Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Draft Environmental Principles
Unanimously approved the Statement of Environmental Principles. The
Committee recommendation will be on the July 24 Council agenda.
II.
Subject:
“Clean Cars” Legislation
Asked staff to draft a resolution of support and provide more analysis for
the next meeting.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
September 5, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter, and
Don Lochman
3:10 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Presentation: Clean Cars
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
I.
Draft Environmental Principles
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting. He advised that after
reviewing the material he would recommend the Committee consider approving the
narrative piece, but not the category principles. He then turned the meeting over to Julie
Burch.
Ms. Burch said that statements were prepared under each of the four categories to meet,
improve or exceed current standards as requested by the Committee. Staff took the
initiative to prepare the narrative draft as another option. The Environment Cabinet that
worked on both pieces felt the principles by category did not capture the interrelationship
between items as well as the narrative statement. Another area of concern was trying to
determine what triggers the level of policy choice. When do you promote vs. when do
you exceed? We are asking for the Committee’s feedback today.
Lochman:
I agree with Council member Foxx’s suggestion. In each of the
categories, the second and third suggestions sometimes look like
necessities. How do you implement innovative solutions? I think the
narrative piece is much better as a general document.
Burgess:
Are we saying we want to eliminate the first page of principles?
Mumford:
I would also make a third motion to focus on the narrative. The first
listing of meet, improve and exceed is not overly aspirational to me. It felt
more like policy. The second page speaks to the transition I think we are
in as a City. The verbiage works well to allow us to understand this better
and address it as a Council. I would wordsmith the fifth bullet that says
use land wisely. I would change it to something like “land use done
wisely regarding growth and development.” It reads like the City would
be developing the land and I don’t think that was the intent.
Burch:
It is not meant to be the City’s use of the land, so we can re-word that.
Carter:
I also concur with the others. My question is this arrangement prioritized?
Burch:
No, we did not spend time putting the bullets in any particular order.
Carter:
I would suggest some prioritization like putting the two “recognizes”
together as the first and second bullets.
Burch:
I guess I would say the one listed first was probably the most important,
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 3
but we didn’t spend time on the next ones.
Foxx:
One of the things that I noticed in the narrative is there is nothing that
jumps off the page to me that says public and private entities are subject to
regulations. Should we say something that we support entities that are
meeting their obligations if that is feasible or appropriate? Something like
where appropriate or feasible, we will work cooperatively with other
public and private entities to support their efforts to comply with
environmental regulations.
Carter:
I’d like to add environmental responsibility to the end of that statement
because we want to support those that are doing more than compliance.
Burch:
Supporting other public and private entities does give me some pause as to
what does that mean? For example, if a private entity is trying to meet
Federal stormwater regulations are they going to be looking to the City for
help? What does “support” mean?
Foxx:
If support is inappropriate or not feasible, then we should not do it. I think
it is a judgment call for Council, future Councils and staff.
Carter:
Could we say endorse the efforts of … ?
Foxx:
Or, recognize?
Lochman:
I would be careful about endorsing.
Burgess:
I’d like to shift gears here. We are missing a commitment to trees. It is
not mentioned specifically in the narrative. Our tree canopy is our crown
and glory. We need to be more proactive. If we are taking down trees for
development, they need to be restored. The first thing people say to me
when they are visiting is how impressed they are with our trees. Also, it
may be implied but we have not used the words “recycle, reuse and
reduce”. They are our three-legged stool.
Burch:
I think there is a veiled reference with “conserve energy and other
resources.”
Burgess:
I’d like to see those words. I’d also like a bullet on trees.
Burch:
We can add or re-word any of these.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 4
Foxx:
I don’t have a problem with any of the points you’ve made. But, I would
like to impress on everyone that a general statement by definition won’t
say everything. We don’t want our overarching purposes muddled down
in minutia. But, I can support the words “tree canopy.”
Mumford:
I think the policy does speak to recycling. We have two or three
overarching principles and the tree save is supported by those overarching
principles. I agree with Council member Foxx, we don’t want to figure
out all the exceptions to the policy. This statement covers us and I think
all the concerns are met.
Burgess:
Not trees.
