Testimony of Scott Johnstone, Secretary, Agency of
Natural Resources, state of Vermont
Regarding the Re-authorization of TEA 3
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to offer comments on the re-authorization of the Transportation Equity Act of 2003.
Vermont, the Green
Mountain State, is known for its lush green hills, maple syrup, autumn colors
and beautiful lakes. Less known is the
fact that Vermont does suffer adverse effects from air pollution. While we are the only state in the Northeast
which is in attainment for all of the health-based criteria pollutants
regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, the health of Vermont’s citizens and
our environment are adversely affected by air pollution. Even though we do not violate the 8-hr ozone
standard or the newly adopted fine particulate standard, we are perilously
close to those standards. Indeed,
Vermont has long suffered disproportionately from the impacts of acid rain and
regional haze. We are also concerned
about public exposure to toxic emissions and about global issues such as the
depletion of the ozone layer and
climate change. Many of these threats
have a direct link to vehicular emissions that can be addressed through TEA
III.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding has been part of the federal transportation bills since 1991. CMAQ funds are a critical component of Northeast states’ efforts to improve air quality; states in our region have benefited from the use of CMAQ funding for air quality improvement projects. Today, I want to give you my perspective from a state that has had limited access to these CMAQ funds due of our status as a NAAQS attainment area.
EPA’s recent
investigation of the science regarding both ozone and fine particulate
pollution, and accepted by the Courts in the American Trucking case, has
determined that, even though health based standards could be set for these
pollutants, there was no “bright line” minimum that would ensure the protection
of public health. In other words,
pollution reductions translate to health benefits even in attainment
states. In Vermont and New England, much
of our air pollution problems can be directly attributed to the grandfathered
Midwestern coal plants. At the same
time, the Northeast has localized sources that contribute to these problems and
each state has attempted to craft regulations to deal with these localized
sources.
Surface
Transportation remains the largest in-state source of air pollution in Vermont.
On a per capita basis, Vermonters drive more miles in a year than residents in
39 other U.S. states. Besides the criteria pollutants such as ozone that CMAQ
has focused in the past, other air pollution problems need to be addressed such
as toxics and greenhouse gases. Air
Toxics[1]
contribute significantly to the formation of ground level ozone and in Vermont
represent the area of air quality where we do not meets some of Vermont’s own
air quality standards. Green house gases[2]
contribute significantly to overall air pollution problems and to climate
change.
The importance that
our state places on the control of dangerous motor vehicle emissions is
reflected in the number of control programs that we have put in place over the
past decade that go beyond the federal minimum requirements. For example, Vermont is one of only four
states in the U.S. to voluntarily adopt the California low emission vehicle
program in-lieu of the federal motor vehicle standards – including the Zero
Emission Vehicle sales mandate. To
support this regulatory program, the state created EVermont to promote the
development and deployment of advanced electric vehicles. We have also coordinated with other
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states in developing a regional roadside testing
program to identify and repair smoking trucks.
CMAQ funds have
been of great assistance to Vermont and to other states in the region. Over the life of TEA 21, CMAQ has been
funded at approximately 4% of the total federal surface transportation program[3]. Given the air quality impacts of surface
transportation and the fact that it is the only transportation program designed
to reduce air pollution, CMAQ should not only be reauthorized – it should be
expanded to represent a larger percentage of the overall transportation
budget. While the CMAQ program was
conceived to address both congestion and air quality, greater weight has been
-- and should continue to be -- given to air quality improvement goals.
The transferral of CMAQ
funds to non-air quality uses, as is currently allowed, should be examined so
that the air quality improvement goal may be met. Further, the CMAQ allotment
scheme should be modified to provide weight to factors such as: (1) high per
capita VMT; (2) areas that are in attainment but at risk of slipping into
non-attainment due to mobile source emissions; and (3) and disproportionately
high percentage of emissions from mobile source. To ensure effective prioritization and better quantification of
the air quality benefits consideration should be given to requiring that local
air quality agencies be more directly involved in the evaluation of proposals
for CMAQ funds and in conformity determinations when needed.
