their company location,
home address, and the times that they travel to and from work.
RTD customers service representatives then plan a route for each
employees. Within 10 days, the commuter receives a schedule,
which includes an alternate route, the estimated trip time, and the
cost. So far, 20 companies have signed up for the program's
customized schedules at a cost of 48 cents per employee.
The RTD plans to expand the program soon to include a telephone
service. Callers would be able to receive printouts of schedules
instantly at their companies. Other plans call for a bilingual version
of the service and a voice-activated computer calling system for fast
information. "L.A. Offers Customized Route Schedules on
Computer Disc for RTD Passengers" Urban Transport News
February 21, 1991, p. 38. (Newsletter)
2. Businesses Required to Submit Trip Reduction Plans
a. South Coast - SCAQMD now requires companies with 100 or more
employees to encourage alternative commuting through special
parking places or lower parking fees for car pools. "Southern
California Clean-Air Agency is Criticized; Environmentalists Assail
Proposed Delay But Union Leaders Call Plan Too Hard on Poor"
The Washington Post. May 1, 1991. Section A, p. 20.
b. South Coast ~ SCAQMD draft update of its 1989 plan has 40 new
control measures. One being an extension of the district's rideshare
incentive program~from firms with 100 employees or more to those
with 50 workers at a site. The update also proposes many market
incentives aimed at increasing the flexibility of air pollution
programs, with a "trading market" for air pollution permits and new
pjh.Ol 21
-------
emission fees for high-polluting automotive engines among them.
"California" Air Water Pollution Report February 11, 1991
(Newsletter)
c. South Coast ~ SCAQMD will make employers responsible to
encourage their employees to carpool, ride share, and ride buses to
and from work to reduce single occupancy vehicles (Regulation
XV). Each employer must submit a trip reduction plan called a
"transportation demand management" (TDM) program for achieving
average vehicle ridership (AVR) targets of 1.75 per vehicle for
central Los Angeles, 1.5 for remainder of Los Angeles-Orange-
Inland Empire metropolitan area, and 1.3 for areas beyond
metropolitan limit.
Suggested methods include: direct financial incentives for
ridesharing; establish carpool, buspool, or vanpool programs; partial
or full subsidy of parking for ridesharing employees; allowance for
employees to use company-owned fleet vehicles for ridesharing
purposes; preferential parking for vehicles used for ridesharing;
facility improvements that provide preferential access/egress for
ridesharing employees; active use of computerized ridesharing
matching services such as Commuter Computer; compressed work
weeks (4 days or 10-hour work days) or other flexible work hours
that facilitate employee ridesharing; "telecommuting" — working at
home.
According to a city ordinance, Los Angeles employers who have 100
or more employees and offer free or subsidized parking to
employees must offer a $15/month transit subsidy to each employee
to use in commuting. The $15 subsidy may be provided either as
transit passes, tickets or bus tokens, or tickets in the amount of
$15/month. The ordinance imposes a penalty of $100/day for each
separate violation of the ordinance. Monies collected as penalties
are to be placed in an employee transit subsidy account. Freedman,
Jeffrey C. "Commuting and Polluting" Los Angeles Lawyer. February
1990, pp. 11-13.
d. Thousand Oaks. CA ~ One attorney warned about the broadened
financial liabilities employers will face with worker's compensation .
If companies actively participated in setting up car pools and van
pools, injuries to workers coming or going from work will most
likely be covered under workers' compensation. Monthly raffles of
prizes as carpool incentives might be gambling. Employers also
cannot fine employees or reduce their salaries if workers choose not
to ride share. "Employers Discuss Commuting" Daily News of Los
Angeles February 22, 1991, p. T-l.
pjh.oi 22
-------
e. Seattle. WA - A bill passed the House that would require public
and private employers — eventually those with as few as 50
employees -- to devise ways to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips
by their workers. Reducing auto trips might involve incentives such
as subsidized transit passes, assistance in forming car pools,
employer-sponsored van pools, and stiff fees for parking g that is
now inexpensive or free.
A great idea on paper will soon be a reality at the University of
Washington in the form of a U-PASS, a plan to get students, faculty
members, and staff people out of their cars. Instead of commuters
driving alone, an inexpensive U-PASS will invite them to explore
cheaper, more efficient travel alternatives. "Kicking the Habit
Regional Air Quality is Driven to Distraction" Seattle Times
March 24, 1991, p. A-18.
t Los Angeles. CA ~ If approved, SCAG will be asking local
governments to take these steps by January 1: eliminate free
parking for employers of 100 or more and replace the benefit with a
transportation allowance. An ordinance covering employers or 25 or
more should be passed by Jan. 1, 1994; increase daytime parking
fees at metered spaces and public lots; establish parking surcharges
for single-occupant vehicles or discounts for car pools; require
employer-sponsored preferential parking for car or van pools.
A bill has been introduced to phase out deducibility of employee
parking as a business expense. The bill also exempts from State
income tax any money paid to employees to replace free parking.
"Officials Hope to Drive Up Costs of Solo Commuting" Los
Angeles Times April 9, 1991, p. A-5.
g. Los Angeles. CA ~ Ride-sharing may unfairly affect some poor and
minority commuters. Los Angeles County imposed high parking
fees to discourage workers from driving solo. Since last October,
fees averaging $50 a month have been deducted from workers'
paychecks. $50 is not the same to somebody who's making $40,000
a year as it is to someone making $13,000. The board was asked to
set up a grievance procedure so workers can appeal plans they
believe are discriminatory. "Smog-Fighters Concede Ride-Sharing
is Unfair to Some" Los Angeles Times March 2, 1991, p. A-31.
pjh.oi 23
-------
3. Examples of Employees Incentives
a. Current law allows employers to subsidize their workers' parking as
a 100 percent nontaxable fringe benefit, no matter how high the
cost. Transit subsidies, however, are limited to $15/month as an
untaxed benefit. Any subsidy exceeding $15/month is entirely
taxable as income to the employee and loses its deducibility for the
employer. The inequity is most unfair to lower-income workers.
Endorsed a bill to increase the tax-free benefit for transit passes to
$60. 'Tax Code Unfairly Favors Parking Over Transit as Employee
Fringe Benefit, House Told" Urban Transport News March 8, 1990
(Newsletter)
b. Lancaster. CA - Lancaster's plan offers an $18-a-month subsidy for
bus passes, gives workers $75 a year for walking or jogging shoes,
$75 to bicycle riders and 8 cents a mile for every car-pool driver
with one passenger and 2 cents for each additional passenger. To
qualify, workers must reduce the car trips to work by at least half.
Since posters have been put up and fliers sent out, 20 of the 148 city
employees have expressed interest. "Plan Tries to Clear the Air"
Daily News of Los Angeles April 29, 1991, p-AVl.
c. Palmdale. CA - Palmdale's plan offers $50 a year for walking shoes,
preferential parking places for car poolers, $15 a month for bus
passes, and $10 a month for car poolers toward a car-related item or
service such as on oil change or brake work. Both cities will have
monitors do periodic spot checks of the City Hall parking lots and
surrounding areas to make sure employees are car pooling, walking,
biking, or taking public transportation "Plan Tries to Clear the Air"
Daily News of Los Angeles April 29, 1991, p-AVl.
d. Glendale. AZ — One hotel offers valet parking to workers who
come to work in a car pool. One company struck a deal with a
nearby apartment complex to offer lower rents for employees who
travel to work by bus. Another business provides shaded parking
spaces for those who commute in a car pool. That is no small
benefit in summer months in the desert. "Town Uses Stolen Bikes
in Fight Against Smog" Daily News of Los Angeles May 19, 1991,
p. U3.
e. Glendale. CA ~ At the J.C. Penney store in Glendale, employees
who walk to work can qualify for free walking shoes, bus riders can
earn free bus passes, and car poolers can enter a drawing for $100
J.C. Penney gift certificate. "Slow Ride Major Deadline for Area's
Carpool Program Brings Lackluster Response from Businesses"
Daily News of Los Angeles May 27, 1991 p. B-l.
pjh.oi . 24
-------
f. Los Angeles. CA -- Atlantic Richfield Co. offers a $100 a month
transportation allowance, hosts introductory meetings over a free
lunch, and gives away T-shirts and mugs. "Slow Ride Major
Deadline for Area's Carpool Program Brings Lackluster Response
from Businesses" Daily News of Los Angeles May 27, 1991 p. B-l.
g. Lancaster. CA - Some of the 1,400 Antelope Valley Hospital
Medical Center employees can walk, bike, or car pool their way to
Hawaii under a plan proposed to reduce air pollution. The hospital
is offering the annual, free week-long trip to the Aloha State as an
incentive to participate in a $19,000 plan encouraging workers to
shift from their solitary drives to work to less-polluting modes of
transport such as car pooling, riding bikes or walking. Other
incentives being offered by the hospital include a 4-day cruise to
Mexico, gift certificates to mall shops, dinners at local restaurants,
movie tickets, guaranteed rides home and preferential parking
places. "A.V. Hospital Board OKs Ride-Sharing Incentives" Daily
News of Los Angeles May 28, 1991, p. AVI.
h. Monrovia. CA — The McDonnell Douglas' electronic branch has
eliminated reserved parking spaces for executives and given them to
those who ride-share. Group Seeks Voice for Employees in Firms'
Traffic Reduction Plans" San Jose News March 2, 1991 p. 2E
i. California -- Capital Records in Hollywood has responded to the
rule by offering its workers free compact discuss, tapes, sweatshirt,
denim jackets, movie passes,, and other merchandise if they share
rides and by subsidizing the cost of monthly bus passes. The result
is that nearly 400 workers now average 1.25 persons per car.
At Chiat/Day Advertising in Venice, incentives for car pooling
include tickets to Los Angeles Dodgers baseball games and Los
Angeles Kings hockey games. The firm has also brought into the
workplace dry cleaning, shoe repair, grocery and other services so
people will not need their cars to do errands.
Other companies give workers who participate in car pools parking
places closer to the office and the right to use express lanes at the
company cafeteria. "Environmental Protection Smog, Drought
Force New Remedies in California" Boston Globe February 18,
1991, p. 1.
j. Los Angeles. CA ~ The AQMD revised smog reduction plan
includes an option that would give employees extra time off for car-
pooling or using an alternative means of transportation to get to 3
city sites -- City Hall, the corporate yard, or the police department.
pjh.oi 25
-------
City officials envision adding a line or box to employees' time sheets
to determine the method used to get to work. Administrators plan
to assign points to various methods and eventually award days off
based on accumulated points. "Anti-Smog Proposal OKd for City
Staff Los Angeles Times January 22, 1991.
k. Long Island. NY - Every employer of more than 100 people must
reduce the number of cars coming into its parking lot - partly by
getting 25 percent more people in cars or vans. The rule applies to
both public and private entities and would affect more than 1,300
work sites in Long Island. Employers would have until 1994 to
submit a plan and until 1996 to comply. Planners foresee new
measures: cash bonuses paid by the businesses and special parking
places for car poolers, or new parking charges for noncar poolers.
Adopting flexible work shifts, including 4-day work weeks,
"telecommuting" "Car Pools Ahead New Clean Air Act Provides
For 'Gun-to-Head' Plans to Reduce Air Pollution" Newsday March
25, 1991, p. 5.
1. Simi Valley. CA ~ Has opted for financial incentives to persuade
workers to car-pool, or use alternative means of transportation.
Under the Simi Valley plan, employees will receive $3 for every day
that they avoid solo drives. "Oxnard Assails Smog Rules in Delaying
a 4-Day Work Week Plan" Los Angeles Times July 10, 1991,
p. 1-B.
m. Los Angeles. CA ~ Under the traffic reduction program scheduled
to go into effect next January, employers will be required to
subsidize their employees' transit fares or car-pool and van-pool
costs. Employees who walk or bicycle to work also will be
reimbursed. If the enticements of subsidies fail to do the job by
1994, employees who continue to drive alone to work will face
parking fees starting at $30/month and rising to $100/month by
1997.
About 12,000 businesses will be placed under the district's program
within the next 4 years. Employers of 50 or more workers will
implement the program next January; firms employing 25 to 49
workers will start in January 1993; firms with 11 to 24 employees
will begin in January 1994. Each firm will have 2 years to meet its
goals before penalties and parking fees are imposed. "Businesses
Balk at Implementing Proposed Traffic Reduction Plan" Los
Angeles Times June 27, 1991, p. B-2.
pjh.oi 26
-------
n. San Diego. CA -- After complaints from businesses during a series
of hearings on the regulations, the proposed fees were delayed until
1994 and modified so that employees of firms nearer to their traffic-
reduction goals will pay lower fees. The proposed rules still call for
mandatory employer subsidies for employees' transit fees, or car
pool and van pool costs, as well as reimbursements for employees
who walk or bicycle to work. "Emphasis Shifts on Clean-Air Rules"
Los Angles Times July 31, 1991, p. 2-B.
o. Los Angeles. CA ~ If approved, SCAG will be asking local
governments to take these steps by January 1: eliminate free
parking for employers of 100 or more and replace the benefit with a
transportation allowance. An ordinance covering employers or 25 or
more should be passed by Jan. 1, 1994.; increase daytime parking
fees at metered spaces and public lots; establish parking surcharges
for single-occupant vehicles or discounts for car pools; require
employer-sponsored preferential parking for car or van pools.
A bill has been introduced to phase out deducibility of employee
parking as a business expense. The bill also exempts from State
income tax any money paid to employees to replace free parking.
"Officials Hope to Drive Up Costs of Solo Commuting" Los
Angeles Times April 9, 1991, p. A-5.
p. Washington State ~ The giant Boeing Aircraft is offering all of its
103,000 employees in 8 locations in the Seattle area a $15 subsidy is
they buy a bus or van pool pass on Seattle metro. It's part of the
company's effort to lure more people out of their cars and increase
group ridership by at least 15%. About 300 Seattle-area businesses
subsidize employee's bus passes. "Regional, State, Local Briefs"
Urban Transport News January 10, 1991, p. 214. (Newsletter)
q.. Bellevue. WA ~ Metro transit officials enlisted the help of area
employers in a campaign that started last month to promote
ridesharing by commuters. The campaign is called Rideshare for
Clean Air and is targeted primarily at people who work in the fast
growing Interstate 90 Eastgate corridor. Participating employers
agree to register and track all ridesharers in their companies. The
workers register with the employers after 1 month of ridesharing
and turn in monthly tracking reports. For each month of
ridesharing by an employee, the employer agrees either to give the
worker a reward or to make a donation to an environmental cause.
pjh.oi 27
-------
Every 3 months, Metro plans to draw names from a pool of
registered ridesharers. The winners receive dinners, weekend trips
and other donated prizes. "Marketing Moves: Bellevue Uses
Lottery as Incentive to Rideshare" Urban Transport News
February 7, 1991, p. 24. (Newsletter)
4. Businesses Charging for Employee Parking
a. San Francisco. CA - San Francisco Commission proposal includes
charging employees a $75/month parking fee and employer-
subsidized car and van pools. Plan also calls for cleaner-burning
vehicle fuels and special traffic signals and other considerations for
commuters on bicycles. "San Francisco Commission Drafts Strict
Measures for Cleaning Air" Air Water Pollution Report July 16,
1990 (Newsletter)
b. San Diego. CA ~ San Diego County's Air Pollution Control District
proposal to charge employees for otherwise free parking to increase
average 1.2 person/vehicle ridership to 1.5 during rush hours.
Annual graduated fees (to defray expense of reviewing employee
plans) to be based on company's success in increasing ride-sharing
with a roll-back in fees as employers near their ride-share goals.
"San Diego County Air Pollution Control District has Suggested
Relaxing Proposed Regulations" State Environment Report July 10,
1991 (Newsletter)
c. San Diego. CA ~ The Air Pollution Control District is proposing
that businesses that fail to meet ridership targets through increased
car-pooling and public transit could be forced to eliminate free
parking or parking subsidies to their workers. Starting in 1994,
those employers could be required to charge workers $50/month to
park even in company lots and by the year 2000, as much as $100.
Companies would have to pick up the total cost of workers' bus,
trolley, or other transit expenses. "Concerns Cross County Borders"
Los Angeles Times April 28, 1991 p. A-45.
d. San Diego. CA ~ Under the proposal, businesses that fail to meet
ridership targets aimed at reducing drive-alone commuters through
increased use of car-pooling and public transit could be forced to
eliminate free parking or parking subsidies to their employees.
Starting in 1994, such businesses could be required to charge
employees $50 a month to park even in company-owned lots where
parking is now free, as well as pay half of other workers' transit
passes. Arguments against the plan say that it would impose costly
paperwork requirements on businesses. The plan would permit
exemptions for certain businesses or employee groups within
pjh.oi 28
-------
individual companies whose unusual work hours would make car-
pooling or even mass transit impractical. In order for those parking
fees to serve as an effective deterrent to one-passenger cars, the
regulations would require that the cost be paid by drivers
themselves, not by their employers. However, county administrators
concede that it could be difficult to verify whether, for instance,
companies might simply increase workers' salaries to compensate for
the parking fees. "Free Parking for Workers May Vanish" Los
Angeles Times March 14, 1991, p. B-l.
e. San Diego. CA ~ The most controversial element of the San Diego
San Diego air plan is one that would eliminate free parking and cost
employees no less than $50/month if they drive to work alone. Two
years into the program, the parking fee would jump to $100/month
if employers failed to encourage a fraction of their employees to
car-pool and ride public transportation. The plan would also
require employers to provide a monthly public transit subsidy equal
to 50% of the transit fare. The subsidy could increase from $40 to
$60 in 1991-92 and to $100 in the year 2000. "Clean-Air Proposal
Results in Show of Discontent, Anger" Los Angeles Times May 2,
1991, p. B-l.
f. San Diego. CA ~ Originally, the APCD plan called for mandatory
parking fees to be levied on all solo commuters by their employers
when the program goes into effect in 1992. Those employee parking
fees, ranging from $30 to $100 a month have been delayed until
1994 and have been modified so that employees of firms closer to
their traffic-reduction goals will pay lower fees. One downtown
bank has already surpassed its goal of getting employees off the
road simply by subsidizing the cost of their employees' bus and
trolley passes. "Air Panel Drops Fee Plan to Give Firms a Chance
to Clean Up Acts" June 25, 1991, p. B-l. "Air Panel Drops Fee
Plan to Give Firms a Chance to Clean Up Acts" Los Angles Times
June 25, 1991, p. B-l.
5. Tax Breaks for Employers That Encourage Commuting
a. A new bill introduced in Congress last week would give employers a
tax break if they provide subsidies for workers who use mass transit.
The bill, H.R. 1442, was introduced by Rep. Thomas Foglietta (D-
Penn). It would change the tax laws to make mass transit subsidies
treated as a fringe benefit for workers, which could be deducted
from the employers' taxes. "Tax Break Proposed for Transit
Subsidies" Urban Transport News. March 21, 1991., p. 42.
(Newsletter)
pjh.oi 29
-------
b. New Jersey -- New Jersey's Gov. Jim Florio this month called for a
change in the Federal Tax Code to allow employers a bigger
deduction for subsidizing employees who use mass transit. Florio
said it was unfair that under Federal tax laws, employers can give
tax-free parking benefits to their employees who drive, but only a
$15/month tax-free subsidy to employees who buy monthly bus or
rail tickets. Florio said he is supporting legislation in Congress to
allow companies to offer monthly subsidies of at least $60/month to
employees who use mass transit or vanpools to get to work. "New
Jersey Governor Proposes Subsidy for Commuters to Use Mass
Transit" Urban Transport News May 2, 1991, p. 68.
6. Telecommuting
a. Los Angeles County. CA ~ For the past 2 years, employees of the
country's first county administered telecommuting program in the
office of contract monitoring have been telecommuting 4.5
days/week. Approximately 5-1/2 million people in the U.S.
telecommute with 240,000 workers coming from the public sector.
The program, which began 2 years ago, now has 1,700 workers and
is composed of employees with a broad range of job skills. About
50% are computer related, and productivity has increased by 20%.
The average participant telecommutes 2 days/week.
Telecommuting Trends Rising" PA Times September 1, 1991, p. 1.
b. United States ~ The Federal Government began a program in July
1990, which has 12 participating agencies and 400 telecommuters.
Employer benefits include: increased productivity, reduced cost of
office space, increasing staff without adding space, reduced
absenteeism, and a reduced number of commuting trips.
'Telecommuting Trends Rising" PA Times September 1, 1991, p. 1.
c. California. Washington. Hawaii, and Arizona — Telecommuting
allows people to work at home-based or satellite offices instead of
commuting every day to work. In the West, California, Washington,
Hawaii, Arizona, and private companies are launching
telecommuting demonstration projects. Larson, Douglas C.
"Transportation: America's Energy Achilles' Heel" The Council of
State Governments, p. 89.
d. Southern California — There are 2 main forms of telecommuting:
1) Working from home and 2) Working at a regional telework
center. A regional center can be anything from a neighborhood
storefront office with a few telecommuters to a large office building
with hundreds of telecommuters. The average amount of work time
spent telecommuting was 6.5 days/ month in 1989. The number of
pjh.Ol 30
-------
days per month does tend to increase with experience. In the
future, a growing number of telecommuters will work at regional
telework centers. California has authorized development of a
prototype telework center in San Bernadino or Riverside County.
Based on data from the Telecommuting Pilot Project conducted
from 1987 through 1989 by the State of California, the average
telecommuter's phone bill increases by about $10/month. The net
impact was a benefit of almost $990,000 for the 150 telecommuters
in the project, or about $6,600 per telecommuter. The project paid
for itself and also won an award for innovation from the Council of
State Governments.
Los Angeles County and the City and County of San Diego also
have test or operational telecommuting under way. Los Angeles
County had 900 telecommuters by the end of 1990. "How to Plan
For and Supervise Telecommuters" Nilles, Jack M. Western City
February 1991, pp. 3-7.
e. Hawaii -Hawaii's State government, with private sector
involvement, has opened a demonstration, multi-employer
telecommuting center 20 miles outside of downtown Honolulu.
"The State of Telecommuting" Mokhtarian, Patricia L. ITS Review
August 1990 pp. 4.
7. Walk/Jog/Bicycle
a. Colorado -- At Public Service Co. of Colorado, employees will
continue to get a dollar each day they walk or jog or bicycle or
catch a ride to work. So far, the incentives have helped persuade
340 or 6,500 employees to use alternative transportation most days.
"Wood-Burning Ban Again in Effect Today, Season's 17th Bad-Air
Alert" Rocky Mountain News January 3, 1991, p. 19.
b. Glendale. AZ - This Phoenix suburb of 148,000 people has taken
its stable of unclaimed bicycles and lent them to city employees.
The workers pledge to give up driving at least 3 times a week and
pedal to work instead. About 40 city workers are using the bicycles,
and there is a long list for more stolen two-wheelers. The
employees can keep the bikes after 1 year if they are not claimed.
The effort grew out of an Arizona law that requires all Maricopa
County employers with 100 or more workers to reduce by 5 percent
the number of people who drive to work alone. The state law,
which provides no penalties as long as employers provide a good
faith effort to comply, has led to some innovative strategies. 'Town
pjh.Ol 31
-------
Uses Stolen Bikes in Fight Against Smog" Daily News of Los
Angeles May 19, 1991, p. U3.
c. Huntington Beach. CA - In the AQMD, several firms have installed
showers and locker room facilities so workers have a place to
freshen up after the spin to work. Others have offered monetary
incentives. And some have even given free bicycles to employees
who don't have them.
At the Nabisco plant in Buena Park, the company budgeted enough
money to buy 8 bicycles for employees willing to commit to riding to
work at least three times a week for six months. The company also
agreed to reimburse those already commuting by bike with $400
each if they met the same criteria. More than 24 of the plant's 400
or so employees are bike commuting today.
McDonnell Douglas, the aerospace company, last week held a
sweepstakes to give away 50 new mountain bikes. More than 260
people entered, with the winners are to be selected in the next few
weeks. Each person picked must fill out an application pledging to
ride to work at least 3 days a week for 3 months. After that, the
bike belongs to the rider. "These Bike Riders Find They Can Car
Less" Los Angeles Times May 27 , 1991, p. B-6.
d. Irvine. CA ~ Officials at the city of Irvine opted to loan bicycles to
employees. Several bikes that were impounded by police and never
claimed were cleaned up and repaired by a mechanic. So far, 15
people have borrowed the bikes, but officials expect that number to
increase. Of the 520 people who work at the civic center, 150 of
them live within 5 miles, an easy commute by bike. "These Bike
Riders Find They Can Car Less" Los Angeles Times May 27, 1991,
p. B-6.
e. Santa Monica. CA - The city will buy its workers running shoes if
they can walk to work and let them take unmarked police cars home
at night if they car pool. "Environmental Protection Smog, Drought
Force New Remedies in California" Boston Globe February 18,
1991, p. 1.
f. Oxnard. CA - The Oxnard city plan also calls for installing more
showers and bike lockers, and re-striping parking lots to encourage
car-pooling. The city would also enter into a contract with a child-
care referral service to help employees find child-care providers that
offer extended hours. "Oxnard Assails Smog Rules in Delaying 4-
Day Workweek Plan" Los Angeles Times July 10, 1991, p. B-l.
pjh.oi 32
-------
g. Ventura. CA -- The City gives preferential parking to car pools and
has installed showers with shampoo and hair dryers to encourage
riding bikes and jogging to work. Those who share rides or get to
work without driving solo also qualify for a $250 drawing held every
2 weeks. Ventura County provides preferential parking for car-
pools and offers a $200 annual bonus to those employees who share
rides twice a week and $300 for those who do so 3 times a week.
"Pollution Rules to Affect Most Commuters" Los Angeles Times
April 29, 1991, p. B-2.
h. Simi Valley. CA - Beginning July 1, the city will offer employees $3
a day to make the morning commute by walking, jogging, riding a
bike, taking the bus or forming a car-pool. Simi Valley also plans a
compressed workweek for some city employees, but one that
staggers the shifts so City Hall does not close on a weekday.
"Pollution Rules to Affect Most Commuters" Los Angeles Times
April 29, 1991 p. 2-B.
i. Shoreview. Minnesota - A city with 26 miles of bicycle trails and
possibly the only city in Minnesota employing an alternative
transportation coordinator, has been exploring the use of small
"circulator buses" to carry bicycles and their passengers between
destinations that are beyond pedaling distance. A biker could hop
on a circulator bus in Shoreview, mount his/her bicycle on the front
of the bus, ride to some "distant" location, such as the University of
Minnesota campus, and then resume use of the bicycle. "Activities"
Minnesota Cities June 1991, p. 45.
j. Seattle. WA and Santa Cruz. CA ~ are 2 cities that mount bicycles
on their buses, but their buses are larger than the circulator buses
Shoreview is considering. "Activities" Minnesota Cities June 1991,
p. 45.
k. Duluth. Minnesota ~ experimented with bicycle mounts on buses,
but isn't using them any more. "Activities" Minnesota Cities June
1991, p. 45.
