Testimony of the Southern California Association of Governments Before the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
July 14, 1999
Presented By: Mark Pisano, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments

Chairman Chafee, Members of the Committee, My name is Mark Pisano, Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six counties of San Bernardino, Ventura, Orange, Imperial, Riverside, and Los Angeles and the 184 cities therein, which makes SCAG the largest MPO in the nation. Not only is the region the largest in the nation, but SCAG also covers 4 air basins and 5 air districts. The South Coast Air Basin, within the SCAG Region, is the only extreme non-attainment air basin in the nation. Consequently, SCAG has a particularly strong interest in the conformity process. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the issue of transportation air quality conformity.

At the outset, I would like to state that since the process of conformity was reinforced by the 1990 Clean Air Act, we have found it to be a major tool in our efforts to plan transportation improvements while at the same time meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act. It has provided us with a structured and flexible process that permits innovative policy making in the preparation of both our transportation and air quality plans. Working with both the Department of Transportation and with EPA, and despite our extreme air quality designation, we have been able to successfully make conformity findings for two transportation plans and four Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) plus a major TIP amendment. All this has been accomplished despite more than twelve percent growth in population and an expanding economy. However, it is also very important to note that making conformity findings is becoming increasingly problematic for us, which could put into jeopardy our ability to carry on the $24 billion in projects currently contained in the TIP.

Simply put, the process works and conformity works. But the process is also complex, and cumbersome, and we believe that improvements can and should be made to make it better live up to its promise. Toward that end, I would like to offer a few suggestions.

Issue 1: Regional Transportation Plan Emission Budget

The emissions budget for the regional transportation plan does not extend past the attainment deadlines identified in the region's air quality plans. Consequently, when achieving the long-range attainment dates in the regional transportation plan, emission budgets are held constant at the level of the attainment year set forth in the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). Thus, while our transportation plans reach out to 2020, and soon will proceed to 2025, attainment dates are held at 2010 for ozone and even earlier for other pollutants, freezing them at the level permitted set for transportation at the date of attainment. No accomodation can be made for growth, nor is there the ability to use technological advances to raise the budget. Also, we do not have the ability to take credit for actions not specifically covered in the rules, which severely affects growing areas. We know that growth will be our most important issue in the coming years as we add another 6 million residents to the region's present population of 16.7 million. Having a mechanism which allows us to deal effectively with the impacts of growth on conformity is probably our most urgent need in this regard.

Recommendation: Allow use of the build/no build test procedure beyond the attainment date or allow credit for the historic emissions reduction trends due to technological advances.

Issue 2: Timing Cycles

The cycles for transportation planning, air quality planning and transportation funding are different, although, these cycles are interdependent. This leads to confusion and a lack of coordination. While the regional transportation plan process and the state implementation plan process occur every three years, funding cycles occur every two years. Thus, we are required to undertake an extra conformity analysis for the second tip within a single plan cycle, rather than a single finding for a tip which is concurrent with the conformity of the plan itself.

Recommendation: a coordinated and systematic approach by federal, state, regional and local agencies needs to replace the current inefficient system.

Issue 3: EPA's Approval Process

The current conformity process requires scag's regional transportation plan to meet the air quality standards for various pollutants identified by the EPA-approved State Implementation Plans. Through the interagency consultation process, all levels of government - federal, state, regional, and local - develop the most relevant information and data on demographics, travel behavior, and emissions for the State Implementation Plans. The conformity process, however, breaks down when EPA fails to approve new state implementation plans in a timely manner. Consequently, conformity analysis on scag's regional transportation plans, must be conducted on outdated data, assumptions and standards. For example, although our region adopted a new air plan for PM-10 in 1997, EPA's failure to approve it means that we are still forced to use the 1994 plan and its targets despite significantly improved understanding of the causes and actions required to deal with this pollutant.

Recommendation: Require EPA to fully participate in the interagency consultation process and allow the conformity analysis to be made on the most recently developed and approved data, which would be reviewed and approved by the interagency consultation team.

Issue 4: Imbalance of Impact of Sanctions for Non-attainment Status.

While Southern California has been succcessful to date in meeting the requirements of conformity, we are concerned, based on the experience of regions not in attainment, that the Clean Air Act as presently written does not provide for a balance of impacts between transportation and other sectors. Once a region is declared out of transportation conformity, it is unable to restore its conformity through measures taken in other areas even if these are the most efective approaches, both economically and politically. Each sector is treated as a closed system and there is no incentive or provision in the statute to balance the impacts and responsibility based on effectiveness. This means, for instance, that even as the industrial changes technologies and eliminates major sources, no allowance is made in the overall accounting. Transportation funding remains frozen even where overall pollutants are within plan limits and cannot be resumed until tranportation programs restore that sector's contribution.

Issue 5: Federal Actions

Finally, as you discuss the issue of conformity I would like you to consider as well the importance of further improvements in the process for including federal actions under general conformity.

We have built a strong interagency consultation process for transportation conformity. this process was developed in our region as an alternative to the rule-making procedure set forth in the regulations which we felt did not meet the tests of cooperation and local participation. our process is based on a memorandum of understanding amongst the affected parties, including USDOT, CALTRANS, the California Air Resources Board, SCAG and the County Transportation Commissions. It has been cited as a national model, but is not currently included as an approved alternative to the rulemaking. We would like to have this added specifically.

But we must also note that given the magnitude and importance of other federal actions outside the province of transportation conformity, we would argue for a much strengthened general conformity process, such as we have with the department of defense on base closures and with the FAA on airports.

We also need a more active inclusion of federally regulated sources like diesel engines, trains, ports, airports and the like in our planning. without full federal participation, most especially by EPA in controlling these federally regulated sources, and by EPA, and the Departments of Commerce, HUD and Interior on Federal actions within our region, it will be difficult if not impossible for us at the local level to develop successful strategies that will allow us to keep our demonstrations of attainment and conformity.

We very much look forward to working with the Congress and the affected federal departments and agencies to resolve these deficiencies, thus permitting us to retain the ability to meet the challenges of the future effectively and as full partners in the process.

This concludes my remarks and I would be pleased to address any questions which you may have regarding my testimony.