Mumford:
Very indirectly they are covered. “Protect natural ecosystems…” covers
trees.
Foxx:
I also think it is included, but it doesn’t hurt to add it. Are you making a
motion? One thing I think is important is to not make the environment at
odds with economic growth. This statement avoids saying that good
economics are at odds with good environment. They fit together and I
think that is important. Has everyone raised their issues?
Burgess:
What about congestion mitigation? Is that a principle or goal?
Foxx:
That is encompassed in sustainability.
Burch:
I think that is a pretty specific tool we can address in other ways. It is part
of the Transportation Focus Area Plan and we can put it in the
Environment Focus Area Plan. We are trying to create principles that can
stand the test of time without needing amendments. They are broader than
congestion mitigation.
Foxx:
One concern with adding the words tree canopy, does that bullet point
make other aspects of the ecosystem less important?
Carter:
I have a concern with the listing of the Focus Areas in the first paragraph
because it says Economic Development and we have never taken action to
delete Planning.
Burch:
The Committee is Economic Development and Planning, but the Focus
Area has always been Economic Development.
Carter:
I am very concerned about not having a reference to Planning.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 5
Burch:
I think Planning is inherent in all of the principles. The Focus Area has
always just been Economic Development.
Burgess:
It’s land use.
Carter:
It is more than land use.
Foxx:
We could address it in the fifth bullet.
Carter:
Somewhere please it needs to contain planning.
Burch:
It is somewhat covered with “growth and development.”
Foxx:
Council member Carter made a couple of points with a reference to the
Focus Area being only Economic Development.
Burch:
By name, Economic Development is the adopted Council focus area.
Carter:
One of Council’s overarching principles of smart growth is planning.
Burch:
Planning is involved in all of these. We can figure out where you would
like a direct reference.
Burgess:
In the land use bullet, you could say, “planning for growth and
development.” And, you could include trees by adding a semicolon and
the words “respecting the tree canopy.”
Foxx:
Are you making a motion?
Burgess:
Not yet.
Mumford:
What are the City’s environmental principles? Are we going to recite
these eight bullet points or summarize the paragraphs?
Burch:
The whole page is a statement of principles. If you are just looking for a
list, then you could use the eight bullets. But, that proposed statement is
the full page and would be the basis for the Focus Area Plan. Staff will
also come back and propose a tagline. We don’t have that now. Those
eight bullets could be extracted as principles, but the narrative is also
important.
Mumford:
The narrative gives the context to the bullets. It is just important for us to
speak clearly on the guiding principles. Can we consolidate any of them?
Eight seems a lot, somewhat excessive. I’m just throwing that out – do
we need to be more clear, concise?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 6
Burch:
It could be more direct.
Burgess:
Before the bullets it says what the City will do.
Burch:
Yes, the City has a corporate and community role, to model these
practices as an organization and as a community leader.
Burgess:
We need to encourage the community.
Burch:
We felt as a leader in government showing what we do will encourage the
community.
Carter:
Do we want to combine some of the environmental goals?
Mumford:
I’m not trying to drive a solution. I just think eight points might be
difficult to remember. Should we let staff work through our comments
and refine the draft or are we working under the gun?
Burch:
You are not under the gun to make a decision and there is no magic
number for six or eight principles. This was meant to be a comprehensive
statement.
Burgess:
We could “support sustainability” to “conserve energy.”
Foxx:
Given our summer schedule, I would love to get something going. But, if
we can’t get to that by Monday, we could just have staff look at what
we’ve said.
Burch:
We can do that either way. We can take the comments back and put
something together if you want to get on the end of August agenda. We
could try and meet again. The next scheduled meeting is September 5,
which is after the August Council meeting.
Burgess:
You could remove the first bullet and put it in the narrative that would
take the number down.
Foxx:
Why don’t we take about ten minutes to work through this and refer to
staff what’s left?
Burch:
I think one of the issues was planning.
Mumford:
I think making a statement about planning is getting into the minutia.
Everything that is important is supported by the broader statements. I
think we are getting stuck on the wording; this is not the policy, just the
foundation. We’re putting the cart before the horse.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 7
Lochman:
I don’t mind adding planning, although I think that is the mechanism
behind all of this. But, who is reading this statement and for what
purpose? The document kicks off the actions and puts a framework
around the activities. We can’t do anything without planning. I am
comfortable with the document how it is.