1. Glendale. AZ.- Like other major employers in Maricopa County,
Glendale faces a State mandate to reduce the number of single-
occupancy vehicle commutes to and from work by 5% a year
(Arizona's Omnibus Air Quality Act of 1988 went to effect in 1989
and applies only to Maricopa County employers with 100 or more
employees at a single site). The city, which employs 1,138 people,
offers traditional programs like subsidized bus passes and covered,
reserved parking spots for car-poolers. However, as part of a new
program, 35 employees are given a bike from unclaimed stolen
pjh.oi 33
-------
DRAFT
property recovered by the Glendale Police Department. They have
to agree to ride the bike 3 times per week. Typically, after time
expires for the bikes' owners to claim them, the city would auction
them off. But now, the city obtains the bikes on loan before they
can be auctioned, takes them to aJocal shop where they are
inspected and reconditioned, and distributes them. "Pedal Power
Propels City Employees to Work" Zolkos, Rodd City & State June
3, 1991, p. 18; Also, "Glendale Workers Use Bike Option" Arizona
Republic March 14, 1991, p. B-3.
m. Denver. CO - Denver's Regional Transportation District bought
6 mountain bikes last month that it lets employees check out for
trips between the agency's downtown office and its nearby district
operations center. The bikes can also be checked out for lunch time
rides or to run errands around town. "Regional, State, Local Briefs"
Urban Transport News May 2, 1991, p. 70.
n. California -- The Southern California Rapid Transit District
expanded its "Bikes on Bus" and "Bikes on Rail" program last week
to allow bicycles on its Blue Line Rail line and one bus line during
weekdays. Previously, the bicycles were limited to evenings and
weekends for permit holders. "Regional, State, Local Briefs" Urban
Transport News July 11, 1991, p. 110.
o. Atlanta. Boston. Milwaukee. San Francisco. Seattle, and
Washington. DC- "Bike and Ride" commuting is becoming more
common in these cities. It's cheaper to increase suburban rail use
by providing secure bicycle racks and bike lockers than by expanding
automobile parking. Permitting bicycles on trains and buses also
increases ridership by allowing people to reach destinations that
aren't near train stations and bus stops. "U.S. Takes to Two
Wheels" Lowe, Marcia D. "WorldWatch" January/February 1991,
p. 11.
8. 4-Day Work Week
a. Oxnard. CA ~ The City Council is considering a plan where
employees would either work 10-hour shifts 4 days/week and take
Friday off, or work 9-hour shifts and take Friday off every 2 weeks.
A third alternative being considered is a 4-day, 36-hour week, with
employees giving up holiday time and benefits to make up the
remaining 4 hours. "Oxnard Assails Smog Rules in Delaying 4-Day
Workweek Plan" Los Angeles Times July 10, 1991, p. B-l.
pjh.01 34
-------
b. Oxnard. CA -- About 350 union employees of the city of Oxnard
have volunteered to work 10-hour shifts 4 days/week to help the city
with county air-pollution rules. Some city officials have suggested
offering cash incentives, lockers, showers, and child-care assistance
for employees who ride-share or bicycle to work. Another
scheduling change being considered would have city employees work
in 9-hour shifts and take 1 day off every 2 weeks. "Ventura County
News Roundup" Los Angeles Times July 18, 1991, p. B-3.
c. Thousand Oaks. CA ~ Officials have approved a plan to close city
hall on Fridays. One argument is that the people who are not
working that day are not going to stay home. They will be going
somewhere else instead. "County Issue/4-Day Workweek to Reduce
Air Pollution" Los Angeles Times August 5, 1991, p. B-2.
9. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
a. Washington State ~ The Washington State Legislature has passed a
$2 billion transportation bill for 1991-93 that includes provisions for
more High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and expanded ferry service.
The bill also includes high capacity transportation planning, such as
funds for studies on rail systems and improvements to existing
Amtrak service. "Regional, State, Local Briefs" Urban Transport
News July 11, 1991, p. 110. (Newsletter)
D. Mass Transit
1. General
a. Colorado - The Colorado Senate passed a bill to create a new
0 Denver Metropolitan Transportation Authority and preserve a
0.4 percent sales tax hike earmarked for mass transit. "Denver-Area
Transportation Package Advances in Colorado Legislature" Urban
Transport News" May 3, 1990. (Newsletter)
b. Los Angeles ~ The number of bus passengers has increased from
1.6 million in 1987 to 2.8 million in 1991, 75%, mainly due to an
aggressive marketing campaign that includes everything from
occasional free ride promotions to TV ads. South Coast Area
Transit (SCAT) has an agreement with local media organizations to
exchange advertising space on buses for newspaper ads and radio
and TV spots. SCAT is planning to offer discounts to entice
employers to subsidize worker bus passes. For example, a 20-ride
ticket will be available for $14, a savings of 1 dollar. A 30-ride
ticket will be offered for $22.50, a savings of $2.50. The tickets can
be used at any time. The county transportation commission is also
pjh.oi 35
-------
working on ways to make it easier for people to use the bus. The
commission is expected to establish a toll-free bus information
number in June. This would be one number where they could get
all their bus service information. The Interconnect Bus Service,
however, is lagging. Hoping to attract riders, the city plans to offer
a $10 pass good for the entire summer. "Ridership Gains Show
Buses Are Winning Respect" Los Angeles Times May 27, 1991,
p. B-l.
Federal agencies can use public funds to participate in incentive
programs that encourage Federal employees to use public transit.
The bulletin opens the door for local transit agencies to target
Federal agencies and their employees for mass transit incentive
programs. Such incentive programs are commonly used for agencies
in places like L.A., Phoenix, Philadelphia, and New York.
Last month the IRS raised the tax deduction for employers who
subsidize their employees to use mass transit from $15 to $21.
Although Federal employees are prohibited by law from receiving
outright payment for their commuting costs, the bulletin says they
can participate in existing subsidy programs. "Federal Agencies Can
Participate in Mass Transit Incentive Programs" Urban Transport
News August 8, 1991, p. 124.
A bill aimed at increasing the use of public transit by extending
employee parking benefits to mass transit lots was introduced in
Congress last week by Sen Bill Bradley (D-NJ). Under current tax
laws, employers may deduct for parking they provide for employees
when it is at or near the workplace, which encourages people to
drive to work. Bradley's bill, S. 1244, would seek to modify the tax
code by allowing employers to deduct the cost of employee parking
in lots adjacent to public transit stations and car and van pooling
areas.
Bradley also has supported a similar transit bill introduced this year
to allow a tax deduction to employers who give transit passes to
employees who use mass transit to commute to work. The bill
would increase the maximum deduction from $15 to $60 a month
per employee. "Senate Bill Would Give Tax Deduction For Using
Mass Transit Parking Lots" Urban Transport News June 13, 1991,
p. 92 (Newsletter).
pjh.oi 36
-------
2. Light Rail/Maglev
a. Baltimore. MD ~ A new 22-mile light rail line is being built around
Baltimore, expanding the city's 15-mile subway system. Baltimore
and 2 surrounding counties will chip in $15 million. The system will
be built on city streets and on freight right-of-way on the city's
outskirts, and will cost about $15 million per mile. "Mass
Movement" State Government News June 1991, p. 18.
b. Dallas. TX ~ Has begun work on a $2.1 billion, 67-mile light rail
system that will take 2 decades to complete. Also underway is an
18-mile commuter rail and 37 miles of carpool lanes. "Mass
Movement" State Government News June 1991, p. 18.
c. Houston. TX ~ is putting in a 24-mile monorail. "Mass Movement"
State Government News June 1991, p. 18.
d. California ~ is investing $6.5 billion in a 80-mile Los Angeles light
rail system that, together with commuter rail, will link outlying cities
such as Santa Monica, Santa Ana, and San Bernadino. "Mass
Movement" State Government News June 1991, p. 18.
e. Florida and Los Angles/Las Vegas ~ Construction will begin in 18
months on a 13-1/2 mile German magnetic levitation system in the
Orlando-International Drive Corridor (~ 1 mile from Disney
World). The train will move at 250 mph and deliver passengers
from Orlando to International Drive in 6 minutes. Another maglev
system is being considered in the 265-mile Los Angeles to Las
Vegas corridor, but adequate financing has not yet been found.
Reauthorization of the Federal transportation bill provides a
window of opportunity to get the U. S. back in the maglev
technology race (Germany and Japan have moved ahead in
commercial applications). A proposal before Congress would
provide $1 billion over 5 years to design a maglev system and
develop national standards. A competition would be held to
produce a winning design, which would be used in a 35- to 40-mile
demonstration project. Such competitions should help produce
technology more affordable than today's, which cost $24
million/mile. "Life in the Fast Lane" State Government News
June 1991, p. 22.
Orlando. FL ~ Maglev (magnetic levitation) systems are high speed
trains that use superconducting magnets to "fly" on a cushion of
electromagnetism at speeds of more than 300 mph. Maglev trains
have the potential to move passengers and freight in high density
transportation corridors quickly and quietly, but at a rather great
pjh.oi 37
-------
expense. And, maglev systems may pose new environmental and
safety questions. A proposed maglev project is a 13-mile line
linking Orlando International Airport and the Disney World Epcot
Center. "Maglev Attracting Attention" ITS Review, pp. 2-3. May
1991.
Houston. TX -The Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority
(METRO) decided last week to build the nation's first monorail
system. The $1.2 billion system will extend from downtown Houston
to 21 stations located in population and business centers around the
Houston area. The next step is for METRO general manager Bob
MacLennan to negotiate a contract with Transportation Group Inc.
of Orlando, FL to design the first 14 miles of the 22-mile rail
system.
Another obstacle to the project will come later this month when
METRO officials lobby for Federal funding in Washington, DC.
The March 28 decision by the METRO board was needed before
the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) would
listen to any requests for Federal aid. About 60% of the funding is
expected to come from the Federal government.
Design of the system is expected to take about a year. Construction
is not expected to begin until the end of 1992, with the first leg in
operation in 1996. "Houston Chooses $1.2 Billion Monorail for First
of its Kind Transit System" Urban Transport News April 4, 1991
(Newsletter)
3. Metro
Atlanta. GA ~ Encouraged by the success of a free parking
experiment last December, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority (MARTA) plans to offer riders another month of free
parking this month. Results of the December experiment show that
an average of 6,900 vehicles per day — 1,300 more than expected —
were lured by the offer of free parking at MARTA rail stations.
The additional commuters translated to 1,500 more paying
passengers in December. The experiment proved that people used
the mass transit system more often because of the free parking.
MARTA expected to lose $53,000 in parking revenue because of the
free parking. The results showed that the loss of parking revenue
was offset by the increase in fares from passengers. For more info
call Mak Gebre-Hewit at (404) 848-5117. "Marketing Moves: Free
Parking Brings New Riders in Atlanta" Urban Transport News
May 2, 1991, p. 72. (Newsletter)
38
-------
DRAFT
4. Buses
a. New York/New Jersey - In December 1990, the exclusive
counter-flow bus lane on New Jersey Route 495 leading to the
Lincoln Tunnel and Manhattan celebrated its 20th year of
operation. During its 20 years of operation, the bus lane has
provided quick, reliable access to Manhattan for more than
6 million buses and nearly 244 million passengers.
The exclusive bus lane (XBL) was the first counterflow bus lane on
a freeway in the U.S. The far left lane of the westbound travel
lanes of Route 495 is converted to the XBL during the morning
peak period. Its success has led to the implementation of several
similar operations in the NY-NJ metropolitan region (on the
approach to the Queens Midtown Tunnel and the Brooklyn Battery
Tunnel) and in other States.
The XBL was implemented by the Port Authority of NY and NJ, in
cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT) and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTPKA). As a
counterflow lane in the busiest freeway bus travel corridor in the
world and within a complex multijurisdictional situation, the XBL
required intensive political, administrative, and technical efforts.
Initial funding was provided by the U. S. Department of
Transportation. "Route 495 Exclusive Bus Lane: A 20-Year
Success Story" ITE Journal April 1991, pp. 26-29.
b. Montreal. Canada - Montreal's R-bus service has boosted bus
ridership in the area by 35% since it started last June. The R-Buses
(R for reserved lane) run in a special lane against the flow of traffic.
A flashing yellow arrow on the front of the buses warns any
motorists who cross into the lane to move aside. An average
commuter who uses the R-bus for its entire route can save 15
minutes of driving time per day. No additional fare is charged for
R-bus rides. Transfers from intersecting buses and the subways are
free. "Regional, State, Local Briefs" Urban Transport News April
4, 1991, p. 54.
c. Phoenix. AZ ~ The Phoenix Transit System has introduced the
nation's first transit credit card. Called the "Bus Card Plus," it
allows bus patrons to be billed for transit use directly through
payroll deductions.
Bus Card Plus cards are issued to employees of major employers,
who are required by a 1988 State law to reduce single-occupant
pjh.oi 39
-------
vehicle trips by employees by 5%. Each time an employee boards a
bus, he can slide the card through a magnetic card reader installed
on the farebox. The employer's identification number, encoded on
the plastic card, will be automatically entered into a computer,
enabling the transit system to provide employers with a monthly
invoice for fares and reports of ridership statistics.
In addition to travel reduction figures, companies that offer transit
subsidies to their employees will receive cost saving benefits. Under
the current pass program, a company could provide an employee
with a monthly local service pass for no more than $27. It can be
used for an unlimited number of rides.
Valley National Bank of Arizona plans to be the first employer to
use the new card system beginning on April 1. It is issuing 950
cards to employees throughout metropolitan Phoenix. For more
info call Scott Hanson at (602) 954-8518. "Marketing Moves:
Transit Credit Card Debuts in Phoenix" Urban Transport News
March 21, 1991, p. 48.
d. Phoenix. AZ -- The City of Phoenix is distributing Bus Card Plus
cards to 2,000 municipal employees, joining Valley National Bank of
Arizona as the only companies offering this transit convenience to
its work force. Each time an employee boards a bus, he slides the
Bus Card Plus card through a magnetic card reader installed on the
farebox. The employer's i.d. number, encoded on the card's
magnetic strip, is automatically entered into a computer. The transit
system then sends the employer a monthly invoice for fares and
reports ridership statistics. "Employers are billed only for trips
actually taken by employees, rather than for monthly passes. The
advantage is cost savings along with credit for travel reduction. For
more info, call the Phoenix Transit System Business Outreach Office
at (602) 261-8505. "Phoenix Boosts Transit Credit Card" Urban
Transport News July 11, 1991, p. 112.
e. Madison. WI ~ The Madison, WI, Metro Bus system began its new
Free Fare Zone Service recently, allowing passengers in the
downtown area to ride buses free. The Free Fare Zone includes
downtown Madison and most of the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. From 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Saturday,
passengers can board a Metro bus at any of 48 stops designated with
a special free fare logo and travel within the zone free. Passengers
most likely to benefit are downtown employees on lunchtime
schedules. Passengers who begin or end their trips outside the Free
Fare Zone will pay the regular fare. Metro monitors make random
checks for proof of payment. Before the bus enters the Free Fare
pjh.Ol 40
-------
Zone, monitors present transfers to those passengers who do not
have a valid Metro transfer or pass. The transfers act as proof of
payment. When the bus leaves the Free Fare Zone, monitors ask
passengers to show their proof of payment. Fare evaders are
warned the first time and then fined $50, $100, and $200 for
subsequent offenses. "Marketing Moves: Madison Offers Free Fare
Bus Zone" Urban Transport News April 4, 1991, p. 56.
(Newsletter)
£ Atlanta. GA -- The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(MARTA) has worked with the local business community to develop
coupon books good for discounts at area entertainment spots,
restaurants, and shops. The coupon books are given away to
passengers who purchase weekly or monthly bus passes. "MARTA
Offers Coupons with Bus Passes" Urban Transport News August
22, 1991, p. 113. (Newsletter)
g. Detroit. MI ~ Passengers buying monthly parking permits at
specially designated lots can also buy a People Mover monthly pass
for $10 -- a 50% savings off the normal $20 price. More than 30
parking lots located near People Mover bus and commuter train
stations were chosen to participate in the program. Only monthly
parkers can buy the 1/2 price passes. "Marketing Moves: Detroit's
Parking and Mass Transit Come in One Deal" Urban Transport
News January 24, 1991, p. 16. (Newsletter)
h. Columbus. Ohio -- The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)
developed a program last fall that turns bus passes into a fringe
benefit for Columbus area employees. Under one part of the
program, COTA gives a roll of passes to employers who then sell
them to employees. About once per month, a COTA representative
goes to the companies and collects the money earned from sales of
the passes.
A second part of the program allows employees to automatically
deduct the cost of monthly bus passes from their paychecks. The
passes are then included with the paychecks. Some employees pay
for at least part of the pass's cost. Monthly bus passes sold out for
the first time in January and February. "Marketing Moves:
Employers Use Bus Passes as Fringe Benefit in Columbus" Urban
Transport News March 7, 1991, p. 40. (Newsletter)
pjh.Ol 41
-------
5. Van Pools
a. Chicago. Illinois -- Chicago's Pace transit agency has approved a 3-
yr, $1.6 million contract with United States Fleet Leasing Inc. for a
van pool for local commuters which could begin service in
September. Pace operated buses throughout the Chicago area. In
the van pool, people who work at the same job site or live near one
another can commute together with one person designated as the
driver. Pace will lease the vans, but drivers will ride free and have
limited personal use of the vehicles. Pace officials plan to start the
van pool on a small scale of about 10 vans and grow if demand is
sufficient. "Regional, State, Local Briefs" Urban Transport News
August 22, 1991, p. 134. (Newsletter)
E. Restrictions on Road Construction
a. San Francisco. CA — Last month, in a suit brought by the Sierra
Club and Citizens for a Better Environment, U.S. District Judge
barred the Metropolitan Transportation Commission from approving
freeway expansions until it can demonstrate that air quality will not
suffer. "A Push to Cut Traffic 35% in 7 Years" San Francisco '
Chronicle January 16, 1991, p. Al.
b. Long Island. NY ~ Officials would have to set and meet annual
targets for the number of car trips taken in the region. No road
expansion could go forward without proof that it wouldn't upset the
plan. Adding a lane to a road couldn't be done without showing
that vehicle trips elsewhere would drop. Only safety projects are
exempted. But the regulations would provide a boost for the State's
plan to restrict a new lane of the Long Island Expressway to car
pools only. "Car Pools Ahead New Clean Air Act Provides for
'Gun-to-Head' Plans to Reduce Air Pollution. Newsday March 25,
1991, p. O5.
c. California - The Air District is considering seeking to control future
highway construction on the grounds that roads, like shopping
centers, are indirect sources of pollution that should be subject to
stricter regulations "Employee Parking Fee Shelved" San Jose
Mercury News February 28, 1991, p. 1-C.
d. Santa Clarita. CA - To reduce traffic, options include reducing
truck traffic during the peak hours, synchronizing traffic signals to
minimize the time of idling motors, and expanding and encouraging
the use of the city's bus system. "City Will Receive $90,000 to
Improve Quality of Air" Daily News of Los Angeles June 17, 1991,
p. SAC2.
pjh.oi 42
-------
n. Fireplace Control Measures
a. Utah ~ Sales tax exemption for conversion of fireplaces to natural
gas or propane. "Alternative Fuels: Politics Threatens New York
Program for Must-Buy Clean Fueled Vehicles" Energy Report.
January 14, 1991 (Newsletter).
b. Colorado -- In Telluride, CO, the legislation was created to regulate
solid-fuel-burning devices. This means any kind of fireplace or
wood-burning stove. Every 'device' must have a permit and be up
to certain tight standards ~ or it cannot be used. Under the town
rules, any homeowner who wants to burn wood must find two
people wiling to sell their permits, thus reducing the total number of
potential polluters allowed. The cost of single permits has soared to
between $1,200 and $1,400, so just the privilege of fire can run up to
$2,500. No building can have more than one such stove or fireplace,
so the warm-fire apres-ski atmosphere takes some looking for here.
"As California is Limiting the Barbecue, so Colorado Changes the
Fireplace Pollution" Los Angeles Times February 3, 1991, p. M-5.
c. San Francisco. CA — The Bay Area AQMD will ask the public to
voluntarily curtail burning wood when winter surface-based
temperature inversions occur. "San Francisco Request to Curtail
Burning of Wood" San Francisco Chronicle February 22, 1991,
p. B6.
d. Oregon — The State is continuing current standards that ban wood
fires when air quality deteriorates. A $30 fee will be added to all
new stoves and a $3 fee will be added to every firewood cutting
permit, with the money going to the air pollution fund for research.
"Pollution Broom Adds Fireplaces to Sweeping Clean Air List"
Oregonian March 25, 1991, p. BO2.
e. Oregon ~ Klamath County commissioners adopted an ordinance
barring most wood stoves from burning on days when the air
pollution is bad. In the Eugene-Springfield area, wood stove
polluters will face fines beginning in November.
Eugene, Springfield, urban Lane County, Medford, and Jackson
County started mandatory wood stove smoke programs last year.
Grants Pass has a voluntary one, and La Grande will begin a
voluntary effort this winter.
The new "pay-to-pollute" legislation will prohibit sales of uncertified
used wood stoves after Nov. 15 and will give the DEQ an extra
enforcement tactic for nonattainment areas by requiring the removal
pjh.oi 43
-------
DRAFT
of uncertified stoves from houses that change hands, beginning
in 1994.
The new legislation also set a $3-per-cord emission fee on
cordwood, effective July 1, 1992, and created a grant and loan
program to help citizens replace their older, polluting stoves with
certified, clean-burning stoves.
In Klamath County, a special effort to educate the public that
controls wouldn't completely outlaw wood heat, and grants helping
poor people weatherize and convert to other heat sources helped
bring public acceptance of the measure.
The county hired an air quality specialist, who secured grants to
help install insulation and replace wood stoves in 200 of the 600
houses that had no other heat.
On so-called red days, when an air inversion locks pollutants in the
valley, only pellet stoves and stoves that serve as the sole source of
heat in a household can burn. Those with other sources of heat
must use them. On yellow days, when conditions are marginal,
state-certified stoves also can burn. On green days, any stove can
burn. Violators will face fines ranging from $50 to $500. The new
ordinance will be enforced by patrols looking for chimney and
stovepipe smoke.
People who rely on wood stoves as their sole source of heat and
those with incomes that are 125% of the poverty level or less can
apply for exemptions from the-program. "Governments Fight Wood
Stove Pollution" Oregonian August 6, 1991, p. BO4.
f. Reno. Nevada — Health Department Officials ban wood-burning
except for heating purposes on many winter days, require old stoves
to be removed or improved when homes are sold, and prohibit
fireplaces or wood-burning stoves in most new homes. "Smog May
Mean Curbs on Burning" San Jose Mercury News February 22,
1991, p. 1-B.
Green Tax/Carbon Tax/Emission Fees
a. European Community ~ Carbon taxes are market mechanisms
intended to force users to operate more efficiently, cleanly. No
agreement yet. "No EC Agreement on Green Taxes" Business and
the Environment October 18, 1990 (Newsletter)
pjh.oi 44
-------
b. Mexico City - All fossil fuels will have a 12.5% tax which will fund
part of a drastic program to curb air pollution. 'Tech Brief: Mexico
City Plans to Deal with Smog" Environmental Business Journal
December 1990 (Newsletter)
c. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment identifies a tax on
carbon as one of the most promising. Carbon taxes are charges on
fossil fuels set according to their carbon content. Under such a
scheme, coal would bear a larger tax than oil, whose tax would, in
turn, be greater than that on natural gas.
Like a general energy tax, a carbon tax would encourage all
consumers, whether individuals, businesses, or government, to use
less fossil fuel. An additional benefit from carbon charges is that
they would also promote fuel switching. Over the long term, carbon
charges would provide an incentive for development of alternative
renewable sources of energy. Chemical and Engineering News
April 1, 1991 "Economic Considerations Enter Fray Over Global
Climate Change Policies," p. 7.
d. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) conservation proposal
contains several tax components. According to the UCS: the 10%
tax credit for solar and geothermal power should be raised to 15%
and broadened to include all renewable resources; tax credits should
be granted for residential solar installations; gasoline taxes should
be substantially increased, with the additional revenue going to mass
transit and energy conservation; and inefficient appliances should be
subject to an excise tax, with the revenue funding rebates on high-
efficiency appliances.
Also: the mile's per gallon floor on the gas-guzzler tax should be
increased and the tax extended to light trucks and vans; the
employer's tax deduction for employee parking expenses should be
eliminated, with resulting revenues funding mass transit stipends for
employees; a federal tax credit of 2 cents per kw-hr of electric
power production from renewable resources should be created, to
be phased out over 8 years; and the Internal Revenue Service
should be directed not to treat as income utility company rebates to
consumers for investments in increased energy efficiency. "National
Energy Strategy" Hoerner, J. Andrew, Tax Notes February 25,
1991, p. 818.
e. The European Community ~ Carlo Ripa Di Meana, environmental
commissioner in the Commission of the European Community,
supports a tax on carbon-dioxide-generating fuels. He has placed
pjh.oi 45
-------
his tax proposal for such fuels on the commission's agenda for next
week.
The tax basically would add the equivalent of $10 to the cost of a
barrel of oil consumed. The immediate charge would hit electricity
generators who, in turn, would pass on the cost to their industrial
customers. No cost increases are supposed to be passed on to
consumers, however. Fuels that generate less or no CO2 would gain
a competitive price advantage, encouraging a move away from coal
and oil to cleaner burning natural gas, to nuclear power, and to
other energy sources. "European Community to Consider CO2 Tax"
Chemical and Engineering News September 16, 1991, pp. 5-6.
f. The Worldwatch Institute suggests 8 possible environmental taxes,
including a $100/ton tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels, a
$100/ton tax on hazardous wastes, a 50% tax on pesticides, and a
$64/ton tax on paper and paperboard produced from virgin wood
pulp. The report recommends phasing in the taxes over a 5- to 10-
year period to ease economic effects.
Worldwatch President Lester Brown stressed that green taxes should
be used to shift the tax burden from the personal income tax. For
tax payers with low incomes, a credit similar to the earned-income
credit could be used to ensure progressivity. "Green Taxes Integral
to Future, Worldwatch Institute Contends" Tax Notes. February 25,
1991, p. 819.
g. New York. Massachusetts, and California ~ States are beginning to
avoid adding energy resources-that release high levels of pollutants.
New York was the first to assign a cost to CO2 emissions in its
guidelines for evaluating utilities' resource options. Massachusetts
followed in August 1990 with a $22/ton assessment, which is roughly
a 20-fold increase over the New York value. California regulators
are considering staff proposals to raise this figure further to assign a
$26/ton value to CO2 releases. "Statehouse Effect Combats
Greenhouse Effect" Cavanagh, Ralph C. and Arthur H. Rosenfeld.
The Journal of State Government. Vol. 63. p. 98.
h. Sweden -- Swedish officials have drafted proposals that would tax
sulfur, NOX, and CO2 emissions. If the proposed plan is approved,
by the end of the decade it would reduce SO2 emissions by 7% from
their 1987 level, NOX by 8%, and CO2 from 9 to 17%.
"Communication: A Global Agenda for Clean Air" Energy Policy
July/August 1990, p. 584.
pjh.oi 46
-------
i. Idea for a new kind of tax (or fee) used to signal ecological impacts
and consequences, and thus seriously influence the behavior of
producers and consumers. This new Restoration Tax would tax
activities according to the rough amount of ecological damage they
cause, and divert the funds thus raised back into restoring or
diminishing that damage. For example, the Restoration Tax on
paper products would support reforestation efforts, development of
sustained-yield forestry, and development of a universal paper-
recycling industry. Restoration Tax money from cars would go
toward developing alternative energy sources, redesigning cities so
that less motorized transportation of any kind is needed, and
providing noninternal-combustion-engine modes of transit. Because
of the vast variety of products in our society, these taxes could not
practically be levied at the point of sale; they would have to be
levied, like the value-added taxes familiar in most countries, at the
point of manufacture, but they should be publicized (like cigarette
health-warnings are) on the goods themselves. "The Restoration
Tax" Whole Earth Review Winter 1990, pp. 118-119.
j. Germany ~ The Social Democratic Party is proposing an Ecotax
that will especially impact petroleum products; its proceeds,
however, will be used for social and not ecological purposes. The
German Green Party is backing an even more relevant Ecotax on
primary energy (nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas) whose proceeds
would be used to extend public transportation and finance
conversion to sustainable energy sources; they also favor heavy taxes
on environmentally damaging packaging, atmospheric emissions, and
so forth, to finance an ecological damage fund. "The Restoration
Tax" Whole Earth Review Winter 1990, pp. 120.
k. Sweden - The official report of a Swedish 4-man Expert Committee
recommends that a "pollution charge" be linked to the emission of
Sulfur, NOX, and CO2. The charge should be concurrent with
financial support to environmentally-sound technologies. The
Committee recommends that Sweden lead the way and become the
first country in the world to charge industry for the emission of CO2.
