Streetsblog Los Angeles

With budget talks reaching a critical pass to avert a government shutdown, House Republicans have been busy passing an ideological wishlist, including an attempt to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from “raising taxes.” H.R. 910, which they are calling the “Energy Tax Prevention Act” would undermine the EPA’s ability to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and manufacturing plants and gut the Clean Air Act.

Democrats offered a few amendments to the bill which made for some good political theater, including a gem from Representative Earl Blumenauer. Stating that “I, too, am opposed to any attempts by the EPA to impose taxes,” Blumenauer offered an amendment that struck the provisions of the bill and replaced them with a measure to “help us find out whether Republicans are truly concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency imposing an energy tax on America.” The amendment text continued: “During its 40 year history, the Clean Air Act has prevented millions of hospital visits, asthma attacks and cases of lung cancer while strengthening our economy. A record like that deserves support, not partisan attacks.”

Blumenauer’s amendment didn’t get far but environmental and public health groups can rest easy, for now. The bill, and a few others attempting to curb the EPA’s regulatory powers, didn’t make it through the Senate. President Obama had also stated that he would veto any bills that did not reflect “scientific consensus on global warming.”

Meanwhile, budget talks have continued behind closed doors. Billions for transit, rail, and green transportation are still at stake in the negotiations. Read more…

Just when you may have been looking for ways to counter that Pew report which poo-pooed the environmental impacts of transit and smart growth, here’s more evidence that reducing driving has an essential role to play in meeting economic and environmental goals: A new report from the Center for Clean Air Policy concludes that compact development will build wealth and cut carbon emissions.

“Growing Wealthier: Smart Growth, Climate Change, and Prosperity” starts with the simple assertion that accessibility – “bringing origins and destinations closer together” – is, after all, “the very reason that cities exist.”

“You want to have your choices nearby so you can meet your daily needs as efficiently as possible,” said report author Steve Winkelman.

By separating residential areas, commercial services, and places of employment, suburban planning requires that people travel long distances to meet their needs. All those miles used to be viewed as a measure of economic progress.

“[Vehicle Miles Traveled] and GDP have grown concurrently since World War II and in lock step for much of that time,” the report states. But around 1996, GDP began growing faster than VMT, and, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “the importance of travel as a component of the U.S. economy has been declining since the early 1990s.”

Indeed, CCAP’s research shows that states with lower VMT per capita tend to have higher GDP per capita.

Excessive travel is more likely to be an economic detriment than a benefit. Ironically, GDP counts as economic productivity many of the counterproductive aspects of motorized travel, such as fuel consumed waiting in traffic jams, oil spills, vehicle repairs and medical treatment resulting from collisions, costs of air pollution, and defense operations to protect U.S. petroleum interests around the world. In fact, many costs of sprawling land use patterns (particularly increased infrastructure) themselves boost GDP figures.

The authors also urge us to distinguish between economically productive travel and what they call “empty miles.” It’s like differentiating between empty calories and nutrition.

Read more…

A new report from NRDC and Smart Growth America — which examines what all 50 states are doing to curb greenhouse gas emissions from transportation — lauds California as the most progressive state on policy, but points out that its transportation and spending priorities don’t match the bold blueprints, particularly as it relates to public transit.

It all points to Sacramento, where legislators have continuously raided the only dedicated fund for transit, leading to massive cuts statewide.

The report praises the state’s smart-growth law, SB375, as a model for other states, noting that “it puts in place a strong framework that can be used to drive better coordination between transportation and land use, and, of particular relevance to this analysis, to do so in a way that reduces GHGs.” It remains uncertain, however, “whether SB 375 will deliver results on the ground as opposed to just changes in planning documents.”

In September, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2035, a move that will compel the state’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to better integrate land use and transportation planning. The real test for SB375 will come at the local level as MPOs draft plans to meet the targets.

Unless the state prioritizes investments in sustainable transportation, California’s progressive policies will continue to be undermined.

“Huge cuts to public transit threaten these (policy) gains and could lead to even more devastating consequences for California communities and the economy,” said a joint press release from Smart Growth California, NRDC, TransForm and the Sierra Club of California. “In California, transportation policies and spending decisions are not in line with the state’s bold commitments to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide and other emissions being pumped into the air.”