Foxx:
We could say “planning that encourages wise land use regarding growth
and development.”
Mumford:
In environmental principles, planning doesn’t rank. I think you do that to
protect the ecosystems.
Foxx:
I had hoped to get more done in our ten minutes of discussion. I agree
with Council members Mumford and Lochman this is really just a
framework and not the end all/be all. The intent was to make a statement
that is broad enough for policy to fit within. I think staff has done a great
job. I really thought there would be just a few changes.
Burgess:
I’m not sure there are dramatic changes. We just want to add planning
and trees.
Foxx:
Can we approve this with the changes of adding in planning, tree canopy
and my statement about public and private entities? We also want to take
off page one.
Burgess:
Moved approval of the Statement of Environmental Principles.
Carter:
Second.
Motion passes unanimously (Foxx, Mumford, Burgess, Carter and Lochman – for)
Foxx:
Can we put this on the July 24 agenda?
Burch:
Yes.
II.
“Clean Cars” Legislation
Julie Burch reminded the Committee at the June 5 Workshop, Christa Wagner (Sierra
Club) briefed the Council on the “Clear Cars” Legislation. Wilson Hooper is going to
give us a quick update on where we are with the General Assembly and CDOT staff will
talk about the relationship to air quality.
Mr. Hooper advised the Clean Cars legislation was not going to be voted on this session.
The bill essentially calls for North Carolina to implement vehicle emissions standards
similar to those in California (CA LEV II). This would require all new cars to meet the
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 8
low emissions standards (LEV) and 10% of new cars to meet the ZEV or zero emissions
standards starting in 2010. The cost is approximately $107 more per vehicle. There is
about a six month waiting list for hybrids.
The City has been replacing vehicles in the fleet with hybrids when possible. Through a
grant from the State, we have also been cleaning up garbage trucks, which are exempt
from the proposal.
Mr. Hooper then turned the presentation over to Eldewins Haynes. [Due to technical
difficulties the PowerPoint presentation was not available. A copy is attached.]
Mr. Haynes advised the Committee the technical comparisons of the Clean Cars
legislation was provided in their agenda packet.
The Federal Tier 2 rule that is in existence now (effective 2004 through 2010) reduces
NOx and VOC (volatile organic compounds) emissions and does a lot of things promised
in the Clean Cars rule. The Clean Cars rule would start in 2010.
There is another rule for VOCs that was proposed earlier this year that would also take
effect in 2010 and would reduce the emissions of air toxics. This will happen two ways:
refineries and tailpipes. The nice thing about the air toxic rule is it also incorporates the
same controls as the Clean Cars rule and follows the same timeline. Again, Tier 2 is
already being implemented and the air toxics rule will start in 2010, so either way you
have two sets of rules already doing the same thing.
The State of North Carolina Division of Air Quality compared the rules and there was no
difference in the ozone impacts whether Clean Cars was implemented or not. The State
of North Carolina did not provide any conclusions, just presented the facts. There is no
harm in endorsing the Clean Cars rule, but we will have the same effect without it due to
the other legislation.
Clean Smokestacks was successful because there was no Federal rule. The Clean Cars
rule will not be as effective because some of the same things are taking place on the
Federal level.
Burgess:
I think that is a good lesson. What assurance do we have the Feds will
enact those laws?
Haynes:
Tier 2 is already in effect. The toxic hearings will be in September/
October, but there will not be a lot of opposition. There is already buy-in
from the refineries and the tailpipe is already being done by a lot of car
dealers. If you see a “50 State Car” that means it can be sold in California
or any other state because the controls are already in place.
Burgess:
But, we don’t know that for sure. If we did our own, we could have
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 9
higher standards.
Haynes:
Yes.
Steinman:
With Clean Smokestacks, North Carolina took the lead to require power
plants to reduce emissions because there was no likelihood the Federal
government would make that requirement. The State clearly took the
initiative and we have already seen the benefits. The Clean Cars rule
would not be as noticeable because there is the likelihood we will have the
same benefits. The EPA is on schedule and there most likely will be a 50
State Car regulation enacted.