The Committee also recommends special charges on the use of fuel
oil, coal, petrol, natural gas, and propane. At the same time, it is
suggested that financial support be given to motor vehicles that
reduce emissions of exhaust fuels to levels below the minimum level
required, and to electricity produced using renewable energy
resources such as wind and biomass. "Sweden Proposes Charges on
Emission of Pollutants to Finance Environmentally Sound
Technology" Ambio Vol. 18, No. 8, 1989, p. 462.
pjh.oi 47
-------
IV. Consumer Products Control
a. Los Angeles. CA -- The California Air Resources Board is
contemplating an "innovative products" clause in its consumer
products regulation to allow manufacturers to keep their current mix
of ingredients if they could reduce the frequency of use or otherwise
guarantee that fewer pollutants were escaping into the atmosphere.
"California Plan Aims at Household Goods to Cut Air Pollution"
Los Angeles Times June 7, 1991, p. A3.
b. Los Angeles. CA -- Perfume, dishwashing liquid and laundry
detergents, starches, shoe polish, insecticide, and car wax are types
of consumer products that are among targets for reformulating to
lower VOC emitting contents. Automotive brake cleaners, car
leather and vinyl cleaners, fabric protectants, waterproofing
products, household glues and cements, sealants and caulkers, might
all have trouble staying on the market if mandated to switch to
lesser polluting formulas. "Perfumes, Detergents Put on Smog-Fight
List" San Jose Mercury News June 7, 1991, p. 4-B.
V. Grants/Awards for Innovation Assistance
a. Maryland - Approval of $360,000 in State grants to assist local
jurisdictions implement air pollution control programs, funded from
permit fees and civil penalties "Maryland" Environment Week
February 8, 1990 (Newsletter)
b. Santa Ana. CA - Ultrox International of Santa Ana, CA has won a
$300,000 Army Corps of Engineers contract to develop a technology
for combating industrial air pollution. Awarded under the Small
Business Innovation Research Program, the company will build a
full-scale field model of its "air stripper" which is used to destroy air-
borne solvents. "Second SBIR for ULTROX" New Technology
Week April 30, 1990 (Newsletter)
VI. Green Labeling
a. A coalition of trade associations representing some 1,000 major
corporations has petitioned the Federal Trade Commission for
Guidance on Green Labeling "The Big Muddle in Green Marketing"
Fortune. June 3, 1991, p. 92.
b. California ~ A bill in the California legislature would outlaw the
word "recyclable" on all labels unless consumers have easy access to
a recycling facility. "The Big Muddle in Green Marketing" Fortune.
June 3, 1991, p. 92.
pjh.oi 48
-------
DRAFT
c. Germany -- Among the first National environmental product
labeling programs, Germany's Blue Angel award has been operating
for 12 years. More than 3,000 products in nearly 60 different
categories have been given the Blue Angel seal -- modeled after the
United Nations Environment Program logo. An informational label
accompanying the seal describes the particular benefits of each
product.
An independent "environment label jury" consisting of
representatives from industry, unions, consumer organizations, and
scientists makes the final determinations, and the Ministry of
Environmental Affairs publishes them. Manufacturers can then
apply to have their products awarded the seal. Following a
government investigation by multiple agencies, the eco-label is
awarded for a 3-year period. Renewals require a new investigation.
The majority of the public is aware that the federal seal is
predicated on strict criteria, but they also think that ecological terms
used in advertising are regulated.
One major complaint focuses on the fact that the program applies to
a product's achievement in only one area. A comprehensive
classification system should include the product's use of natural
resources, the environmental consequences of its productions and
distribution, and problems associated with its disposal. Helm,
Wolfgang. "In Germany, Green Products are Colored Blue" The
Environmental Forum Nov/Dec 1990, p. 31.
d. Canada -- Launched its Environmental Friendly Products program in
1987, organized and administered by Environment Canada. Unlike
the German program, it evaluates the entire life cycle of a product
for its environmental impact. Helm, Wolfgang. "In Germany,
Green Products are Colored Blue" The Environmental Forum
Nov/Dec 1990, p. 32.
e. Canada -- Canada's Environmental Choice program started up in
March 1989 and has already certified products from 33 companies.
"Green Labels Aim to Aid Eco-Conscious Shoppers" Utne Reader
March/April 1991, p. 38.
f. Green Cross, based in Oakland, CA, has certified 50 supermarket
items, including paper towels, toilet tissue, plastic trash bags, and
campfire logs. Green Cross doesn't establish standards so much as
it takes companies to task for the claims in their marketing.
However, certification criteria are limited to recyclability and
biodegradability: A product can legitimately adorn its package with
pjh.oi 49
-------
the Green Cross and still use plenty of toxic chemicals in
manufacturing. "Green Labels Aim to Aid Eco-Conscious Shoppers"
Utne Reader March/April 1991, p. 38.
g. Green Seal is a more comprehensive environmental-labeling effort.
A product's environmental impact will be examined from "cradle to
grave" - from the resources (including energy consumed in its
production) to the fuel that is burned in its transportation to the
toxic and radioactive waste created before, during, and after its use.
Green Seal had not yet certified any products at the time of this
writing. "Green Labels Aim to Aid Eco-Conscious Shoppers" Utne
Reader March/April 1991, p. 40.
h. Companies in other countries are already developing green products
under the impetus of foreign labeling programs in Australia,
Canada, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Japan, and the Nordic countries.
Dean, Norman L. "An Educated Consumer is the Best Consumer"
The Environmental Forum Nov/Dec 1990, p. 30.
i. A 10-state environmental marketing task force was formed to
combat "green scams" by prosecuting firms that make misleading,
deceptive, and false environmental claims for their products. The
group, formed in late 1989, includes the attorney generals of
California, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York,
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The task force has issued these recommendations for responsible
environmental marketing: claims should be specific, not general,
vague, incomplete, or overly broad; claims of "degradability" and
"recyclability" should not be made unless the disposal options which
will back up those claims are available to consumers in the area
where the product is sold; claims should be substantive; claims
should be supported by reliable scientific evidence.
Along with the guidelines, environmental "seal of approval"
programs are being considered that would be modeled on programs
underway in Germany, Canada, Japan, and Norway. Under the seal
of approval system, products judged to have lower environmental
impacts, such as low pollution, water-based paint and reusable cloth
diapers, are given seals of approval. Klein, Karen E. "How Green
is Your Product?" Student Lawyer May 1991 pp. 45-47.
j. Some States, including California and New York, have recently
passed legislation that regulates the use of environmental terms like
"recyclable," "degradable," "recycled," "ozone friendly," and
pjh.Ol 50
-------
"environmentally friendly." Klein, Karen E. "How Green is Your
Product?" Student Lawyer May 1991, pp. 46.
To minimize consumer confusion and prevent abuse of
environmental claims, 2 steps are required: First, State and Federal
officials must pursue legal actions to stop the most blatantly
misleading environmental claims. Second, the marketplace needs a
set of clear standards. We need national standards applicable to all
environmental claims so consumers are able to learn what terms like
"recycled" or "degradable" really mean. Humphrey III, Hubert H.
"Making Sure Green Claims Aren't Gray" The Environmental
Forum Nov/Dec 1990, p. 33.
To help educate consumers, Green Seal plans to identify and place
a label of a blue globe and green check mark on products that are
significantly less damaging to the environment.
Green Seal is establishing standards based on how much pollution is
generated when the products are manufactured, how they are
shipped, whether they contain toxic materials or are dangerous when
used, if they harm fish and wildlife, how durable they are, whether
they exacerbate the nation's solid waste problems, and whether they
can easily be repaired, reused, or recycled. Green Seal is also
looking to see if products are reasonably packaged.
Green Seal is establishing environmental standards for light bulbs,
laundry cleaners, house paints, tissue and toilet paper products, re-
refined motor oil, water saving devices, and energy saving
appliances, with more to come.
Once standards have been set, manufacturers will be free to submit
their products for testing and evaluation. Those that pass can use
the Green Seal label. The concept behind such an environmental
labeling program is simple: encourage consumers to buy
environmentally better products and thereby provide manufacturers
with a strong economic incentive to design and manufacture more of
them.
Environmental labeling programs are already underway in Canada,
Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway. The
European Community this year announced it would launch a
program. "Claims Worth Trusting" State Government News April
1991, p. 13.
pjh.Ol 51
-------
VII. Charges for Waste Disposal
a. Perkasie. Pennsylvania -- People have to buy specially marked
garbage bags from the city: $1 for a 20-pound bag or $1.75 for a 40-
pounder (up from 85 cents and $1.50, respectively, last year). The
charge cut the tonnage of residential waste nearly in half in 1988,
the first year of the program. "The Big Muddle in Green
Marketing" Fortune. June 3, 1991, p. 93.
b. High Bridge. New Jersey -- Residents of High Bridge, New Jersey,
pay $200/year for stickers good for 52 bags of garbage. The cost of
a sticker for each additional bag thereafter: $1.65. In 10 months,
the town cut its waste by 24%. "The Big Muddle in Green
Marketing" Fortune. June 3, 1991, p. 93.
c. Charlotte. NC ~ Recycled newsprint: Requires newspapers to
gradually increase the content of recycled paper in their newsprint
from 12% in 1991 to 40% by 1997. Newspapers that don't meet the
required percentage must pay a tax of $15 a ton every 3 months on
the amount that falls short unless recycled newsprint isn't available.
"Rundown of Bills that Passed and Failed" Charlotte Observer July
21, 1991, p. 6-B.
Vlll. Increased Permit Fees/Inspection Fees (Facilities)
a. Missouri ~ Bill in Missouri State Senate establishes fees and
penalties and mandates that anyone emitting certain amounts of air
toxics must register with the State government and submit a plan for
reduction. These amounts ^vould be more stringent over time ~
anyone emitting more than 100 tons of HAP's in 1991, 50 tons in
1993 and 10 tons in 1994. "Tough Missouri Air Toxics Bill May Die
Because of Power Struggle Toxic Materials News February 21,
1990 (Newsletter)
b. Nevada ~ The Washoe Board of Health approved new rules to limit
toxic air pollution from the industrial areas in Reno and Sparks.
New facilities releasing air toxics now must ap.ply for permits
requiring them to meet Federal standards, and pay fees based upon
their releases. Industries will be charged $3 for every pound of toxic
emissions released in an average day. "State Briefs: Nevada" State
Regulation Report July 25, 1990 (Newsletter)
c. Arizona -- The House voted 33-20 to strengthen enforcement of the
State's air pollution laws by increasing fines against polluters and
raising air quality permit fees. House Bill 2490. To Senate.
pjh.oi 52
-------
"Legislature in Brief Arizona Republic March 27, 1991.
(Newsletter)
d. Connecticut ~ The Environment Committee approved a package of
user-fee increases designed to raise about $4 million for an
environmental protection and conservation fund. "Around the States
- Connecticut" Air Pollution Report April 2, 1991. (Newsletter)
e. Charlotte. NC -- Bills that passed: air pollution fines: double the
maximum fine for violating air standards from $5,000 to $10,000 per
day. "Rundown of Bills that Passed and Failed" Charlotte Observer
July 21, 1991, p. 6-B.
DC Requirements for New Residential/Commercial Development
a. Ventura County. CA ~ The draft Air Quality Management Plan
proposes an "indirect-source regulation" which seeks to hold
developers responsible for the pollution caused by new housing or
commercial projects. The measure would require developers to
discourage the use of cars by limiting parking in their complexes and
to pay fees for mass transit. "Air Pollution Plan Criticized as Too
Tough" Los Angeles Times April 10, 1991 p. 1-B.
b. Long Island. NY ~ Planners predict a new push for restrictions on
density of development to hold down traffic, and requirements that
new office buildings provide van transportation for their tenants.
"Car Pools Ahead New Clean Air Act Provides For 'Gun-to-Head'
Plans to Reduce Air Pollution" Newsdav March 25, 1991, p. O5.
c. Vermont and Florida - have enacted land use plans that encourage
energy efficiency. Such plans, for example, can require that housing
be built closer to work sites so that commuter travel is reduced. In
Florida, local governments failing to adopt a plan that complies with
State requirements stand to lose State funds. "Good Policy, Bad
Times" Totten, Michael and Jeffrey Tyrens. State Government
News January 1991, p. 30.
d. Los Angeles. CA ~ The AQMD agreed to proceed with a
requirement for local governments to enact air quality programs that
would shorten commutes. For instance, a city could require new
housing to be near jobs and vice versa, or encourage development
near mass transit stations. "AQMD Approves Changes to Region's
Clean Air Plan" Los Angeles Times July 13, 1991, p. A-l.
pjh.oi 53
-------
Public Education
a. Boulder. CO - Grocery shoppers are being reminded that if they
don't buy it, they don't have to throw it away. The prerecycling
education program aims to encourage shoppers to buy products
packaged in readily recyclable materials such as glass and to buy
staples such as flour in large quantities. "Wood-burning Ban Again
in Effect Today, Season's 17th Bad-Air Alert" Rocky Mountain
News. January 3, 1991, p. 19.
b. Clearwater. FL - Directed at students in Pinella and Hillsborough
County schools, the PSTA/HARTline Education Outreach Program
is centered around a 15-minute video entitled "Your Ticket to the
Future." The program is designed to increase students' use of public
transit by making it more acceptable. For more info, call Roger
Sweeney at (813) 530-9921. "Florida Educates Students in Hopes of
Picking Up Riders" Urban Transport News August 8, 1991, p. 128.
XI. Emissions Trading/Offsets
a. Los Angeles. CA -- ARCO Products Co. argues that it should
receive credit for reducing pollution by selling cleaner-burning fuel.
ARCO officials said that if they receive credits for emission
reductions, they would use some of them to add processing units to
produce more clean gasoline. ARCO wants credit for 534 tons/year
of hydrocarbons and more than 11,000 tons/year of CO based on
sales of its Emission Control Premium gasoline. "ARCO Seeks
Pollution Tradeoff Los Angeles Times May 22, 1991, p. 3A.
b. Los Angeles. CA - The Southern California Air Quality
Management District may establish a regional exchange in credits
for nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions. That market,
expected to be formally proposed by the end of 1991, would allow
trades only within the 4-county basin regulated by the AQMD.
"Pollution-Credit Trading May Mushroom" Los Angeles Times July
19, 1991, p. D-l.
c. Camarillo. CA (Ventura Co.) ~ 3M Corp. has agreed to sell 78 toms
of "banked" pollution credits to Proctor and Gamble Co.'s Oxnard
plant. The agreement would allow P&G to emit up to 50 additional
tons/year of pollutants into the air, with plans to double output of
Charmin and Bounty paper products.
The pollutant trade-off is based on a formula that requires some of
3M's credits to be retired permanently. Thus, P&G will pay for 78
tons of the 104 tons in the 3M account but will receive only 50 tons
pjh.oi 54
-------
in emission credits. "3M Agrees to Sell Air-Pollution Credits" Los
Angeles Times July 23, 1991, p. 1-B.
d. More flexible market policies such as emissions trading can produce
reductions in several pollutants simultaneously. Opportunities to
grant regulatory credit for multiple simultaneous emissions
reductions must be created if we expect such strategic private
investments to occur. One example for CO2 is the recently
introduced Cooper-Synar Bill (H.R. 5966). This bill would create an
offset requirement for all new CO2 sources generating more than
100,000 tons per year. At the same time, it would establish
regulatory mechanisms for CO2 offsets to be created by utilities as a
by-product of their acid rain control strategy, by such manufacturers
that exceed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
requirement, by planting trees, and by improving energy efficiency
"Markets for Environmental Resources." Environmental Science
and Technology February 1991, p. 213.
e. Chicago. IL (National) ~ The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) has
drafted a contract, subject to approval by the Commodities Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC), which would establish futures and
cash markets for SO2 emission allowances under the Emission
Allowance Trading Provisions of the CAA amendments of 1990.
Trading would commence by Jan. 1, 1993, in conjunction with
compliance deadlines.
The EPA would administer the CAA provisions by issuing
allowances to facilities emitting SO2. The CBOT would provide the
facility for trading these allowances.
Futures allowances would be traded at the CBOT in an open
market, allowing utilities to buy allowances or sell excess allowances
at a profit. The key is to reduce emissions, while keeping costs at a
minimum. For some facilities, that will mean deferring capital
equipment purchases and playing the game of supply and demand.
CBOT proposes to: 1) Establish and administer allowance transfer
programs via an annual auction and a direct sale; 2) Establish and
operate active cash markets allowing market participants to acquire
and dispose of allowances; 3) Establish and operate active futures
markets to provide accurate pricing signals so that informed
decisions can be made regarding emission control. 4) Establish
information systems to provide data necessary to evaluate the
allowance program at the least cost.
pjh.oi 55
-------
The contract will be traded in units of 25 one-ton SO2 emission
allowances. Minimum price fluctuations will be in multiples of $1
per allowance.
In Phase I of the project, 110 co-fired electric power plants will be
allotted a set number of permits, each allowing the holder to emit
one ton of SO2 in a year. The number of initial allowances granted
will be far less than the amount of SO2 currently emitted by these
plants.
Coal-fired power plants which commenced operations after
November 15, 1990, will not be given allowances and can continue
to operate only if they can buy allowances on the open market, at
annual auctions, or directly from EPA.
Phase II, which begins in the year 2000, will impose emission limits
on less pollution intensive and smaller plants.
A $2,000/ton penalty will be imposed on plants that exceed their
held allowances. "Chicago Board of Trade to Tackle Emissions
Trading" Pollution Engineering September 1991, pp. 45-46.
XII. Adverse Publicity
a. Each month, the Los Angeles Times publishes a list of the 10 top
environmental penalties. For example, one company, the Vons
Companies Inc., Huntington Park (supermarket chain) was
penalized $20,000. The violation was failure to submit an AQMD-
approved ride-sharing plan. -Money to be spent on employee ride-
sharing incentives over the next 4 years. "Top Air Pollution
Penalties" Los Angeles Times July 10, 1991, p. B-2.
b. Company: SuperShuttle in Los Angeles (airport ground
transportation system) fined $75,000. Violation: Failure to submit
an AQMD ride-sharing plan, the firm agreed to retrofit 25 vans to
run on clean-burning propane fuel at a cost of $75,000. "Top 1990
Air Pollution Penalties" Los Angeles Times June 14, 1991, p. 2-B.
c. Company: Union Bank Panorama City. Penalty: $23,000.
Violation: Failure to submit an AQMD-approved ride-sharing plan.
Money to be spent on employee ride-sharing incentives over a 1-
year period. "Top Air Pollution Penalties" Los Angeles Times
April 2, 1991, p. 2-B.
pjh.oi 56
-------
Colorado - Motorists who have been avoiding Colorado's auto
emissions tests by tagging their clunkers with collector plates soon
may be forced off the road. Owners of vehicles with collector plates
will have to buy a 5-year vehicle registration plate, compared to a
1-year registration for most vehicles. The special plate and
emissions exemption was originally designed to help owners or cars
that were at least 25 years old and used mainly in shows. But too
many people abused the exemption by putting the plates on old
pickups and cars used for everyday driving. It became a loophole
that let the worst polluters stay on the road. The number of
vehicles with collector plates mushroomed from 3,000 in 1986 to
39,000 last year and is expected to reach 54,000 this year. "Senate
OKs Smog Tests for Collector-Plate Cars Bill Targets Abuse of
Special Tags by Owners Whose Clunkers Emit Clouds of Pollution"
Rocky Mountain News March 21, 1991, p. 12.
Incentives for Tree Planting
Los Angeles. CA -- The AQMD is proposing to encourage more
tree planting in urban areas to shade buildings, cutting down on the
use of air conditioning equipment. In Pasadena, utility bill credits
are available for customers who plant trees. "40 New Rules
Proposed to Clean Southland Air" Los Angeles Times February 1,
1991, p. A-3.
XTV. Incentives to Reduce Electric Demand
Beginning in 1984, EPA provided several States with a total of
nearly $3 million to develop future acid rain control strategies. The
47 projects funded provided the start for what became known as the
State Acid Rain (STAR) Program. This was a unique program
because it responded only to the threat of legislation, not to a law
already enacted.
One aspect of acid rain control the States are considering seriously
is energy conservation. A number of studies have been performed
to figure out how much energy, and consequently pollution, can be
cut by conservation. STAR participants point out that conservation
has a short payback period and eliminates, or at least defers,
industry needs for capital construction of facilities. "States
Preparing for Acid Rain Legislation" Chemical and Engineering
News September 11, 1989, p. 20.
pjh.oi 57
-------
b. San Diego. CA -- The San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District is proposing to require special water heaters to be installed
in homes. Solar heating equipment would be required on all new
swimming pools, hot tubs, and home water heaters. Home that
already have other mechanisms to heat water would be required to
retrofit with solar equipment on resale. "Clean-Air Panel Unveils 47
Ways to Battle Smog" Los Angeles Times July 30, 1991, p. B-l.
c. Los Angeles. CA - Officials with Southern California Edison Co.
and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power said major
programs would be started to induce consumers to buy energy-saving
products, to rely on alternative energy sources such as solar and
geothermal, and to phase out burning oil for electric energy
production. Edison already is offering a $5 rebate per bulb to
customers who buy fluorescent light bulbs. The DWP plans a door-
to-door campaign later this year to perform energy audits in homes
and give away fluorescent bulbs to low income customers.
Edison has a major program in place offering incentives to
developers who build homes that surpass State efficiency standards.
The utility is also working with Texas Instruments Inc. to develop a
rooftop solar cell that could provide one-third of the energy for the
average home. "Utilities Will Reduce Emissions" Daily News of
Los Angeles May 21, 1991, p. N-l.
d. California. Florida. Massachusetts - have led the nation by
mandating increased energy efficiency through tighter building
codes. The standards range from requiring specific conservation
measures to setting-performance goals and allowing for maximum
flexibility by designers and builders. The performance standards set
an energy budget for a building, which can be achieved through such
measures as more efficient lighting, heating, and air. conditioning
equipment or better insulation. "Good Policy, Bad Times" Totten,
Michael and Jeffrey Tyrens. State Government News January 1991,
p. 30.
e. According to the report by the Office of Technology Assessment
entitled, "Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse
Gases," policy options for reducing CO2 emissions from the building
sector include: tighter appliance efficiency standards and building
energy codes; utility company demand-side management programs
to encourage building improvements; information programs such as
home energy audits. "Economic Considerations Enter Fray Over
Global Climate Change Policies" Zurer, Pamela S. Chemical and
Engineering News April 1, 1991, p. 10.
pjh.oi 58
-------
f. Greater efficiency in building can be accomplished through a
combination of stricter standards, better energy rating systems for
buildings, a consistent set of national guidelines for energy-efficient
mortgages (EEMS), and sliding-scale hookup fees (for gas or
electric service) tied to the building's energy performance. If buyers
are rewarded for purchasing more energy efficient buildings, either
through relaxed mortgage terms or rebates or hookup fees, they
won't mind that the builder had to pass through the cost of more
insulation, good windows, caulk, better mechanical systems, and
careful construction.
With an energy-efficient mortgage, for instance, the bank adds
energy costs to the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance it
typically uses to determine how much to lend a borrower. "How to
Improve Energy Efficiency" Issues in Science and Technology
Summer 1991, p. 88.
g. California -- Recently, a number of utilities have adopted a least
cost utility planning approach that ranks all energy sources,
including improvements in energy efficiency, by cost. Under this
scheme, if an energy efficiency improvement costs less than a newly
constructed power plant and supplies the same amount of energy,
then the energy-efficient option must be implemented first.
A 1990 law commits California's utilities to "improve the
environment and to encourage the diversity of energy sources
through improvements in energy efficiency and development of
renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal
energy" (CA Assembly Bill No. 3995 1990). Based on
recommendations from a diverse group of utilities, regulators,
agencies, consumer groups, and environmental organizations who
call themselves the Collaborative, the California Public Utilities
Commission in August 1990 approved a 100% increase in near-term
conservation budgets for investor-owned gas and electric utilities.
At the same time, the California Public Utilities Commission
approved regulatory reforms that tie the utilities' annual profits in
part to their success in delivering energy savings (CPUC 1990).
If the utilities do well at conserving energy, they stand to increase
their profits for 1991 by as much as $60 million; poor performance
could yield penalties exceeding $30 million.
At least 17 States have adopted Statewide "least-cost conservation
mandates comparable to California's; at least 6 have created ,
analogous conservation-incentive regimes for their utilities and many
more are considering both measures. "Statehouse Effect Combats
pjh.oi 59
-------
Greenhouse Effect" Cavanaugh, Ralph C. and Arthur H. Rosenfeld.
The Journal of State Government. Vol. 63, p. 96.
h. According to William Reilly, EPA's "green lights" program aims to
decrease energy used for lighting. Lighting accounts for 1/4 of the
U.S.'s energy needs, and 90% of all lighting is associated with
commercial and industrial plants. Under the green lights program,
some 30 major companies will use new energy saving technologies to
meet their lighting needs. "Economic Incentives for Environment
Protection" Chemical and Engineering News. March 25, 1991, p.
16.
i. Canada. Demand management has the potential to yield a
substantial amount of power at a cost that is less than or
comparable to building new generating facilities. Ontario Hydro's
goal is to save 4.5 million kilowatts by 2000 through demand
management. "Changing Attitudes About the Environment in the
1990s: Sixth Canadian Environmental Government Seminar"
Journal of Air and Waste Management Association April 1991.
Volume 41, No. 4., p. 425.
j. Washington State. A Washington law, enacted in 1980, gives
utilities an explicit, monetary incentive to experiment with new types
of resources. The law directs the Utilities and Transportation
Commission to give a higher rate of return on equity on a utility's
initial investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
cogeneration (known as the "equity kicker"). The purpose of the
higher profits is to give the utility a greater incentive to pursue
alternative ways of meeting energy demand that are cheaper and
more environmentally benign that traditional generating plants.
Through the extra profits, the utility receives part of the savings
from the cheaper resource.
The second incentive is a deduction from public utility tax. A utility
can deduct from its gross income the cost of production of
alternative resources. The lower taxes are reflected in the utility's
rates, so the customers receive the benefit of this tax deduction.
The new effect of these 2 incentives is this: Stockholders receive an
incentive to choose alternative resources, and this incentive is
financed in part by higher utility bills and in part by lower State tax
collections. However, utility participation in the tax deduction
incentive has been relatively low.
pjh.Ol 60
-------
After 10 years of testing the equity kicker, Washington has restricted
its use through a renewed act in 1990. Cogeneration and renewable
resources no longer qualify, and conservation programs are limited
to new residential construction and those that target the elderly and
low income.
Glenn Blackmon suggests that utilities should be allowed to
capitalize interest and earnings on conservation investments not yet
included in rates. This mechanism would be similar to the
allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) on
construction projects. Once a power plant goes on-line, the utility is
allowed to recover both its construction cost and the accumulated
interest on its investment. Similarly, regulators could establish an
allowance for funds used to conserve energy (AFUCE) that would
accumulate until the utility's next general rate case. "Conservation
Incentives: Evaluating the Washington State Experience."
Blackmon, Glenn. Public Utilities Fortnightly January 15, 1991, pp.
24-27.
k. Milwaukee. WI ~ Venu Gupta, business operations manager for the
Milwaukee Public Library System, designed a retrofit lighting system
using 32-watt fluorescent lamps and high-frequency electronic
ballasts in the library systems' fluorescent lighting fixtures. The
result has been energy cost savings of $55,000/yr.
The project included installing 23,000 Sylvania lamps and 11,500
Magnetek Triad electronic ballasts in more than 10,000 fixtures at
13 libraries and was completed in 4-1/2 months.
Wisconsin Electric offered a rebate for the purchase of energy-
saving electronic ballasts, because its high-frequency operating
characteristics make the ballast more efficient and optimize the
performance of the fluorescent lamps. "Milwaukee Libraries
Retrofit Light Systems" American City & County June 1991, p. 26.