Historically, CMAQ
has focused primarily on ozone, carbon monoxide and PM10 non-attainment. Given the breadth of real health risks
caused by other motor vehicle-related emissions, a reauthorization bill should
require CMAQ to consider fine particulate matter, air toxics and GHG’s, in both
allocation and eligibility. GHG
reduction goals and incentives could also be incorporated into TEA 3 by
tracking the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) of all major transportation projects
and by providing incentives for transportation projects which promote smart
growth and reductions of GHG emissions and VMT.
The Committee should also consider the inclusion of
programs to reduce particulate and toxic pollution from diesel powered vehicles
in the CMAQ program. Reducing diesel emissions is of critical importance to protect
public health. Diesel particulate has
been labeled a carcinogen by the state of California and diesel exhaust has
been classified as a probable human carcinogen by many respected organizations[4]. In addition to cancer health effects of fine
particles and diesel exhaust, significant non-cancer health effects have been
demonstrated in the scientific literature.
Diesel school buses, non-road equipment such as construction and
agricultural machines, and trucks and transit buses emit particulates and other
toxics in close proximity to children, workers, and the public. As these engines last as long as thirty
years, progress in clean up that relies on normal fleet transition will be
slow. Thus, consideration should be
given to include a mechanism in CMAQ that encourages transit agencies and
school districts to replace or retrofit their bus fleets with clean buses.
To succeed in
addressing our particulate, greenhouse gas, and toxic emissions challenges and
the associated health and environmental risks that are associated with them,
will require much work and new approaches to problem solving. Fortunately, many programs are underway
throughout the northeast to reduce these emissions These programs demonstrate
the potential of emission reduction projects. However, funding through CMAQ is
needed to support these programs. I encourage you to look at the initiatives
and recommendations provided by the New England Governors Conference Climate
Plan[5]
and the Vermont Governor’s Committee to Ensure Clean Air[6]
as examples of how progress can be made if these projects were all eligible for
and received CMAQ funding. Examples
from these reports for the transportation sector include:
·
Programs
designed to manage and reduce transportation demand in communities (e.g., “smart-growth”
projects which reduce sprawl and encourage local communities to consider the
energy impacts of development and infrastructure construction).
·
Promote
the shift to higher efficiency vehicles (including hybrids and advanced
technology vehicles), lower carbon fuels and advanced technologies through the
use of incentives and education.
·
Diesel
retrofits and conversions to alternative fuels which greatly reduce or
eliminate particulate and toxic hydrocarbons.
·
Opportunities
in freight transportation that would improve the energy efficiency of the
movement of goods across the region.
In considering the
purpose of CMAQ, I would suggest the committee look also at the broader funding
system for transportation projects.
Much of our air quality and congestion problems come from the very poor
use of land that has come to pass over the past decades, the practice we now
call sprawl. I suggest to you that in
part it has come about due to our method of funding transportation
projects. Communities look at funding
sources in designing their land use systems.
We ought not be surprised that strip zoning and sprawling development is
most often associated with highways eligible for state and federal funding. What occurs is sprawl and the cure – little
to no local cost to “fix” the problem, by increasing lanes or building new
highways. I suggest you consider what
would occur if we provided incentives instead for grid patterns and public
transit. I believe the result would be
better land use, less congestion, better air quality and ultimately smarter
growth.
The use of CMAQ
funds should also be encouraged for programs which simply make sense,
regardless of an area’s attainment status.
One such program is vehicle On-board diagnostic (OBD) system inspection
and maintenance. 1996 and newer
vehicles are equipped with sophisticated OBD systems which identify
malfunctions that increase emissions, alert drivers through a warning light on
the instrument panel, and store specific information which is used by repair
technicians to accurately diagnose and repair the malfunction. Such a program is cost effective and
relatively simple to implement, as it relies on technology already installed on
the vehicle, as opposed to requiring expensive investments in emissions testing
equipment. Vermont has operated such a
program on a statewide basis for over three years, with much success and with
very little public opposition to the program.