Lochman:
Given what I’ve heard, I’m not sure all my points are relevant now, but it
says 10% of cars available must meet ZEV, how can you dictate what
percentage will be sold if the consumer makes the decision? Where did
the $107 come from? It says the California Resource Board, but I’m not
sure that is an authoritative source. It shows the air quality reduction is
less than 1%, so what is the cost benefit? I’m confused by the statement
that it is a disincentive to relocate to Charlotte before 2010.
Burch:
It is saying the designation of non-attainment is a disincentive.
Lochman:
Okay, I see that now. I read a month ago in the Wall Street Journal that
hybrid sales were declining with Ford and Toyota. I find that interesting
given your statement that there is a six month waiting list.
Burgess:
When I got my hybrid, I couldn’t get one in North Carolina. Maybe if we
had this rule the auto companies would send their stock here? I think we
should we endorse it. I don’t think we can depend on the Federal
government. If it passes here, it might encourage them. So, if there is no
harm, why don’t we support it?
Haynes:
I would like to reemphasize, there is no harm in endorsing it, but we will
get the same results. And, endorsing it will not get the same air quality
boost as Clean Smokestacks.
Mumford:
I have some issue with the “no harm done.” There is an extra fee if
someone buys a hybrid car. Without the benefit of more data, I would not
support this today. I think we need to keep our ear to the ground to get a
better understanding of this. But, I don’t think we can say there is no
harm done. Hybrid vehicles are substantially more expensive and appeal
to a select group. I don’t feel a sense of urgency to support this.
Foxx:
Mr. Cauble, could you give us a status report? I thought Senator
Clodfelter was the leader on this.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 10
Cauble:
The short session should be finished this week. Senator Clodfelter was
swamped with several issues and was not able to pursue this due to time
constraints and workload. It also relates to how many support groups are
behind this issue.
Carter:
Will the $107 be federally or State mandated? I would rather see us be
proactive here. There is no assurance of a Federal mandate and I think we
control things better at the local level. I would like to see some
documentation on the payback for hybrids. I think this should be a data
based decision.
Lochman:
I am curious about the $107. It appears to apply to the LEV requirements.
How did they come up with that charge? How is that different than the
ZEV?
Steinman:
On one of the slides you can’t see it shows a slight positive difference in
the future with the Clean Cars rule. We can come back to you with the
cost figures for the LEV and ZEV. I don’t know how the market will
react to these vehicles. But, people are thinking about should they hang
on, downsize, replace or buy something new now with gas prices
increasing.
Foxx:
One reason we need to keep abreast of State regulations is to build bridges
for our environmental capacity. As we consider supporting this we have
more questions and need more information. Staff can come back to us
with additional information and we can direct them to draft a resolution of
support. It does not mean we will approve it, but we can be prepared to
consider this down the road.
Lochman:
I don’t object to that. Mr. Cauble, is there a specific group lobbying
against this?
Cauble:
I am not aware of any opposition. There may be some of the issues you
raised with cost.
Lochman:
Will this be back in the long session?
Cauble:
Yes. There needs to be time for public debate and discussion.
Burgess:
Council member Carter, has NLC’s environment committee looked at
this?
Carter:
We’ll have a resolution this fall.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for July 17, 2006
Page 11
Burgess:
The Transportation Committee of NLC that I sit on could also take action.
Carter:
I could take this to Raleigh if we are in agreement. It would be beneficial
to take action now.
Foxx:
If our goal is to do something in August, we don’t have another Council
meeting until the end of August.
Burch:
We can drill down to more of the impact of this legislation, particularly
the $107 and then other impacts, such as rising gas prices, etc.
Foxx:
And, you can get a resolution together for us?
Burch:
Yes, for the September 5 meeting.
Burgess:
Mecklenburg County already has a resolution?
Hooper:
Yes, I have already drafted a resolution that mirrors the County’s.
Burch:
The County adopted their resolution on June 21 of last year. They did not
do a lot of analysis before adoption.
Mumford:
I would rather not adopt something without analysis.