1. Virginia Beach. VA -- The City Council has approved the
installation of an ice-based air conditioning and cooling system to its
new judicial building and to an addition to its jail. The system,
known as cool storage, makes ice at night when electricity costs are
lowest, and stores it in tanks to cool buildings the next day. Based
on current electrical rates, Virginia Beach taxpayers will save about
$1.6 million in cooling costs during the 20-year life of the
equipment, which will be added to the city's Municipal Center
central plant on nearby vacant land. 60 ice tanks will be partially
buried and shielded by a brick wall. "South" American City and
County June 1991, p. 26.
pjh.Ol 61
-------
DRAFT
m. Brenham. TX - Wholesale customers of the Lower Colorado River
Authority (LCRA) have a unique component to their electric rate
schedules which offers substantial opportunities for energy cost
reduction through load or demand management. LCRA rate
schedules contain the typical billing components of all utilities:
customer charges, energy charges, consumption charges and, for
commercial customers, demand charges. But LCRA's wholesale
customer demand charges fall into 2 categories: coincident peak
(CP) and non-coincident peak (NCP).
The CP charge is the fee per kw of demand charged to the
wholesale customer at the time of LCRA's total system peak
demand. LCRA has a summer and a winter CP charge, the summer
charge being ~$2.50/kw higher than the winter CP charge. By
contrast, the NCP charge is less than $2/kw. The incentive for
demand control during coincident peaks is over 4 times as great as
demand reduction during non-coincident peak.
The City of Brenham is one of many LCRA wholesale customers
that has installed a load management/peak monitoring system that
tracks LCRA's load continuously, as well as tracking hourly peak
reports. By monitoring weather data along with LCRA loads, city
management attempts to forecast LCRA system peaks. When a
peak is predicted, the city notifies participating industrial customers
via a paging system. Industrial users can respond by shutting down
or cycling off nonessential equipment, usually for a 10-30 minute
cycle.
Though participation among industrial customers is voluntary, the
incentive to participate is monetary. If management correctly
predicts system peaks and lowers Brenham's percent of CP, the
city's CP demand charge is less, and these savings are allocated to
the participating industrial customers. Blue Bell, one of 12
participating customers, saved -$40,000 in utility costs during the
summer billing cycle (June-September) last year by shedding load
during coincident peak. "Municipal Load Shedding Yields Big
Savings" Texas Town and City, p. 12. (date?)
n. Osage. Iowa ~ Wes Birdsall, manager of the Osage Municipal
Utility launched an energy conservation program. He used IR
scanners to show residents where their homes were leaking heat. In
1975, he set up new insulation specifications. The utility gave away
thousands of dollars worth of energy-saving devices, like water-
heater jackets and low-flow shower heads, as well as shade trees
from its nursery. The town reduced its energy use, reduced rates by
19% and, by making energy-saving offers, has become a magnet to
pjh.oi 62
-------
DRAFT
new businesses. "Our Town: Americans Take an Energy Lesson
from this Farm Belt Community" Howard, Beth. Omni May 1991,
p. 12.
o. Osage. Iowa ~ Got together with their municipal utility company
and decided a move to efficiency was a move to profitability. What
happened was a small-town success story as Osage actually prepaid
its debt and accumulated a $2 million budget surplus.
Osage's municipal utility helped its citizens weatherize their homes.
The result: energy rates were cut 5 times in 5 years and average
consumer bills were reduced to half of those found on the State
level. The low rates attracted 2 large businesses to the area. And
with over $1,000 per household of tax-free savings on energy bills
recirculating on Main Street, the utility, the people, and the
environment have prospered. Even better news is that what was
done in Osage can be and is being done in similar forms around the
nation. "The 4,000 Townspeople of Osage, Iowa Had a Bright Idea"
Budzinski, Mike Current Municipal Problems, p. 310.
p. New York ~ Incorporating the environmental cost of burning fossil
fuels into the power planning process is a crucial step. The State of
New York is pioneering this approach. Under an innovative
program, a competitive market is being set up whereby independent
power producers must bid against each other for power supply
contracts. Suppliers planning to burn fossil fuels are required to
add nearly 1 cent/kwhr to account for other environmental costs.
"Communication: A Global Agenda for Clean Air" Energy Policy
July/August 1990, p. 584.
XV. Environmental Cities Coalition
Minnesota ~ Several Minnesota cities have grouped together to
form a Stateside Environmental Coalition to encourage the State to
work on environmental problems and issues. Charter members of
the group are St. Paul; Minneapolis; Duluth; Mankato; Robbinsdale;
Shoreview; St. Louis Park; Egan; Flacon Heights; Golden Valley;
Inver Grove Heights; Minnetonka; Plymouth; Arden Hills; Coon
Rapids; and Cottage Grove.
Cities in the Coalition will tackle issues such as mandatory recycling,
bans on the sale and/or use of high-phosphorous lawn fertilizers and
dish detergents, energy conservation, air quality, global warming,
transportation, regulation of distribution of nonrecyclable products,
etc. Members are not required to adopt regulations on every issue
of join every action the group takes.
pjh.oi 63
-------
DRAFT
Coalition members will promote Statewide environmental protection
legislation, perhaps presenting some of their local ordinances as
model legislation for the State. St. Paul Councilman Bob Long
chairs the group. "Activities" Minnesota Cities February 1991,
p. 33.
b. Sacramento. CA -- A conference of elected officials slated to meet
to focus on specific issues of air pollution and to come up with a list
of 5 to 10 ideas to try and adopt in the represented jurisdictions.
Among some of the ideas being considered are: devoting 5% of all
public works budgets to mass transit; locating 1/2 of all new
developments within 1/4 mile of transit stations; requiring private
companies to charge their workers for parking; and using that
money to support transit. For info call 443-1033. "Tired of Talk,
Environmentalists Ask Officials to Set Goals" Sacramento Bee
March 15, 1991, p. B-l.
pjh.oi 64
-------
Session I: Innovative
Uses of Taxes and Fees
-------
John Glenn
Louisiana Environmental Scoring System/Property Tax Exemptions
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
-------
LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORING
SYSTEM/PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS
by
John Glenn
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Louisiana. 1990
1. 46th in per capita income - 1st in toxic emissions
2. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) fining companies -
Department of Economic Development (DED) giving same companies
giving same companies millions in tax exemptions
3. Goals and policies of Departments inconsistent
B. History
1. August 1990, Board of Commerce and Industry (BCI) Board Meeting -
CITGO application
2. Governor freezes all tax exemptions until DED and DEQ can come up
with unified policy recognizing the need for economic growth and
environmental protection
3. August 1990, negotiations for rulemaking begin
4. December 19, 1st Draft Emergency Rules and Regulations go into
effect
5. December 27, 1st BCI meeting under emergency rules and regulations
6. August 20, 1991, "Environmental Scorecard" promulgated
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD FORMULA
A. Environmental compliance record
B. Emissions per worker
C. Bonus points, 5 categories
D. Conditions for environmental review
III. MEASUREMENTS OF EFFECTIVENESS
A. Tax dollars returned to local governments
B. Emission reduction pledges by 1996
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A. Process very important
B. Many improvements in scorecard possible
C. Economic based incentives work
-------
LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORING
SYSTEM/PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS
Environmental Scorecard
by
John Glenn
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Between August of 1990 and August of 1991, Louisiana developed the Rules and
Regulations for an "Environmental Scorecard." The scorecard provides a formula which
links companies environmental records to the percentages of industrial tax exemptions
that they qualify for. The primary purposes of the scorecard are to provide economic
incentives to companies to reduce criteria air pollutants and toxic emissions, and to
follow the State's environmental regulations.
The scorecard also creates an economic development policy that favors labor intensive,
pollution free or low emitting industries over those which create larger amounts pollution
and fewer jobs, the citizens of Louisiana and especially parishes (counties) most heavily
impacted by industry are the benefactors of these policies.
-------
OBJECTIVE
* DEVELOP ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR POLLUTION
PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
STRATEGY
* CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT AND REFINE
INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM
* DEVELOP RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
POLLUTION AND RECYCLING TAX PROGRAMS
-------
FINAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR
INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION
PROGRAM
PROMULGATED
AUGUST 20,1991
-------
-------
Point deductions
0-$3000
$3001-
$10,000
$10,001-
$15,000
amount of penalty
$15,001-
$20,000
-------
Emissions per worker
Pounds of emissions
per worker
iPoints
received
3 '"" "''''Nil*;-. :•.-.;.•?.•«!•; :;•;. '••;•,•:.. --iv
!? """' "" "' '"' J
-------
-------
Bonus points
For DEQ approved
Emissions Reduction
Plan -15 possible points
-------
Bonus points
Develop recycling
systems -
5 possible points
-------
Bonus points
Recycling companies or
manufactured consumer product
10 possible points
V99*
'///*
-------
Bonus points
-------
Bonus points
diversify the state's
economic base -
10 possible points
-------
, •• •• -"f -''I';*:,- %•' ""''" , '*,' -/, "'•?"••', "- -
',- -.-*,'',-';* -$-- -, --, ' 't- I'- '" i '- -, -
"/>'"l ' '•:- ':•:'"' /, :" 'i:-' '-> '" >^"-^
1 'm i f""i% $'* <:'tfr <.•; 'V, '*/ V; Jj /;1 S,^ Vrr^iVv' /:
^'/T: t"f?':i V'"^ ;^>' ^ ^ *-'"V r'J^?J/ > *'v- 4
•• r»f
-------
Conditions for full environmental review
m
-------
Conditions for full environmental review
a history of environmental problems
-------
a history of major
catastrophes
indicating
>nce
-------
Conditions for full environmental review
failure to follow
national
environmenta
-------
AMOUNT OF PROPERTY AND SALES TAXES
RETURNED TO PARISH GOVERMENTS DUE
TO INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM
•^^••I^MBHHBHMMI
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
12/27/90-12/18/91
PRE-CITGO DECISION • POST-CITGO DECISION
-------
PROJECTED AMOUNT OT PROPERTY AND SALES TAXES
RETURNED TO PARISH GOVERNMENTS DUE TO
INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM DURING FY 91-92
30
25
20
15
10
0
FY'91-'92
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
-------
PROJECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS RESULTING
FROM INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION
PROGRAM DURING FY '91-'92
50
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
FY'91-'92
MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF TOXIC EMISSIONS
-------
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS RESULTING FROM
INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM
35
30
25
20
15
10
12/27/90 - 5/30/91 6/1 /91 - PRESENT TOTAL TO DATE
MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF TOXIC EMISSIONS
-------
Deborah Gordon
Drive Plus: Sales Tax/Rebate Based Upon Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Union of Concerned Scientists
Berkeley, California
-------
EPA INNOVATIVE REGULATORY STRATEGIES WORKSHOP
SESSION I:
INNOVATIVE USES OF TAXES AND FEES FOR MOBILE SOURCES
DRIVE PLUS:
SALES TAX/REBATE BASED UPON VEHICLE EFFICIENCY AND EMISSIONS
by
Deborah Gordon
Senior Transportation Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
I. Societal Problems Associated with Motor Vehicles
A. Air Pollution
1. Half of ozone-forming emissions of HC and NOX from vehicles
2. 70-90 percent of local CO emissions from motor vehicles
2. 25 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles
B. Excessive and Undiversified Use of Oil
1. U.S. imports half of the 17 million barrels of oil a day used
2. Over two-thirds of U.S. petroleum use devoted to motor vehicles
3. Oil accounts for 97 percent of fuel used for motor vehicles
C. Motor Vehicle Injuries and Fatalities
1. 14.5 million highway motor vehicle accidents annually
2. Half million severe injuries annually
3. 2.7 million moderate injuries annually
3. 50,000 motorist fatalities annually
II. Current Regulatory Requirements for Motor Vehicles
A. Energy Efficiency - CAFE standards
B. Emissions - Clean Air Act
C. Safety - NHTSA Crash Tests
III. DRIVE Plus Program Design
A. Feebate components
1. carbon dioxide
2. vehicle emissions
B. Revenue neutral/self-financing
C. Sticker on vehicle - consumer information component
IV. Benefits of DRIVE Plus Incentive Programs
A. Mutually reinforcing of current standards
B. Creates incentives for consumers to buy cars that manufacturers must sell
C. Provides incentives to do better than standards require
D. Coordinates design of multiple vehicle attributes (efficiency, safety, emissions)
E. Provides information to consumers that is currently hidden in the market
F. Backs information with rebate which makes information more credible to buyer
V. The Prospects of Consumer Incentive Programs
A. Status of DRIVE Plus legislation in California
B. Proposals in other states and in federal legislation
C. Ontario, Canada Law
D. National Energy Strategy
-------
EPA INNOVATIVE REGULATORY STRATEGIES WORKSHOP
SESSION I:
INNOVATIVE USES OF TAXES AND FEES FOR MOBILE SOURCES
DRIVE PLUS:
SALES TAX/REBATE BASED UPON VEHICLE EFFICIENCY AND EMISSIONS
by
Deborah Gordon
Senior Transportation Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
DRIVE Plus (Demand-based Reductions In Vehicle Emissions PLUS
Improvements in Fuel Economy) is a proposal to create self-financing tax incentives in
California for consumers to buy cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Sales tax
surcharges on vehicles with higher emissions of criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide
(CC»2) would pay for sales tax reductions on more efficient and lower-emitting cars and
trucks. The proposed incentives help vehicle manufacturers meet sales goals contained in
existing federal and state emissions and fuel economy standards while coordinating energy
and environmental goals. DRIVE Plus would also encourage manufacturers to market and
consumers to purchase vehicles that are cleaner and more efficient than the standards
require. The program provides efficiency and emissions information to consumers at the
point of purchase, helping them make better purchase decisions. DRIVE Plus hold the
promise of being politically feasible and it imposes no net new taxes and requires no new
appropriations from the state general fund.
DRIVE Plus was passed by the California Legislature by a large majority in 1990.
However, it was vetoed by then-Governor Deukmejian on his last day in office. The bill
was reintroduced in 1991, but withdrawn from consideration late in the session.
Reintroduction in 1992 is expected.
Although DRIVE Plus has not yet become law in California, it is an innovative
program that other states and countries are quickly moving to emulate. Legislators in five
other states have introduced similar legislation while at least eight other states are
considering the program. The province on Ontario, Canada has already enacted a revenue-
positive version modeled after DRIVE Plus and other countries such as the U.K. are eager
to follow suit.
-------
EPA INNOVATIVE REGULATORY STRATEGIES WORKSHOP
DRIVE PLUS:
Sales Tax/Rebate Based Upon Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and Emissions
by
Deborah Gordon
Senior Transportation Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
-------
DRIVE PLUS
stands for
Demand-based Reduction In Vehicle Emission
PLUS
Improvements in Fuel Economy
-------
Recently Adopted CARB New-Car Emissions Standards
Page :;
NMO<;
NOx
CO
Model
Yenr
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2(M)()
2001
2002
2003
Car Types*
Convert
-tlonal
Conven
-llonal
TLEV
Standards <
039
04
34
0.25
0.4
3.4
0.125
0.4
3.4
1,15V
ULEV
ZICV
crams/mile)
0.075
0.2
3.4
0.04
0.2
1.7
I'hnse-ln Schedule (% of Fleet) for Kiich I)
10%
80%
85%
80%
73%
48%
23%
10%
15%
20%
-
25%
48%
73%
96%
90%
85%
75%
2%
2%
2%
2%
5%
10%
15%
0.0
00
0.0
t€
2%
2%
2%
5%
5%
10%
Meet Average
NMO<;**
0.250
0.231
0.225
0.202
0.157
0.113
0.073
0.070
0068
0.062
Com- I = Conventional cars as of 1991, Conv 2 = Conventional cars as of 1994, TLEV = Transitional Low-Emission Vehicle, LEV = Low-
frnission Vehicle. ULEV = Ullra-Low-Emission Vehicle, ZEV = Zero-Emission Vehicle
NNHKi = Non-methane nf^jmic gases, which arc (he lypc til liydiocarhon emissions icgiihilctl hy Ihc Air Resources Moard.
-------
DRIVE + CO2 Feebates ($22/ton)
400
200-
0
-200-
-400H
j -600H
Q
-800H
-1000-
-1200-
-1400-
-1600
o 15
20 25 30 35
MPG
40 45
1000
-900
-800
700
-600
-500
400
-300
-200
100
(D
-------
Pagel
$2.500
$2,000
$1,500
$1.000
$500
$0
($500)
($1,000)
DRIVE* Credits and Surcharges
Based on CARB's New Emission Standards
(excluding CO2 factor)
1995
1996 1997 1998
• Conventional H TLEV D LEV
Model Year
1999
2000 2001 2002
M ULEV n ZEV
2003
-------
Page '<
DRIVE+ Credits and Surcharges
Applied to CARB New-Car Standards
(excluding CCh factor)
Cars*
Conv 1
Conv 2
TLEV
LEV
ULEV
ZEV
Model Year
1995
•SI.IWH
-$36
$205
$741
$1,182
$2,1173
1996
•$1.110
-$48
$193
$729
$1,170
$2,061
1997
•SI.2HH
-$219
$22
$558
$1,000
$1,891
1998
-si. .fin
-$439
-$199
$337
$779
$1,670
1999
-$1.605
-$634
-$393
$143
$585
$1,476
2000
-U.874
•SHI 2
•fi72
-$35
$406
$1,297
2001
-$1.^27
-$866
-1625
-$89
$353
$1,244
2002
-$1.949
-S8RB
•$f>47
-$lll
$331
$1,222
2003
•S2.0JK
-$976
-$7.16
-$199
$242
$1,133
Note: Amounts shown in sm;ill italic print arc for c;ir types ili;il will he pluiscd out iiiulcr ('iililornia Air Ucsources Hoard regulations.
The amounts arc those tliat would apply if Uic CARD allowed manufacturers to sell these car types.
Conv I = Conventional cars as of 1991, Conv 2 = Conventional cars as of 1994, TLEV = Transitional Low-Emission Vehicle, LEV = Low-
Emission Vehicle. ULEV = Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle, ZEV = Zero-Emission Vehicle
-------
EXAMPLE OF DRIVE+ STICKER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PI
MODEL: 199O BRAND X CAR
FEATURES:XX CUBIC INCH ENGINE.
X CYLINDERS.
CATALYTIC CONVERTER.
CALIFORNIA EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
TOTAL EMISSIONS RATING
% CLEANER THAN AVERAGE*:
DRIVE* REBATE = C$ 316 )
CO2 'GREENHOUSE-
EMISSION RATING
% CLEANER THAN AVERAGE*:
iS3*is3iBi«C
DRIVE* REBATE = CS 138
.TOTAL REBATE s
Emission ratings adjusted to cover program administrative costs.
-------
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO IMPROVE VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY
1991 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
LSGlSLATlVe
PROPOSAL
REVfi&g
N5VTRAI.
(Yof N)
STATE POLICIES:
CA DRIVE- SB431
NRDC DRIVE- 2
Maryland H 685
Mass. HB 2086
Maine HP 1709
Arizona HB 2425
Wisconsin AB 577
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
FEDERAL;: POLICIES:
Scheuer HR 1583
Gore S 201
Bennett HR 51
Wlrth S 741
Synar HR 2960
Dlngell .
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
INTERNATIONAL POLICIES:
Ontario Retail
Sales Act of 1991
N
ACROSS (A>
oa WIWN m
size CLASSES
A
A
A
W
W
W
N/A
W
W
A
A
A
A
A
CONSUMER
(NCENTJV8
tVf»6 *{4}
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
GT
N/A
N/A
N/A
ITC
GT
$CHAtt»AGE
{NCKNTCV8
tNCu»et>
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
VEHICLE
ATTRIBODEa
INCtUOfiO <3>
TCO2/UE
LCO2/UE
MPG
MPG
MPG
MPG/UE
MPG
TC02
MPG
MPG
TC02/S
LCO2/VF/AF
MPG
MPG
StJCKER
PtACCDON
VSHtetB
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
pnoposeo(C)
o*
eNA«S0<«>
p
NO BILL
P
P
P
P
P
„• P
P
P
P
P
NO BILL
E
1. „. .„.». C OfcU E NT 6~«. — 1
Legislature passed but Governor vetoed
in 1990; Reintroduced in 1991.
Increases registration fees on all
vehicles.
No action in 1991; to be reintroduced
in 1992.
No action in 1991; lo be reintroduced
in 1992.
Guzzler fee of $20/mpg on models below
the fleetwide average fuel economy.
Part of omnibus legislation in the
World Environment Policy Act.
Part of an omnibus Energy Policy
proposal in Senate.
Feebate based on volume-adjusted,
fuel-cycle carbon dioxide emissions.
Separate schedule for cars and sport
utility vehicles; revenue generating.
NOTES:
1. Consumer incentives inlcude: "C" - cash; "ST" - sales tax rollback; "IT" - income tax deduction; "GF" - gas guzzler fee assessment.
2. Manufacturer incentives include; "GT" - gas guzzler tax; "ITC" - investment tax credits.
3. Vehicle attributes include: "TCO2" - tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions; "LCO2" - life-cycle (fuel production, transmission, and combustion) carbon
dioxide emissions; "S" - safe vehicle design; "UE" - urban air emission levels of hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulates;
"AF" - use of alternative fuels; "VA" - volume adjusted for vehicle size; and "MPG" - vehicle fuel economy.
"N/A" means not applicable.
12/10/91
-------
Kevin McCarthy
Alternative Fuels Programs
Office of Legislative Research
Hartford, Connecticut
-------
EPA INNOVATIVE REGULATORY STRATEGIES WORKSHOP
Alternate Fuels Programs in Connecticut
KEVIN E. MCCARTHY
Associate Analyst
Connecticutt General Assembly
Office of Legislative Research
I. Genesis
II. Legislative History
A. Draft Bill
B. Committee Action
III. PA 91-179
A. Tax Benefits for Alternate Fuel Vehicles
1. Corporate Business Tax Credit
2. Sales Tax Exemption
B. Other Provisions
1. Use of tunnels by alternate fuel vehicles
2. State agency purchase preference
IV. Future prospects
V. Policy issues
A. Choice of alternate fuel technologies
B. Utility regulation of alternate fuel sales
V. Related legislation and state activities
-------
CONNECTICUT'S INCENTIVES FOR NATURAL GAS VEHICLES
In the Spring of 1990, the ranking member of the Energy
and Public Utilities committee of the Connecticut state
legislature suggested that the committee investigate the
possibility of providing state incentives to promote
alternative fuel vehicles. Following usual legislative
practice, the committee established a task force to study
the issue. The task force, consisting of legislators,
utility and business representatives, and regulatory
agencies, met over the summer. The task force recommended
that the state provide tax incentives for alternate fuel
vehicles and eliminate certain regulatory barriers to their
use.
This concept was introduced as a bill in the regular
1991 session. As drafted, the bill provided a 10% business
tax credit for expenses associated with alternate fuel
vehicles and exempted such vehicles and related equipment
from the sales tax. The draft bill also allowed alternate
fuel vehicles to use the state's one highway tunnel and
allowed the administrative services department to give a
price preference of up to 10% for alternate fuel vehicles.
The Energy Committee reported the bill to the Finance
Committee, which imposed a 1993 sunset date for the tax
benefits and limited its provisions to vehicles powered by
natural gas. The bill was adopted and went into effect
October 1, 1991. Several companies have already taken
advantage of its provisions.
The bill's sponsor anticipates introducing legislation
this year that would extend the bill's sunset date. There
also may be an effort to extend the tax benefits to other
alternate fuels. Given the state's fiscal climate, the fate
of these proposals is uncertain.
Among the policy issues raised by the bill are: (1)
whether the state should support specific technologies given
the infrastructure needed for certain alternate fuels and
(2) how the state should regulate sales of alternate fuels
by utility companies.
-------
ENERGY AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
PA 91-179—sHB 6740
Energy and Public Utilities Committee
Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee
Judiciary Committee
AN ACT ENCOURAGING THE USE OF
VEHICLES POWERED BY CLEAN
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
SUMMARY: This act provides a credit against corpo-
rate business taxes of 10% of the expenses of equipment
associated with natural gas powered vehicles. It also
exempts natural gas vehicles, equipment to convert vehi-
cles to natural gas. and natural gas filling station equip-
ment from the sales tax. The credit applies to expenses
paid or incurred in income years that start on or after
January 1. 1991 but before January 1. 1993. The exemp-
tion applies to sales on or after October 1, 1991 but
before January 1. 1993.
The act allows natural gas vehicles to use tunnels on
highways. Under prior law. this was a class C misde-
meanor, subject to a fine of up to $500 and imprison-
ment for up to three months. (The one highway tunnel in
the state is on the Wilbur Cross Parkway).
The act allow-s the commissioner of administrative ser-
vices to give a price preference of up to 10% for (1)
vehicles powered by natural gas or (2) vehicles powered
by other fuels and the equipment to convert them to use
natural gas. either exclusively or with another fuel.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1. 1991
FURTHER EXPLANATION
Business Tax Credits
The act creates a credit against various business taxes
.*qual to 10% of certain costs associated with natural gas
vehicles. The credit applies to expenses incurred or paid
for:
I. equipment that is incorporated or used in a com-
pressed natural gas (CNG) filling station,
2. equipment that is incorporated or used in the con-
version of a vehicle to natural gas or to natural gas
and another fuel, and
3. the added cost of buying a vehicle that is powered
by natural gas only.
Filling station equipment includes compressors, stor-
ige cylinders, associated framing, tubing and fittings.
valves, fuel poles, and fuel delivery lines. The credit also
applies to the costs of installing this equipment.
The vehicle conversion equipment includes storage
rylinders, cylinder brackets, regulated mixers, fill valves,
pressure regulators, solenoid valves, fuel gauges, elec-
tronic ignitions, and alternative fuel delivery lines. In
order to be eligible for the credit, the converted vehicle
must meet generally accepted standards. These standards
include, among others, those set by the American Gas
Association, the National Fire Protection Association.
the American National Standards Institute, the Ameri-
can Society of Testing Materials, and the American Soci-
ety of Mechanical Engineers.
The added cost of buying a natural gas vehicle is the
difference between its purchase cost and the manufac-
turer's suggested retail price of a comparably equipped
vehicle not powered by natural gas.
Any credit that cannot be used in a tax year can be
carried over to the next three tax years. The credit
applies to business taxes imposed on corporations, air
carriers, railroad companies, and utility companies. A
company cannot claim the credit against more than one
tax for the same expenditure.
Sales Tax Exemption
The act exempts the following from the sales and use
taxes:
1. new vehicles powered exclusively by natural gas;
2. vehicle conversion equipment, as described above:
and
3. CNG filling station equipment, as described above.
PA 91-248—sSB 810 .
Energy and Public Utilities Committee
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Appropriations Committee
AN ACT TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND
CONSERVATION AND LOAD MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
SUMMARY: This act requires the Department of Public
Utility Control (DPUC) to establish new ratemaking
procedures that modify the relationship between electric.
gas. water, and telephone company sales and their earn-
ings in order to promote energy conservation and other
state policies. DPUC must consider the company's per-
formance in promoting state policies in authorizing a
rate of return on investments.
The act expands an existing law that entitles electric
and gas companies to bonuses for their investments in
conservation and load management. It allows electric.
companies to continue earning a return on retired gener-
ating facilities when their retirement is due to the com-
pany's compliance with state policies. It requires DPI C
to disregard these retired facilities in calculating the com-
pany's excess capacity.
The act allows electric and gas companies to charge
their ratepayers for marketing and promotional costs
under certain circumstances. It requires the Office of Pol-
icy and Management (OPM) and other state agencies to
promote conservation measures in state buildings, and it
amends the state's energy policy.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage
-------
ENERGY AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
FURTHER EXPLANATION
Changes in Raiemaking Procedures
Legislatn-e Findings. The act states that the legislature
finds that electric, gas. water, and telephone companies
will be discouraged from implementing programs pro-
moting state energy, economic development, and other
policies if their participation in these programs harms
.their earnings. It also finds that, in order to promote
these programs, earnings should be consistent with statu-
tory ratemaking principles, even though the companies
are participating in the programs.