Read more…

The transit industry's leading D.C. lobbying outlet joined the umbrella group for state DOTs yesterday and two major construction groups to protest the Senate climate bill's failure to set aside all of the revenue from its proposed new fuel fees for infrastructure projects -- specifically, to the cash-strapped highway trust fund that is generally split, 80-20, between roads and transit.

American Public Transportation Association (APTA) chief William Millar told reporters that while the local transit agencies he represents are "very supportive of legislation to address climate change and energy issues," the Senate bill's diversion of all but about $6 billion of its fuel revenues for purposes unrelated to transportation is a matter of serious concern.

"This is one of those cases where we really can't even talk about the merits of any portion of the bill because the fundamental position is flawed," Millar said.

Read more...

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is set to join
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and two construction interests tomorrow in protesting the
Senate climate bill’s proposed diversion of new fuel fees away from
infrastructure — an argument that puts the transit industry’s leading
D.C. lobbying group squarely in the transportation mainstream.

In
a release previewing its joint press conference with AASHTO, scheduled
for this morning, APTA said the Senate bill’s use of new fuel fees
for purposes beyond infrastructure, such as paying down the federal
deficit, "would harm efforts to pass
a new surface transportation bill and would also greatly impair the
ability of
states, counties, cities and transit systems to reduce our dependence
on foreign
oil and reduce transportation-related emissions."

While transport reform advocates hailed last week’s long-awaited Senate climate bill for directing
an estimated $6 billion-plus towards local land use planning and green
infrastructure, state DOTs and construction interests criticized the
legislation — suggesting that the measure’s sponsors could face stiff
resistance from the transportation industry’s mainstream despite making
concessions to win over all sides.

The
central complaint raised by mainstream transport players boils down to,
as American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) executive director John Horsley put it in a statement, the Senate bill’s "preemption" of user-fee revenue that historically has gone into the nation’s dwindling highway trust fund.

"Congress
can ill-afford to consider any legislation that" siphons off money from
the trust fund, which has required more than $30 billion in
replenishment from the general Treasury over the past 18 months,
Horsley said.

Read more…

Transportation would receive more than
$6 billion of the revenue generated by selling carbon emissions
permits to fuel providers under a new Senate climate bill introduced
today by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT).

That money for infrastructure would be
divided into three equal parts, according to the legislation.
One-third would go into the nation’s cash-strapped highway trust fund
– with a mandate to set aside the funding for projects that
decrease greenhouse gas emissions – while another third would go
towards competitive federal grants in the style of the stimulus law’s
Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)
program. 

A final third would go towards local land-use planning,
as envisioned in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” bill championed by
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE).

“We want to make this the Senate
where we finish the job and cast the decisive vote for the future,”
Kerry told reporters at a packed Capitol Hill press conference where
veterans’ groups and industry representatives lent their support to
the legislation.

The
climate bill also takes a step towards requiring a set of national
transport objectives – a longtime goal of reform groups – by
giving the U.S. DOT and Environmental Protection Agency one year to
propose “national transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions
goals” as well as unified strategies for states and metro areas to
measure their compliance with those goals.

State
and local transportation planners would then have two more years to
draft plans for emissions reduction, using a variety of strategies
named in the bill, including transit-oriented development, high-speed
rail, zoning changes, and promotion of biking and walking. Any areas
that do not propose plans for reducing transport emissions would be
declared ineligible for the proposed “CLEAN TEA” grants.

The
bill states that emissions allowances set aside for the highway trust
fund “shall be used to promote the safety, effectiveness, and
efficiency of transportation,” specifying that the money should be
used in accordance with the principles of the “CLEAN TEA”
package. But the legislation did not specify how such a firewall
surrounding highway trust fund money would be enforced within the
U.S. DOT.

Nonetheless, transportation reformers hailed the bill as a step forward.

Read more…

Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) are set to roll
out their long-awaited, somewhat delayed climate change bill tomorrow without onetime co-sponsor Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The
legislation no longer includes its originally conceived "linked fee" on
motor fuels — which was quickly branded as a gas tax increase, alarming Graham and the White House while catching
many members of the transport industry off-guard. But how does the
Senate climate bill address the 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions that come from transportation?