Foxx:
If we could receive the information and draft when the packet goes out.
Burgess:
If we could get it in time, we could use it at the State and NLC level to get
more support.
III.
Next Meeting:
The next meeting is Tuesday, September 5 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Environment Committee
Monday, July 17, 2006 – 3:00 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
I.
Draft Environmental Principles – Julie Burch
Based on Committee comments and general guidance over the past several months,
the staff Environmental Cabinet has drafted the attached principles for review and
recommendation to the City Council. Once adopted, the principles will be the basis
for developing the new Focus Area Plan for the Environment.
As the Committee requested, staff has drafted principles by environmental category
(air quality, water quality, land preservation, energy conservation) with statements
related to each of three policy choices (compliance, proactive, leadership). As
another option to consider, staff has also drafted a broader one page statement.
II.
“Clean Cars” Legislation – Wilson Hooper and Eldewins Haynes
At the June 5 Workshop, Council referred the proposed State “Clean Cars” legislation
(H1460 and S1006) to the Committee for review and possible resolution of support.
Staff will provide an update on its status and impact.
Attached is background information. As of July 14, the bill is in legislative
committee and will probably not be considered in this year’s session.
III.
Distribution:
Next Meeting/Next Steps - All
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders PCCO Stakeholders
City of Charlotte Statement of Environmental Principles (by Category)
DRAFT
Air Quality
ƒ
Meet all applicable federal, state, and local air quality laws and regulations, both in our
delivery of public services and in our corporate business practices.
ƒ
Improve air quality by providing a variety of viable transportation choices, and by adhering
to land development and growth management practices which help reduce the growth in
vehicle miles traveled.
ƒ
Exceed federal air quality standards by working with the community and our regional
neighbors, promote visionary policies and implement innovative solutions.
Water Resources
ƒ
Meet all applicable federal, state and local water laws and regulations, both in our delivery of
public services and in our corporate business practices.
ƒ
Protect and improve water quality and quantity by promoting the wise use and conservation
of water resources.
ƒ
Exceed regulatory standards for water quality and quantity; promote visionary policies and
adopt innovative tools and practices.
Land Preservation
ƒ
Meet all applicable environmental laws and regulations, both in our delivery of public
services and our corporate business practices.
ƒ
Minimize the impact of development on open spaces, tree cover, natural habitat, and
ecosystems.
ƒ
Promote visionary policies that protect and expand our natural assets and foster the efficient
use of land.
Energy and Resource Conservation
ƒ
Meet any applicable environmental laws and regulations, both in our delivery of public
services and in our corporate business practices.
ƒ
Be responsible in the use of energy and resources in City business operations.
ƒ
Promote waste reduction and renewable resources by adopting innovative policies, tools and
practices.
1
City of Charlotte Statement of Environmental Principles
DRAFT
The City of Charlotte recognizes that environmental stewardship is fundamentally
important to our quality of life and to a strong economy, both now and in the future. Protecting
and improving the environment is a necessary element of the City’s mission to enhance the
quality of life for our citizens. The actions associated with the other City Council Focus Areas –
Community Safety, Housing and Neighborhood Development, Economic Development, and
Transportation - are supported and enhanced by stewardship of our natural resources and the
environment.
Charlotte is the center of one of the fastest growing regions in the country. While growth
contributes to our economic vitality, it also presents challenges for achieving and maintaining a
healthy environment and a sustainable regional economy. The City of Charlotte is committed to
safeguarding the environment, which is integral to quality of life, in ways that balance
environmental health, sound fiscal policy, and growth. Consistent with these values, the City
will:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Recognize the important interrelationships between air quality, water resources, land
preservation, and energy and resource conservation;
Incorporate environmental goals and considerations in decision making;
Conserve energy and other resources;
Protect natural ecosystems and habitats;
Use land wisely in our decisions and actions regarding growth and development;
Recognize that we share our environment with our regional neighbors, and that we will work
cooperatively with them;
Adopt sound environmental practices in City operations; and
Support sustainability, which is defined as meeting the needs of our residents today without
compromising the opportunity of future generations to meet their own needs.