DPL'C Revision of Ratemaking Procedures. The act
requires DPUC to investigate the relationship between
utility company sales and earnings by December 31.
1991. It must implement ratemaking procedures and
practices that encourage the implementation of conser-
vation programs and other DPUC-approved programs
that promote state energy, economic development, and
other policies. These procedures must modify or elimi-
nate the direct relationship between sales and earnings.
The procedures can use a statutory provision that adjusts
rates on the basis of sales or a similar method. DPUC
must review its regulations and policies to identify disin-
centives to the development and implementation of pro-
grams promoting the state's policies.
DPUC, in consultation with 0PM and the Office of
Consumer Counsel (OCC). must submit proposals to the
legislature by February 1, 1992. The proposals must rec-
ommend additional legislation DPUC considers neces-
sary to encourage conservation programs and other pro-
grams promoting state energy policy and other state
policies.
Performance Considerations in Ratemaking. Under
prior law, DPUC authorized a company to earn a rate of
return on its investments that was no more than suffi-
cient to cover its costs, maintain its financial integrity,
and attract needed capital. The act, instead, requires
DPUC to authorize a rate of return within a range of
reasonable rates based on the following factors:
1. the quality, reliability, and cost of the company's
service:
2. the reduction or shifting of demand for electricity,
gas. or v.ater resulting from the company's conser-
vation and load managcmeni programs that have
boon Lirrr.-v.,\! h% DPUC:
3. the company's successful implementation of pro-
grams supporting economic development:
4. its success in decreasing or limiting the state's
dependence on oil or meeting other criteria estab-
lished in state policy; and
5. other criteria consistent with state energy policy
and other policies.
DPUC can establish other performance-based incen-
tives, either related or unrelated to the company's autho-
rized rate of return, to implement the act and existing
ratemaking principles. If a company seeks to benefit
from these provisions, OCC can retain independent
experts to analyze, evaluate, and testify on the appropri-
ateness of the company's proposal. The company must
pay OCCs reasonable costs up to $50,000 per proceed-
ing. DPUC must allow the company to recover this
expense from its ratepayers. It can adopt regulations to
implement these provisions.
The act allows DPUC to approve electric, gas, water,
and telephone company rate changes, at the company's
request, in a proceeding other than a rate case in order to
encourage programs that promote energy, economic
development, and other state policies.
Bonus for Conservation and Load Management Pro-
grams. By law, electric and gas companies must imple-
ment conservation and load management programs.
This act requires that these programs be consistent with
"integrated resource planning principles." Neither the
act nor existing law defines this term. In practice, it
means a planning process that analyzes demand and sup-
ply simultaneously and allows entities other than utility
companies to provide energy supply and conservation
services.
By law, electric and gas companies are entitled to a 1%
to 5% bonus on their authorized rate of return on multi-
year capital investments under these programs. The act
extends this provision to their expenditures treated as
operating expenses.
Under the act. in order for an investment or an expen-
diture to receive the bonus, it must: (1) be pan of a
DPUC-approved program. (2) be prudently incurred.
and (3) be successfully implemented. DPUC can also
authorize an electric company to earn a return on its
expenditures in acquiring conservation and load man-
agement services, as approved by DPUC. from an inde-
pendent provider of these services.
Retired Generating Facilities
By law, when an electric company with more than
75,000 customers seeks to change its rates. DPUC must
exclude from the company's rates the costs associated
with the company's excess generating capacity. DPUC
must consider state energy policy, among other things, in
determining whether a facility represents excess capacity.
The act requires DPUC to disregard the following, as it
considers appropriate, in calculating the company's
excess capacity:
I. reduction in the company's peak demand resulting
from its conservation measures and other measures
and programs undertaken by the company since
January I, 1986 to promote state energy policy:
2. the capacity of the company's share in hydroelectric
and other renewable resource facilities placed in
service after June 1. 1986;
3. the capacity provided to the company by "qualify-
ing facilities" (primarily cogenerators) and resource
recovery facilities placed in service after January 1.
1986;
4. any increase in the company's capacity after June 1.
1986 resulting from programs or measures under-
-------
ENERGY AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
taken to implement state energy policy and other
state policies:
5. the reduction in the company's need for reserve
capacity attributable to DPUC-approved connec-
tions between New England electric companies and
electric systems outside the region; and
6. other capacity adjustments DPUC considers appro-
priate, including those it has already recognized.
DPUC must permit the company to continue to earn a
return on and depreciate its unrecovered investment in
generating facilities that have been used to provide ser-
vice and that are temporarily or permanently retired due
to compliance with state policy. The company can earn a
return on a retired facility only insofar as the retirement
reflects the six factors described above. DPUC must also
allow the company to recover, from ratepayers, the cost
of retiring the facility and the prudently incurred ongoing
costs associated with maintaining temporarily retired
facilities. In making its determination concerning allow-
able returns on a retired facility. DPUC must consider
the potential for selling the facility's capacity or thi-
power it generates.
The act specifies that it does not affect any settlement
agreement that DPUC has approved before its effective
date or that arises out of a case pending on that date.
Promotional and Markeunx Cosis
The act repeals a law which prohibits electric and gas
companies from passing to ratepayers the cost of pro-
grams designed to encourage residential customers to
convert their oil heating systems to electricity or gas.
This prohibition applied to company programs or plans
that offer cash or billing credits or impose unreasonable
costs to promote fuel switching.
Under the act. DPUC can allow electric and gas com-
panies to promote specific end uses of electricity and gas
to implement state energy policy and other policies, con-
sistent with integrated resource planning principles and.
with the law limiting the companies' recovery of their
advertising costs.
The act also permits gas and electric companies to
recover from ratepayers their reasonable costs in pro-
moting and marketing efficient gas and electric equip-
ment that DPUC determines (1) is consistent with state
energy policy and integrated resource planning princi-
ples. (2) provides net economic benefits to the company's
customers, and (3) does not have the primary purpose of
promoting one fuel over another. To benefit from this
provision, a company must apply to DPUC. To the
extent practicable. DPUC must determine whether the
equipment meets these two criteria within 120 days of
the application. The company must pay DPUC's and
OCC's costs for analyses, testing, evaluation, and testi-
mony at a public hearing or other proceeding and all
other reasonable and necessary costs in administering
this provision. DPUC specifies how and when these costs
will be paid.
State Facilities
By law. the public works commissioner can. at an
agency's request, expedite energy-saving capital projects.
The act requires each agency to submit a list of its
projects to the Energy and Public Utilities Committee by
February 1. 1992.
By law, OPM must submit an annual report on energy
projects in state buildings to the governor and the Energy
and Public Utilities Committee. The act requires this
report to identify any state laws or procedures, thai
impede innovative energy conservation projects in state
buildings.
The act requires the OPM secretary, in conjunction
w-ith the Department of Public Works, to investigate the
feasibility of connecting state-owned buildings to
existing and proposed district heating and cooling sys-
tems. He must report his findings to the Energy and
Public Utilities Committee by February' 1. 1992. The
report must include an engineering study of the technical
feasibility of such connections, their costs, and their pro-
jected energy savings.
OPM must require each agency to maximize its use of
utility company conservation and load management pro-
grams and provide sites for demonstration projects of
highly energy efficient equipment in its facilities, so long
as this will not impair their functioning.
The Department of Public Works must adopt regula-
tions establishing criteria for selecting equipment for use
in state buildings. The criteria must include a life-cycle
analysis. By law, a life-cycle energy cost analysis calcu-
lates the total of acquiring, operating, and maintaining
capital goods over their useful life. Under the act. the
analysis must also consider the full cost of the energy
capacity and related infrastructure associated with the
type of energy the equipment uses and the risks associ-
ated with this energy source.
Other Energy Policy Changes
In reviewing electric, gas, and water company resource
plans, DPUC must consider the noneconomic costs and
benefits of all proposed resources, consistent with state
energy policy and other policies and the principles of
integrated resource planning.
-------
STATE GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES TO
PROMOTE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION FUELS
A REPORT OF THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
STATE AND LOCAL AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE
Boldface indicates 1991 additions
The American Gas Association is heartened by the gathering momentum behind state
government action to promote greater use of natural gas vehicles (NGVs) and other clean-
fuel vehicles. The passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 provides additional
incentives for state and local governments to seriously consider the many benefits of an
aggressive NGV program.
The natural gas industry is strongly committed to the development, commercialization
and public acceptance of NGVs. NGVs can improve the environment by substantially
reducing vehicular emissions of reactive hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. In addition,
since roughly two-thirds of all the oil consumed in the .United States is used as a
transportation fuel, NGVs can bolster national security - and keep more of America's
capital resources at home - by displacing imported oil in the only major market where oil
still has a monopoly.
Since 1987, individual cities and states have been leading the way in this important area.
What follows is a report on significant actions to date.
Arizona: In 1991, Chapter 176 was enacted which requires that the Director of the
Department of Administration, in consultation with the State Energy Office, to implement
a replacement program for fleets with vehicles that are the most fuel efficient in their class
and to increase the use of alternative fuels in state-owned vehicles.
In 1987, the Arizona Legislature enacted a law that mandates shifts to clean-fuel
vehicles by certain public and private fleets in metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson. In 1988,
the mandate was extended to buses, and natural gas was given a partial and temporary
exemption from the state's motor fuels tax.
Arkansas; In 1991, Act 659 creates a 9-raember alternative fuels commission to
coordinate and direct the alternative fuels market.
American Gas Association
l.-.l.-, Wilson Boulevard. Vrlin-.-ton. \ A 2221W • (703) 841-8597
-------
California: In late 1991, the California legislature passed four bills on alternative
fuels. SB 135 requires all passenger vehicles-for-hire in nonattainment areas to use
alternative fuels. SB 547 provides that the ownership or operation of a facility which sells
compressed natural gas at retail to the public for use only as a motor fuel does not make
the corporation or person a public utility. AB 1607 allows utilities to build and recover the
costs from natural gas vehicle compression stations, and natural gas vehicle conversion and
maintenance facilities. AB 1338 authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission to develop and submit recommendations to the legislature for the
conversion of the state's university shuttle-bus system to alternative fuel.
In September 1990, California enacted a number of measures that will help promote
the use of NGVs. One law provides for tax credits for the cost of devices installed on new
or used vehicles to convert them to Low Emission Vehicles. Credits are limited to $1000
per automobile and $3500 on other motor vehicles. Another law authorizes local units of
government to assess emission fees to fund vehicle demonstration programs. A third law
requires the Public Utilities Commission to evaluate and implement policies to promote the
development of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate the use of NGVs and
electric vehicles. The PUC must hold hearings, consider specific policies and provide the
legislature with a progress report. The PUC also must sponsor workshops to address the
regulation of the sale of natural gas for use in vehicles.
In September 1990, the California Air Resources Board adopted regulations for tailpipe
emissions standards and test procedures for light- and medium-duty vehicles, and the
distribution and availability of clean fuels. The proposal is designed to achieve the greatest
possible emission reductions in the most efficient manner by spurring the development of
advanced vehicle technology and allowing the use of cleaner-burning fuels. The regulations
establish emission standards in four progressively more stringent categories: transitional
low-emission vehicles, low-emission vehicles, ultra-low-emission vehicles and zero-emission
vehicles. The phased-in production mandate for clean-fuel vehicles applies to vehicles
produced for sale and use in the state of California. The hydrocarbon emission standards,
expressed as non-methane organic gases (NMOG), include measurements of non-methane
hydrocarbons, aldehydes, ketones, and alcohols. The NMOG will be adjusted for reactivity
and starting with the 1994 model light-duty vehicle (including passenger cars) category, will
have to meet a fleet average NMOG standard. A system for earning marketable credits for
use in complying with fleet average standards will be established.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 include a California Pilot Program which
requires, at a minimum, 150,000 clean-fuel vehicles to be produced, sold and distributed
annually in .1996-98. Beginning in 1999, 300,000 such vehicles must by produced, sold and
distributed annually.
In September 1989, the California legislature enacted two measures that promote the
vehicular use of natural gas and other clean transportation fuels. One law provides that,
until 1995, the incremental cost of any clean-fuel vehicle will be exempt from the state's 6
percent sales tax. Another law requires that, subject to vehicle availability, at least 25
percent of all newly acquired state government vehicles must have clean-fuel capability.
-------
Colorado: A 1990 Colorado law requires that 10% of the new motor vehicles
purchased or leased by state agencies during fiscal year 1991-92 operate on clean fuels.
Each year thereafter through FY94-95, an additional 10% must use alternative fuels. New
vehicles may be bi-fuel, and existing vehicles may be converted to reach the percentage
requirements. Emergency vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles are exempt. The law also
removes the sale of natural gas as a vehicle fuel from the jurisdiction of the public utilities
commission.
In 1989, the Colorado Legislature enacted a law that provides a $200 rebate for any
person who acquires a clean-fuel vehicle or retrofits an existing vehicle. State and municipal
agencies are also eligible to receive the rebates, which are capped at five vehicles per
person.
Connecticut: In 1991, the General Assembly passed two bills related to alternative
fuels. Act 91-142 directs the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to conduct a study
on the adoption of California's emission standards.
Act 91*179 establishes a 10% tax credit for any investments or expenditures relating to
alternative fuel vehicles until 1993. Alternative fuel vehicle tunnel restrictions were
removed. Also, effective October 1,1991, this Act exempts from the sales tax and use tax:
new vehicles that use clean alternative fuel; equipment to convert vehicles to clean
alternative fuel or to dual use of a clean alternative fuel and another fuel; and, equipment
incorporated into or used in compressed natural gas filling stations.
A bill aimed at global warming was oassed in May 1990. Of interest in the bill is a
section that prompts the Standardization Committee of the Public Works Department to
"consider vehicles using alternative fuels when considering new purchases."
District of Columbia: In December 1990, the District of Columbia enacted sweeping
alternative fuels legislation. The law requires government and private owners and operators
of fleets of 10 or more to convert 5 percent of their vehicles to operate on clean alternative
fuels each year beginning in 1993 through 2000. Reformulated gasoline is excluded from
the clean alternative fuels definition.
The law also bans, effective 1998, commercial vehicles not powered by an alternative
fuel from operating in the Central Employment Area (downtown area) of the District from
sunrise to sunset between May 1 and September 15, the period when smog is particularly
bad.
By February 15, 1992, and on October 1 of each subsequent year, each owner and
operator of a commercial fleet is required to submit plans to the mayor that contain specific
short- and long-range goals and timetables for the implementation of a clean alternative
fuels program. Fines of up to $5000 per day for noncompliance may be levied.
Florida; In October 1991, the governor of Florida passed Executive Order 91-253
mandating alternative fuels in state agency vehicles. By January 1, all state agencies must
submit FY 92-93 budget amendments to begin use of alternatively fueled fleet vehicles in
air quality nonattainment areas. By the year 2000, all possible fleet vehicles will be
required to use the most efficient, least-polluting alternative fuels. Highly visible
-------
demonstration programs using new technologies are also mandated. The governor's office
will also make changes to implement the use of alternatively fueled fleet vehicles in FY 92-
93 with the goal of operating all possible fleet vehicles on alternative fuels. Florida's
Energy Office, in conjunction with the Department of General Services and agency fleet
managers, will develop a comprehensive state plan for alternatively fueled vehicle purchases
and fueling and service infrastructure.
Hawaii: In 1991, the legislature passed two bills related to alternative fuels. SR 154
and SCR 175 requests that the Department of Business, Economic Development and
Tourism, with the Department of Accounting and General Services, determine 1) alternative
motor vehicle fuels, 2) conversion costs, 3) additional purchasing costs for alternatively
fueled vehicles, 4) comparative costs of fossil and alternative fuels, and 5) short- and long-
term benefits of using alternative fuels.
Iowa: In 1991, SF 508 establishes a mandate, beginning in 1992, that at least 5%
of the new state vehicles purchased shall be equipped to utilize alternative fuels, increasing
to 10% in 1994. Also, alternatively fueled vehicles may be financed under the Iowa Energy
Bank Program, which provides energy financing for the state, state agencies, political
subdivisions, school districts, area education agencies and community colleges.
Louisiana: SB 537 was passed in 1991 providing a 20% income tax credit for clean
burning alternatively fueled vehicles and property related to the dispensing of such fuel.
In 1990, Louisiana enacted legislation that requires 30% of new state agency fleet
vehicles to have clean-fuel capability as of September 1, 1994. The mandate increases to
50% in 1996, and could increase to 80% in 1998, pending a review of the program by the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
The legislature has directed the Public Service Commission to deregulated the direct
sales of natural gas by producers, pipelines, distribution companies of other persons for
vehicle fuel purposes.
Maryland: The Maryland NGV Working Group, comprised of natural gas utility
representatives from around the state, will have recommendations to submit to the
legislature on compressed natural gas- and LNG-powered vehicles in 1992.
Massachusetts: In December 1990, Massachusetts enacted a law that will allow the
Commonwealth to adopt the non-methane hydrocarbon emissions standards b ;ed on
California's 1994 low-emission vehicle standards. The Massachusetts standards ar to be
phased in, beginning with model year 1993 vehicles, and prohibit any corporation or •. rson
from selling vehicles in the state unless they comply with the standards. In model yea: 000,
the hydrocarbon standard that can be met by gasoline-powered vehicles will be comp.ctely
phased out.
The statute's language would allow Massachusetts to delay implementation of these
standards by up to two years if the state determines that other New England states or New
Jersey are unlikely to adopt the California standards. New York adopted California
-------
5
standards in 1990. (see New York)
Exemptions to the program are available for certain vehicles, such as used vehicles that
are sold as used vehicles in Massachusetts. Exemptions also are available for vehicles
originally registered outside of Massachusetts but brought into the state because of
ownership transfers pursuant to inheritance, divorce or legal separation.
Minnesota: Minnesota deregulated the sales of natural gas for resale to end-users
for vehicle fuel purposes, making such sales a non-utility function. (1984)
Missouri; Passed in 1991, HB 45 sets a timetable for the conversion of government
vehicle fleets to alternative fuels. Any fleet of 15 or more vehicles must convert 10% by July
1,1996, 30% by July 1,1998, and 50% by July 1,2000, to be capable of burning alternative
fuel. By July 1, 2002, 30% of government vehicles must operate solely on alternative fuels.
Nevada: AB 812 relates to clean air; requires the state environmental commission
to conduct public hearings and submit a report concerning the use of alternative fuels in
certain motor vehicles; requires the state environmental commission to adopt the laws of
California concerning certain emmission tests for diesel vehicles.
New Mexico; In 1991, the legislature passed HM 23 which establishes the Clean
Alternative Fuel Task Force.
New York: a 1991 New York City ordinance requires the city to purchase 385
alternative fuel motor vehicles by June 30, 1992, and establishes a rate of purchase for
alternative fuel buses.
In Fall 1990, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation adopted
California's 1993 motor vehicle emission standards and durability requirements. Beginning
in 1993, 40% of passenger cars and light-duty trucks and certain medium-duty vehicles
manufactured for sale in New York must meet exhaust standards of 0.25 gin/mi for
hydrocarbons, 0.4 gm/mi for nitrogen oxides and 3.4 gm/mi for carbon monoxide. The
percentage rises to 80% in 1994 and 100% hi 1995. All emission control equipment must
be certified to last 100,000 miles. As noted earlier, California has since adopted more
stringent standards. New York is expected to follow suit, maintaining an equivalent
program.
In August 1990, New York embarked on a six-year, $40-million state demonstration
program to operate 268 cars, buses and trucks on alternative fuels. The vehicles will be
purchased or retrofitted, operated throughout the state, and tested extensively for
performance, durability and emissions. In addition, several fueling facilities will be built,
and funding will be provided for driver and mechanic training and an information network.
The vehicles operating on natural gas in the program will include buses and light- and
heavy-duty trucks.
Also in August 1990, The Port Authority and the Triborough. Bridge and Tunnel
Authority (TBTA) jointly announced that they have opened access to their tunnels and
bridges "to certain [dedicated] alternative-fueled motor vehicles that reduce air pollution."
-------
The TBTA fully lifted its ban on bi-fuel vehicles as well.
In 1989, three state agencies issued a jointly developed New York State Energy Plan
that calls for a 50% increase in natural gas use by 2008. While the plan stopped short of
advocating an outright mandate for the use of clean transportation fuels, it did call for
accelerated state government demonstration programs and asserted that New York State
"should encourage the use of compressed natural gas as a transportation fuel".
North Carolina: Chapter 738 requires the Energy Division of the Department of
Economic and Community Development and the Department of Administration to study the
use of clean transportation fuels in state-owned vehicles and to develop a demonstration
project using natural gas as the fuel for state-owned vehicles.
Oklahoma: The "1991 Alternative Fuels Conversion Act" (HB 1193) provides for a
50% tax credit for conversion of a vehicle to liquid propane gas, liquid natural gas and
compressed natural gas and for equipment used to fuel vehicles for a period of two years.
The 50% tax credit is applicable from December 31,1990 to January 1,1993. At the end
of the two-year period, the tax credit reverts back to the 20% implemented in 1990 by the
legislature.
The Office of Public Affairs currently administers the $1.5 million Oklahoma
Alternative Fuels Conversion Fund. The fund will reimburse costs to any state, county,
municipal or school district, up to $3500 per conversion, that voluntary converts a vehicle
to compressed natural gas, LNG, propane, ethanol or electricity. The fund will also pay the
costs, up to $100,000, to install fueling stations. In return, the agencies will repay the fund
from the fuel savings achieved until the fund is repaid. Repayment will be suspended if the
clean fuel price is not below the price of the fuel displaced by the alternative fuel.
Also, the sale of compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas, and liquid propane gas
as a vehicle fuel was deregulated.
Oregon: Enacted in 1991, SB 765 requires a certain percentage of state vehicles to
be capable of using alternative fuel to the maximum extent economically possible. After
July 1,1994, the state shall acquire only alternative fuel vehicles except in areas unable to
economically dispense alternative fuel.
SB 766 requires motor vehicles, subject to the control of certain mass transit and
transportation districts, to use alternative fuel to the maximum extent economically
possible.
HB 2130 expands the energy conservation tax credit programs to include costs
associated with acquiring and operating alternatively fueled fleet vehicles. It also permits
investor-owned utilities to offer commercial and industrial customers cash to assist in the
purchase of alternatively fueled fleet vehicles and fueling facilities.
HB 3344 establishes two studies. First, the Department of Transportation will study
the feasibility of replacing department passenger-carrying gasoline vehicles with NGVs. The
second directs the Department of Energy, in consultation with the Economic Development
Department, to assess renewable fuels and cost of achieving state fuel independence.
The Oregon Department of General Services has established a demonstration program
-------
for clean-fuel vehicles. The Salem state motor pool is operating a 2-year demonstration
program using 14 bi-fuel vehicles. Thus far, the program administrators are very pleased
with all aspects of the NGVs. Another 20-vehicle procurement is being considered.
Pennsylvania: In December 1989, both Houses of the Pennsylvania legislature
adopted a resolution that urges Congress "to enact a meaningful mandate for phased shifts
to alternative transportation fuels by a substantial number of our nation's vehicles, and to
assure that any such mandate permits undistorted competition, under comparable regulatory
conditions, between all transportation fuels that are substantially cleaner than oil-based
products." The Pennsylvania resolution also urges Congress "to enact tax incentives for the
private sector, and financial assistance incentives for the states and municipalities, in order
to reduce .the obstacles posed by initial capital expenditures for shifts to alternative
transportation fuels."
South Dakota: In 1990, the South Dakota Legislature passed a resolution, patterned
closely after the Pennsylvania resolution, that urges Congress "to enact a meaningful
mandate for phased shifts to clean transportation fuels by a substantial number of our
nation's vehicles." Like the Pennsylvania resolution, the South Dakota resolution also calls
for federal tax incentives for the private sector, federal financial assistance incentives for
states and municipalities, and federal policies that permit "undistorted competition" between
clean transportation fuels.
Texas: In 1991, the Texas legislature passed sales tax exemption status for propane
and natural gas as a motor vehicle fuel.
In May 1989, the Texas legislature enacted two laws that mandate a phased shift to
clean transportation fuels by certain vehicles in nonattainment areas. The mandate covers
all metropolitan buses, state agencies with fleets of over 15 vehicles and school districts with
fleets of over 50 school buses. The mandate directs affected fleet operators to attain clean-
fuel capability for all vehicles acquired after September 1,1991. Retrofitting of vehicles will
be necessary in the probable event that sufficient clean-fuel vehicles are not yet available
directly from Original Equipment Manufacturers.
The following targets for compliance must be met:
30% of each affected fleet by September 1, 1994;
50% of each affected fleet by September 1, 1996; and
If certain findings are made by the Texas Air Control
Board, 90% of each affected fleet by September 1, 1998.
The Texas Air Control Board is also empowered to set mandates for most local
government fleets of over 15 vehicles -and for private fleets of over 25 vehicles.
For compliance, vehicles must have the capability to use compressed natural gas "or
other alternative fuels that result in comparably lower emissions of oxides of nitrogen,
volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, or particulates or any combination of them".
-------
8
Exemptions can be obtained if refueling facilities are unavailable and/or if clean-fuel
suppliers do not offer adequate financing.
Enactment of these laws followed a one-year state government demonstration program,
involving 12 state government vehicles, which showed that retrofitting vehicles to natural gas
led to substantial reductions in operating costs and dramatic improvements in emission
levels.
Texas also passed HB 1878, which deregulates the sale of natural gas for resale to end
users for vehicle purposes, making such sales a non-utility function, effective September,
1989.
Utah: Several programs were established with HB 122 and HB 142. A Clean Fuel
Private Sector Incentive Program will award monies from an annual budget of $10,000 to
private sector conversions or purchases of clean-fuel vehicles. The second law established
the revolving Clean Fuel Conversion Fund. An appropriation of $10,000 will be given
annually. Up to $3,000 per government vehicle may be loaned out to government
departments, school divisions, etc. with repayment required within seven years.
Virginia: In 1991, Virginia passed extensive alternative fuels legislation. SJR 206
and HJR 481 established an 18-month pilot project in Northern Virginia, Greater
Metropolitan Richmond, and Hampton Roads to determine the feasibility of domestic clean
fuels.
HB 1401 prohibits the School Board from preventing the use of alternative fuels in
school buses.
HJR 321 calls for each of the seven school divisions to develop plans for conversion of
bus fleets to alternative fuels emphasizing compressed natural gas.
HB 1454 makes loans available from the Literary Fund to purchase alternative fuel
buses, to convert buses to alternative fuels, and to build alternative fuel refueling facilities.
HJR 334 furthers the joint subcommittee on Clean Transportation Fuels through the
1992 legislative session.
SB 627 allows SCC to deregulate the sale of natural gas as a vehicle fuel on a case-by-
case basis.
HJR 336 provides for the removal of tunnel restrictions on alternatively fueled vehicles.
In 1990, the Virginia General Assembly created a special joint subcommittee to study
the possible use of natural gas vehicles and other clean-fuel vehicles in the state. The group
is studying the emissions, economics, safety and other benefits of clean-fuel vehicles that
could be purchased or leased by state agencies, school districts and local transit authorities.
The subcommittee held seven hearings on clean-fuel vehicles and related issues last year,
at various locations around the state.
The Virginia NGV Working Group, comprised of natural gas utility representatives from
around the state, prepared a white paper to suggest options for an NGV program in
Virginia. Many of the group's recommendations were included in the enacted package of
legislation.
-------
Washington: In 1991, municipal and state legislation made significant strides in
alternative fuels. King County Ordinance 9891 provides that at least 50% of the vehicles
purchased in 1992 shall use alternatives fuel and at least 75% in 1993; this may include the
conversion of existing vehicles.
Ordinance 9892 waives the licensing fee from 1991-1996 for taxicabs and for-hire
vehicles using alternative fuels.