Currently, a pilot project is underway, using CMAQ funds to evaluate
systems for automating OBD data collection and management, hopefully leading to
an even more effective program in Vermont.
In summary, a
state, such as Vermont, which is in attainment, can use some or all of the
minimum allotment of CMAQ funds for any project in the State Transportation
Plan or for a CMAQ-eligible project.
However, attainment of the ozone and CO NAAQS alone provides an
incomplete picture of the success of air quality control initiatives. Clearly,
mobile source-related emissions of criteria pollutants, air toxics and GHG’s
all need to be included to address the actual risk from air pollution. While the current CMAQ Guidance published by
the Federal Highway Administration encourages attainment states to “give
priority to use of CMAQ program funds for projects that will relieve congestion
or improve air quality in areas that are at risks of being designated as
non-attainment,” I suggest that “attainment”/”non-attainment” may not be a
particularly relevant criterion to use in deciding how limited CMAQ monies are
to be used. Even in attainment states,
transportation-related air quality issues need to be addressed. I believe that overall it would benefit
Vermont and other attainment areas, for Congress to establish that, even in
attainment states, CMAQ funds must be used in a way that retains the overall
focus of air quality improvement.
In closing, in Vermont, as elsewhere, CMAQ has encouraged environmental and transportation agencies to talk, plan and work with each other. It is a program that has helped achieve important progress in the fight against air pollution -- but much remains to be done and CMAQ must be updated to reflect our evolving understanding of the real risks society faces from vehicle-related air pollution. Vermont’s environmental future, our green hills, our maple syrup industry our autumn colors, our lake quality and the health of our citizens requires our attention.
Thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
[1] Air
Toxics: In Vermont, mobile sources
account for between 80-90% of the primary emissions of Acetaldehyde, Benzene,
1,3-Butadiene, & Formaldehyde. All are federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs) and all are known or suspected carcinogens. Non-road vehicles contribute significantly to air toxic
emissions in the state with approximately 60 to 70% of Acetaldehyde and
Formaldehyde emissions which contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation. While Vermont is a so-called attainment state, ambient
concentrations of Acetaldehyde, Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and Formaldehyde
currently each exceed their respective Vermont
Hazardous Ambient Air Standard (HAAS) in all areas of the state and
computer modeling, while predicting decreases in concentrations for these
pollutants over the next 28 years, indicate that concentrations will still
exceed the Vermont health standards for these pollutants in 2030. Finally, according to the U.S. EPA’s
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) median ambient concentrations of
mobile source air toxics in Chittenden County, Vermont’s most populous
county, consistently rank in the most
polluted 25th
percentile. For 1,3-butadiene and
Benzene, EPA modeling indicates that Chittenden County is in the worst 5% and
10% polluted areas in the U.S., respectively.
[2] A
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory done in 1990 shows that approx. 45% of all
GHGs emitted in Vermont are from motor vehicles while, according to the U.S.
Dept. of Transportation and the U.S. EPA, motor vehicles contributed only 27 %
of the GHGs emitted nationally in 1999. [ Note: Regarding GHGs, GHG reduction
goals and incentives could be incorporated into TEA 3 by tracking the Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) of all major transportation projects, establishing a goal
for the ratio of VMT/GHGs and by providing incentives for transportation projects
which promote smart growth and reductions of GHG emissions and VMT.
[3] Recent Special Report of the
Transportation Research Board of The National Academies
[4] National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (1988), the International Agency for Research of Cancer
(1989), and the U.S. EPA (draft 2000)
[5] The National Academies, The
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 years
of Experience – Special Report 264, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10350.html,
page 1
[6] Id. p. 11