The City of Charlotte recognizes that conscientious environmental stewardship and concern
for the public interest may require more than meeting mandates and minimum standards. The
City will evaluate environmental conditions and opportunities in order to determine what
approach is best for our community’s optimal environmental sustainability. The choices will
include (1) determining that regulatory compliance is sufficient, (2) being proactive and
initiating positive action, especially to avoid more costly remedial action later, (3) taking a
leadership role and modeling best practices.
Successfully meeting environmental challenges is critical to Charlotte’s future. These
principles will shape the City’s approach to fulfilling our environmental responsibilities.
2
“Clean Cars” Legislation Update
ƒ
Council received a briefing from Christa Wagner of the Sierra Club at the June 5,
2006 workshop briefing. The briefing outlined the details of the Clean Car
program and the proposed legislation. Council referred the issue to the
Environment Committee for review and possible resolution of support.
ƒ
The “Clean Cars” legislation (H1460/S1006) is currently awaiting debate in the
House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources/Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources.
ƒ
The bills call for North Carolina to implement vehicle emissions standards similar
to those in California, known as CA LEV II/ZEV. Those standards, which would
go into effect in 2010, would require that all new cars available for sale in the
state meet low emissions standards (LEV), and that 10% of new cars available for
sale in the state meet an advanced technology requirement known as ZEV, for
“zero emissions vehicles.”
ƒ
Some conventional cars already meet the LEV requirements (Mazda 6, VW Golf
for example), and most cars currently sold can be manufactured in Clean Car,
LEV compliant versions. Such versions cost about $107 more than ordinary
versions.
ƒ
The market already contains cars the meet ZEV standards including the Toyota
Prius and the Ford Escape Hybrid.
ƒ
City fleet operations are already in compliance with the spirit of this proposed
law. 21 retired vehicles have been replaced with hybrids so far. Fleet operations
has identified 12 additional vehicles that could be replaced with hybrids.
ƒ
With regard to publicly owned vehicles, the proposed law requires only that
vehicles classified as light-duty cars or light duty trucks (under 8,500 pounds
GVWR) be subject to the new requirements.
ƒ
The Mecklenburg County Commission approved a resolution to support the
legislation on June 21, 2005. A copy is attached.
ƒ
If the Committee wishes to consider a similar resolution, staff will provide a draft
for review at the meeting.
ƒ
CDOT staff will give a brief presentation to the Committee about the proposed
legislation and its relationship to air quality. Their analysis is attached.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MECKLENBURG
COUNTY CONCERNING THE NORTH CAROLINA CLEAN CARS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners strongly advocates clean air for
the residents of Mecklenburg; and
WHEREAS, the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners believes that clean air is
necessary to ensure protection of public health, environmental integrity and a strong economy;
and
WHEREAS, automobiles contribute at least 37% of the state’s ozone pollution, and 40% of the
state’s air toxic pollution; and
WHEREAS, automobile contribution to ozone in some areas like Charlotte is as much as 90%;
and
WHEREAS, part or all of 32 counties in North Carolina, including Mecklenburg County, are
currently out of attainment with federal air quality standards; and
WHEREAS, one in ten North Carolina children live with asthma; and
WHEREAS, counties that are out of attainment with federal air quality standards may lose
federal highway dollars, and have less ability to recruit new industries and prepare for expected
growth in vehicle miles traveled; and
WHEREAS, the estimated per vehicle cost of implementing clean car standards averages $107;
and
WHEREAS, more than half of all North Carolinians live in areas that are not in attainment with
federal air quality standards; and
WHEREAS, the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners finds and believes that adopting
the Clean Cars standard would help areas reach or keep attainment with federal air quality
standards, protect public health, and create opportunity for further economic development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mecklenburg County Board of
Commissioners does hereby resolve, that it supports in principle and urges the passage of the
proposed Clean Cars Program (S1006/H1460) by the North Carolina General Assembly, and
directs the County Clerk to distribute copies of this resolution to Governor Easley and the North
Carolina General Assembly.
ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2005.
________________________________
H. Parks Helms, Chairman
An Analysis of the North Carolina Clean Cars Bill
Introduction.
The state of North Carolina is considering adoption of the California vehicle emissions standards.