Ordinance 9893 makes an appropriation of $132,500 from the Public Works Fund and
Motor Pool Fund to implement the Alternative Fuels Pilot Program.
The state Clean Air Bill (HB 1028) requires 30% of vehicles purchased on state
contracts to use clean fuels after July 1, 1992, increasing 5% each subsequent year.
Preference will be given to dedicated clean fuel vehicles, however, conversions may be used
in a one to one ratio. Also, the law finds compressed natural gas fueling infrastructure
development imperative and to be in the public interest.
In 1989, the Washington legislature enacted a law requiring the state's Department of
Transportation to "consider" acquiring clean-fuel vehicles where they are feasible and
economically justified.
West Virginia: SB 2 requires the Public Service Commission to develop technology
demonstration programs for natural gas, methanol and electricity. Also, the sale of natural
gas as a vehicle fuel by a non-utility was deregulated.
The governor, by means of executive order, initiated a test group of state vehicles to
be converted to use compressed natural gas. The executive order seeks to establish a series
of natural gas refueling stations to be operational by September 30, 1991 for use by the
converted vehicles.
Wisconsin: Wisconsin received federal funding approval for a program to assist
municipalities in converting their fleets to utilize alternative fuels and displace gasoline use
by 85%. Qualified local governments may receive up to $30,000, or maximum of $2,000 per
vehicle, under the two-year program. The Energy Department has allocated $150,000 for
the program, funded by the Energy Overcharge Fund.
Governor Tommy G. Thompson has appointed a task force composed of cabinet
members to monitor a state fleet alternative fuels pilot program and to develop state policy
on the use of alternative fuels.
The Northeastern States: Eight northeastern states have agreed in principle to adopt
stronger auto emissions standards, equivalent to the California LEV program. The new
standards would apply to model-year 1993 vehicles that enter commerce in Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
The plan was drafted by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, but
each state will develop its own program. New York and Massachusetts have already done
so. Maine and Rhode Island may be next in line.
State and Local Groups: A number of organizations representing state and local
-------
10
governments or agencies have adopted policy statements supporting the increased use of
natural gas, especially in vehicles, as a viable way to pursue America's environmental and
energy security goals. Groups endorsing this policy include the National Governors
Association, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the National League of
Cities, the Energy Council (formally the South/West Energy Council) and the National
Conference of State Legislatures. The National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (NARUC) has adopted a resolution to "further encourage the development
and widespread use of natural gas vehicles."
AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
STATE AND LOCAL AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE
KENNETH GAUDI, Manager, State Government Issues
at Peoples Natural Gas Co., CHAIRMAN
ANDY McGINN, Manager, State and Local Relations
at the American Gas Association, STAFF EXECUTIVE
703/841-8597
December 2, 1991
-------
Session !!. Marketable
Permits
-------
Pat Leyden
South Coast Marketable Permits Program:
VOC and NOX Sources
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Diamond Bar, California
-------
MARKETABLE PERMITS PROGRAM
FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
by
Pat Leyden
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Diamond Bar, California
I. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD)
A. Who is the SCAQMD?
B. SCAQMD's Jurisdiction
C. Current Rules and Regulations
II. MARKETABLE PERMITS PROGRAM (MPP)
v
A. Concept
B. Sources Participating in the MPP
C. Baseline Emissions
III. PERMITTING - "THE IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM"
A. Single Source Permits
B. Multiple Source Permits
C. Emission Reduction Targets
D. Annual Permit Renewals
IV. ENFORCEMENT - "THE CRITICAL ELEMENT'
A. Compliance Tools for ROG Sources
B. Compliance Tools for NOX Sources
C. Facility Audits
D. Emissions Monitoring and Reporting Periods
V. EMISSIONS TRADING - "THE CENTERPIECE"
A. ROG Commodity
B. NOX Commodity
C. Trading System
D. Trading Market
E. Trading Restrictions
-------
VI. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
"IMPLEMENTATION IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BASIN"
A. Air Quality Assessment
B. Potential Socio-Economic Impacts
VII. SCHEDULE FOR THE MPP
A. Feasibility Study
B. Recommendation to the SCAQMD's Governing Board
C. Rule Development
-------
MARKETABLE PERMITS PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
by
Pat Leyden
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Diamond Bar, California
MARKETABLE PERMITS PROGRAM
The South Coast Air Quality Management District is studying the use of an emissions
trading program as a means of achieving further emission reductions from stationary
sources in the Basin in a more cost-effective manner. Stationary source emissions are
currently regulated by source specific rules, which specify increasingly stringent processes
and/or control technologies to achieve emission reductions. This approach has been
widely successful. Emissions from almost every source category have been significantly
reduced.
Although air quality goals can be met through traditional rules and regulations,
employing market-based approaches may reduce compliance costs, allow greater
compliance flexibility to affected sources, and can stimulate technological innovation.
PROPOSED PROGRAM DESIGN
The Marketable Permits Program (MPP) is based on the concept of bubbling stationary
sources at the facility level, limiting total mass emissions from the facility, and requiring
the sources to meet prescribed annual facility emissions targets. The actual method of
compliance would be up to the individual firm, including purchasing traded emissions,
installing control equipment, using lower emitting material, or other techniques.
Under the MPP, facilities with one or more permitted emission sources would be
allocated baseline emissions for ROG and NOX based on recent historical emission
levels. Each year, sources would be required to meet annual emission targets that would
decline from the initial baseline emission allocation approximately 5 percent for ROG,
and 7 to 8 percent for NOX.
STATUS
The District is currently conducting a year-long feasibility study for the MPP which will
conclude in early 1992. A series of working papers are being developed to address key
policy and technical issues. To date, five working papers for the feasibility study have
been completed. A broad-based Advisory Committee has been working to develop
recommendations for the MPP.
In March 1992, District staff will report to the Governing Board seeking a
recommendation regarding rule development. If the Board approves, a series of rules
will be developed to implement the MPP.
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Facility
Permit
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Mass
Emission
Limits
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Marijke Bekken
Locomotive Emissions Trading
California Air Resources Board
Sacramento, California
-------
Locomotive Emissions Trading
Marijke Bekken
California Air Resources Board
In 1988, the California Clean Air Act was passed, requiring that the
California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) consider the adoption of
emission regulations for currently unregulated mobile sources, including
locomotives. Pursuant to that mandate, a market-based plan to reduce
locomotive emissions is being developed. It is composed of an emissions
cap, which declines over time, coupled with marketable emission permits.
The permitted levels would be based on a determination of the percent
control believed reasonable and achievable, or on the overall emission
reductions necessary to achieve California air quality standards. Emission
reductions beyond those required for a given company would result in
emission credits, which could be sold.
Concerns about the locomotive strategy focus on growth and enforcement
issues, especially the incorporation of growth in the railroad industry,
growth in passenger corridors, market shifts between trucking and rail, and
market shifts within the rail industry. Verification and enforcement of the
emissions cap are major issues, especially the cost and administration
technicalities. These issues will be fully resolved as the strategy
undergoes further development.
-------
Locomotive Emissions Trading
Marijke Bekken
California Air Resources Board
1. Legislative mandate to reduce emissions
2. Brief background of the railroad industry
a. Locomotive fleet
b. Locomotive service types
c. Locomotive emissions
3. Regulatory options
a. Locomotive emission standards
b. Engine modifications/operational limits
c. Market-based control strategy
4. The market-based control strategy under development
a. Baseline emissions
b. Company averages
c. Reduction goals
d. Emissions trading
e. Enforcement and verification
f. Advantages and disadvantages of a market-based control
strategy for the railroad industry
-------
A REGULATORY PLAN
FOR THE CONTROL OF
LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS
Innovative Regulatory Strategies Workshop
January 15-17, 1992
-------
Overview
Background
Regulatory Options
Market-Based Control Strategy
• Emissions accounting
• Emissions reporting
• Emissions trading
Recommendation
Legislation
California Clean Air Act, 1988
- consider locomotive regulations
Federal Clean Air Act, 1990
- preempts "new" locomotives
-------
Locomotive Fleet
20,000 locomotives in the U.S. fleet
500-600 new locomotives sold annually
90% are owned by major railroads
Types of Locomotive
Service
• Local
• Yard/Switch
• Line Haul
• Passenger
-------
Locomotive Engines
Medium speed diesel engines
Rebuilt every 4 years
Improvements can be retrofitted
Engine drives electric generators
Wheels driven by electric motors
Little transient operation
Locomotive NOx
Emissions
by basin
San Diego
Bay Area
South Coast
Central Coast
San Joaquin
Sacramento Valley
1
m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% total mobile source NOx emissions
Average, 6 basins, 4.7%
-------
California NOx Inventory
Stationary
804
Other mobile
353
Locomotive
99
On-road
1678
1887 emissions data
Regulatory Options
Market Based Control Strategy
New Engine Emission Standards
(preempted, CAA)
In-Use Engine Modifications and
Operational Limits
-------
Market Based Control
An emissions control strategy
where total emissions from a
number of sources are limited,
but emissions from individual
sources can vary
Market Based Control
(MBC)
Emissions cap, declining over time
Marketable emission permits
-------
Proposed MBC Strategy
Baseline emissions
Company averages
Emission reduction goals
Emission credit trading
Baseline Emissions
• 1987 emissions inventory
• Company allocations based on ton-miles
Adjustment of the baseline for growth
-------
A Company Bubble
NOx Reductions
-------
Emissions Trading
• Reductions must be verifiable ("real")
• Emissions accounting
• Emissions reporting
• Specific trading rules
Emissions Accounting
Locomotive logs (black box)
Emission estimation formulas
Verification based on fuel use
-------
Emissions Reporting
Seasonal reporting of emissions
Annual reporting of emissions
Reports accompanying proposed trades
Trading Rules
Emission reductions must be met
Same air basin only
Only reductions after base year count
ARB enforces reductions and trades
-------
Enforcement
Emission factors to estimate reductions
Inspections
Noncompliance penalties
Market Based Control
Advantages
Incentives -> maximum reductions
Increased flexibility -> lower cost
New technologies developed
-------
Market Based Control
Concerns
Accommodating industry growth
Accommodating market shifts
Verification of emission reductions
Higher administrative costs
Emission Reductions
from 1987 levels
tons per day
100
Baseline
Goal
NOx CO
PM
SOx
-------
Recommendation
Locomotives contribute significantly to
California's emissions inventory.
Control of locomotive emissions is
necessary and achievable.
MBC strategies provide flexibility and
incentives to achieve emission goals.
Staff plans to develop regulations and
return in Fall, 1992.
-------
Nicholas Kirsch
(Former Chairman of Telluride Environmental Commission)
Wood Stove/Fireplace Marketable Permit Program
Telluride Transit Company
Telluride, Colorado
-------
SUMMARY OF THE WOOD STOVE/FIREPLACE
MARKETABLE PERMITS PROGRAM
by
Nicholas Kirsch
Telluride Transit Company
Telluride, Colorado
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A. Description of Air Quality Problem
1. Inversions
a. Meteorology/Geography
b. Growth impacts
c. Solid fuel and vehicular contributors
B. Early Attempts to Quantify and Control
1. TSP Monitoring 1975
a. One solid fuel burning device per structure in new
construction, 1977
C. Recent/More Comprehensive Approaches
1. 1985 Moratorium on New Solid Fuel Burning Devices -- Surveys
2. Implementation of Ordinance and its Components
a. Solid fuel device caps, permits, rebates, retrofit requirements,
low interest loans, public education, public reaction, etc.
D. Two-for-One Build Down Permit Program
1. Deed Restrictions and Marketable Permits
2. Administration of Program
-------
SUMMARY OF THE WOOD STOVE/FIREPLACE
MARKETABLE PERMITS PROGRAM
by
Nicholas Kirsch
Telluride Transit Company
Telluride, Colorado
Telluride, Colorado is a small alpine community resort (pop. 1000) situated in a box
canyon at an altitude of 9000 feet. The local meteorology and geography combine to
produce low, tight inversions during the winter months, trapping paniculate matter from
solid fuel and vehicular sources.
The town council, advised by the EPA that it was in frequent violation of then proposed
federal PM10 standards, charged the Telluride Environmental Commission with the task
of designing a strategy to effectively .address the problem. Since 1987, when the strategy
was fully implemented, daily monitoring has not indicated a violation of either the
24-hour or annual PMi0 standard. Nicholas Kirsch has been closely involved with the
program since its inception, and will describe elements of Telluride's approach in
bringing the area into attainment of federal standards.
-------
Session III: Other
Innovative Strategies
-------
Ray Bishop
Free Bus Ride/Voluntary No Drive Day
Tulsa City/County Health Department
Tulsa, Oklahoma
-------
TULSA'S OZONE ALERT PROGRAM
ABSTRACT
In November of 1990 Tulsa, County, Oklahoma was declared in
attainment for Ozone and removed from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) "Dirty Air List". On June 24, 1991 two of the three
Ozone monitoring sites recorded Ozone values above the EPA
standard of .12 parts per million.
Excursions this early in the year meant a high probability of
violating the Ozone standard and being put back on the dirty air
list. The Indian Nations Council of Government, City and County
Government Officials, the Chamber of Commerce, local business
leaders and the Health Department formulated and implemented the
following actions:
The Health Department developed an Ozone predictive model
using historical Ozone data and National Weather Service
meteorological forecasts. Using the model, Ozone- "alert" days
were determined and declared at 4:00 p.m. the previous day. This
allowed time for the media to broadcast the information and seek
public cooperation and action.
The alert triggered free bus rides for everyone, requests
from all mass media to either: carpool, ride the bus, bicycle, to
drive the newest and "cleanest" vehicle available, or postpone any
unnecessary driving. In addition drivers were requested to avoid
fueling vehicles during alert days.
All gasoline marketers in the County agreed to voluntarily
lower the vapor pressure of product sold from 9.5 Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) to 8.5 RVP.
The actions taken were successful. Four "alerts" were called
with Ozone values reaching .116, .109, .10 and .09 PPM but the
Ozone standard was not exceeded again.
-------
TULSA'S OZONE ALERT PROGRAM
OUTLINE
I. Historical Perspective:
A. Violations
B. Sources
C. Best available control technology implemented
D. Improved air quality
E. Attainment
II. Summer of 1991
A. June 24th excursions
B. Response to concern:
1. committee
2. industry meetings
3. model
A. community actions
a. bus
b. people
c. oil companies
d. media
C. Results:
1. avoided exceedances
2. free rides
3. model
4. public acceptance
III.Model Success
A. Four "alerts" called
B. Public awareness procedures
C. Close calls
D. Public cooperation
IV. Plans for 1992
A. Lower "alert" value
B. Free emissions check
C. Alternate fuels
D. Continued Tulsa City-County Health Department, INCOG,
City, County cooperation
-------
Lynn Sonntag
Media Educational Programs to Encourage Emission Reduction
The Walt Disney Company
Los Angeles, California
-------
MEDIA AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
TO ENCOURAGE EMISSION REDUCTION
Presentation Outline
by
Lynn Sonntag
Senior Counsel
The Walt Disney Company
I. INTRODUCTION
Public Education is a prerequisite to achieving clean air through behavioral change
strategies. These strategies include market induced emissions reductions for
stationary and area sources as well as newly proposed transportation control
measures.
II. PUBLIC EDUCATION IS EFFECTIVE IN CHANGING BEHAVIOR
A. 1991 Southern California Water Conservation Campaign
B. Voluntary Corporate Environmental Programs (Disney's
Environmentality Program)
C. Media Evaluation Criteria Sets Guidelines
1. Sixteen Second Rule
2. Target Audience Concerns
III. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CAN SATISFY EMISSIONS CREDIT
REQUIREMENTS
A. Stationary Source Innovative Offset Bank
1. Bank Contains Real, Permanent, Quantifiable,
Surplus and Enforceable Emissions Reduction
Credits ("ERCs").
2. ERCs from Bank to Be Awarded on Media Based
Criteria.
B. Transportation Control Measure Emissions Credit
Requirements as Applied to Patron Education
Programs *
IV. CONCLUSION
-------
MEDIA AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS TO
ENCOURAGE EMISSION REDUCTION
Presentation Summary
by
Lynn Sonntag
Senior Counsel
The Walt Disney Company
t
State implementation plans now target behavioral changes necessary to reduce
regional air emissions, especially in serious and extreme non-attainment areas.
Proposed transportation control measures are a clear example of air quality
measures requiring behavioral change. These control measures will succeed only if
a target group is persuaded to alter its customary practices in furtherance of cleaner
air. Disney proposes a program for air districts to award air quality credit as an
incentive for creating educational and media programs aimed at persuading target
audiences to make desired behavioral changes.
This presentation discusses the need for and effectiveness of public education in
achieving behavioral changes. Further discussion will focus on designing air quality
education programs to allow emissions credit awards under EPA guidelines for both
stationary sources and mobile source transportation control measures.
-------
Sarah Siwek
Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs
LA County Transportation Commission
Los Angeles, California
-------
EMPLOYER BASED TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAMS:
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE
SARAH J. SIWEK
DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
JANUARY, 1992
Los Angeles County 818 West Seventh Street
Transportation Suite 1100
Commission Los Anseles, CA 90017
Tel 213 623-1194
Leading the Way to Greater Mobility
-------
Good morning and thank you for inviting me here today to speak
to you about the Regulation XV program and Southern
California's experience with Employer Based Trip Reduction
Programs.
I would like to begin by puttinng our air quality and
transportation problems in perspective. As most of you are
aware, Los Angeles and the South Coast Air Basin has the worst
air quality in the United States and more specifically, has the
dubious distinction of being the only extreme non-attainment
area for criteria pollutants for which there are Federal
Ambient Air Qualtiy Standards.
This four county region has about 13 million people residing in
it and approximately 7.5 million work trips are made each day.
A whopping 88% of our carbon monoxide emissions come from motor
vehicle sources andd all totaled, more than 60% of our total
emissions combined come from mobile sources. Our air quality
problem is clearly a health problem and I'd like to share with
you some of the increasingly well documented evidence of this
fact.
Kaye Kilburn, a University of Southern California (USC)
researcher, found that children raised in the South Coast Air
Basin already had 10 to 15 percent less lung function by the
time they were in the second grade than children growing up in
Houston, which has lower levels of smog?
Dr. Russell P. Sheridan, a USC pathologist studied autopsy
results of 100 young accident and homicide victims from Los
Angeles, and determined that over 80 percent showed evidence of
lung tissue damage, and 27 percent had actual lesions on their
lungs;
An 11-year-long study performed by a team from the
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) confirmed that
chronic exposure to smog damages lungs, leaving victims more
vulnerable to respiratory diseases such as emphysema. Losses
of up to 75 percent of lung capacity were documented;
Finally, an Environmental Protection Agency study by the
Argonne National Laboratory strongly suggests that long-term
exposure to ozone causes irreversible lung scarring and other
damage, which can reduce life spans.
Given the weight of medical and scientific evidence, the
Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) adopted Regulation XV to reduce commuting
vehicle trips. The Regulation was adopted in December 1987 and
implementation began in July 1988, but I would say that in
earnest; implementation began in late 1989. I will discuss this
in greater detail later in my presentation. The Regulation
-1-
-------
applies to all employers who have more than 100 persons
employed at a single worksite. This includes public and
private employers.
The performance measure is Average Vehicle Ridership (AYR),
which simply put means the number of employee trips to the
worksite between 6 and 10 a.m. Monday through Friday divided by
the number of vehicle trips during the same period. The target
AVR varies within the Basin with downtown Los Angeles employers
having a 1.75 AVR, most of the Basin has a 1.5. AVR target, and
the far outlying reaches of the Basin haves a 1.3 AVR target.
This 1.5 AVR is required pursuant to the California Clean Air
Act and by 1999 all commute trips are to have a 1.5 AVR with no
net increases in vehicular emissions after 1997. Many of you
will notice the similarity between Regulation XV and the
guidance that EPA is publishing regarding the Employer Trip
Reduction requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990.
Now I would like to discuss some of the requirements of the
Regulation XV program. Each year an employer must submit a
plan to the AQMD which includes various components and an
annual performancee measure of AVR which is calculated through
a survey of all employees who report between 6 and 10 a.m. at
the worksite. A 75% response rate is required of these
employees as we want the employer to get an accurate assessment
of how his employees commute and what it would take to get them
to change their commute mode. Further, because we require a
75% response rate for the survey to be valid and all surveys
not returned between 75 % and 100% are counted as drive-alones,
it provides an incentive for the employer to get the highest
return rate possible on the survey.
Each worksite must have an on-site Employee Transportation
Coordinator (ETC). This person must complete an AQMD certified
training course of 20 hours in the first year and an 8 hour
refresher course each year thereafter. UMTA released a study
on trip reduction programs in 1990 and it demonstrated, among
other things, that programs with an on-site ETC were more
effective than programs without an on-site coordinator.
The development of the trip reduction program begins with the
survey results. The ETC evaluates the survey and also conducts
a site analysis to determine which strategies might work best
given the conditions at the site and the availability of
options to driving alone. The survey also tells how many trips
must be reduced each day in order to attain the target AVR. The
ETC then develops the strategies that will be utilized at that
site and includes them in the plan. In a few moments I will
review some examples of strategies for you.
-2-
-------
Additional requirements are that the employer must implement
the plan which the AQMD approves. Failure to attain the target
is not, to date, a violation of the Regulation; failure to try
is. A management commitment letter must be included in each
plan from the CEO or the highest ranking person on site. We
also have some evidance, albeit anecdotal at this point, on the
importance of management commitment to the program and its
relationship to success.
The AQMD has extraordinary authority under State law and as is
the case with all of our Regulations, we have the authority to
fine a company in violation up to $25,000 per day of
violation. We have the authority to asses both criminal and
civil penalties. I must emphasize though, as of October 1991,
with over 7000 companies in the program, fewer than 100
penalties had been levied and none anywhere near the $25,000
per day range.
Rather, we have focused on creative settlements. Examples
would be Super Shuttle, a major airport shuttle operation who
settled with the AQMD by agreeing to convert their fleet to
propane fueled vehicles within three years and the first 25
vehicles within 1 year. This company pumps over 175,000
gallons of gasoline into the air each month so this was
obviously a preferable way to settle this case than simply
fining the company.
I have been frequently asked whether there is any benefit to
pooling resources among companies. The answer to that question
is definitely yes and Transportaiton Management Organizations
and Associations are an ideal way to do this. Employment
centers are another way. Keep in mind though, that the
accountability rests with the employer under our program as we
must demonstrate to the California Air Resources Board and they
in turn to the EPA that the program is enforceable.
I also believe that education is very important. This effort
is a long term one and the more educating of the public that
can be accomplished, the better.
I know you are interested in knowing what strategies work best.
I will begin by telling you that if we or anyone else had the
magic formula we would have been using it by now. Research on
the Regulation XV program continues and I am sure that within a
short period of time there will be more definitive information
on this subject. However, in the meantime, I will give you
examples of what companies have been doing and what appears to
be working best.
First of all, we do have evidence that combinations of
strategies work better than a single incentive or two. In
fact, a UCLA graduate student did a study of the program which
-3-
-------
showed that companies with seven or more incentives in their
program were more effective than only one or two. The point
here is that you need something for everyone in your program.
Just as each site is different, each employee is different and
has different needs in commuting. The key is to make options
available and make them more attractive than driving alone.
A typical program might include: carpool subsidies, vanpool
formation and subsidies, transit passes either free or
subsidized, alternative work week programs, particularly
compressed work weeks and telecommuting programs. Parking
management programs including charging solo drivers for parking
are becoming more popular as time goes by and companies don't
attain their target in the first year. Marketing strategies
such as raffles, give aways, rewards for non-solo drivers,
rewards to participants who rideshare or use transit most
often, interdivisonal competitions, free bicycles, and running
shoes.
Also Guaranteed Ride programs seem to be an important
incentive. This is primarily a psychological incentive in that
research shows that these programs are infrequently used but
very important to getting employees to even try ridesharing or
vanpooling or transit. Finally, in the Regulation XV program we
give a company credit if they use clean fueled vehicles and
allow those vehilces to be used by employees in commuting.
Now I will provide you with an overview of three companies
programs which have been successful. First of all, the Nabisco
Brands Company in Buena Park, Orange County. They employ 454
people and they are a baked goods manufacturer. They have
regular frequent raffles for employees who rideshare, lottery
tickets, savings bonds, dinners, Las Vegas trips, limousine
trips, car services, merchandise giveaways, etc. They have a
free bicycle program, free weekly lunches, and a computerized
on-site rideshare matching system. In addition they have a
parking management program with prioirty for carpoolers.
TRW, a high-technology firm with 200 employees in San Clemente
has an alternative work hour program, a vanpool program which
they subsidy to stabilize cost for employees, a 100% subsidy
for vanpoolers for the first three months, and a $25 finders
fee for new vanpoolers. They have a frequent rider program
with incentive payments, a guaranteed ride home program and
on-site rideshare matching.
The Brunswick Corporation in Cost Mesa, an aerospace
manufacturer with 293 employees, has a compresed work week,
flexible starting and ending hours for ridesharers, and an
incentive program worth $15 to $25 per month and on-site
serviced such as check cashing, notary public, travel agency,
shoe repair, postal services, and dry cleaners.
-4-
-------
What can we all learn from California and what mistakes can you
avoid? First and foremost, have an implementation plan before
the effective date of implementation. This is critical and the
reason that I stated earlier that while our program was slated
to be implemented in summer 1988, which did occur, we really
did not have a plan and the capacity to begin implementation
until late 1989. For example, how are you going to notify
companies that they need to comply? I suggest that you not
take this burden on but include in the legislation or ordinance
that it is their reposnsiblity to come forward. Identify who
they are. We did not know who the companies with 100 or more
employees were and had to find ways to identify them.
Consider the training needs and requirements. How are you
going to certify consultants to train? What are the
requirements? What are the standards? How are you going to
manage the process? The data collected? Do you need a
computerized system to track programs and prgress? All these
elements and many more should be thought through early on so
that you can be clear to the commmunity on requirements and
develop equitable standards for implementation and
accountabi1ity.
Don't rush to judgement on results. We are trying to change
human behavior here and it is going to take time. Work with
employers, without their support and cooperation, the program
will fail. We developed industry groups so that we could
address the needs of various industries consistently and so
that they could share information amongst themselves about how
to deal with the requirements given their operations. Examples
are: the airline industry, the sales and services industry, the
grocers, retailers, hospitals, colleges.
Keep exemptions to a minimum. In our program there are no
exemptions. Don't make the rule industry specific. I believe
that the program will unravel quickly if you make differnt
rules for different industries. Rather, try to work with them
to develop ideas and strategies that will be effective and that
they can embrace. And finally, be fair and equitable.
Understand that an enormous region like ours includes a very
diverse community of businesses and public sector operations.
Work within the constraints but push the envelope, if you will.
Use the TMAs and TMOs to help move the program along and to
provide the expertise needed to the business community to
implement the program.
Understand multi-site employers and their needs. Over 45% of
all our sites in South Coast Air Basin are owned or operated by
multi-site employers. Be specific about what you want. Try to
reach CEO's early and often. You need their support. Get the
support of labor interests by allowing them to be a part of
program development.
-5-
-------
Now I will share with you some early results of the program.
Seventy-one companies were studied by UCLA/USC researchers and
this study is continuing. For the first full year of the
program these 71 companies went from a 1.22 AVR to a 1.3 AVR.
They reduced 81,224 work trips and 35 tons of pollutants. Had
they attained the 1.5 AVR target, they would have reduced
226,252 worktrips and over 100 tons of pollutants. So, while
progress is not as quick as many would like, it is occuring and
recent information on over 800 companies further reinforces
these numbers.
In closing, let me say that Regulation XV is but one program.
There are thirty or so trip reduction ordinances being
implemented at this time and you should look at what the others
are doing in addition to Regulation XV. This program and
programs like it will take time to work. This is a behavior '
change we are seeking to achieve and it will take time. Be
open to ideas and try to be flexible given your mandate. Work
with the transportation community. Institutions exist that
might be best equipped to manage these programs.