The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin has an early look,
reporting that the transportation section makes room for a "cap" on
emissions but eliminates the "trade" aspect of the House-passed climate
bill:

The transportation sector will not have any allowance trading, sources
said. Instead, companies will have to buy quarterly carbon allowances
that would be based on the average price in the previous quarter; the
fee would be tacked on at a stage known in the industry as "the rack,"
which is after the fuel has left the refinery but before it reaches gas
stations.

The bill would put electric utilities first in line for a
sector-specific emissions cap, with other fossil fuel-using industries
to follow, according to a report in National Journal
that also includes a link to a leaked four-page summary of the measure.
That summary suggests that the transportation industry may be pleased
with the measure, referencing annual funding of "over $7 billion" for
infrastructure.

For more details on how the legislation would affect U.S. infrastructure, check this space tomorrow …

Republican Gubernatorial candidates are only debating how best to delay the implementation of A.B. 32

(This story has been updated to reflect the statement released today by the Governor's Office. - DN)

Proponents of clean energy and environmental laws designed to reduce the amount of Greenhouse Gases from being dumped into the air had best not take lightly the challenge to A.B. 32, the California State Law mandating changes that would reduce the state's emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  Proponents of a ballot initiative that would "delay" implementation of the law until the state's unemployment level is below 5.5% for a full year submitted hundreds of thousands of signatures for certification to election officials earlier today that would place the decision on whether or not to move forward with the mandates of A.B. 32 in voter hands this fall.   The Sacramento Bee quotes one of the campaign's leaders as exclaiming, "We're headed to the ballot!" They have some momentum, and they know it.

As you can see by the chart below, the state unemployment level is almost triple that number, and hasn't been at 5.5% in years. 

Critics of the "delay" language counter that the proponents know that the unemployment rate is unlikely to dip to that level anytime soon and the ballot measure is just a clever way of defeating the legislation.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's reputation as a "Green" governor rests on this legislation's implementation, released a strong statement slamming the backers of the legislation as "greedy oil companies" and special interests.

The effort to suspend AB 32 is the work of greedy oil companies who want to keep polluting in our state and making profits. AB 32 will add jobs, create savings in energy costs and increase personal incomes. In fact, the highest job creation California is seeing right now is in our green economy. When I ran for Governor, I said if special interests tried to push me around, I would push back. That's exactly what I will do to these greedy oil companies.

However, the coalition pushing the change has many more supporters than just a handful of out-of-state oil companies and conservative activist organizations.  Both major Republican candidates for Governor back some sort of delay for the legislation.  If you watch the video above, both Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are tripping over each other to be the one to take the "toughest" position on delaying the law.

Read more...

In its second
Earth Day release, the U.S. DOT yesterday unveiled a 600-page analysis of
transportation emissions mandated by Congress in the 2007 energy bill.
In addition to weighing in on many potential tactics for limiting
transport’s contribution to the changing climate, the document notably
recommits the Obama administration to that goal at a time when
Democrats are weighing a delay in the energy debate.

Indeed,
the analysis concludes with a candid assessment that the nation’s
existing methods of transportation and land use planning have generated
an unsustainable reliance on fossil fuel consumption:

The ingenuity of transportation planners and engineers has produced a
vast network of transportation infrastructure and services to support
the mobility and economic vitality of the Nation. However, our historic
approach to transportation and land use has created an energy-intensive
system dependent on carbon-based fuels and automobiles.

The authors, including three dozen aides at the U.S. DOT’s Center for
Climate Change and more than a dozen private consultants, also take a
direct tone in evaluating the various emissions-cutting policy
proposals that are available to the Obama administration.

For
instance, the analysis identifies several upsides to increasing the gas
tax, which has "a strong precedent for [its proceeds] being dedicated
to transportation investments," as opposed to a broader carbon tax or
cap-and-trade system, where multiple competing interests would — and did,
as the House climate bill shows — lay claim to a share of the
resulting government revenue to help finance efficiency upgrades.

Read more…