Bill number H1460/S1006 (commonly known as NC Clean Cars) would require North Carolina
to adopt the California Low-Emission Vehicle II/Zero Emission Vehicle (CA LEV II/ZEV)
program.
The intent is for new, conventional cars sold in the state to meet tighter emissions requirements.
Ten percent of new cars sold in North Carolina will be comprised of ultra low polluting gasoline
powered vehicles, hybrids, and true zero emission vehicles (the ZEV requirement). The law
would take effect with the 2010 vehicle model year. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia
currently have or are considering the stricter CA LEV II/ZEV standards for either trucks or
automobiles: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and
Washington 1 .
The air quality impact of NC Clean Cars.
By adopting the CA LEV II/ZEV program, the NC Clean Cars legislation reduces VOC and NOx
emissions. This will in turn reduce ground-level ozone. While California's ozone problem is
largely VOC-limited (i.e., the amount of ozone formed is limited by the amount of VOC in the
air), ozone in the Carolinas is NOx-limited.
The Clean Cars program also reduces toxic emissions from vehicles. A portion of the VOCs
include compounds of varying degrees of toxicity; the most toxic compound in significant
quantity is Benzene, a carcinogen. Mecklenburg County, as well as other counties in NC with
high vehicle miles of travel (VMT) poses the greatest cancer risk due to Benzene exposure.
The Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) developed a document at the request of the Environmental
Review Commission which examines the difference between the CA LEV II/ZEV program and
Federal Tier-2. The NCDAQ paper was intended to be an objective analysis of potential benefits
of the CA LEV II/ZEV program. The document was prepared in May, 2006. Comparing CA
LEV-II/ZEV benefits relative to Federal Tier-2 in future years, NCDAQ found:
•
•
•
Statewide NOx emissions would be reduced by 0.1%, 4% and 10% in 2010, 2020 and
2030, respectively
StatewideVOC emissions would be reduced by 0.1%, 3% and 6% in 2010, 2020 and
2030, respectively
Air Quality benefits: Less than 0.1 ppb ozone reduction in 2020
The additional ozone benefit of Clean Cars would be undetectable by the regional ozone
monitoring system. It’s important to understand why. Metrolina area ozone is NOx-limited. Onroad NOx emissions in the Metrolina nonattainment area were about 195 tons/day in 2002. The
following table compares on-road NOx emissions using Federal Tier-2 controls as a baseline, and
the additional emissions reduction resulting from NC Clean Cars:
“National Research Council Report Supports States’ Ability to Adopt California’s Clean Vehicle Program”.
NESACUM press release, March 16, 2006
1
H:\My Documents\Environment Committee\July 2006\Analysis of Clean Cars Bill.doc
Eldewins M. Haynes
Page 1
7/14/2006
Metrolina Nonattainment Area NOx
2010
Tier-2 (Baseline), tons/day
100
NC Clean Cars (Additional Reduction), tons/day
0.1
2020
25
1
2030
20
2
Thus, in 2020, the 4% additional NOx control over Tier-2 is 4% of only 25 tons/day, or 1 ton/day.
In general, a 10 ton/day NOx reduction will result in a 1 ppb reduction in ozone.
Federal Air Toxics rules 2 will also take effect beginning 2010, and those rules will tighten VOC
emissions to the level equivalent to CA LEV-II, and would codify the approach that
manufacturers are already taking for “50-state” evaporative systems (i.e., a system acceptable in
all 50 states).
The economic impact of NC Clean Cars.
Charlotte is part of the Metrolina area designated by EPA as nonattainment for 8-hour ozone. The
area is scheduled to meet the air quality standard for ozone by 2010. Having this designation is
frequently seen as a disincentive by those considering relocation to the Charlotte area. However,
NC Clean Cars will not impact the on-road fleet enough to have an impact on meeting the ozone
air quality standard.
The NC Clean Cars may force manufacturers to provide more access to popular hybrid vehicles,
which may help meet the high consumer demand that has resulted in waiting lists of up to six
months.
The estimated average per vehicle cost of implementing clean car standards is $107 3 . When
compared to the average cost of a new vehicle (about $24,800), this additional cost of
implementing the Clean Cars Act would amount to less than 1% of the total vehicle cost.