Transportation agencies could expand their role to that of
mobility agencies and increase ridership on transit systems
while implementing less traditional forms of transit, like
vanpooling, to support these types of programs.
Thank you again for inviting me to speak.
- 6 -
-------
Terrence Larson
SCRAP (Old Car Buy Back Program)
Unocal
Los Angeles, California
-------
A CLEAN-AIR INITIATIVE FROM UNOCAL
-------
PROBLEM: L.A.'S POLLUTED AIR
On most days, the people of Los Angeles breathe the dirtiest air
of any community in America. As the city's battle with smog enters its
fifth decade, increasing attention has focused on mobile sources of
pollution — automobiles, trucks, and buses — as key contributors to
the region's air quality problem.
Mobile sources account for about 60 percent of all o/one-
precursor emissions (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides) in the Los
Angeles Basin. Petroleum refineries and electric power plants account
for about 5 percent. Other sources (some of which have yet to be
regulated) such as dry cleaners, bakeries, and even private homes
make up the difference (FitjitiT 1).
Regulatory agencies and private industry have made excellent
progress over the years in reducing emissions from large stationary
sources. Progress has also been made on mobile sources. In fact, there
have been no Stage III smog alerts in the Los Angeles Basin for 20
years, and no Stage II alerts for 6 years. Nonetheless, much more can
still be done. While technology has sharply reduced emissions from
the tail pipes of late-model automobiles and trucks, nearly 400,000
pre-1971 vehicles —all of which have little or no pollution control
equipment — continue to operate on Southern California's streets
and freeways.
Mile for mile, these old cars are the worst polluters on the road.
Although pre-1971 vehicles are a serious source of air pollution —
accounting for about 15 percent of all emissions from mobile sources
in the L.A. Basin — little has been done about them. Retrofitting
these old cars with up-to-date pollution control systems would cost
more than many of them are worth.
UNOCAL'S ANSWER
In mid-1990, Unocal proposed a new approach to the problem.
The company announced a demonstration program to eliminate
several thousand of these vehicles through a voluntary purchase plan
in which Unocal would pay S700 for each car, then turn it over to a
I'njnff 1
SOU RC KS OF
I-M INS IONS
MOBIIT. SOl'RC I.S
RI-.I-INI-:RI1-:S & 1'OVVI K PL.ANTS
OTHKK STATIONARY SOl'IU 1 s
UnocnTs innovative SCRAP
fmiijmni was launched on
JltHf 1, 1WO.
-------
The average SCRAP
vehicle emitted more
than 1,500pounds of
pollutants a year —
roughly the weight of
its scrap metal content.
SCRAP TEST CARS VS. NEW CARS
TIMES
DIRTIER
TIMES
DIRTIER
SCRAI' CARS IM'X) CARS
N c) \ I <: c) • 11 (
scrap yard to he crushed and recycled.
The benefits of the program would he quick and cost effective —
a relatively simple hut highly efficient method to improve air quality in
a hurry. If successful, it could also encourage other companies to develop
their own innovative approaches to improving environmental quality.
UnocaTs South Coast Recycled Auto Project — s( KAI1, for short
— started with a budget ot $5 million, enough to purchase and scrap
7,000 cars. The company estimated that taking this many pre 1971
vehicles out ot circulation would cut I..A.\ air pollution hy ahout
6 million pounds in the first year alone, sc RAP actually did a lot better
than that. For one thing, other people soon joined the effort — more
than 100 individuals, plus major firms like Ford Motor Company and
Cypress Semiconductor, and regulatory agencies like the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (sc ACJMII). All contributed additional
money for the program, raising the fund to nearly S6 million. Another
1,400 cars could he retired, cutting air pollution that much more.
But the biggest surprise was the final tally on exhaust emissions
actually eliminated. L'nocal tested the tail pipe emissions of every old
car purchased for sc RAP. F.arly results suggested that these vehicles
were far dirtier than air quality models had predicted. As a result,
Unocal arranged to have rigorous emissions tests performed on 74
cars selected at random from the sc RAP vehicles. The results were eye-
opening: On a per mile basis, the average hvdrocarbon ( 11C) emissions
of the sample group were triple our expectations, and carbon monoxide
(CO) was double (t-ijjnrc 2). Only in emissions of nitrogen oxides
( NOx) die! cars in the sample group prove "cleaner" than expected,
although they were still 1 1 times dirtier than a 1990 vehicle.
I'nocaPs SCRAP program actually removed nearly 1 3 million
pounds of pollutants from Southern California's air, or twice as much
as projected when the program was launched. From an emissions
standpoint, this was the equivalent ot removing about 150,000 brand
new cars from the roads.
We also learned that sc RAP vehicles were driven on average 5,500
miles per year or about 90 percent as far as average old cars. Thus,
-------
SCRAP vehicles were driven somewhat less than average but emitted far
more pollution than expected.
These pre-1971 cars were among the least energy-efficient vehicles
on the road, averaging 12 miles per gallon in city driving,, about halt
the fuel economy of 1990 cars. In tact, had the SCRAP vehicles been sold
as 1990 model-year cars, they would have been subject to an average
"Gas Guzzler Tax" of $2,500 each!
MAKING IT WORK
On the face of it, buying and destroying 8,400 old cars in a com-
munity with nearly 6 million vehicles doesn't seem all that difficult.
But .SCRAP- planners had to deal with several pressing issues before the
program could begin.
First of all, what would the owners of such cars do for trans-
portation once their vehicles were scrapped? Would S700 be enough
to buy a replacement car? Unocal surveyed the used car market in
Southern California and learned that, indeed, many post-1975 cars
were priced below S700. What's more, these autos were equipped with
smog controls, so that replacement transportation would be not only
affordable, but cleaner as well.
Second, Unocal wanted to be sure the cars purchased tor SCRAP
were in running condition and registered in the Los Angeles Basin
for at least six months. In short, SCRAP vehicles had to be part of L.A.'s
air quality problem, not someplace else's.
Finally, Unocal had to find a way to speed up the administrative
process of scrapping the vehicles. Ordinarily, it takes five to ten days
for a scrap yard to complete the paperwork before a car can be legally
crushed and shredded in Southern California, With 100 to 150 cars
going through the SCRAP program each day, such delays would have
required a huge parking area in which to hold the vehicles while they
were being processed.
Recognizing the potential value of the SCRAP program, the Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles assigned special personnel to the project. These
individuals handled the paperwork right at Hugo Neu-Proler's Down-
10
0(dCT
Polluters.
°ftJie
worst
']'of>: An attendant conducts
an cjnissions test on a ,s< 'RAT
vehicle; bottom: Old cars arc
checked in at the scrap yard.
-------
town Los Angeles Metal Center, where the cars were crushed, cutting
processing time down from several days to a tew minutes.
as
Kelp fi^* sm°g
- ^:srg£
B-e-7/ ora §£5^
to Z>£ #0z/g/^
#y t/#0oj/ IBISES
•/ VF 8"° OP^ rf. ,,,,11= about it
By CYNDIA ZWAHLEN "Part.ap.t« i
Daily News Stall Wfiler ,r will have I
Unocal Corp. said Thursday S**"'^
it will buy and scrap 7,000 pre- )nlyc"
1971 cars from Los Angeles
area drivers as one of several
environmental initiatives to re-
duce smog and gel older cars off
ihe streets.
The Los Angeles-based oil
e ^"mpany »' raid it-
onths
• -jj receive a
/1'hc,own" ct,er for use
k »nd ft vouv.
wovild
-.nine
Top: All cars were numbered in
sequence as they were received;
opposite: Richard ]. Stajoncicr,
Unocal chairman, president and
('EO, is a leading proponent of
cost-effective, market-based solu-
tions to environmental problems.
SCRAP TAKES OFF
With these questions resolved, the program was announced in
late April of 1990, and Unocal began taking phone calls on May 2.
The response was immediate. More than 3,000 calls were received the
first day, and within two days 1,500 old cars were registered in the
program. Eventually, appointments were made to scrap nearly 8,400
vehicles, and at times the waiting list grew to 2,000.
Unocal made it as easy as possible tor qualified car owners to
turn in their vehicles. Hach caller was given a date and time to bring
in the car. Checks to the sellers were then pre-printed. If the cars
were delivered as promised, and the other conditions were met, the
$700 checks were handed over at once. The company made a special
ettort to avoid scrapping classic cars and other valuable vehicles.
A few owners found it difficult parting with cars that had been
with them for decades. Others pocketed their checks and walked away
smiling. Some changed their minds and tailed to keep their appoint-
ments at the scrap yard.
MEASURING THE RESULTS
lust how dirty were the tail pipe emissions of the 8,376 cars that
went through SCRAP? As Unocal launched the program, it was known
that pre-1971 cars contribute a disproportionate share ot air pollution
to the L.A. Basin (Figure 3). California Air Resources Board (CARB)
data led the company to expect the typical pre-1971 car to pollute 15
l-'ifjnre .?
FLEET PROFILE: L.A.
Number Cars, 1000s
Number Miles, Millions
HC, Tons Per Day
CO, Tons Per Day
NOx, Tons Per Day
AREA
PKK 71
380
2,280
57
345
30
ALL CARS
6,000
73,278
266
2,275
234
% OF TOTAL
6
3
22
15
13
-------
I
;;
I
-
-
I
-------
The worst car tested
emitted enough un-
burnedgasoline from its
tailpipe to run a brand
new vehicle getting 32
miles per gallon.
Tap and bottom: SCRAI' can enter
the crusher at the Hitjju Neit-
Proler (.lompanv's met til center
near downtown Los Angeles.
to 30 times more per mile than new vehicles, hut nohody was sure
how dirty the old cars actually were.
Unocal set out to measure the exhaust emissions at idle tor every
vehicle purchased. It soon hecame clear that these cars polluted tar
more than the average car. In tact, ahout 20 percent ot the vehicles
"pegged" (exceeded the measuring capabilities of) the BAK-90 Smog
Check machines at 2,000-plus parts per million of hydrocarbon.
Unocal decided to get more definitive data hy subjecting a ran-
dom sample of the cars to the tar more sophisticated and rigorous
Federal Test Procedure. This test measures emissions under varying
speed and load conditions and is the same test used to certify new cars.
CAKB, an active supporter ot this decision, tested 43 cars, while Unocal
arranged for 31 to he tested at an independent lab.
Working together, ( ARE and Unocal have probably amassed the
world's best data base on the emission characteristics of old cars. The
results showed that the pre VI cars were two to three times as dirty as
expected — in some categories more than 90 times dirtier per mile than
a new vehicle.
SCRAP IN HIGH GEAR
By almost any measure, SC:RAP was highly successful. It drew
praise from such long-term advocates of clean air as Norton
Younglovc, chairman of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, who said, "Unocal's contribution not only meets the
challenge, but also illustrates the commitment and leadership we
must all exert to make clean air a reality in Southern California."
Hundreds of individuals wrote or called Unocal in support of
the program. Many backed up their praise with financial contribu-
tions. The CHO of Cypress Semiconductor, based in San lose, sent
in the first check for S700 with the comment, "Buy and bury one
for us, too." Ford Motor Company contributed enough money to
scrap an additional 1,000 cars, the SCAQMD donated $100,000,
and the Southern California Ford and Lincoln-Mercury Dealers
Association, another $63,000.
-------
Others provided incentives of their own. First Interstate Bank
set up a special loan program tor s< RAP participants, otFering lower
interest rates and longer repayment terms on some new and used
vehicles. Ford ottered participants special rebates on new cars.
Government agencies also caught the spirit bv cutting red tape
and providing personnel and equipment tor clearing auto registrations
and conducting smog tests. The California Air Resources Board
laboratory tested emissions from s< RAP vehicles, the Bureau ot
Automotive Repair researched odometer readings, and the Department
of Motor Vehicles provided on-site personnel and computers.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF SCRAP
The success of SCKAP brought renewed attention to innovative
approaches to environmental problems. In particular, it highlighted
the opportunity tor regulators to create conditions that would make
programs like SCRAP economically feasible for many companies in the
Los Angeles Basin. The device that could make this work is called an
"offset,11 and regulators began viewing it with renewed interest in the
wake of sc KAP\ results.
Offsets are credits that companies could receive tor cleaning up
air pollution from mobile sources — air pollution caused by some
other organization or individual. These credits could temporarily
offset the same amount of the company's own pollution "debt" (i.e.,
emissions from its own stationary sources).
Offsets would not necessarily cancel a company's pollution debt;
they might simply deter it, providing time to explore more cost-effec-
tive technologies and systems for cleaning up the air.
Through a program ot innovative offsets supplementing the
existing regulatory framework, companies and public agencies could
he encouraged to tocus their efforts on the most cost-effective and
immediate environmental programs. Properly used, offsets could
accelerate the cleanup process, get the easiest (am.) often worst) causes
ot smog cleaned up first, and save money tor the consumer, who
ultimately pays the cost ot pollution abatement and control.
Kach year for the first three
years the total emissions
eliminated by crushing the
8,376 cars in SCRAP equal...
1 he total emissions
ol InO.OOO brand
ne\\ ears
the total emis
sions trom I mil
lion gallons o! t nl
based [taint
over hall'the CO
emissions trom all
the refineries and
pouir plants in the
1..A. Basin
all ol'the hydro
carbon emissions
of all barbecue
lighter Hinds in
the I..A.Basin
Lhiocal C.liamnan Richard ].
Stejjemt'ier describes the SCR AT
pnitjrnm at the kickoffpress
conference.
-------
-------
SCRAP: TEST RESULTS IN DETAIL
Unocal's SCRAP program removed 8,376 pre-1971 vehicles from
Los Angeles area roads between June 1 and September 29, 1991. As a
result, 12.8 million pounds of potential air pollution (hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides) were removed from L.A.'s air
each year.
Most ot the vehicles scrapped were large American cars: 60
percent had eight-cylinder engines and 24 percent had six-cylinder
engines. The balance were smaller foreign cars ( h'icittrc 4). Klcven
percent of the vehicles were trucks and vans.
The Federal Test Procedure. Unocal, working closely with the
California Air Resources Board, selected 74 of the SCRAP cars for in-
tensive emissions testing. Forty-three vehicles were tested at CARH
facilities, and 31 were tested at an independent laboratory. Hach car
was put on a chassis dynamometer and run through the standard
Federal Test Procedure (FTP).
The IIP is the same test procedure used with new cars to de-
monstrate that they meet mandated emissions levels. The procedure
involves a series of driving cycles performed on a chassis dynamometer,
which allows a vehicle to be tested at speed and under load conditions.
The first and third cycles are identical, except that the first cycle
begins with a cold start. Simulated speeds range up to 60 miles per
hour. The second cycle is a low -speed test involving simulated "stop
and go" city driving.
In relatively new cars, most of the emissions are collected in the
cold start phase before the catalyst warms up to operating temperature.
The SCRAP vehicles, however, produced substantial emissions under
virtually all driving conditions.
The 1TP test results for all 74 cars are summarized in Figure 5 on
page 10. These findings were then compared with projected emissions
based on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Factor (I-.M1AC 7l>) modeling
VEHICLES
S( RAPPED
^
h(>".> I-Hill I
( 'l I.INDl'.K
1-NXiINI-s
24% SIX
( VI INIM'K
I-NC.IN1-S
I (A, HH'K
i \l INHhR
I NUM-.s
Op/insitr: The crusher goes to
work 011 an old car.
-------
Figure 5
FTP CVS-75 TEST RESULTS — 74 CARS
'67 MERCURY COUGAR
'70 CHRYSLER IMPERIAL
'68 BUICK SKYLARK
'69 MERCURY COUGAR
"66 FORD GALAXY
'70 CHEVROLET NOVA
'69 CHEVROLET MALIBU
'67 CHEVROLET CHEVELLE
'67 AMC RAMBLER
'64 PLYMOUTH FURY
'70 FORD WAGON
'67 PONTIAC TEMPEST
'65 DODGE POLARA
'66 FORD RANCHERO
'68 DODGE DART
'67 CHRYSLER NEWPORT
'65 PONTIAC TEMPEST
'69 BUICK ELECTRA
'70 FORD MAVERICK
'68 TOYOTA CORONA
'70 PONTIAC LEMANS
'70 FORD CORTINA
'68 FORD FALCON
'70 BUICK ELECTRA
'68 MERCURY MONTEREY
'65 CHRYSLER NF;W YORKER
'64 BUICK SKYLARK
'66 CADILLAC DEVILLE
'70 FORD MAVERICK
'70 CADILLAC DEVILLE
'69 BUICK WILDCAT
'69 DODGE CORONET
'70 PLYMOUTH FURY
'64 PLYMOUTH VALIANT
'69 VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE
'67 VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE
'70 BUICK LESABRE
'66 BUICK SKY LARK
'71 FORD LTD WAGON
'65 OLDSMOBILE F-85
'69 CADILLAC DEVILLE
'70 VOLVO
'70 FORD LTD
'69 DODGE DART
'67 FORD MUSTANG
'68 MERCURY MONTEGO
'70 CHEVROLET NOVA
'68 FORD FALCON
'68 BUICK SPECIAL
'70 CHRYSLER IMPERIAL
'67 TOYOTA CORONA
'70 FORD MAVERICK
'70 DODGE DART
'70 TOYOTA CORONA
'69 CHEVROLET IMPALA
'65 CHEVROLET VAN
'67 BUICK SPECIAL
'63 DODGE DART
'69 CHEVROLET IMPALA
'68 AMC RAMBLER
'66FORDFAIRLANE
'70 TOYOTA CORONA
'70 FORD MUSTANG
'68 CHEVROLET IMPALA
'70 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL
'67 DODGE DART
'62 PONTIAC TEMPEST
'70 FORD LTD
'70 FORD MAVERICK
'70 CHEVROLET IMPALA
'70 BUICK SKYLARK
'68 VOLVO WAGON
'70 TOYOTA COROLLA
'65 FORD
H C
17.5
6.7
14.6
15.0
6.7
2.0
8.6
4.3
9.6
51.3
4.9
31.4
27.5
8.3
3.2
18.1
7.5
2.8
5.3
3.8
87.4
10.8
4.6
6.4
5.1
8.1
31.2
2.2
2.1
39.4
3.9
5.5
10.6
66.9
3.8
7.1
13.3
39.8
6.0
8.6
3.7
51.5
28.4
3.7
5.1
4.4
4.3
11.1
65.5
6.0
3.8
4.8
51.6
16.8
49.7
17.1
20.7
5.8
14.9
3.8
80.7
3.6
9.5
37.3
5.1
8.6
5.0
13.7
3.1
32.2
2.4
4.4
11.4
3.5
G RAMS /
CO
16.6
129.4
87.2
250.2
123.7
22.2
118.0
52.4
151.0
90.6
63.7
62.4
68.5
67.3
66.7
163.4
111.7
46.1
125.4
78.4
126.8
163.7
50.6
104.1
54.3
132.8
56.9
26.0
12.0
135.3
52.9
70.3
149.7
76.3
41.6
71.7
126.4
128.5
48.0
117.5
34.6
101.5
22.0
43.9
57.4
79.2
58.4
77.0
88.4
144.1
24.5
112.6
169.2
76.6
67.4
79.3
210.5
77.2
82.9
45.6
123.5
44.0
80.4
110.6
15.4
160.7
62.6
72.7
22.2
71.9
20.8
32.8
87.1
41.3
Ml I.E
NO ~\~
3.28
1.77
1.13
0.57
2.04
2.76
2.35
3.91
1.26
3.59
4.26
5.51
4.05
1.47
4.19
2.63
2.97
3.81
0.99
3.56
4.35
0.45
5.72
2.82
2.98
0.89
3.03
3.41
3.27
0.93
4.01
3.34
2.29
3.59
1.04
1.16
1.60
1.36
6.62
1.92
3.19
1.45
3.96
7.34
1.87
1.72
2.15
2.72
4.87
1.58
2.56
1.28
0.86
2.39
2.87
5.49
0.29
5.72
2.51
3.16
1.32
4.25
2.34
5.81
6.64
0.85
3.88
7.06
3.39
3.72
2.52
3.07
0.82
4.73
P M • 1 0 •
0.26
0.20
16.76
0.29
0.44
0.20
0.69
0.22
0.12
0.18
0.20
0.61
3.45
0.14
0.10
0.81
0.50
0.37
0.43
0.97
0.65
7.74
0.45
0.59
0.95
0.28
1.01
4.37
2.86
0.57
0.47
•CITY-
MILES PER
GALLON
13.4
8.9
12.8
10.1
12.2
15.2
8.5
11.7
14.1
10.4
10.0
12.7
10.5
14.0
16.6
9.8
13.2
10.9
15.4
18.2
7.2
14.7
14.0
9.7
9.6
10.6
13.1
9.2
15.2
8.4
10.0
14.2
9.8
12.9
21.0
22.2
10.8
9.4
10.5
10.5
8.3
10.8
9.0
16.1
18.3
12.5
16.0
14.9
10.4
9.9
20.8
16.2
11.4
16.4
10.9
11.8
9.1
13.1
9.6
17.4
9.2
22.0
16.6
10.0
11.9
14.3
16.9
10.8
13.3
11.6
11.5
18.3
22.1
14.8
AVERAGE
16.3
84.3
2.96
1.51
12.1
*Only 31 vehicles were tested for participate emissions.
10
-------
program used by C.ARB, as shown in Figure 6 .
Hydrocarbon emissions from the SCRAP vehicles were 99 times
greater than from a 1990 car. That is nearly three times what had been
expected: 24.8 grams per mile (actual) versus 8.3 grams per mile
(projected) for the typical pre-1971 car.
FTP TKST RESU
SCRAP test results
FTP Results
Adjustments*
"IN-USE" Emissions
LTS VS. PROJECTIONS (GRAMS PER MILE)
HC
16.28
8.49
24.77
CO
84.3
16.5
100.8
NOx
2.96
-0.02
2.94
PM10
1.51
—
1.51
Air quality model EMFAC-7D
'66-'70 Cars
1975 Cars
1990 Cars
8.34
3.88
0.25
50.1
23.4
1.8
4.39
2.53
0.27
0.54**
0.30**
0.21**
• To reflect non-tail pipe emissions and scale to 16 mph. ** Includes participates from tire wear.
The FIT results for .SCRAP vehicles actually understate the true
emission levels. First, they include tail pipe emissions only. Typically,
evaporative emissions would add another 4 to 5 grams ot hydrocarbon
emissions per mile, while running losses would add another 1 to 2
grams per mile. That is why the FIT results were adjusted in Figure 6
(using KMI-'AC model methodology) to reflect total "in use"emissions.
As a result, total hydrocarbon emissions from SCRAP vehicles were nearly
100 times greater than HC emissions from a brand-new car. Carbon
monoxide emissions were more than 50 times greater.
Individual test results varied widely. The worst 10 percent of the
cars contributed 40 percent of the HC emissions (Figure 7), about 20
percent of the CO emissions (Figure 8), and 20 percent of the NOx
emissions (Figure 9).
The FIT results may be conservative because the cars selected for
t-iflHtr 1(3
SCRAP HC EMISSIONS
SCRAP CO EMISSIONS
SCRAP NOx EMISSIONS
M M IU-K oh I I
EMISSION TESTS AT IDLE
NUMBER CARS
FTP Vehicles 74
All SCRAP Vehicles* 8,335
Difference
HC(PPM)
842
1,014
-172
BBBI
CO (%)
3.8
3.6
0.2
* Excludes cars with bad exhaust systems.
11
-------
t-ijjmr 11
HOUSEHOLD
INCOMK
m.STKI lU'TION
.?4"-n Rl 1 IM I)
'!() ANSW1-K
25'!,, S20.000 OK l.l.ss
22'!,, $20,000 10 t40,000
I Tin HIT S40.IIOO
TRAN.SPOR 1 ATION
ARRANtil-Ml-.NTS
AFTF.K SCRAI'
46". lUH'din
ANOTIlhR VI.I IK I.h
4% I'SINC, 1'1'lil !<
TRANSPORTATION
4",, DON1'! HKIVh
OR DON" I KNOW
testing were somewhat cleaner than the average SCRAP vehicle at idle,
as shown in Figure 10 on page 11. In addition, 65 percent of the cars
examined tor FTP testing were rejected because of leaky exhaust sys-
tems, excessive smoke, or other problems.
THE FOLLOW-UP SURVEY
To discover more about the impact of"SCRAP, Unocal asked
Fairbank, Bregman & Maullin, Inc. (I-B&M) — an independent public
opinion research company — to contact a sample group of SCRAP par-
ticipants after the program was over. In January 1991, FB&M conducted
telephone interviews with more than 800 individuals.
The demographics of the SCRAP participants generally reflected
the population of the South Coast Air Basin. However, SCRAP partici-
pants were on average somewhat older, much more likely to be male,
and reported IS percent less household income (Figure 11). Of SCRAP
participants interviewed, nearly half were employed full time, 24 per-
cent were retired, 10 percent were employed part time, 8 percent were
unemployed, and the rest were homemakers or students, or they
refused to answer the question. Sixty-two percent identified themselves
as white, 25 percent as Hispanic or Latino, and 8 percent as black.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents indicated that they were
using their old cars before putting them into the SCRAP project. Half
the respondents were driving their cars every day, and 29 percent
were driving their cars at least a few times per week. Sixty-five percent
used their cars primarily to commute to work, and the rest either to
run errands or go to school.
Forty-six percent of the principal drivers of the cars sold to SCRAP
bought another vehicle, 42 percent were using another car, 4 percent
were getting rides, and 4 percent were using public transportation
(Figure 12). Of those driving replacement vehicles, more than 80 per-
cent were behind the wheel of a newer (1975 or later), less polluting
car. The net result: Cleaner air for Los Angeles.
12
-------
Marian Slavin
Travel Reduction Program
Pima Association of Governments
Tuscon, Arizona
-------
PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
405 TRANSAMER1CA BUILDING
TUCSON. ARIZONA 85701
(602) 792-1093
TRAVEL REDUCTION PROGRAM
TUCSON, ARIZONA
FACT SHEET
The Travel Reduction Program (TRP) is the result of local ordinances
passed in early 1988 by five local jurisdictions (Pima County, City of
Tucson, City of South Tucson, Town of Marana, and Town of Oro Valley). The
objectives of the ordinances are to improve regional air quality and reduce
traffic congestion by requiring that Major Employers (over 100 full-time
equivalent 'employees at a single site) achieve a 15Z utilization of alternate
modes (carpool, vanpool, bicycle, walk, or transit) or 15Z reduction in
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by their employees in their daily work commute.
Employees that work compressed work weeks, utilize telecommuting or
commute in compressed natural gas powered vehicles receive AMU credit. The
15Z alternate mode utilization (AMU) should be achieved by the end of the
first full year of participation in the TRP. The second and third year
alternate mode utilizations are 201 and 25Z respectively. An employer may
alternatively comply with the ordinances by achieving a 15Z, 20Z, and 25Z
reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the first, second, and third year.
The TRP regional implementation is centralized at Pima Association of
Governments (MPO) and overseen by the Travel Reduction Program Regional Task
Force (TRP RTF) as established by the April 1988 Intergovernmental Agreement
among the five jurisdictions with Travel Reduction Ordinances. Eastern Pima
County is a non-attainment area for Carbon Monoxide.
Every year Major Employers are required by ordinance to: conduct a
survey of all employees, disseminate alternate mode information, appoint a
transportation coordinator and produce a TRP Plan detailing how they are going
to encourage their employees to utilize alternate modes in their daily home-
to-work commute.
Approximately one-third of the regional workforce is participating in
the program with an annual budget of $300,000. The regional daily average
one-way work commute is 10.6 miles.
TRP REGIONAL RESULTS
1-12/89 1-12/90 1-6/91
0 Sites in Program 148 154 162
# Employees 75,000 77,000 80,000
Alternate Mode Utilization 17.59Z 20.21Z 22.31
Vehicle Miles Traveled 47.29 45.90 45.5
Alternate Mode Utilization credit accrues when an employee uses an alternate
node at least 1 day/week in the work commute.