On average, clean cars are more fuel efficient than today’s cars because they virtually eliminate
evaporative fuel loss. Consumers benefit from savings at the pump and fewer routine
maintenance visits.
Conclusions.
• NC Clean Cars legislation would represent the maximum level of emissions controls for
new motor vehicles sold anywhere in the United States, beginning in 2010.
• The cost of implementing NC Clean Cars should be negligible in part because California
and several northeastern states will require manufacturers the same quality of vehicle.
• The cost of a new car meeting the new standard may increase by one percent.
• Federal rules such as Tier-2 and the proposed federal rule to control VOCs by 2010 will
bring the federal emissions standards almost on equal footing with NC Clean Cars.
• In 2010, and succeeding years, the difference between federal rules and extra benefit of
NC Clean Cars will provide imperceptible to marginal improvement to Charlotte area air
quality.
U.S. EPA, “Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Proposed Rule.” Federal Register:
Volume 71, Number 60; March 29, 2006, Page 15803-15852.
2
California Air Resources Board (CARB), “Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including Summary of
Comments and Agency Responses, Public Hearing Date November 5, 1998.” Pp 40-44
3
H:\My Documents\Environment Committee\July 2006\Analysis of Clean Cars Bill.doc
Eldewins M. Haynes
Page 2
7/14/2006
Objectives
• Show timeline of NC Clean Cars and
Federal Regs (existing and proposed)
• Compare air quality benefits of NC Clean
Cars and Federal Regs (existing and
proposed)
• Compare highlights of the State and
Federal regulations
What is Tier II?
• Phased in between 2004 through 2010.
• NOx reductions of 77 percent for cars and
up to a 95 percent reduction for trucks and
sport utility vehicles (SUVs).
• Requires refiners to reduce average sulfur
in gasoline by 90% by 2005.
Sulfur in gasoline wears out catalytic converters -- the
devices that reduce NOx pollution from tailpipes.
Clean Cars
phase-in begins
2010
Clean
Cars
adopted?
2006-07
1999
Federal
Tier II
adopted
Air Toxics Rule
lowers toxics in
gasoline by 1/3
2011
2010
Federal Tier II phasein ends.
2004
Federal
Tier II
phase-in
begins
Federal Air Toxics
Rule phase-in begins
for cars
2015
Federal Air Toxics
Rule phase-in for
trucks & buses ends
2013
Federal Air Toxics
Rule phase-in for
trucks & buses begins
North Carolina Onroad Mobile NOx Emissions
Typical Summer Day
700
600
tons/day
500
400
Tier 2
300
Tier 2
LEV II
200
100
Clean
Cars
0
2004
2010
2020
2030
North Carolina Onroad Mobile VOC Emissions
Typical Summer Day
450
400
350
tons/day
300
Tier 2
250
Tier 2
200
LEV II
150
100
Clean
Cars
50
0
2004
2010
2020
2030
Highlights
Clean Cars
Federal Regs
•
•
•
•
•
•
Modeled after CA LEV-II
program
Starts with 2010 model
vehicles
Zero Emitting Vehicle (ZEV)
component
New car fleet Average
Requirement for “VOC”
Enhanced evaporative system
Covers NC (not SC)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tier II phase-in period 20042010
Air Toxics Rule reduces VOC
emissions at the refinery,
canister, and tailpipe
New car fleet Average
Requirement for NOx
Air Toxics Rule phase-in
period 2009-15
Codifies “50-state”
evaporative systems (a system
acceptable in all 50 states)
Fed rules cover all 50 States
Summary
• NC Clean Cars legislation would represent the maximum
level of emissions controls for new motor vehicles sold
anywhere in the United States, beginning in 2010.
• The cost of implementing NC Clean Cars should be
negligible in part because California and several
northeastern states will require of manufacturers the
same quality of vehicle.
• Federal rules such as Tier-2 and the proposed federal
rule to control VOCs by 2010 will bring the federal
emissions standards almost on equal footing with NC
Clean Cars.
• In terms of environmental benefit, NC Clean Cars is
equivalent to federal-mandated controls which will be in
place by 2010.