Vehicle Miles Traveled are factored by mode ridership and are one-way weekly
motor vehicles miles only.
-------
Of the 145 companies that completed the TRP survey in both 1989 and 1990, 95
sites (661) have shown an increase in alternate mode utilization and 91 (63%)
have shown a decrease in vehicle miles traveled in the daily work commute.
Alternate Mode Utffizatton
lnlC
US
66% of the Trad Reduction
Program 1990 sfteshwe
inuwi M\ nciMM in the*
Atemrie Mode Uffotion.
Awio»sae%
Avmot s -4.5%
Ste>
\ Chang*
Vehicle Miles Traveled
•80 Baseline vs. W Fnt Compfanc* S«v«y
63% of ttwTtiMl RwhKtian
Program 1960 MM tarn
ihon > reduction in thifr
fMran Vshteto Mtat TrMtal
For additional information or copies of the Program Annual Report, please
contact: Marian A. Slavin, Travel Reduction Program Manager, (602) 792-2952,
Pioa Association of Governments, 177 N. Church, Ste. 405, Tucson, AZ 85701.
7/26/91
-------
Participant List
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Charles Aarni
Regulatory Agency Liason
Chevron USA Products
P.O. Box 97
El Segundo, CA 90245
(213)615-5285
Steven Ahearn
Dept. of Commerce, Energy Office
3800 North Central Ave.
Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602)280-1420
Vince Albanese
Mgr., Marketing & Technology
Nalco Fuel Tech.
P.O. Box 3031
Naperville, IL
(708)983-3254
Glen Anderson
Senior Economist
Environmental Defense Fund
128 E. Hargett St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919)821-7793
Bob Anderson
Research Manager
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202)682-8534
Edward Apple
Dir. of Envir. Strategies
S C Johnson Wax
1525 Howe St., #105
Racine, WI 53403
(414)631-2761
Jane Armstrong
Sr. Project Manager
U.S. EPA, QMS
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313)668-4441
Dale Aspy
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Mobile Source Task Force
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-5014
John Atcheson
Pollution Prevention Division
U.S. EPA, OAR
Waterside Mall
401 M St., SW (PM-222B)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-4164
Beth Auerbach
Of Counsel
Oppenheimer, Wolff, & Donnelly
1020 19th St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
(202)293-5096
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OAQPS - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR - Office of Air and Radiation
OE - Office of Enforcement
OMS - Office of Mobile Sources
OPAR - Office of Policy Planning and Review
OPPE - Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Charles Aarni
Regulatory Agency Liason
Chevron USA Products
P.O. Box 97
El Segundo, CA 90245
(213)615-5285
Steven Ahearn
Dept. of Commerce, Energy Office
3800 North Central Ave.
Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602)280-1420
Vince Albanese
Mgr., Marketing & Technology
Nalco Fuel Tech.
P.O. Box 3031
Naperville, IL
(708)983-3254
Glen Anderson
Senior Economist
Environmental Defense Fund
128 E. Hargett St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919)821-7793
Bob Anderson
Research Manager
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202)682-8534
Edward Apple
Dir. of Envir. Strategies
S C Johnson Wax
1525 Howe St., #105
Racine, WI 53403
(414)631-2761
Jane Armstrong
Sr. Project Manager
U.S. EPA, QMS
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313)668-4441
Dale Aspy
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Mobile Source Task Force
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-5014
John Atcheson
Pollution Prevention Division
U.S. EPA, OAR
Waterside Mall
401 M St., SW (PM-222B)
Washington, DC
(202)260-4164
20460
Beth Auerbach
Of Counsel
Oppenheimer, Wolff, & Donnelly
1020 19th St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
(202)293-5096
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OAQPS - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR - Office of Air and Radiation
OE - Office of Enforcement
QMS - Office of Mobile Sources
OPAR - Office of Policy Planning and Review
OPPE - Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Jim Austin
Ass't. to Senator Owen
NY State Senate
310 Legislative Office Bldg.
Environmental Conserv. Committee
Albany, NY 12247
(518)455-3411
Rick Baker
Environmental Scientist
Radian Corporation
P.O. BOX 201088
Austin, TX 78720-1088
(512)454-4797
Rosie Barrera
Director, Environmental Affairs
Greater Houston Partnership
Government Relations Dept.
1100 Milam, 25th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
(713)658-2430
Adrian Barrera-Roldan
Researcher
Institute Mexicano del Petroleo
Eje Central Lazaro Cardenas #152
Mexico City, 07730 Mexico, D.F.
011-525-567-9246
Dave Bassett
Pollution Prevention Division
U.S. EPA, OAR
Waterside Maqll
401 M St., SW, (PM-222B)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-2720
Chuck Bausell
Asst. Dir. RCED Economic Anal.
U.S. General Accounting Ofc.
Rm. 1826
441 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20548
(202)376-9725
Group
Christl Beck
Mgr., Commodity & Envir. Taxation
Ministry of Treasury & Econ.
7 Queens Park Crescent
Frost Bldg., 5th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1Y7 CANADA
(416)327-0234
Catherine Beckley
iegal ..& Regulatory Counsel
Cosmetic Toiletry Fragrance Assn.
1101 17th St. NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Marijke Bekken
Assoc. Air Pollution Specialist
Air Resources Board
Off-Road Control Section
9528 Telstar Ave.
El Monte, CA 91731
(818)575-6684
Laura Bishard
Colorado Dept. of Health
Clean Air Colorado
4210 East llth Ave.
Denver, CO 80220
(303)331-8559
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Ray Bishop
Mgr., Air, Waste, & Vector Programs
Tulsa City/County Health Dept.
4616 E. 15th Street
Tulsa, OK 74112
(918)744-1000
Buz Breedlove
Senior Consultant
California Senate Office of Research
1020 N Street
Suite 565
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)445-1727
Jack Broadbent
Office of Planning & Rules
South Coast AQMD
21865 E. Copley Drive
PO Box 4939
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-0938
(714)396-3119
Jack Brown
Environmental Health Director
City-County Health Dept.
1900 East 9th St.
Wichita, KS 67214
(316)268-8457
Cy Buchert Jan Bush
Dir., Div. of Policy Analysis & Plnn Deputy Air Poll. Control Officer
Dept. of Environmental Quality Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
PO Box 82263 939 Ellis St.
7290 Bluebonnet Dr. San Francisco, CA 94109
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2231 (415)749-4943
(504)765-0735
Larry Byrum
Dir., Air Monitoring & Analysis Div.
Oklahoma State Dept. of Health
1000 N.E. 10th St.
MCO201
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1299
(405)271-5220
Kateri Callahan
Legislative Professional
Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., NW
Washington, DC 20007
(202)298-1800
Laurel Carlson
Dept. of Envir. Protection
Air Quality Control
1 Winter St., 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5630
Kathy Carruthers
Economics Unit Leader
WA State Dept. of Ecology
MS-PVll
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
(206)459-6014
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Lisa Carter
Research Assistant
Jack Faucett Associates
4550 Montgomery Ave.
Suite 300 N
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301)961-8800
J.Cale Case
Vice President
Palmer Bellevue Corporation
111 W. Washington St.
Suite 1247
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)807-4848
John Chamberlin
U.S. EPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW, (PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-2762
David Clarke
Managing Editor
Inside EPA Weekly Report
PO Box 7167
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
(703)892-1011
Sandra Colt
Program Director
American Lung Association
723 Piedmont Ave., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365-0701
(404)872-9653
Dave Conroy
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Bldg.
Rm. 2203
Boston, MA 02203-2211
(617)565-3254
Nancy Cookson
Counsel
Chemical Manufacturers Assn.
2501 M St., NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202)887-1241
Linda Cooper
Workshop Coordinator
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
3200 Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-9100
Steven Coppola
Counsel - Legal Dept.
DuPont Company
1007 Market St.
(D-7152)
Wilmington, DE 19898
(302)773-0149
Andres Corona Juarez
Division Estudios Economicos
Institute Mexicano del Petroleo
M-40, L-23, Ila Sec. Ermita Z
Mexico City, 09180 Mexico, D.F.
011-525-368-2313
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Linda Critchfield
U.S. EPA, ARD
401 M Street, SW, (ANR-445)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7915
Ted Cromwell
Manager, Air Programs
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202)887-1383
Rosalie Day
Economist - Air Division
U.S. EPA, Region 5
77 W. Jackson, AT-18J
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-632
David DeBruyn
Grants Manager
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-4218
Leland Deck
Economist
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-5294
Abby Oilley
Vice President
The Keystone Center
2033 M St., NW #900
Washington, DC 20036
(202)842-0160
Jerry Dion James Dodds
Prog. Mgr., Policy & Ping. Energy Of Attorney
Arizona Dept. of Commerce Texas Air Control Board
3800 North Central Ave. 12124 Park 35 Circle
Suite 1200 Austin, TX 78753
Phoenix, AZ 95012 (512)908-1119
(602)280-1420
Ira Domsky
Mgr., Air Quality Planning
Arizona Dept. of Envir. Quality
2005 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602)257-2321
Michael Doonan
U.S. EPA, OPPE
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-6914
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Dean Drake
Environmental Activities
General Motors
30400 Mound Rd.
Warren, MI 48090-9015
(313)947-1804
John Duffe
Transportation & Air Quality Planner
Dept. of Natural Resources
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
James Ehlmann
Environmental Activities
General Motors
30400 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9015
(313)947-1799
Barry Elman
Air Innovations Program Manager
U.S. EPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW (PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-2727
Ralph Engel
President
Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn.
1913 Eye St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202)872-8110
Densford Escarpeta
Environmental Engineer
NY State DEC
Division of Air Resources
50 Wolf Rd.
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-6379
Stephen Farber
Professor of Economics
LSU Dept. of Economics
Dept. of Economics, CEBA Bldg.
LSU
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(504)388-3791
Fereidun Feizollahi
Research ..Division
California Air Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916)323-1509
Larry Feldcamp
Partner
Baker & Botts
910 Louisianna
Houston, TX 77002
(713)229-1964
Denise Fenn
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
3200 Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-9100
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Victor Ferrante
Mechanical Engineer
HUD
451 7th St., SW
Rm. 6270
Washington, DC 20410
(202)708-0798
Maura Fitzpatrick
Director - Office of Air Policy
NYC Dept. of Env. Protection
59-17 Junction Blvd. llth Floor
Lorona, NY 11368
(718)595-4462
Sherry Fontaine
Assistant Workshop Coordinator
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
3200 Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-9100
Kelly Fortin
Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
A-5-1
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
(415)744-1259
Stephen Fotis
Attorney
Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20007
(202)298-1800
Douglas Fratz
Scientific Affairs
Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn.
1913 Eye St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202)872-8110
Carl Garvey
U.S. EPA, OGC
401 M Street, SW, (LE-132L)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1719
Phil Geis
Group Leader
Proctor & Gamble Co.
11520 Reed Hartman Hwy.
Cincinnati, OH 45241-2422
(513)626-4347
Tracy Gionfriddo
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
3200 Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-9100
John Glenn
Policy & Planning Administrator
Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet Drive
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, LA 70884
(504)765-0720
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Haynes Goddard
Economist
U.S. EPA - ORD
RREL
26 M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7685
Joe Goffman
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)387-3500
Eun-Sook Goidel
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, (PM-222B)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-3296
Debbie Gordon
Policy Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
Climate Change & Energy Program
c/o Lawrence Berkely Lab, 90-3124
Berkely, CA 94720
(415)486-4321
John Gove
Principal Air Poll. Control Eng.
CT DEP
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
(203)566-2690
Joyce Graf
Science Department
Cosmetic Toiletry Fragrance Assn.
1101 17th St., NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
(202)331-1770
Randy Guensler
Research Associate
Univ. of California at Davis
207 First Street
Davis, CA 95616
(916)758-1030
Laurie Gwyn
Southern.California Gas Co.
Environment & Safety
PO Box 3249
Los Angeles, CA 90051-1249
(213)244-2580
Wayne Hardie
Los Alamos Nat'l
PO Box 1663
MS-B299
Los Alamos, NM 87545
(505)667-2119
Laboratory
Steve Harper
Project Manager
ICF
9300 Lee Hwy
Fairfax, VA 22031
(703)934-3018
(703)268-2118
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Janet Hathaway
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Ave. NW
#300
Washington, DC 20005
(202)783-7800
Seth Heminway
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
(EN-341-W), SSCD
401 M St., Sw
Washington, DC 20460
(703)308-8711
Marion Herz
Assoc., Envir. Health
American Lung Association
1726 M St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)785-3355
Mark Hester
Attorney
General Motors
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232
(313)974-1790
John Hewings
Supervisor, Regulation Development
Ontario Ministry of Envir.
Air Resources Branch
880 Bay St., 4th Fl.
Toronto, Ontario M5S128 CANADA
(416)326-1655
Troy Hillier
Office of Management & Budget
725 17th St., NW, Room 3019
Washington, DC 20503
(202)395-3084
Tom Hillyard
State Tax Notes Magazine
507 13th St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202)546-7542
Jacob Hollinger
Environmental Defense Fund
Pollution Prevention Alliance
1616 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)387-3500
Melissa Home
Environmental Mgmt. Analyst
AER*X
1990 M St., NW
Suite 610
Washington, DC 20036
(202)463-6909
Dwight Howes
Government Affairs
CNG
1819 L Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
(202)833-3900
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Larry Hudson
Mgr., Alternative Fuel Vehicles
NY State Energy Res. & Devel.
2 Rockefeller Plaza
Albany, NY 12223
(518)465-6251 X209
Richard Hughes
Engineer
Texas Air Control Board
12124 Park 35 Circle
Austin, TX 78753
(512)908-1554
John Huyler
Senior Associate
The Keystone Center
1320 Pearl St., #300
Boulder, CO 80302
(303)444-4777
John Irwin
Director
KS Dept. of Health & Envir.
Bur. of Air & Waste Mgmt.
Forbes Field, Bldg. 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)296-1593
Andrew Jacques
Health & Envir. Affairs
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202)962-4705
Brad Johnson
Mgr., Corporate Planning
Potomac Elec. Power Co.
1900 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20068
(202)872-3561
Tom Jones
Sr. Staff Engineer
Union Carbide
P.O. Box 50
Hahnville, LA 70057
(504)468-4738
Michael Jones
Chief, Ambient Standard Branch
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-5656
Jim Jones
Associate Editor
Inside EPA Weekly Report
PO Box 7167
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
(703)892-1011
Roger Kanerva
Mgr., Environmental Policy
Illinois EPA
PO Box 1926
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)785-5735
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Gerald Keenan
Senior Vice President
Palmer Bellevue Corporation
111 W. Washington St.
Suite 1247
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)807-4848
Carter Keithley
President
Wood Heating Alliance (WHA)
1101 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202)857-1181
Nicholas Kirsch
Telluride Transit Company
P.O. Box 159
218 West Gregory St.
Telluride, CO 81435
(303)728-3512
Wolf Klassen
Dept. of Natural Resources
2300 N. Martin Luther King Dr.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
(414)263-8512
Paul Klauman
Research Assistant
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
600 Maryland Ave., SW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20024
(202)488-5854
Barry Korb
Chief, Regulatory Innovations Staff
U.S. EPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW, (PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-2689
Gerard Krause
Chief, Organic Chem. Section
U.S. EPA, SSCD
401 M St., SW
(EN-341)
Washington, DC 20460
(703)308-8719
Jill Kupferberg-Cappadoro
Director of^Marketing
Pinellas Suncoast Transist Authority
14840 49th St. N
Clearwater, FL 34622-2893
(813)530-9921
Terrence Larson
Mgr, Envir. Affairs
Unocal Corporation
911 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1114
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213)977-7294
Mike Lawrence
Vice President
Jack Faucett Associates
4550 Montgomery Ave.
Suite 300 N
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301)961-8800
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Michael Levin
Sr. Counsel
Nixon, Hargraves, Devans & Doyle
Attorneys at Law
I Thomas Circle, NW, #800
Washington, DC 20005
(202)457-5541
William Lewis, Jr.
Attorney
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius
1800 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)467-7145
Pat Leyden
Dep. Exec. Officer, Ping. & Rules
SCAQMD
21865 E. Copley Drive
P.O. Box 4939
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-0938
(714)396-3119
Alan Loeb
Energy/Envir. Policy Analyst
Argonne National Lab
9700 S. Cass Ave.
EID 900
Argonnne, IL 60439-4832
(708)752-6473
Bruce Madariaga
Economist
U.S. EPA, BSD, OAQPS
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC
(919)541-5290
27711
Rhonda Maddox
Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA, SSCD
401 M St., SW (EN-341)
Washington, DC 20460
(703)308-8721
Arthur Marin
Mobil Source Analyst
NESCAUM
85 Merrimac St.
Boston, MA 02114
(617)367-8540
Karen Martin
.Chief, Regulatory Strategies Section
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-5274
Andrea Martin
Daniel R. Thompson, P.C.
1620 I St., NW
Suite 925
Washington, DC 20006
(202)293-5800
Tuck Masker
Technical Director
Hearth Products Assn.
1101 Connecticut Ave, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
(202)857-1181
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Bharat Mathur
Mgr., APCD
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)785-4140
Nancy Mayer
Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-15
RTP, NC 27711
(919)541-5390
Kevin McCarthy
Associate Analyst
Office of Legislative Research
Legislative Office Bldg., Room 5300
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
(203)240-8400
Janet McDonald
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
3200 Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-9100
Michael McGill
Executive Director
Bay Area Economic Forum
200 Pine St., Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415)981-7117
Andy McGinn
Mgr., State & Local Relations
American Gas Association
1515 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
(703)841-8597
Bill McLean
Economist
Ministry of Treasury & Economics
7 Queens Park Crescent
Frost Bldg., 5th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M7A1Y7 CANADA
(417)327-0248
Gary McNeil
Consultant
Clegg & Associates
811 1st Avenue, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98104
(206)623-7134
Melanie Medina
Environmental Production Specialist
U.S. EPA, OPPE, OPA
PM-221
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9822
Joe Mendelson
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
1130 17th St., NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
(202)466-2823
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Robin Miles-McLean
Office of Policy, Planning,
U.S. EPA, OPPE
Waterside Mall
401 M St., SW, (PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1126
Roger Morris
& Evalua Office of Envir. Analysis
DOE
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
(202)586-6707
Patricia Morris
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA, Region V
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-8656
Brian Morton
Research Triangle Institute
PO Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-7094
Peter Nagelhout
Regulatory Innovations Staff
U.S. EPA, OPPE
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7015
Matt Naud
Associate
ICF
9300 Lee Hwy
Fairfax, VA 22031
(703)934-3933
Mary Nichols
Senior Staff Attorney
NRDC
617 S. Olive St., #1210
Los Angeles, CA 90020
(213)892-1500
Donna Nickerson
U.S. EPA, SSCD
401 M Street, SW (EN-341)
Washington, DC 20460
(703)308-8694
Elizabeth Nixon
Environmental Mgmt. Analyst
AER*X
1990 M St., NW
Suite 610
Washington, DC 20036
(202)463-6909
Alan Nogee
Energy Program Director
MASS PIRG
29 Temple PI.
Boston, MA 02111-1305
(617)292-4800
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Robert Nordhous
Partner
Van Ness, Feldman, & Curtis
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., NW
Washington, DC 20007
(202)298-1800
Carolyn Norris
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
3200 Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-9100
John O'Connor
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
3200 Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)541-9100
Conniesue Oldham
IRS Workshop Chairperson
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC
(919)541-7774
27711
Amanda Ormond
Energy & Environmental Planner
Dept. of Commerce, Energy Office
3800 North Central Ave.
Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602)280-1420
Ryuzo Oshita
Gov. Relations Tech. Group
Toyota Motor Corp. Services
1850 M St., NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
(202)463-6832
Andrew Otis
U.S. EPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW, (PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-2887
John Palmisano
President
AER*X, Inc.
1990 M St., NW
Suite 610
Washington, DC
(202)463-6909
20036
Angela Park
Sustainable Development Program
Center for Policy Alternatives
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, #710
Washington, DC 20008
(202)387-6030
Kristi Parker
Associate Facilitator
The Keystone Center
P.O. Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
(303)468-5822
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
William Pedersen
Perkins Coie
607 14th St., NW
Washington, DC 20005-2011
(202)434-9612
Richard Penna
Partner
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
111 Nineteenth St., NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
(202)463-2966
Alan Powell
Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Air Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-5014
Roger Raufer
Associate Director
Center for Energy/Environment
University of Pennsylvania
3400 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215)898-2775
Douglas Raymond
Div. Director, Regulatory Affairs
Sprayon Products
26300 Fargo Ave.
Bedford Heights, OH 44146
(216)292-7400
Larry Rennacker
Planning Division
Santa Barbara Co. APCD
26 Castillian Dr.
B-23
Goleta, CA 93117
(805)961-8800
Bill Repsher
U.S. EPA, OE
Waterside Mall
401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC
(202)260-2845
(LE-134-A)
20460
Harvey Richmond
Envir. Protection Specialist
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-5271
Michael Riehle
Mgr., Policy Analysis
Unocal Corporation
1201 W. 5th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213)977-7311
Bill Roach
Supervisor, Market Development
Seattle Metro
MS 128
821 Second Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104
(206)684-1620
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Nikki Roy
Pollution Prevention Specialist
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P St., NW
Washington, DC036 20036
(202)387-3500
John Rudd
U.S. EPA, OE
Waterside Mall
401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC
(202)260-2864
(LE-134A)
20460
Karen Sabasteanski
Policy Analyst
Air Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10089
Richmond, VA 23240
(804)786-2378
Dept.
Rafael Sanchez
Chemical Engineer
U.S. EPA, OAR/SSCD
401 M Street, SW, (LE-134A)
EN 341 W
Washington, DC 20460
(703)308-8730
Kathryn Sargeant
U.S. EPA, QMS
2565 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313)668-4441
Nancy Saylor
Policy Analyst
Air Pollution Control Dept.
P.O. Box 10089 (
Richmond, VA 23240
(804)786-1249
Claire Schary
U.S. EPA, Acid Rain Div.
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1746
Will Schroeer
U.S. EPA, DPPE
Waterside Mall
401 M St., SW (PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
Arthur Sheffield Deborah Sheiman
Chief, Regulatory & Economic Affairs Resource Specialist
Environment Canada NRDC
Place Vincent Massey 1350 New York Ave., NW
15th Floor Washington, DC 20005
Hull, Quebec KIA OH3 Canada (202)783-7800
(819)953-1172
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Stephen Sinkez
Assistant Vice President
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
1111 19th St., NW
Suite 408
Washington, DC 20036
(202)223-3845
Sarah Siwek
Director
L.A. Co. Transportation Comm.
818 West 7th St.
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213)244-6278
Steve Sky-Peck
Environmental Quality Coordinator
Louisiana Dept. of Env. Quality
Ofc. of Legal Affairs & Enforcement
PO Box 82282
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2282
(504)765-0399
Marian Slavin
Travel Reduction Program Mgr.
Pima Association of Governments
177 N. Church Ave., #405
Tuscon, AZ 85701
(602)792-2952
Jason Smitherman
Administrator
Alternative Fuels Program
Oklahoma Ofc. of Pub. Affairs
3301 N. Santa Fe
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
(405)521-4687
Susan Sonnenberg
Mobil Oil Corporation
3225 Gallows Road
Fairfax, VA 22037
(703)846-4752
Lynn Sonntag
Senior Counsel
The Walt Disney Company
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-0321
(818)560-7094
George Spencer
Editor
Clean Air Week
4418 MacArthur Blvd.
Washington, DC 20007
(202)298-8202
Cynthia Stahl
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Bldg
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-9337
Carol Stanzak
Air Pollution Specialist
California Air Resources Board
Transportation Strategies Group
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916)445-0098
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Sue Stendebach
Envir. Protection Specialist
U.S. EPA, ARD
401 M Street, SW, (ANR-445)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1312
Patton Stephens
Staff Evaluator
U.S. General Accounting Ofc.
Rm. 308
100 Indiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001.
(202)376-9714
Barbara Stinson
The Keystone Center
P.O. Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
(303)468-5822
Robin Sullivan
Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Ave.
6T-AP
Dallas, TX 75287
(214)255-7214
Roger Sung
Program Manager
Southern California Edison
2244 Walnut Grove Ave.
Rosemead, CA 91770
(818)302-9551
Martha Tableman
Associate
The Keystone Center
P.O. Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
(303)468-5822
Christine Terry
Director
Evansville EPA
Room 207, Civic Center Complex
1 NW Martin Luther King Blvd.
Evansville, IN 47708
(812)426-5597
Ivan Tether
.Senior .Counsel
Pacific Enterprises
633 W. Fifth St., #5400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213)895-5150
Rich Theroux
Office of Management & Budget
725 17th St., NW, Room 3019
Washington, DC 20503
(202)395-3084
Michael Thompson
Assoc. Director, Legis. Affairs
Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn.
1913 Eye St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202)872-8110
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Gus Tirado
Gov't. Affairs Tech. Group
Toyota Motor Corp. Services
1850 M St., NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
(202)463-6832
Tom Tyler
U.S. EPA, OPPE
401 M St., SW
(PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-2692
John Ungvarsky
Envir. Protection Specialist
U.S. EPA, Region 9
Air Programs Branch
75 Hawthorne St. (A-5-3)
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1188
Eric Van De Verg
Project Director
Jack Faucett Associates
4550 Montgomery Ave.
Suite 300 N
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301)961-8800
Lucille Van Ommering
CARB Executive Office
PO Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916)323-0296
Ray Vogel
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-3153
Gustave Von Bodungen
Administrator
LA Dept. of Envir. Quality
Air Qual. & Nuclear Energy
P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
(504)765-0110
Jerry Wade
Research.Economist
Maryland Dept. of Economics
and Employment Development
217 E. Redwood St., llth Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
(301)333-6950
William Wason
Consultant
Environmental Solutions
123 Cleo Rand St.
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415)822-2991
William West
Environmental Affairs
Southern California Edison
2244 Walnut Grove Ave.
Rosemead, CA 91770
(818)302-9534
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Mike Whinihan
Senior Economist
General Motors
Rm. 15-255
Detroit, MI 48202
(313)556-3878
Jill Whynot
South Coast AQMD
21865 E. Copley Dr.
PO Box 4939
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-0938
(714)396-3104
Martin Wikstrom
Environmental Affairs Executive
NEMA
2101 L St., NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202)457-8487
Rich Wilcox
Project Manager
U.S.EPA, OAR
Technical Support Staff
2565 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313)668-4390
Darrell Williams
Project Manager
The Advocacy Institute
1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
(202)659-8475
Terri Wilsie
U.S. EPA, OPAR
Waterside Mall
401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC
(202)260-1360
(ANR-443)
20460
Steven Winberg
Director, Cofiring
CNG
625 Liberty Ave.
CNG Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 12522-3199
(412)227-1431
Anne Wittenberg
Senior Associate
ICF Inc.
1850 K St. NW
#1000
Washington, DC 20006
(202)862-1202
Verne Wochnick Chris Wolz
Mgr., Government Affairs Office of Management & Budget
Hughes Aircraft Company 725 17th St., NW, Room 3019
Corporate Hdqtrs. P.O. Box 45066 Washington, DC 20503
7200 Huges Terrace, Bldg C-l, M/S Cl (202)395-3084
Los Angeles, CA 90045-0066
(213)568-6318
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
Innovative Strategies Workshop
Georgetown University Conference Center
January 15-17, 1992
Participant List by Name
Ben Yamagata
Partner
Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
(202)298-1800
Ellen Young
Attorney
Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
(202)298-1800
Marcia Zalbowitz
Consultant
Solar Electric Engineering
1915 Kalorama Rd., NW
Suite 102
Washington, DC 20009
(202)387-6185
Hans van Zijst
Counselor for Environment
Netherlands Embassy
4200 Linnean Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20008
(202)244-5300
-------
NOTES
-------
NOTES
-------
NOTES
-------
NOTES
-------
NOTES
-------
NOTES
------- |